that. >> i never knew that about you. ask what about you, clarence mark >> i think of law school as a blur. there were some good people who were very good to me. i consumed a lot of his time. professors -- they were all very good to me and spent time with me. joe bishop spent time with me when i took a couple of his courses. i also love -- i had a group of

then, you were required to eat at least one meal at the law school, so there was a group of us who met in the mornings. mostly kids who lived in the dorm. we needed breakfast and i thought that was one of the delightful times. i also had some study groups that were just delightful. the rule was if you did not contribute, you were booted out i found those interesting, but i must admit i did not get as much out of the law school as i should have and that's simply because of my which i encouraged students this morning not to replicate.

it was a very difficult time and there was a lot of negativity on my part. >> soanya? >> clarence? how toy did not know take full advantage of law school. >> good point. >> given our background and the fact we did not have anybody in law or related to law, i did the things that sounded like you had to do through the law journal. like too much writing, so i did rarest or's union. but until jose talked to me about clerking in my third year of law school, i had not heard about it. i hadn't thought about it. i do think there are kids who

come today to yale who don't come with enough knowledge of the system to know how to take full advantage. now there is talk with students in our position it dissolves to. >> i found out about clerkships about two years after i was gone. [laughter] whatm not going to repeat is in my book. i hope those of you who have read it will. -- i have said this to the students -- in high the top of mynear class and valedictorian. heard,ege, you may have i graduated with honors. got to yale and learned a deep

sense of humility. classmates, to my listening to them in class taught me how much smarter so how other people were and smart has different races. >> anything a resonating with you? >> i tend to agree. left,, by the time i there's a sense of confidence oft i had an assessment and then ited to be was a question of what i make the commitment to get there? soanya is absolutely right. there a lot we know and are some things i am involved in now where we try to bridge the

fromor talented kids difficult or challenging backgrounds. yale,do think when i left i had a sense of how right or how much others knew and how much i needed to learn to be where they were. and that would take years. i go back to the point about going to be-- was i persistent enough and have the will to continue preparing to get there? me ask about getting there. this is an other commonality. school,u left yale law you started your career as government attorney. and that is in washington dc. you served as an assistant attorney general in missouri doing tax work under john

danforth. sam, your first job after the serve as ans was to assistant u.s. attorney in new jersey. sonia, you served under our great graduate bob morgenthaler. postnt to know how these -law school experiences shaped you? i don't want to say shaped you as a justice, because then you might not want to answer it. which of your jobs, and there are a lot of them, the most important preparation for the supreme court? missouriin the

attorney general's office and then two years in-house at theanto -- he worked on hill as an aide to senator danforth, served at the department of education, and served as chair as the eeoc before your year and a half on the d.c. circuit. which of these was the most important preparation? >> first of all, i was in missouri and probably wound up with these jobs. i don't want anyone to think i had a conscious plan. i would have to say each job was even theb and difficulties were opportunities to learn and to grow and that is the way i looked at them. not all of them were the most gratifying or fulfilling jobs,

but i have not had a bad job. >> it was jack and forth, and he is a good man. us morehe could promise work for less money than anybody in the country. and he delivered on that. it was a wonderful learning opportunity. the best job i had for me personally among the jobs i have had to prepare me for what i do, i would have to say eeoc. >> tell us about that. >> there were a lot of challenges. i'm not going to go back and relive that, but there were challenges and criticisms and i was constantly in trouble.

you learn how to remain calm and make hard decisions under difficult circumstances. learn to double check and recheck and make sure you are right. also, you learn how not to become unpleasant because there is unpleasantness around you to accept certain things. you can't always retaliate. i would have to say eeoc and i learned people who work closely with you appreciate you being loyal and good to them as jack danforth was to me from 1974 on. say eeoc taught me that discipline and calm this in difficult circumstances. sam, you spent four years as

an assistant attorney where i gather a lot of your cases were appeals for the third circuit and nu argued 12 cases before the supreme court. after that, you spent two years as deputy at oh lc and then you were appointed the president to be the u.s. attorney for the district of new jersey. these -- you went from being a legal eagle most of your life to now running an office. what was that like? >> it was the biggest change in my career. a lot different from what i had gone before and radically different from what came after. being a circuit judge, whereularly on my court

they are spread out, it's one of the most isolated legal jobs that exist. other courts may operate to firmly, and we got along very well, but i could go literally for weeks without ever seeing another human being at work except for the people in my own office. wasu.s. attorney job completely different. was read and i did write and exchange e-mails with my colleagues and go to philadelphia for oral arguments. ae u.s. attorney's office was big office by the standards of the day and there was always something happening. every day when i came in, i might have things i planned to do but there would be a dozen things i had not land. good wings, not so good things

-- the assistant would come in and we would have to deal with that problem. the heads of different investigative agencies came in. -- it fascinating to stop was fascinating. it did not involve a lot of reading or deep analysis, but it's a tactical job trying to make sure everyone in the office was moving in the right direction and handling their cases and investigations properly. >> after serving under bob morgenthaler, you were in private practice for nine years. fiveid not serve for years, making you the only justice with that experience. how have these different roles and positions informed your respect of on the law?

i had a thought even from law school that you knew the profession was moving toward specialization and at some point, i would have to pick an area. timein law school, i spent learning about different yields that i thought made a more well-rounded lawyer. even know i was specializing in international law, hence my note, i took corporations, i evidence,act, i took i took the states and trust. all of the subjects that i thought made a well-rounded attorney. office,ot to the das there was some frustration there

. differenturt is very from state prosecution. scarce.s are the people involved are well-meaning but also sometimes not well trained. witnesses are often scared and we don't have the federal resources of witness protection in the same way. you have two could people to bring cases. and a half years, i decided i had rounded out the criminal right of my lawyering and wanted to learn something about the civil side. so i went to a commercial law firm, but i did everything as a litigator. sub specialty and intellectual property. but i did it states there, i

handled real estate matters, i youled banking matters -- name it, i did a little bit of everything and some big things as well. that repaired me for the district court. watching judges who have become judges recently, a lot of them come from specialties and i think they have the basics of law and i had developed a more wide basis of legal knowledge starting with my district court job. even with that, there was a ton to learn. i have learned a lot. >> the district court -- let me tell you a story. last year, i was having lunch

with the chief and justice kagan it was just the three of us. we started talking about how workedr senior justices in the various federal circuits. it, it thinking about said when or if i retire, i'm going to go back to the district court. when asked why, i said why would i want to go on doing what i'm doing for however many years it has been? i want to go back to my first love and district court is a different and exciting place. for me, it was the formative experience preparing me for the court. likell look at cases a lot district court's do. toook at the facts and try apply the facts to law and my

colleagues look at the law and that is all they look at. will never disavow because it has value. time was onreatest the district court in terms of preparing me for the supreme court will stop >> how about you? the you those things think you took the most from sitting as a justice? >> arguing is much more closely related to what i am doing, so that had a greater effect, but i treasure the experience of being u.s. attorney. >> we sort of moved on to your service on the supreme court and

was an initial question -- what surprised you when you got to the court mark did anything surprise you mark monday nor important? matters, we are the way we operated internally than i was used to on the court of appeals. cases comeof our from the federal courts of appeals. we are more formal in the way we operate. anybody present , so the time expired and if any judge had more questions come more time would be given or if the lawyers hadn't covered everything, more time would be given. you can't really do that when

you have nine on the bench and you have the kind of schedule we have. our internal operations are very old-fashioned. we don't communicate with each other at all. withf my communications colleagues were by e-mail. tunes by our the seats on the bench. >> you said being on the regional courts of appeals, at state,ne that's got many now you are all in the same building -- i thought you were our communications are by telephone or face to face the communication about cases almost always are

written except when we are in conference and we are talking there. some, and there's nothing wrong with it, communications that are oral but if you have comments about the standardnion, procedure is to write a letter and circulate it to everybody on the court. we are together a lot more. for me, it's a much less isolated job. we are in the same city, in the same building and we are together for many more days. days we have arguments, we have lunch together very frequently, so we see each other a lot more than i did on my old court. >> clarence? >> i can't say i was surprised. i had no idea what i had gotten myself into. formal.ery

i like her malady. i don't like a lot of the informal stuff. white, heoss, byron would send around a memo -- dear clarence, i don't agree with the thing you said, cheers, byron. [laughter] "cheers,ter was brian." it's a little disconcerting because we are in the same building and we don't see each other that much except when we are sitting or have conference. i usually come in, go to my chambers and work and go back to the basement, get in my car and go home. firste-mail but when i got to the court, there was not internal e-mail, so i don't think we have gotten there yet.

i was in charge in those days of the automation, so we have all of that now. we can do a lot of things on the computer on a document together. i do it with my law clerks that people prefer hardcopies and things like that. i work almost exclusively paperless. i think at some point, we will do it in the court. surprises me is how warm everybody was when i got there. i was pleasantly surprised by that, by how engaged everyone was. i walked from an argument with john stevens is a delightful and brilliant man and you could start talking about cases you have earlier in the week or you are working on an opinion and he is fully engaged, or justice

o'connor, same thing. ,t was a wonderful environment and environment where people were not raising their voices but thinking they were of the view that the work was more important than they were and our job was to turn out the best product we could. that's the court i came to and that's the way i think the court is now. very pleasantly surprised at how much work it took. i came on the court and i was 40 years younger than justice locklin at the time. it in his 80's, so i said it can be all that hard. he was cruising along and i had fallen along the way.

the boss used to tell me, clarence you have to get a system and learn how to do this job systematically. i have to say the number one warm for me was just how and respectful and dignified the people were with whom i worked, whether they agreed or didn't. that was my biggest surprise. >> i was surprised by all of this as well. me, the tradition had one positive thing which it taught me that the court as an much moren was important than i was as an individual justice. that is a very important lesson for justices to learn and to live by. sometimes the tradition is little silly.

lunch, -- why have i forgotten -- our previous is -- our previous justices chair. that is not by seniority, but that chair has been sat on by all the judges. moves, you feel a lot of eyebrows raise. why are you sitting there? that stoplen prey to what are you doing here? overwhelming at times, the tradition. i think there are two reasons the justices don't use technology so much. one is tradition and the other is some of them don't know how. >> then there is that.

>> the almost 90-year-old justice when i came to the court, justice even -- justice stevens, did use e-mail. you could send him something and he would respond, but it was very short, so i knew he wasn't a great typist, but colleagues who you might be otherwise surprised -- i think the most computers that he justice issue, .larence >> in his defense, justice stevens was my ally in automating the agency. he was a very productive man. fun of him to make when he went to florida but we dreaded when he went to florida because he would start churning all of this stuff out and he was always on his computer. 80% as productive -- he

was a wonderful ally and in fact, when there was some consternation early on about automation, he was one of the people i could count on to always help me convince my colleagues to move in that direction. >> i will say something. a different view of the isolation you talk about. i have chose to be on the second floor. i am the only justice up there. i recognize it is a problem because i'm separated from my colleagues. those steps down, sometimes they seem a bigger barrier than they should. decide, as iust have done before in other courts and my colleagues were nearby, to just walk by and plop myself down to say hello. we have colleagues who do that.

>> steve breyer? >> and a couple of others. some colleagues who like doing it. i think it is personality. i really do think it's what we're most comfortable with as individuals. with respect to the question that you asked, i've often said, i fell prey to what i think the public does in reading art opinions. you read our opinions. you agree with one side or the other, anything to yourself, this was perfectly clear. this was not that hard to figure out. is then what you do not see how difficult almost every case before us is. it does not come to us unless there is a circuit split. if there's split it is because,

this point, but the reality is i think most of our court of appeals judges are reasonable people. and they are giving their best effort at giving an answer. struggling a lot more than i anticipated. opinion, you write the all of you and your colleagues, you read the majority opinions. you read the dissenting opinion, and each one seems quite confident they got it right. but you are saying -- >> you picked great lawyers. advocate.of us was an everyone of us can pitch the b est argument on either side that you could raise. our once we've come to conclusion, the purpose of opinion is to persuade. and you are going to do an

opinion that you hope persuades. even though you may be experiencing some initial doubt about the answer. i think that, for me, that part of it is very much a surprise. >> very interesting. sam, have anything to add to this? what makes a case hard? said about the difficulty of the cases is correct. most of them are cases where there is a conflict by definition those are cases with respect to which there are two reasonable positions that you can take. that the mind the fact last opinion of mine from the , which wasit in opinion for the on bank court, was reversed by the supreme court 9-0. [laughter] i'm still absolutely sure i was

correct. the issue was whether a woman was in eligible for social security disability insurance benefits because she could do the last job that she previously had. job was as anast elevator operator. so, i said rather simpleminded ly that the ability to do your last job should not count if that job does not exist anywhere in the real world. but the supreme court in its great with some said it does not matter whether the job exists. i do keep that in mind. [laughter] >> he's still a good lawyer. >> still bothers you, huh? >> no, clarence. i have gotten over it. >> remember it very well. speaking of your colleagues,

there is something ironic. yale law school is supreme when it comes to populate law school faculties. ofother fact is that four f your colleagues were full-time law professors. ginsburg, kagan, and scalia. this is the most academic court of all time. yet, none of the former professors are yalies. none of you. i am getting to a question here.a are there too many former oppressors? are there too many former appeals court judges? not enough for something else. and anyone can take this on. as academics is concerned, we are at a dangerous tipping point. they are almost in the majority. who knows what they will do to us -- >> when they have control. of appealscourt

judges perfect preparation. [laughter] no question about it. >> it's helpful. i don't know whether that kind of being a court -- former court of appeal judge, being an academic having held an elected position, i do not know whether that kind of diversity of experiences is critically important. diversity of experience is very valuable. many different types of diversity. mentioned,, as sonia very few people today have the kind of generalist background that she acquired. a lot of people spent a lot of their career specializing in some areas. and we all have areas where we have to write opinions that are going to be binding on the country in areas where we have

no background. bitexample, i did not one of patent work. my first involvement in patent law is in voting on patent cases. it is unavoidable. that will be true for all of us. it is valuable for us to have that kind of diversity as far as fields of specialization and knowledge. >> anybody else care to comment on the observation the courts make up? justice thomas, you have served on different courts. it has changed. >> i served about two weeks on the court of appeals. >> different supreme court. new people coming in. , ii have great respect for think the work that our judges do. i think they allow us --

the earlier question about confidence in the opinions. i do not think we can write, woe is me. i'm having a hard time with this. i am crossing the rubicon and all that sort of stuff. you have to write the opinion. and you write it as best and is clearly as you can. but sometimes i think we write it in a way that belies the insecurities we might have or the uncertainties in the argument. i think we have to be open in the next cases to re-examine that. that is something i try to do in chambers -- go back and make sure, rethink old opinions. but as far as the makeup of the court, i do not feel that i'm in a position to say who is better qualified. our colleagues who are academics, from the academic world. who would be replace? i like them all.

i think they are all fabulous. you do not have to agree with them. you do not have to agree with justice ginsburg to know she does fabulous work. when you are in a disagreement with her, she is going to force you to do better work. the court thelike way it is. i do think we should be concerned that all of us are from two law schools. andsure that -- harvard yale likes that. we should be concerned about that to some extent because this is a big country. i also think we might want to think about the fact that we hav e such a strong northeastern orientation when the country, there is a lot of country between here and the west coast. i mean, those are my peaves. wouldn't, i could not say

that somebody on the court who is been a colleague of mine should not have them there or should not be there. they are wonderful people. have surprising,, a dissenting view. individualny one does not represent.anything . you do not represent the justice who is an elected official. you do not represent a justice who has come from a single practice. and it is not as if you're going to be an advocate for an interest group. so justices do not play at the kids in that sense of the word. you'reo think that, as evaluating the human condition, as you are talking about how you expect the reasonable person to respond, how you talk about what

police officer would would not do and all of these questions that we look at constantly, it is helpful to have people with life experiences that are very. it enriches the conversation. i'm worried we are not geographically diverse. not think thedid president was going to pick me because of that. but i and surely happy that he ignored me. and picked me anyway. it is hard to say who you would give up, because nobody wants to say it should be them. but i do think geographic. i think religious. god, but therein are issues that come up in terms of reactions where having a different perspective may be useful. but i also think that we are missing things on the court.

we are missing any justice who has had criminal defense experience. everybody has either been a u.s. attorney, a government attorney. we do not have a civil rights lawyer except ruth. but we do not have one in bald in general -- involved in general civil rights. i think that is a type of practice that is different. tony kennedy did a little bit of solo practice. but his was a unique practice in california. and it was a product of his dad. he joined his father. we've got a a lot of firm lawyers. except for me, there is no midsize or small, single practitioner. i think you need diversity, not just life background, but of

legal experience background. we are being asked to decide questions involving not just ordinary people but the profession. one, if i had the power, which i do not, obviously, i would encourage the people who appoint justices or judges generally to look at that diversity. when senators ask me whta at i thought how they should pick nominees to district and circuit courts, i would say look at your bench and see what life experience or professional experience it is missing. and look for people who can bring and enrich the court with that. >> all of you have mentioned colleagueship and friendship's on the court. we don't witness your

interactions, both formal and informal. in some measure of her colleagueship -- i'm going to try something. i'm going to ask each of you to tell us something about the other two. and maybe something we might not know or something we do knkow. i have chosen these pairings at random. so, sonia, tell us something about clarence. name of every knows the-clarence name of every employee in the court house from the lowest position to the highest. [applause] with virtually all of them he knows their families.

theirhappinesses and tragedies. it is, when robert he talked aboutm, his humanity and caring. that fact alone made me understand that as much as we may disagree on a lot of legal issues, we do not disagree on the fundamental value of people. someone whorespect you disagree with legally if you start with that foundation in principle. >> thank you. >> sam, can you tell us something about sonia? clarence, you can figure out. you can start thinking ahead. let's see if you read my book. >> every night. [laughter]

think i am not going to tell you something that you do not already know, but these are traits i admire. irasonia is very independent. she is very, very thorough in her preparation. not only on the merits cases but on the hundreds of cert petitions that we discuss every term. she is very strong in her views, and she does not give up on the rest of us. even when she sees we are going majority is going off in the wrong direction, you might just drop your hands and say, well, what can i do? but she has hope that she can convince us. she makes good arguments. and sometimes she succeeds. >> great. >> i've been called incessantly

optimistic. >> clarence? >> goodness. she never gives up. [laughter] just re-list that. is, first of all, he is married to martha anne who is a delight and who is a wonderful person. sam is really smart. really funny. principal. and a man of his word. it's something -- when you can look someone in the eye and he tells you something, and you word, thathim at his is a treasure, i tell my law a reputationthat

is hard to build and easy to lose. with us, sam has a wonderful reputation of integrity and honesty. plus, he's really a funny guy. and for some reason he likes the philadelphia teams, which i do not understand. >> thankfully, the one time we had a bet, i won. >> you had a bet? >> my first year on the bench, the phillies and the yankees were playing against one another. we made a lunch bet. toad to treat him philadelphia cheesesteak sandwiches and he had to treat me to new york hot dogs and beer. i got a really good lunch. thank you. >> you did. it was not easy to find brooklyn lager in washington. searched a lot of places. this was the bet on the 2009 world series. i think it will be a long time

before have another bet. >> i agree. >> this year is going to be kansas city. mentionedomas you that you tell your law clerks that reputation is hard-fought and can easily be lost. the final question -- asking each of you -- what is the best or most important advice you gave to the students with whom you met this morning? each met separately with 30 students chosen by lottery. sam? a really smart group of students who had the good sense not to ask me for advice. you advice iell actually gave them. but i will tell you advice that i would have given them if they had asked me. [laughter] >> people around here just give advice without being asked. >> maybe it will filter out to

them. first, i do not know how relevant this is to their own experiences, because it off a lot of time has passed since i was here. the first is to find your own path. a lotst when i was here, of smart students who had been on an achievement track. so, the question was not, what do i want to do next but what is the thing to do next as i compete to get into the best college and the best law school and then get the best clerkship, and work for the best firm? point, i think you need to get off that track and ask what you personally want to do. and if you you have not done it before, when you graduate from law school, i think that is the time to do it. confusesecond is not to your legal career with your

life. do not make your legal career your entire life. don't define your worth in terms exclusively of what you do in your career. i know people for my law school class who did that. and it led to very unfortunate consequences. so that is advice that would have given, but did not have the chance. >> thank you. sonia? >> i do not know what the students would say, but i'll change up a little bit of what i said. which was looking into law schools to attend i'd narrowed it to harvard or yale. and i talked -- this is the age before the internet, ok? so, i had to talk to people about those institutions. every harvard graduate that

i spoke to, harvard law school graduate, would say the toughest years of my life but i loved it. and every yale alumni that i talked to would say the best years of my life. in responseference is what convinced me to come to yale. and i have subsequently through years thought about i said that same thing. and i think it is in part what sam has said. yes, there is tracking. but i think there is tracking because there is a model of success the people see and want to duplicate because that is the only model they know of. but the one thing i loved about yale is it lets you be passionate about whatever you wanted to be. >> amen. whateveruld work with

professor, doing whatever kind of work you wanted to do, and people volunteered to do it. and they did it because it was important to them to do. and i loved that. and other institutions -- they will remain nameless -- are sort of picked by reason of how smart the professors think they are or the ir picked for programs based on that. when i was here, law journal, you wrote on. you could volunteer for almost any organization and get in. i hope that is still the case. but my point basically is i now echo sam. i told the students be happy here. i did not finish my advice by saying, be happy by doing what makes you happy. be passionate about what you are doing. and that is the value of what

you are getting. >> thank you. clarence? >> well, i guess i told him not to do what i did. [laughter] i, and i think sonia is right that there is a lot we did not know. i came here at a time, where i could've been more positive. there were so much here that i walked right by because i close my eyes and my heart to it. i credit jack danforth with a lot of opening my eyes to things. when i met him, again through who did notesi, i rememberorts,

meeting him when he came on campus and he was a young, tall attorney general with that spot in his hair. he clapped his hands really loud and said, clarence, plenty of room at the top. i said, boy, that guy is off his rocker. [laughter] but that was just how cynical and negative i was. and here he was positive and you,etic and believed in believed in the possibilities. and what i tried to convey to the students is that attitude of hopefulnness. you're here. at one of the best of not the nation. you are here. and make the most of it. the friendships, the opportunities to learn, to do things, to grow. i also suggested to them that when they take a job, the jobs

are wonderful. but all of the other things are equal, work for the person. work for a good person, a good person can turn a difficult job into a wonderful job. and a bad person can turn out beautiful job into a miserable job. i was fortunate to work for jack danforth. some people might not of thought the work was glamorous but i got to work for a good man. later, i0 plus years think of in an even more positive light than i did when i worked for him in 1974. think it is important to work for good people, people of integrity, people who are positive. and finally, although i did not get a chance to say this to them, i do believe this. you treat people the way you

expect to be treated, whether they deserve it or not. they are owed that. that is hard to do. a part of going to the things that sonia mentioned earlier is go.ability to let things to forgive and forget and to turn and move on. that is not so easy. but you want to be forgiven. you want people to give you a pa ss sometimes. you want people to think better of you. so you do it to others. so i feel very strongly that we are required to treat people the way that we want to be treated. think even when it is hard, you are required to be honest, not to give in to fads, not to go along to get along. i think a lot of people -- i grew up on segregation. and i'm convinced that some people went along because it was easier to do that than it was to

oppose something that was dreadfully and morally wrong in our society. >> we are so very proud of all of you. and we're grateful to you. thank you. pplause] >> that was wonderful. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> i think one of the thing that is scares me, especially in the lower schools, as they struggle to compete, i think we could see a purge of nonrevenue sports in order to focus more money on the sports that matter financially most.

i think that's a trend we're going to see in the next 2350eu6 years and i don't think that's good -- five years and i don't think that's good for anybody. >> i think as we go down the road of paying players, as their agents, the trial lawyers would like us to do -- and i have plenty of friends who are trial lawyers including my little brother -- at least you did. >> we're going to be nut in a situation as a seer -- put in a situation as a series of nterprise that the non competitive sports, you're going to go down. i've already sat in conversations where that's happened. that's bad for the country, that's bad for olympic sports, that's bad for opportunities for people to get out of lesser environments, get to university, and have a better outcome in life. >> you can watch the entire event host bid the big 1 conference today at 10 -- big

12 conference.

>> good morning. we're very pleased to have you here in the room and the folks on the web for one of our favorite events of the year.

we have the chief economist at the iea and the lead author of the world energy outlook, a publicication we know all of you have come to count on as a source of insights and analysis on some of key energy trends facing the energy sector and sort of the ongoing political and these days geopolitical issues that we're discussing on a day-to-day basis. we're very, very pleased to have him here. this is -- i don't even know how long we have been hosting and it is always one of our consistently very, very popular events. we're very pleased to have all of you here today. it's quite shocking to have as many of you here on a thanksgiving week so that is a true testament to the work that he and his team have put together. so without further adieu, we'll have him give his presentation. focus on nuclear energy and also a special report that you all put out in october on subis

a harne africa, but also just the insights on sort of the policy direction, impacts on climate change oil markets and all of the things we have come to appreciate about the work that his team puts together in each of these reports. so we'll have a bit of a presentation and then we'll have a discussion with all of you looking forward to it. so please join me in welcoming our guest. [applause] >> thank you. it is always a great pleasure come back to one of our favorite evans, and i can issue that it is one of our favorite

venues to present our outlook. we are always very happy for is warm welcome from sara, frank, and others. now, today i would like to take you through our last outlook 2014 that was republished two weeks ago, i will first try to take you through what is the energy context we are in, i believe, and then try to give a look at the future. and after the presentation as sara meppingsed we will be very happy to get -- mentioned, we will be very happy to get to your questions, comments, suggestions. will say we have many colleagues here, helping us.

thank you for all of them for their contribution. now, where are we today in -- first of -- situation rent should not mask the challenges we have in front of us. is set e our security to move high up in the international policy agenda very soon. higher than it is today. we see oil prices coming to $80 in terms of the process, lots of oil in the markets, supply is plenty, demand is weak. but what is happening in the iddle east may well have major

implications, as i will try to highlight in a minute, for the oil markets sometimes soon. in terms of gas markets, we are seeing the same movement time, especially in europe, that the gas security is a permanent and serious issue. and putting these two things together looking at the countries where today we see some tensions, such as iraq, other middle east countries, libya, russia, ukraine, are first, despite the slowdown in the prices -- prices coming down, despite the less tension visible today, oil and gas security will be crucial for the international policy agenda in the next years to come. about the point is

climate change. we have mixed signals. we are getting mixed signals about climate change. of course one very good news -- and i will comment in a minute -- u.s.-china joint commitment in terms of reducing the co temperatures following the european unions leaders having 40% reduction to enter into a demiment. of course this is a good one. but when we look at the numbers, our report shows that last year crmp o 2 emissions puts the again, which world perfectly in line with the temperature increase about 3.6 degrees celsius, which would have devastating implications for all of us. and of this growth, about 60% of the growth came from one country last year, which is

china. second, a rather important issue that we highlight every year and we follow very closely and follow policy recommendations is the fossil fuel subsidies for the consumers. many countries consumers at the pump station elect triss bills and so on pay artificially low prices, extremely low prices much, much cheaper than their economic value. and this is mainly in the middle east countries, in russia, casspean countries, in asia, china, indonesia. what does this mean to put a oil, to make the coal, and gas prices much cheaper than what the governments are saying? the gots are saying to the

consumers, to their citizens, divert and if you do i will pay you money. that's the transition. or the transition will be to making the things much cheaper than what they are. lease don't worry, use the inefficient manner. don't worry about efficiency. this is the message given by the governments to their citizens. but in line with our recommendations tand recommendation of others some countries now are taking the lower oil prices as an opportunity to phase out those subsidies. ind nearby avement now, there's a measure reform measure process. but this is a measure problem. third, i think the good news is on efficiency front. there are colleagues who are much more experienced than me

who work in the government. they all knew and tell us that efficiency is a concept, is a statement, came out in almost very government's programs leaders, speechers, so on. many, many years. but for the first time we are seeing significant impact of efficiency policies on trends, on numbers, to concreast effect in terms of slowing down the energy demand quote cost in the areas where those policies are introduced. this is extremely good and i will give you some examples on that. but one number i believe is a very interesting number. today in the world three out of four new cars sold are subject . fuel efficiency standards

and that is very good. studies in japan and europe followed by in the u.s., especially first administration putting new standards and then followed by china and now in india. this e are going to see s true under climate chake and security. they are both interwoven aspects there. the question is this change, are they going to be changed by the government policies and steer them in the right direction, or the change will be driven by the events themselves? and we do believe the first one may well be better. o looking at the future.

in the future we see a change about the contribution of different countries in the global energy demands. when you look at the last ten years, global energy demand increased by 30% in ten years. that's a big increase. and about half of this growth came from one country, which is china. and in the rest of the countries, u.s., japan, countries put together, the energy demand was more or less flat and we expect this to be flat for more years to come. there's upward pressure with economic growth but also some downward pressure on the efficiency gains. so more or less flat. the news is, at least for me, slow t we expect china to down. effect on s an

erything h.r. oil, coal, investments, co2 and everything it will have measured effects. why is china slowing down? there are three reasons. one, i mentioned efficiency policies. if there is one country i have to pick up and say this country has very ambitious policies plus more importantly implements them and monitors the results, it is china by far. the second reason is the chinese economy is slowing down and changes the nature moving from a heavy industry based onomy to a slowly but surely economy. this is the second reason. and third, chinese population.

it is coming to a peak sometime soon, and then will decline. the aging process following the example of japan. as a result of these three reasons we expect the dragon will slow down with all the implications under energy markets and climate change. but there is a new driver now of the global energy demand, which is india plus east asia and the middle east countries. they are the engine of the global energy demands growth. and we are only seeing in the last two or three years the numbers are changing while china -- look at the last two years, china and their energy demands slowed down considerably and the others are growing very strong. now, something on the course

which is a -- costs which is a major issue in europe, japan, and other countries, are we going to lose our competitiveness vis-a-vis the united states? because of the cost of energy? and our answer is most likely yes. with the current policies in place or the current plans in place most likely yes. what we have done, we look at the average cost of energy the consumer pays in different countries, household and industry, what they pay for one unit for energy, in the past and in the future, how it will cost, the economy, to consumers. when we looked at 2008 there was only some difference between europe, japan and the united states in favor of the

revolution, er the why we see the cost of energy for one unit of energy decline in the united states it increased almost everywhere else. which puts the united states in a very advantageous position. and the question is, what is in the future? fill expect is it will a significant gap in terms of the cost of energy between the u.s. versus japan and europe, but more importantly, perhaps much more importantly, we expect chinese cost of energy will be higher than even that of the united states. this is mainly as a result of in declining to reduce the share of dirty but cheap

coal and replacing it with other fuels. this is of course an issue which is good news for the united states, will hold a strong position vis-a-vis almost all other major players here, and therefore, something to take note of. of course these trends may well change as a result of efficiency policies, if we used energy more efficiently we can lower the cost of energy down. now, an issue about oil markets, something that we feel things into the perspective after the shale revolution in the united states. many colleagues, many

commentators, many of us think that as a result of the shale oil revolution in the united states now and the prices are going down, then the situation looks much, much better and more comfortable for many years o come, a view that we strongly disagree. for the following reason. first of all, between now and the next two-and-a-half decades global oil demands will increase 14 million barrels per day. a modest but increase of oil demand. the question is who is going to meet that demand growth? which countries in when we look at iran, there are four strong shold -- look around, there are four strong shoulders, u.s., canada, brazil, and the middle

east. all other countries put together, some decreased a bit, some increased a bit. but in total, they see in total production a bit of a decline. so how are we going to meet the demand growth? the united states, we expect the oil production mainly coming from shale will increase hroughout the 20's, which is very good news for the global markets. i think today the consumers in the world, the united states, that the price of oil recently and now are kept at a level which is providing a comfort zone for the consumer. it's very good news. ut when we look at the deposits of the shale oil, we expect the growth will be significant but this is far

from meeting the entire global oil demand growth and we expect, as our colleagues from the eia, sometime soon that growth will come to a plateau. from canada, we also expect strong growth coming from oil sands even though there are some challenges, we believe those challenges can be overcome and we may well see a growth coming from canada -- which makes an important contribution. and the third strong shoulder is brazil. offshore production, and we look at the projects we can see, growth coming from brazil. but there is a big gap, especially around 2020's, when the production growth from the there is down, and only one other, which is the

middle east. this is the middle east. and it is the very reason why we are very worried, among other things, about the current developments in the middle east. because of this growth in the middle east, half of it needs to come from one country, which is iraq. where you look at the size of the reserves, when you look at the ongoing plants, when you look at the opportunity of the fields it is iraq. it is not only our view, it is the view of many organizations working on it. nd in iraq, of course very easy geeology, cheap to produce the oil.

but you have to spend $15 billion to make the oil come to the markets. but today in this security situation, having the appetite to invest in the iraq and middle east countries, many middle east countries are close to zero. d assuming that the issue of the security issue today in iraq and elsewhere will not be resolved tomorrow. it will be with us for some time to come. this we believe is a major issue. because if you want to see a production growth in 2020 in the middle east, we have to invest today. is not like electricity button. . it is five, six years lead time of a project. and if you aren't able to

invest now, how are we going to see the production growth which is badly needed in 2020, unless there is a major economic problem which would push the demand down? so from that point of view we are very worried. and here energy security is not only a problem for the countries, our own countries, because today a bit more than 50% of the middle east oil goes to asia and tomorrow it will be more than 90% of the middle east oil will go to asia. so therefore there is a very strong common denominator between the western countries and the asian countries -- namely, stability and the investment in the middle east countries to increase the production growth when we need it, around 2020's.

now, how does the current oil markets fit into this picture? rst of all, why do we have the lower price? we think there may be many reasons but two of them are key. lots of supply coming from the u.s., very successful growth of u.s. oil production, and at the same time weak demand, mainly the european economy is weak, shinea is slowing down, japan is in a recession. but the question is, will it be done now, the process, for a very, very long time? our answer is we don't think that it will be like this for a very, very long time but there will be a downward pressure on the process in the next couple of years.

and this downward pressure may well mean that many companies their e a second look at spending plans with the lower rice levels. and especially the countries or development fuels which is a certain level can be more effective than others. we may well see in north america current price levels, especially if there's downward pressure further on, may push e companies to look at the expenditures next year. there are already some signs from some major companies to cut the spending in 2015, and

this may well continue. in brazil, a bill part of the investments are carried out as a result of the cash flows coming to the petro boss. and as a result if they go down as a result of prices, this may well put an effect on the plans. so the first -- the very first effect of the lower prices is putting a downward pressure on the investment plans. stay ond, if the prices at these levels, $80 today, while it gives breathing space for the consumers, a comfort zone which is very good, but when the prices go down we may see an upward pressure on the demand growth if the economy is in a normal trajectory.

o going from 100 to 80 may well give upward pressure on the demand side. so putting these two things together, lower prices, putting a downward pressure on the investments and the production growth especially in the high cost areas, second putting an upward pressure on the demand growth may well mean that we price ed in a global environment perhaps more reliance on the middle east oil, which once again makes our security concerns even much stronger coupled with the investment challenges we are facing today. now, a couple of words on natural gas. we see that the natural gas is

growing strongly almost everywhere in the world and sometimes soon will overtake oil as the number one fuel in the global energy mix in two decades of time or so. now, as in everywhere but there is one exception, it doesn't grow, which is europe. in a ope natural gas is winter sleep. we think natural gas consumption in europe will go pre--2010 levels only around 2020s. so, therefore, there is -- 2030s. therefore, there is a big gap down. so, and for europe, while the european demand will stay more

or less stable, european import needs will increase significantly as a result of the huge declines in the domestic gas production. where question is, europe is now today is worried that they are getting a big chunk of the gas from one single source with the growing import is what to do. and one of the options here in he medium and longer term is l.n.g. we see that the l.n.g. trade is increasing substantially. today, most is made by pipelines, 50% by lng and we think this will grow significantly in favor of l.n.g. mainly as a result of many l.n.g. projects are coming to completion sometime soon.

and not only the amount of l.n.g. is increasing, providing flexibility to the markets from 300 to almost 600 bcm. but perhaps more importantly the countries which produce l.n.g. are increasing. so a double flexibility. lots of l.n.g. providing flexibility. plus the number of countries are growing. to the current ones we expect e current, u.s., african countries, and australia, lots of l.n.g. coming to the markets. this will make the hands of the consumers stronger in terms of options they have in front of them. cards kwluse their cleverly. believe that not

so much l.n.g. coming to the markets will bring the gas prices down to the, as many people hope, to the u.s. gas price levels. that would be still a major price gap between the u.s. and the rest of -- for europe or japan for two reasons. l.n.g. -- we of have colleagues from l.n.g. colleagues here -- are going up. and second, shipping gas from point a to point b is a costly business. so to bring the u.s. gas to .50, $7, ts about 6 just to bring it here, plus the price is already $11. so this is -- growing l.n.g. is

a very important trend. good news for the consumers from a flexibility point of view. but the hope that the gas priceless go down is not the iew that we subscribe. now, a few things on coal markets. see that the coal demand is slowing down with all its implications. now, we have seen the coal demand peaking in the europe in the mid 1990's, 80's, then the u.s. 2005. and now, the most important coal s we see chinese following. this is really important. if you don't have coal in your

life it is important for you because you have to do something with gas. this will affect coal price. this will affect co2 trends, in renewable trends. and this is what we are projecting. until the ll you last two years chinese coal demand increased 10% per year average, like an automatic pilot. in the last two years the 2013 rate in 2012 and was about 5% per year. so you may say 10%, 5%, what is the difference? given the size of china, in one ear it is equal to all the asian countries coal consumption put together. is ailand, all of them, equal to 5%. so this is very, very

important. d this is mainly driven by local pollution concerns. but we expect india to move up in terms of coal consumption very strongly, and soon overtake the u.s. as the second largest coal consumer -- second after china. and, as i said, we see coal slowing down and we have all the first signals of that. if the coal industry would like to see the trend going up still the buttons to be pushed are on the technology front. we have to use coal through c.c.s., through other technologies the in a friendly way. but this will have implications for the market equilibrium in

many aspects. now, coming back to the power sector. we again wanted to challenge one issue. many colleagues think many governments think that the demand growth in these countries are flat -- demand growth. so electricity secondor is not such an important sector any more because our demands slow down. this is again an idea we don't agree with because in the oecd countries today the need for building new power plants are not coming from the fact that the demand is growing but mainly the existing capacity is retiring and we have to replace them. oday worldwide we have about 6

,000 power plants in the entire world. and in the next two decades we see 40% of the existing capacity will leave us. they will retire. power plants are like human beings. they produce power, come to a certain age, and then retire. this is the unfortunate destiny. so this is what happens. and then they are thrown out, the power plants. so here what happens is that in the oecd countries even though the demand growth is almost zero we have to build a lot of power plants to replace the -- especially the terminal capacity. and what is the new capacity coming from in the future? this has been mainly renewable

energies as a result of government support. and this is subsidies. about half of the growth of the new capacity worldwide will be renewables. mainly hired power followed by wind and solar. and we see also a significant amount of natural gas. so we see more and more an approach in many countries between renewables and natural gas. so the point is this retirement issue, especially in o.e.c.d. countries, why it poses an important challenge in terms of finding the money, et cetera, it at the same time gives an opportunity if you want to give a new shape to your power system. going from coal to gas or to

renewables. whatever you want, we now have a chance to mix the cards again in the oecd countries. another challenge, especially for europe is a major problem, and perhaps in the u.s. as diagnose to renewables are so strong -- the connection to renewables are so strong that you do not have ough reliable power to support renewable energies. in europe, in the next ten hundreds eed to build of units of power and appetite for investment is close to zero now. this is a major issue from a security of supply point of view. so, therefore, to find a

balance between the renewable policies and the system reliability remains a challenge for europe and perhaps in other countries as well. now, renewables are growing very strongly. and the good news is a big chunk of the renewables are coming from wind and solar, hirde power. and the amount of subsidies we come ing them will soon wn as a result of cost reductions. so this is definitely a very, very good development that the cost of renewables in some cases are coming down. onshore wind and some solar technologies, which is good from the economics point of view. but from a system reliability point of view we still need to have a relibel supply there.

as sara mentioned, every year we look at all the fuels in general but one fuel in particular in depth. it can be one year oil, one year efficiency, one year coal. and this year we look at the nuclear power. we see that many countries in interested still in building nuclear power fukishima. we expect there to be strong growth. and this growth will come mainly from nonoecd countries, but not exclusively, and they factors.n by three renewables. many countries believe it is good for energy security. reliable based on

a generation of electricity. and, third, a very important tool to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. so as a result of these variables, energy security, economics, and the climate change, we expect that renewables will grow but with the current policies we do not see a nuclear renaissance in sight. in europe we are seeing a big decline of nuclear capacity mainly as a result of retirement, because of the age comes to searnl level because we built mor most of the knew clear power plants in europe 50, 60 years ago. and as a result of some governments such as germany, belgium and others want to phase out the nuclear plants in

a premature way. , with ourse with all respect to the pressure to governments to choose this way or that way, i personally believe it is the governments ds responsibility. technology, this they have to make sure that this gap with which technology is going to be compensated is filled, and what are the climate change implications of this new plan? this is very important. in japan we expect slowly but surely we will see nuclear lants come in the stream after the fukishima incident and there will be some new -- a few new additions but we will also

see some retirements in japan as well. the n some we expect japanese nuclear power plants will still play an important role in the japanese nuclear -- japan's energy future but will be less pronounced than before fukishima. the u.s. we expect some net increase. there are six giga bites of plans under construction, especially those areas where prices have a more regulated nature. india and russia, they are making a significant amount of efforts to build nuclear power plants. both of them are building today, especially india. russia has huge plans. we are discounting their plans being -- taking it to a visibility filter.

but, ladies and gentlemen, the biggest growth in terms of nuclear comes from one country only. hich is china. about 50% of the new nuclear capacity in the world will come from china. and where you look at the ffect today, today we have plants, half being constructed in china. so what are the implications of that? the first one -- i want to say two of them. but the first one is china is its own loping nuclear technology. and by building constructing a lot of nuclear power plants, bringing the cost down and we

a well see china soon to be serious competitor to western countries in terms of exporting he nuclear technology. today the main nuclear technology countries -- north america, europe, japan, korea, may well see china u with a new generation and lower costs may well be serious competitor there with all of its implications. 80% , today in the world of the nuclear plants are in oecd countries, 20% in nonoecd countries. as a result of this picture, in two decades of time it will be 50% oecd, 50% non-oecd

countries of the nuclear power plants worldwide. and of course this will have lots of implications in terms of climate change, in terms of nrnl security, and all -- energy security, and all other issues. for nuclear today we see two major challenges. one is the finance, the prices, the other is the public concerns. and in terms of public concerns we think governments who really eriously want to address the nuclear plant must listen to the concerns of the people and try to address them. there are two of them we want to highlight. he first one is that we expect in the next two decades or so we will see as a result of

natural and policy related retirements, we will see 200 nuclear power plants are going to retire. and up to now we have experienced worldwide retirements about ten nuclear power plants more or less, decommissioning. so how are we going to deal with these 200 nuclear power plants retiring -- how are we going to decommission them, what to do with them? we don't experience in most of the countries we are not well prepared how to deal with them. and this is not only for the countries who want to pursue nuclear policy but also the ones who want to say good-bye to the nuclear policy. what are we going to do with these 200 nuclear power plants? a serious challenge in front of us. the second one is about the

waste. today as a result of generation of nuclear power in the last , 30 ecades we are about 10 tons of nuclear waste and this will be doubled based on the projections i show shared with you coming from different countries. today when we look at the world the attempts to store, dispose the nuclear waste is very, very limited. there are many temporary solutions. but a permanent solution, the international efforts are not at their maximum what they have -- e, and, therefore, are goal is to, that there's a need for concerted international efforts to find a solution to the high level waste, once

again, within the international collaboration framework. and we have enjoyed very much the proposal, the suggestions e get from mr. hamre in that context. so before finishing a critical ssue, which is climate change, now energy sector as we all know, is the main responsible sector when it comes to climate change. why? more than two thirds of the emissions causing climate change come from the energy sector. so we wanted to look very hard today in terms of climate change because the scientists keep s that in order to the world more or less like today temperature increase should be maximum 2 degrees

celsius. which is i think very much -- 9 degrees farne height, if i am not wrong. so, how we want to see -- where are we today with that perspective? mother nature told us that human beings are -- i give you a budget, an allocation of dirtying the earth -- putting 2 in those terms -- which is so many giga terms. if you get more than this, just get ready to be in a different world. and 2 degrees by world leaders, a few years ago. when we look at where we are, as of today we human beings already consumed half of the budget given to us.

with the allowance of dirtying the earth, half of it is already used through the industrial revolution. most of it by using a lot of coal, oil, and gas, putting a lot of carbon in the atmosphere. and if we continue with our current policies, with the projections i show to you -- which takes into account new policies put in place, we see e t around 40e we ar completely exhausting the budget given to us. so then -- because the emissions in 40e, about 80% of the emissions in 2040 is already determined today. the investment we are making today. so we are looking in the

future. so it means if we don't have a major change in the energy investment sense we may well say good-bye to the world we used to have since several centuries. in that context, to give a signal to the energy investments -- clean energy investments and efficiency, i believe we have a historicle choice. which is the chance in price next year, 2015 price meeting. and before that meeting we have heard very encouraging news. rst of all, european union made a statement as now a package reducing the emissions by 40% in 2030.

econd, president obama and president shi jointly announced commitment for both countries . and this is extremely important. for three reasons. one, numbers. u.s. plus china are responsible for 45% of the emissions. plus europe 15%. altogether 60% emissions. there is a political commitment at the highest level. the countries which show responsible leadership at the international level, 28 european countries plus the united states plus china. this is the -- in terms of numbers. second, this i believe especially china and the u.s.

being a part of the game -- this will inject a very strong political momentum to the arties' process. it will be more and more difficult for the countries who are other significant emetters who will not be a part of the coalition of finding a solution. it will be very difficult for them to afford not to be part of the countries who want to find a solution. and these countries are, 20 european countries, u.s. and china. number two all these countries. number three, i believe the key issue here is china. in europe and i believe in north america, in asia, many

people who drag their feet to find a solution to climate we ge say and will say that can do a lot of things to reduce the co2 emissions. but if china doesn't move, we cannot find a solution. so why should we punish our economy if china, the largest emitter doesn't move? and now china moving making such a commitment for the first if you ting a target -- want we can discuss this target what it means, is for me taking that argument from the hands of the people who drag their feet. , sum up, i am optimistic cautiously optimistic, about

this event and it may be well our last chance to give the last signal to the clean energy investment so that we can be in line with the -- our two degrees target or at least we don't throw the two degree target in the trash. currently the clean energy investments for efficiency, for renewables, for nuclear and so on, are about 400 billion dollars. in our scenario, which finishes everything around 2040, the budget is closed, they are already increasing. but to be able to see to save the world if i may say so, to save the planet, we need to increase the clean energy investment four times compared to today and this will not a pen if there is not

serious signal coming to investors that they will be punished or they will be rewarded with their investments coming depending on the technology they choose. and price may well be the tip or the ery new wave clean energy trends. so, ladies and gentlemen, if i i finish up our words, believe in terms of energy security there is a growing risk at present in a number of arts of the world that are very important strategically for the energy sector. iraq, libya, other middle east

countries, russia, north rica, these are very crucial counted rizz, provinces, and as such the current lower oil prices should not disguise the challenges we have in front of us. and i believe energy security will be a crucial issue in the next years to come. what is happening in the middle east today raises concerns about the investment flow in the region as a result of lack of security, lack of predictibility, and if the investments do not come in a timely manner we may well see the future production work is very, very weak and this may have -- this may bring challenges for the oil markets. many countries believe nuclear

energy can play an important role in terms of the energy security, improving energy security, reducing climate change -- producing climate change. but the public concerns remain a major issue together with financing and this needs to be addressed if the governments take the nuclear plans seriously. we are of the opinion that the success story in price may well change the flow of investment for clean energy technologies, renewables, efficiency, nuclear power, switch from coal to gas. but to do that we have to see an agreement -- a major litical will coming from price and as such the recent

china-u.s. deal following the european targets is a very welcomed step. finally, we believe that the market instruments are the best to address energy sector challenges for sure. but looking at the complexity of these two major problems we are facing, energy security, oil, gas, economics, for the -- all of these things, plus the climate change so many things are involved there is a need that this market policies are put in a framework by far-sighted government policies to steer us in the right direction. thank you. and thank you very much for your attention. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much for that wonderful and comprehensive look at -- actually probably not comprehensive. there's probably a lot more than what you highlighted there. but certainly a lot of issues to talk about. we have about 20 minutes for conversation. i am going to open up to the audience in just a moment. but i thought maybe i would start with a couple questions that i had. one is you were pretty pessimistic about the prospect for increased investment in the middle east as what you termed as turmoil. but you were also positive about investment in brazil which to some outside perspective could look tumultuous as well. how much of your view is predicated on a security environment versus the sort of investment commercial framework governance architecture that both put on the table? because i could argue that for both of those regions, those are really the crux of the issues that dissuade

investment. >> thank you. for many, the main reason why , i wouldn't say pessimistic, is lack of investment not because of the economics but because of the security issues here. of security ck and the unpredictability of the middle east may well mean that some key investments are not carried out. especially in iraq where we expect half of the growth to come from. and when we talk with the iraqi colleagues today we see that is ppetite for investment almost close to zero. this is the reason why we are concerned. for brazil, it's a different story. this is a story of ability of