mr. halff? >> yes. i agree totally. .. and that it had the capacity to increase production fairly rapidly, almost instantly somewhere between 500 and 800,000 barrels per day. the question is for iran, how much is it willing to sell given its price appetite. it has always been a hawkish member about opec. early days of iranian revolution the west and markets should pay more for oil and oil is worth more than the market is paying for it. surprisingly iranian leaders made contradictory statements past couple months that they want to ramp up immediately, but they also said they don't want to crash the market and flood the market with more oil and and flood the market even further. question is how much can the market take. i don't think it can take more than 100, 200,000 and gradual ramp up for iran's market share. the terms offered, that is much more questionable, much more longer term. you had -- >> go ahead. i asked about venezuela. we haven't her that yet. >> venezuela is struggling. its product

mr. halff, welcome. >> thank you very much. chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell, senators cassidy and hoeven. appreciate very much the opportunity to share some of my views here today and provide testimony. i'd like to focus on the oil market and take a step back on some numbers and try to identify some of the key drivers that i see as pushing the price lower. the selloff, the scope the duration of the downturn in prices has come as a surprise to the market. it hasn't run its course. there's more room for low prices but the selloff is not sustainable and eventually the price will rebound and the market will show a recovery but it will emerge different from the recovery from what it was before. this is not the first selloff in the market. there's been major price collapses about every ten years. this one is different because the market has changed in key ways on the supply side and on the demand side. on the supply side, two key factors are the event of shale oil in the u.s. and also the

mr. halff? >> yes. i agree totally. ..

mr. halff you did a good job showing the international instability that is being created. some countries have increased instability because of high energy. /orher high energy costs and low income from energy production. says for renewables to work, the baseload has to be -- cold is cheap worldwide. india and china have invested tremendously" in efforts to increase their economic growth. coal is cheap, they do not have to export that sort of thing. if we were to bring those sorts of high energy costs, there seems to be a prerequisite for mass scale electrification of india. that almost seems unaffordable for india. i say that because economic growth is clearly in the interest of injury. -- inre going to chinese this context, is it practical and for seeable that those two countries for example will forgo their use of their own natural resource, coal, for a renewable sort of grid? thatu are absolutely right coal is very attractive for those countries. retrenchmentsome in china. coal use has been declining lately. cassidy: is that related to the economy? >> it is also to the e