million shares of peabody coal the twolf million of biggest coal companies in the world. drivemotes companies that them to bankruptcy and then by some. haserms of science, the epa the science advisory committee for the clean air act and they have reported. onse are specific to check whether the epa's science is good or not. since 2000, the members of these boards in these committees have been on grants totaling $140 million from the epa. the people that are supposed to be looking over their shoulder at apa are getting 100 relay dollars from the epa. theaises questions about intent of these people. i cannot say that they are dishonest or they are not trying to do good science, but it certainly talks about selected and selectivity bias when it comes to win scientists analyzed

the epa's clients. i want to put another issue on the table. host: when you look at china, india, africa, and other third world countries and the pollutants that these countries commit in the air, how big of a problem is that in the overall global warming? this anything that we do help spread these countries? guest: absolutely. first of all, historically, the united states is the number one polluter of the atmosphere carbon pollution. china in the last few years has overtaken us. however, they are also investing more money than we are in clean energy. i think $55d billion in clean energy in 2013 and we were about $40 billion. we were second. because of the korean power plant and other commitments that president obama has made and actions we have taken, china is capping its omissions and that

is the first and they have agreed to do that. we need to get other countries to get involved like india and brazil. they are far smaller polluters than we are. i want to go back? host: what about these other countries? critical and this is the problem -- unless we have the developing world to sign on i an eternal poverty plan, apologize, but we do not have the green technology noel we will not have it likely for the next decade or two. guest: but that is something the u.s. needs to take the lead. guest: here's what is taking the lead -- look at what has happened in europe. they have demonstrated that great energy is not sustainable because it is too expensive. we with that same which used to be a model that the president touted for green energy -- they have retracted terribly on the green energy subsidies. they cannot afford them. german -- germany cannot afford and great britain announced they're cutting the subsidies by 90% for rooftop solar. we look at the countries of the

biggest portion of green energy and europe, seven portions of green energy per capita, have the seventh highest cost of electricity, the top two are germany and denmark with cost of 2.5 to three times what we have. that instudy shows europe, these countries, the cost of electricity has grown three times than in the u.s.. we do not need to worry about making predictions. it has been a failure and it will be to greater energy poverty. guest: you should go talk to governor branstad the iowa and send the grassley of iowa, because in iowa, the get 29% of electricity from wind right now. 29%. south dakota, 20 5%, kansas, 22% of electricity comes from wind. in fact, we are already getting a great deal of electricity from cleaner sources. if you look at the top 10 states for wind energy, most of them are so-called red states. texas gets about 11%, idaho gets

.bout 17% or 80% from wind it is happening. we need to do more pastor to reduce emissions. you know what? georgia tech says by 2030, we will be paying less money for electricity and we do today by $45 billion worth under the clean power plant. host: from riverton, bonnie is next. republican nine. thank you for waiting. caller: i do not believe we have a climate change. i believe that is somebody's pipedream that wants to take the money of the american people. i will always believe that and i do not believe that god would let this happen to us if we were not supposed to use cold, he would have made it so that we l.d not have coa i'm sorry, but i think this is one big joke. we have a lot of politicians who want our money and we do not

have any left. nobody is working, so pretty soon they will realize that. that we have to be working. there are five generations of my family. we have been here forever. when we had pollution and back when i was a kid in the 1960's, we had it so deep you cannot even get out of your doors at time. now we do not have snow. we have the politicians that are telling us what we ought to do and they are all, the government -- all of them are crooked people. host: two are for the call. dan weiss? guest: you would possibly that god gave us tobacco and we ought not to smoke that, so the reality is that she said herself that the amount of snowfall that she is noticed in wyoming has declined dramatically since over the last 50 years. ink, dave's point is this --

an analogy -- we should not go on a diet because the first time we eat a low-fat anything, we are not going to lose all the weight we need to lose. we should not start walking every day because the first time we walk, we are not going to lose 10 pounds. the reality is, just like with you need toved when change lifestyle, eat healthier, get exercise, we need to change our energy lifestyle. we need to produce energy more healthily and we need to prepare for the impact of climate change that are already happening. like in alaska where there is 85% of the community will be affected by climate change. like in south florida where sea level rises and floods in neighborhoods that were not flooded before. we have to go on an energy healthy lifestyle which will take time, one step at a time, get other countries to join us, and we have to prepare for the climate change impact that is here already. host: i will go to michael from pittsburgh.

guest: it is because dave and i are so good-looking and smart. host: you have support. go ahead, michael. caller: mr. weiss keeps talking about medicine with climate, and medicine is so much more reliable. guest: the human body is a lot smaller than our climate and atmospheric, but just like, as dave said, before the 1950's and early, doctors thought cigarette smoking was fine and they appeared in cigarette ads. 50 years ago, or actually, 51 years, came the first surgeon general's warning that cigarette smoking may be bad or you. what happened? over time, the warnings got stricter and stricter as they did more studies. the same thing is happening with climate change. are studies that occur, and have been thousands of them. in fact some of the 11,000 peer-reviewed climate phases,

peer-reviewed means other scientists looked at the modeling and besides to see if it was right, 97% said climate change is real and caused humans. so the reality is, we can go --h the 97% and licked a and live healthier last out or go with the 3% and ignore warnings that we are seeing with sea level rising in florida, on the virginia coast, naval bases, in alaska, across the world. host: david kreutzer? guest: let's do sea level quickly -- sea level has been rising for the past century or two over seven inches or eight inches percent three. now, projections if you look at the past 30 years, 40 years, maybe a foot, so the two inches in miami or whatever it is, you get different levels around the world -- right now, the evidence is clear we are not headed to a catastrophe in sea level rise. nobody even thought to mention it when it rose eight inches in the past century, that is how unimportant it was.

the main thing dan says, if you listen carefully, what they never answer is, what will be the impact of the policy they are proposing/ they say, this is the first step, it will be a long time and so on. i used my own analogy, he says, look, we sell you a car that cost $3000 and you have a license plate holder and a bumper and you say, wait a minute -- this is not a car. they say, yes, the other dealerships are going to give you the other parts. ,nd they said they would not what we have is a $100 billion fund that the un will administer and that we will probably fund to the tune of $25 billion per year, which is getting all of the leaders of the other countries, the third world countries that need to sign on to think this is really horrible. richard hall, the scientist who was lead author for all five of the intergovernmental panel of climate change processes reports resigned after the last one

because it was in protest over the politicization of the report that came out. what was the straw that broke the camel's back? countries looking to get to share this $100 billion annual fund from the un, claiming that they would suffer in the future from sea level rise. these stories are a big mishmash. ask dan -- what will happen with this plan? look at the cost of the plan that will happen. the third world will not sign on to energy poverty. host: susan is next. good morning. republican line. caller: good morning to all of you. i have a question for both of the young men there. guest: yes, we are young men again. [laughter] myler: i am from arizona and bill, i have a small house, not two-story, small one, every year in august around the third of the month, our electricity gets turned off, the whole neighborhood.

and it gets turned off for one hour and gets turned back on. every year this happens. we have been talking with the aps over here in arizona about why this happens. ok -- guest: why is it happening? caller: because they are saying that they higher our energy built during the summer because it is hot here are my electricity, i leave it at 78 every day and i do not touch it. you know the little lights back on the ceilings/ ? i do everything to protect my house so the heat will not come in with my blinds in accordance. my electric bill just the other day was $348, so i went to aps, i went to my home neighborhood block, they said that my record electric bill was the highest between my two houses that are next to me that are two stories and they have two heating cores, a pool, and i'm the one with the highest bill. it doesn't make sense.

my question was climate because either you guys are busy, why can't we just -- by katrina, look what they did -- they alled a huge -- they built huge big energy law so that if there is another disaster, the water will not spill into the state. host: thank you, susan. guest: first, i do not know the specifics of her bro, but it may be that your neighbors have much newer and more efficient equipment so their bills are lower. in addition, i do not know if she is a customer of the salt river project which is the biggest utility in arizona, but recently, they said that they were going to force people, even if they got solar panels, to pay extra to get those solar panels on their roofs even though it is their effort to reduce the reliance on coal or hydroelectricity there. one of the things we have to deal with this that we have to make sure that green energy,

particularly like rooftop solar, is accessible for middle and low-income families, too, and not just higher income families. one of the things that has happened is that there has been a tremendous drop in the price of solar energy which is why they can get rid of some of the subsidies in germany because they are making panels much more efficient and cheaper than they used to. -- i: one of the problems do not know if this address is your problem specifically -- the problems with solar and wind and renewables like that is that they are intermittent. eia, theat the iaea -- department of energy says -- wind and solar is not operated control, but dependent on whether or solar cycles, sunrise and sunset, so it will not necessarily correspond to operator or dispatch duty cycles. as a result, their cost values are not directly comparable to those of other technologies. and they split them off in a

different chart. why that matters is that with the wind and solar, you have to back them up. you still have to have the coal, nuclear, or natural gas capacity. the numbers of -- that dan talks about, that is an average. on some days, texas is particularly in the hot, still, summer afternoon, the wind produces as little as 1%, 2% or 3%, so you still have to have these other capacities and that is expensive and that is what makes electricity go up. you look at the space above renewables come electricity costs. you look at the countries, as i said in europe, germany, denmark, three times the cost here. guest: denmark pays higher in taxes, too, but they have health care provided by -- [indiscernible] to interrupting you. what is happening is that germany, the industry is going crazy. they are threatening to leave. we do not want that here. host: we will go to kathy from

michigan. good morning. on the democrat line. caller: good morning, steve, dan, and david. would like to hear some people talk about getting people out of their cars onto sidewalks, onto bike trails that are even maintained during the wintertime. i live just off the main road and the go straight down to the hospital where i work. the sidewalks are not plowed in winter, but people tried to get these apartment complexes at the top of the hill. i think it is important that we really look at all the four wheelers and all these things that people use for their vacation whatever. that uses a lot of energy. i live in subsidized housing and i cannot hang my clothes outside. i had to use the washer and dryer there. i found it a egregious. reflect that when i

was a young girl and we would stop outside in northern michigan on vacation. the snow was so sweet and the last time i smelled that was when i lived in traverse city about 1989 and i have never small but since then because the air is just not as clean as it used to be. i think that -- are you there? guest: star, there is definitely cleaner than it used to be and the evidence is crystal clear on that and dan would probably like to take credit for the clean air act and he is right. we have cleaned up their dramatically, so people think it is getting more polluted and it is not true. host: kathy, would you like to follow up? iller: well, i know when smelled, david, and it is a small you do not smell anymore. first, i am glad that kathy called for my home state of michigan. it is named after the state stone which is the petoskey stone. in fact, we have that impacts of

climate change in michigan as recently as last summer when in the western end of lake erie, there was a horrible algae bloom that caused the city of toledo and some small spots of eastern michigan, to have a drinking water band because the water was contaminated with this algae group and one of the conditions for the all too bloom is warmer water. at that same time, there was a huge, huge flood in michigan and detroit area where i grew up rose toe floodwaters the bottom of the overpasses, and that is exactly what scientist predict will happen which is an increase in severe rainstorms and flooding in the upper midwest. there is already evident that occurring in these places. hearing froze over for the first time in a number of years because of severe cold. yes, but severe cultic,

remember, we are on track for the warmest year ever in recorded history on planet y. in fact, july was the warmest july on record. again, planet y. parts of the country or other parts of the world may be having record cold here or there, but by and large, we are sitting from a record highs than we are record lows. according to nasa host:. nasa. host: welcome back to. guest: he gets to answer the question and i can only answer out, -- host: go ahead, please. guest: -- guest: are you in favor of controlling that? guest: i have been. the other thing is that we have had -- every time there is something warmer, it is due to climate change and when it is called the, its variability or natural variability in the

system. or every adverse weather affect is due to climate change and nice weather -- who knows? no one talks about that. we had this approach were every bad thing in the world is exacerbated by co2 emissions. a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. ok, it is simply not credible. that is all. host: mary, to arthur waiting from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good one. i went to know whatever happened to competition. i am looking at an imf report. says 5.3he imf report trillion in energy subsidies, handil is national michael up, possibly as received 5.3 trillion dollars in global subsidies each year. now, what i want to know is why the fossil fuel industry is getting so much of our tax

dollars and why they are fighting against competition? isst: yeah, ok, that misleading, first of all, worldwide and not in the u.s. the first thing that is misleading is that they are looking at places like iran that subsidized gasoline dramatically and the same thing in china and india. india went china and they have skyrocketed back in 2007, 2008 because the government sells the oil and gasoline there and they do not adjust the prices to the market, so when prices go up, it looks like they are subsidizing it. the other major component and it is not taxpayer paid for, it the major component is that, here, here is the value of this damage of the co2 emissions and they use something called the social cost of carbon. we have run the models that the epa used to estimate social cost of carbon and slight changes in reasonable changes in the input

dramatically change that number and the epa has shaded every one of those variables to make it look like that number is bigger. in the u.s., the fossil to companies pay lots of taxes. there subsidies are exaggerated. subsidies per unit of power produced solar and wind or so for orders of magnitude higher, that is where the subsidies are. we have competition in the oil and gas industry, we have competition to come up with new technologies like hydraulic and drilling which has made us the world's leading natural gas producer and that has made us posted, if we have not surpassed in violation, the leading oil producer. we will go to brian in san diego. good morning. caller: good morning. my question and comment is for dan weiss. he said that scientists agree about climate change when the

charts by david seemed to show different, so it seems like you have not done your homework. on the contrary, it seems that what your project -- that what you are sharing our cherry picked -- host: well, i think you got -- guest: well, i think you got beeped there, but there have been studies over the past 20 years. studies that were peer-reviewed, 97% concluded that climate change is real and caused by human beings. going back to the question of subsidies, in fact, the nuclear did a study from 1950 102010 and to 2010, and50 they found that 40% of our subsidies and tax breaks went to oil and gas production and about 20% went to coal and 20% went to nuclear and about 10% went to

clean energy. that wethe subsidies have had in the u.s. have gone to fossil fuels. host: let me get one last call and we will give you both a chance to respond. in all scars, wisconsin, good morning to you frank. caller: good morning. veteran of world war ii and dime 88 years young, and i went to war when i was 17. all of my best friends had already been killed. guest: we honor your service. caller: i'm no hero, but i want to try to simple five the top from these two gentlemen and i am going to ask each of them the same question and i would like to ask them to reply in one simple word. englandyou think new ashes bloom in the northern tier states of the united states of america all the way from vermont to northern michigan, to northern minnesota, on the way out to washington -- just one word -- wet season of the year

do they normally bloom? of your, take a choice poor seasons, gentlemen, go ahead. guest: pastor's? caller: lovely fall flowers. one word. do not mumble, one word. guest: fall. caller: beautiful. guest: i guess i will say -- fall. [laughter] guest: i have to respond. i did not get a chance to talk about subsidies. solar lives on subsidies. let thewhen congress tax credit lapse and it shut as hise supply chain -- me, for wind, the supply chain for wind, they had a tax credit that gives them ready percent of the cost and about half of the wholesale price of electricity is how it works out, and the first six months of 2013, it was

one windmill installed in the united states. congress retroactively put that production tax credit back in, but what dan is talking about without viable solar and wind are, the are only five bolt to produce where you have subsidies . oil and gas derived with or without subsidies. we are against subsidizing anything with it through subsidy, so we are perfectly willing, but we do not want to talk about regular tax credits that all manufacturers that, including windmill producers taking that away only from one industry or another. host: we will give you the last word. guest: we are subsidizing oil, gas, particularly coal with our health. we know that their predation -- that air pollution and smog is more likely to a current, dave has admitted this that the temperature is warming, and we know as the temperature warms, that is one of the conditions for forming smog and they will be more asthma attacks and premature deaths. thesoot. just

we are subsidizing it with our help. thankfully, the obama administration is leaving efforts to internalize the cost to make the use of those products cleanup, so they are paying the cost of pollution rather than us, our grandchildren, or the farmer down the street, not down the street, but suffering from drought or the wearable forest fires. that is what we are trying to do. host: you continue to shake your head. guest: yet, again, daniel is talking about warming being a bad thing and that it is causing asthma, drought -- guest: i did not say asthma. is a precursor to asthma attacks. those are different things. guest: whatever. co2 is non-toxic and odorless gas and necessary for gas and smog is not a particular matter. guest: if i put you in a room and only put co2, how long would you live? guest: we're not talking about that. that is 41 hundredths of one -- of 100%. we have the highest

amount of co2, over 400 parts per million in eight housing years. guest: we are not going to have any trouble breathing. host: thank you for a very interesting conversation. dan weiss of the league of conservation voters and david kreutzer on the heritage >> on our next washington journal, we will talk to johns hopkins professor pieter china and thet u.s. stock market. then john markoff about the future of the u.s. manufacturing industry. his new book is about the common ground between human beings and robots. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

>> up next on c-span, the conversation on shale oil production and the impact of new technology has on the industry. then president obama speaking at a climate change conference in anchorage. later, a discussion on challenges facing women in afghanistan. >> these c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. this weekend we are joined by charter munication's learn more about grand junction, colorado. has importance in this part of colorado. >> all over the colorado plateau, and especially in mesa bynty, we are surrounded morrison rock. we find a lot of dinosaur bones, fossils, and that has intrigued scientists for a very long time. the other thing we find is a mineral called carnitine right.

contains different elements. it contains radium, which is radioactive and was used by marie curie to fight cancer. it also contains an element that strengthens steel. during the bill up -- the buildup to world war ii, it was of extreme value. it also contains uranium, and as we know, that is one of the best sources for atomic power and atomic weapons. >> colorado congressman wayne aspen all was known for his legislation.red -- >> he fought the battle to preserve water for colorado by making sure we got our fair -- our fair share. how did he do that? in the beginning of his state career, in the going on to his federal career, he climbed up the ladder of seniority and was

able to exercise, i think, more power than you might normally have. certainly in the united states congress, where he was able to ensure that colorado and western colorado would be treated fairly divisions of water. jor success was in the 1950's. >> see all of our programs from jan junction tomorrow at 6:00 and at 2:00 on c-span3. >> next, a discussion on shale oil production. mark mills of the digital power group talks about the impact of new technology. the manhattan institute hosted this event in new york city.

.> all right hello, everyone. thank you very much for joining this afternoon. my name is lauren katz. i'm a senior fellow here at the red hat and institute. we are very fortunate to have this opportunity to talk about the energy market. -- my name is oren cass. shale boom has created an armistice rupture in's and the question is this a blip or a new normal? is the more to come? certainly recent headlines imply the boom is over. i can't help it feel there are certain people in government and media who are hoping this was a blip. but blip. landmark mills that thinks it's

the new normal and think there's a lot more to come. and we could be heading to production in the u.s. at the same five dollars to $20 a barrel level that saudi arabia's these today. and i know that when mark mills said something about technology. and to, he hasn also been eeo of digital power group and is a faculty allow at city brings really unique combination of expertise in the business of energy. of energy and the science of energy. the paper that he has written on this subject is really new and an it is not where the media is necessarily addicting

it will go. but it could be phenomenal for america and for energy consumers around the world. click for the kind introduction. i'm going to use my time with you after lunch today to give you a broad framework in which to think about where the energy markets are going as opposed to giving you the specifics of the report. if you want to read that, you will know everything i know. and if you read the citations and go the primary sources, you will know more.

so i want to really do a framing presentation for you. think about energy market. becauseit is critical you like to have frameworks to think about adding and you try to build things that work inside the reality. that's what i want to do. i really can't talk about energy today without starting. you have really start with technology the release that the environment is the goal. as you probably know, it was lee globally early this week, so it is not news what it. but among a lot of the things that the pope road, and with

regard to what people have land that he wrote, but will bear no resemblance to what he did write without regard to that. the one thing that is cyclical is the call for the accelerated abandonment of fossil tools. recommendations of pope francis. here isve got going on reigniting this. that is an old debate. it is quite properly good advice to the world. that's what is cyclical about it.

but i will talk about energy and hydrocarbon from the foundational principles of and economics. for those familiar with gold when he wrote about the intersection of debate, he talked about the magisterium. intersection and resolution of them where we create policy and politics is where that happened. there are morals and physics, if you like. you have to deal with both. , it is alsoportant important to understand the andrlying principles

economics. and you know energy is a working. us is not a discretionary subject for the human race. it is a very of life in the universe anchored in the fact of energy. it is not a discretionary commodity. it is foundational to everything. energy matters and everything. to give you an idea of what the challenge is, we will get sort of specific. you whatllustrate for i mean about the aspirational views frequently pursued in the energy domain. the world has about one million cars on the road to day.

a lot of the people in the world become wealthier. believe a lot of those cars or most of them could be controlled by batteries pretty soon. i call this tesla derangement syndrome. let me tell you why. it has nothing to do with elon musk but this is what you need to know it varies civic and narrow level. they are excluding the fuel and weigh the same. knowey thing you need to is how much the weight is of the fuel you have to put in the vehicle so it can fly or drive. the metric that matters, the derivative metric is how many miles you can go for pound fuel. this is a metric anchored in physical chemistry.

it's not a made up number. they can take an average car about six miles per pound of fossil fuel. quite a difference. somehow, you should know that the national academy of sciences has looked into this issue. is no visible physical chemistry that will permit a doubling in the energy density of batteries that are widely deployed. density, you the get to go about a mile. effectiveness,he

you get 12 miles per pound of fuel. it is locked into the physics of these two forms of chemistry. that is why there will never be battery-powered airplanes. it is about 300% more expensive. of frames the economics of what going on. you get more efficiency.

the average temperature of isbustion, you can increase supplied to the american grid 1000% more electricity than all of the capacity in america today. it's a fairly big at between the underlying physics of what possible. there is a response when i say this kind of thing. the alternative stuff is going to get better. but it's a pretty big gap that you have to overcome. you don't need more subsidies. you don't need more technologies.

i don't know if you guys follow this, but google reached the same conclusion recently. they quietly abandoned the big project. renewables are cheaper than coal. it's been huge amounts of money last year, the two lead spectrum, a the widely read engineering publication. one of which i happen to be a member of. they discovered in their work that it was impossible to compete with hydrocarbons without new science.

believege fan of the that we do not know all science but it comes easy but does not come soon. your technologies do come along. , the claimk about it that technology keeps getting better is true. but technology has a funny attribute. it got better than the hydrocarbons. it got better faster in the hydrocarbons. the shell revolution is a technological revolution. this is a very interesting transformation and a technological transformation. it has gotten better at a furious pace.

hasaggregate national level been 500%. the amount of energy produced as improved 500%. is a shellct alone revolution. alternatives to have gotten better. arms of gotten better. capital spent energy out. it is one half as fast as shale technologies. so the consequence of this kind of technology revolution was unexpected. i do want to take some credit

from my colleague peter huber. it sort of explains to you what the view was. we anticipated this. we were in the wilderness during the heyday of ink oil. improved and it improves the process in the areas where there are advantages. in 2014, u.s. oil production went up by over $1 million a day. it is the fastest single year increase. you know these facts. a went up about 4 million barrels a day. it is more than three quarters of the total increase. if shale sales were a country, they would be the fifth largest

producing country on the planet. and they just begun. this is a transformation that did not come about because somebody discovered new oil. we know it contains oil and gas. the technology to extract it and of an affordable way in the last decade. the consequences have been the single biggest disruption in energy market in the united states in the world in 30 years. so the united states has spent, abouthe last 10 years, $600 billion in failing out shale infrastructure. billion horizontal

wealthy. it goes around 26 times. it's a lot of wealthy. and all oftivity this sensor information has generated something more than just more oil and gas. it has generated a tsunami of data. it comes in a day in history when it is unique. it is on the verge of profound changes because of big data analytics. this wasn't the case 10 years ago. this kind of data set has profound value. it is measured in the hundreds of petabyte. it will give you a sense of how

big a number that is. the data set for the health care industry is in the name range. and we all know one of the biggest opportunities comes from mining the data. it is in the entertainment industry and manufacturing. it is particularly true because it is such a young and three. and it is being driven by the same kind of spirit and entrepreneurial drive. which makes it very receptive technology because it is a technology innovative driven business. ofy surge pouring billions dollars in the people that have , it willanged the game

unlock even more cheap oil and natural gas future. it will be three complementary things that they laid over the next decade. first, we'll get underlying improvements in existing technologies that will equal to that which is already there. the operational capabilities for him, all of that death of gotten better. it's not over. only 10% are fully automated. the automated ones are far more economic the efficient. it will lay her into the system and get absorbed quickly. what we will do is huber eyes --

uberize the shale industry. and complex, big industrial infrastructures. --re is no reason to believe or is every reason to believe that the adoption of these new technologies will come faster now. the time you have tried new things. you stop doing that. they began when price is below $40 a barrel. at $50 toldn't get $55 a barrel. and now it is over in the technology has gotten better since then?

they make the same margin. it may be for the players that are not for the core business. we know that the average cost in are $55 depending on where you are. comeu double the efficacy he get average cost and can do the arithmetic here. that as he pointed

theyn the introduction, are on track now to having the same inherent cost metrics and the same scale physical resource. i think they know this and fully understand it and think it is profoundly transformational. not just economically the geopolitically. we added for millions of barrels a day in the last 10 years and we can easily do that again. it could double it. the impact of that will be profound. it could also be a very good thing for the world. the world is going to grow. an increase in aggregate energy in a matter whose forecast you believe equal to at least the addition of the united states worker consumption. be billions more air

miles flown. more road miles driven 20 years from now. it's a lot of pounds per fuel that need to be produced and it the all be or dominantly in 80% or 90% range hydrocarbons. is profoundly bullish for the world and for economic growth not just from the creation. spanned hundreds of billions of dollars. devoted to the idea of disrupting or displacing oil markets. hydrocarbons still comprise 85% of the world's energy supply despite this aspirational consumption of vast quantities of capital. some politicians will to make hydrocarbons more expensive.

but making hydrocarbons more expensive does not make alternatives to hydrocarbons cheaper. injust punishes everybody the world, particularly the poor. the pope also does something in cyclicals that i agree with. it is worth reading what he has written. it is essentially the essence of this. it's about poverty and obligations. and he gets off on a side , but fundamentally about moral obligations. the pope also says two things which are important. he calls for a debate and dialogue on the science. he doesn't call for silencing of the scientist but specifically for more debate and discussion. he also calls for more basic

research. it which is what the google scientists did. it's what i did in my previous paper which you may not have read. i feel passionate about lending basic science. we need more basic science. this is why i am fundamentally an optimist. the hydrocarbon technologies clearly can fuel the world. and tomorrow's scientists, they will pursue new science and will find the kind of magic that everybody hopes will ultimately displace and compete hydrocarbons in a way that the world can tolerate financially. we've got to get both things going on. from a moral perspective, we have the obligation to do both. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, mark. we will take questions now. i will use my prerogative to ask the first question. as you were describing what coming next, you talked about what this is going to mean for oil prices. what does this mean for the market. is it being pushed out and replaced by the u.s.? where do we go from here? >> if i could get oil prices right, i would be a commodities trader.

i will give you my card. i am bullish on production and bearish on price as a consequence. major wars or disasters can take the supply out. fundamentally, has put a world info the next 20 plus years. he can easily supply the world's demand. they are known. how well they go depends on the same inverse. an oversupply, making traders nervous. we end up pushing prices. if the world economy is slowing little bit and production is not slowing, we can see prices dip back down again and it would not be shocking for prices to drop to the 30's.

the last time we had this much oversupply, we had oil at $21 a barrel. is marginal, as you know, for oversupply. think that is because the inherent demand is so much bigger today than it was. to get the same impact of three. it is three times in 140 years. the markets do not like oil at those prices.

>> if you can say your name and affiliation. thanks for your exciting talk and inspiring words. i have two questions -- three questions. you would agree, however, in the short run, they are a little bit in disarray? long-term ande you focus mainly on the u.s. potential for shale. and isn't there an interested in you what i gathered happening within hydrocarbon that it is driving prices lower in relation to oil and could be the national gas rather than oil? , what aboutn deal

oil abroad and natural gas? mark: most fractures in disarray, most are not. deeply familiar with the oil industry. i know that is being put out there and i do not see it. they are very disciplined and understand what is happening and can increase production rapidly. some are announcing new drilling plans. second issue about global resources. expandingoil and gas is astronomical literally. the issue is never whether there is a, deep water or shall but who will permit it to -- or shall -- shale but who will permit it to happen? governments can be stupid and prevent resource production