The Offshore Energy Podcast
Offshore energy and ocean innovation in the United States is transforming the way we power our nation. Join our hosts Ian Voparil and Jim Bennett as they discuss current events, innovation, technology, and the future of the offshore energy ecosystem.
With decades of combined experience, these two industry veterans bring a unique blend of expertise, humor, and captivating stories from the high seas of offshore energy innovation.
Whether you’re an industry expert or just starting to learn about offshore energy, The Offshore Energy Podcast provides a platform for meaningful conversation and exploration. Tune in to enhance your understanding and stay updated on the latest advancements in this exciting field.
Let’s embark on this journey together!
The Offshore Energy Podcast
Episode 3 - Trump Returns
In this episode, Jim Bennett and Ian Voparil dissect the implications of Trump's presidency on U.S. offshore oil, gas, and wind sectors. The next administration's focus on American energy dominance and deregulation should spark a surge in Gulf of Mexico oil&gas activities, as much as national policies can put wind in the sails of a global commodity. On the other hand, Trump's win has offshore wind supporters holding their breath, waiting to see if campaign comments get translated into policies that will slow or stop the growing sector.
Get an insider's look at how we expect the new administration to transform U.S. offshore energy with recent administrative appointments including Doug Burgum at the Department of the Interior and Lee Zeldin at the EPA, a review of Project 2025's vision to overhaul federal energy policy, and what the Department of Government Efficiency can do under the guidance of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Our seasoned guests offer a frank discussion on how these factors might shape the future of offshore development and regulatory processes. Join us for a comprehensive exploration of the challenges and opportunities in the offshore energy sector as we prepare for what's on the horizon.
Donald Trump and Republicans won the trifecta, retaking the presidency and winning majorities in both houses of Congress. Offshore oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico will go gangbusters, with the supportive administration calling for American energy dominance and streamlining regulations. But what about offshore wind, which President Trump campaigned against and said he would end on day one? Or are we finally ready for all of the above energy? Let's dive into the Offshore Energy Podcast.
Speaker 2:I'm Jim Bennett and I have over 40 years of experience developing energy in the ocean.
Speaker 1:I'm Ian Valpero and I've spent the last 20 years developing offshore energy projects around the ocean. I'm Ian Valparo and I've spent the last 20 years developing offshore energy projects around the world. And this is the Offshore Energy Podcast. Hey, jim, great to see you.
Speaker 2:Happy Friday you too, ian, you too, you too Happy Friday.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so there's been a lot of news in the last couple of weeks. Happy Friday yeah, so there's been a lot of news in the last couple of weeks. We have a new incoming administration, donald Trump has won the election for president of the US, and Republicans have won both houses of Congress, and so come January next year, we're going to have a lot of change coming up, and you know, as we think about the impacts to offshore energy, you're such a great person to talk to, jim.
Speaker 2:Well, I'll tell you something. I've been through nine administrations now, transitions starting quite a long time ago, and I'm looking forward to talking about this. It's obviously a lot of changes have occurred, A lot of things are going to be happening, and I think the main point that I want to get across and it may come from being around a long time and that's that most of the speculations about all the terrible things that are going to happen are usually not realized, and we've had some specific experiences in that regard, but they are indeed far, far more just speculations than the realities.
Speaker 1:Yeah, jim, it's good to hear your steady voice and the steady hand experience.
Speaker 2:You call it a steady voice, but it's been a rough couple days and I apologize for the hoarseness. But hopefully the information will be useful to folks.
Speaker 1:If you're in it for the long term. You got to manage through these kinds of challenges where we see the key levers of change being thrown and then how developers and others involved in both of the sectors get themselves ready for what's coming in 2025.
Speaker 2:I think that's a great point and a key one. There is that we, like a lot of folks, folks that are listening are in it for the long term, and there will be a long term. So let's take a look at the changes that are coming up.
Speaker 1:Let's jump right in as we dive into the topic of the Trump presidency and what it means for offshore energy. Now for our regular listeners. You know our last episode was just before the election, where we talked about the potential Harris and potential Trump positions on offshore energy and what we might expect seeing them come through. Now that we know Trump has won, along with Republicans in the houses in both parts of Congress, I'm kind of keen to hear some of your thoughts, jim, on what this means.
Speaker 2:Trump, to say the least, is unique in many, many ways, not the least of which is that he's only the second president to be elected to non-consecutive terms, along with Grover Cleveland. It would be great to do a comparison between the two, and, from what I've looked at, unfortunately there's not a whole lot of similarities. They're both populist, but that's about it.
Speaker 1:We see that both parties have recognized that infrastructure generally and energy infrastructure in specific both need to move more quickly through the regulatory and approvals and permitting processes. Now, not all of those are under federal jurisdiction, right, but there are some that are, particularly when developed on federal lands and or in federal waters, and so I think this is something that is relevant, that we are likely to see come out of the next administration, because we will see a lot of activity towards reducing what a lot of folks call regulatory burden. But, jim, you and I both kind of know that there's a lot of detail in there, that that's too that's too easy a simplification.
Speaker 2:I think you're making a great point that overall, despite the campaign rhetoric, both parties agree on the need to approve energy projects and we'll talk about the new Secretary of Interior designation, because he feeds right into that Things will be indeed more focused on the advancement and the development of fossil fuel energy resources. I think one of the key points that we need to keep in mind that I think is lost in the polarized discussion of us versus them on both sides of the energy equation is that I don't believe offshore wind poses a threat to the development of conventional resources. There's enough demand out there that whatever is generated in either arena is going to be consumed, and it's going to be consumed, hopefully, with market support. But the important point there is that it's not a tradeoff between one form of energy and the other. It's the development of both that contributes to both the economics and it contributes to diversity and national security issues.
Speaker 1:You and I spent a little bit of time wrestling with what we should call this podcast, and that's why we came up with the common term. And here we are, jim. One of the key things that you bring in person is your experiences. You know your experiences through the first Trump administration that started in 2016, the Biden administration and now, of course, what we'll see in the next Trump administration. Let's zoom in a little bit. First, on offshore wind in particular.
Speaker 2:And the first one, of course, is the size of the offshore wind industry 2016, we hadn't yet had the big sale in New York that sparked all kinds of interest by the private sector, and in 2024, we have an established industry now with 30 plus leases both on the east, west and gulf coasts, and there's a lot of new constituencies, and I think that changes the picture a lot in terms of what is appropriate policy for the country.
Speaker 2:There is another wild card in it, though, in that this is indeed a second term and there will be no re-election, so how much latitude is the new administration going to exercise with regard to what have been traditional or conventional approaches to the issue between the wind sector, or the renewable sector, and the conventional energy sector? Interesting, and what is the? You know, trump has got to think through a little bit. What is his legacy? What does he want to leave with regard to this issue? There's a lot of things out there, but let's think about what is going to be the effect of this administration on the long-term energy situation and on the wind industry production in the United States.
Speaker 1:During Trump's first administration, we saw production ramp up from about 9 million barrels a day to about 12 million barrels a day. During Biden's administration, we've actually seen that increase to 13 million barrels per day and that's actually the highest rate of production that the country has ever seen. It also happens to be the highest rate of production that the country has ever seen. It also happens to be the highest rate of production of any country in the world and the US has been in that leadership position since what I think about 2018, right.
Speaker 1:So it crosses administrations that the US has been continually producing more and more oil and natural gas and offshore oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, with a little bit from California and Alaska. Both the Trump and the Biden administration saw maximum production offshore about 1.9 million barrels a day. If you look historically the rates of offshore production particularly of oil and gas now, because there just isn't as long a history with offshore wind, which did really kind of put a lot of wind into the sails of an already well-working industry but you saw an awful lot of technology development too, and seismic acquisition, understanding what subsurface geology looks like, and supported by those higher oil prices than had been from the decade before that were fairly consistent and so predictable when making your very long-term investment horizon decisions. So that's what we've seen across the presidencies for the oil and gas side, which we all recognize as an industry that's been running for the last 60, 70 years in the.
Speaker 1:United States and that the United States is indeed a pioneer in the topic and in deep water.
Speaker 2:Those are really good points and it also points back to the fact that this again is long-term. It's not going to be any one administration. It's not going to be any one policy. It's going to be any one administration, it's not going to be any one policy. It's going to be a long term, long term effort. But let's focus in a little bit on on the way things are going to occur very soon, and that includes predictions of 50% reduced energy costs in one year. Of course, that's focused on the expansion of fossil fuel development and I think, like most predictions, it's probably a little bit optimistic, but certainly expanding the fossil fuel development is going to is going to lead to a very, very, very positive things with regard to energy costs.
Speaker 1:And I think generally he's probably talking about electricity costs and gas at the pump kind of prices. Right, and so what can the president do about all of those things? You know the administration can influence the number of lease sales, the administration can help streamline that permitting process, particularly like if we're thinking about oil and gas drilling, and the administration can make additional federal lands open for exploration and potential development. I think those are three key levers that we might expect to see President Trump pull in the early days of his administration.
Speaker 2:All true, but on the other it doesn't necessarily impact the final cost to consumers.
Speaker 1:That's a but. At least you know those are some things that might happen.
Speaker 2:That's true and I think they're going to happen more gradually over the course of the administration.
Speaker 1:I don't want to go back to the campaign promises, because we have statements like how we're going to stop offshore wind on day one and I think that's the real fear that I hear from folks who are currently working and invested and developing projects in offshore wind is that that flip-flop of 180 degrees has the potential really to stop something that feels so good in economic development and employment opportunities, as well as project success for individual developers and the people who put capital at risk for this. So I get that, we understand that and, Jim, neither one of us has that crystal ball right To predict what EOs are going to come out. So what else can we try to understand about how the president is thinking about energy?
Speaker 2:Well, his appointees are certainly critical.
Speaker 1:I think they're going to be very important. You want to jump? Let's jump right into those.
Speaker 2:Well, I think it's important to note that he's got speaking of jumping right in. He has moved very quickly. I think that's a pretty significant difference between this administration and his first administration is that he's got his feet on the ground and he's making appointees young and old, appointees, male and female, and there's a couple of different examples there, but the big one to me is the uh, the appointment that we just heard about, uh, um, governor doug borgum of uh of north dakota, uh, uh, because there's a tremendous, to my mind, similarity between the second administration and the first administration that you're talking about the appointment to Secretary of the Interior of a man who is a Western individual, a person who is an all of the above individual, has expressed strong support for both fossil fuel development as well as renewable energy. North Dakota, I think, is like the number one state with regard to onshore wind development, and he sees it as an economic driver as well.
Speaker 1:I know there is some concern right, as he, too closely aligned to oil and gas, but we have seen him, as a governor, balance the kinds of big issues that are going to need to be balanced on behalf of the nation as well.
Speaker 1:One of the other appointees that we've learned about recently is Lee Zeldin to head the EPA, and so folks I know are out there Googling so Google's going to tell you a lot about him who was a congressional representative from Long Island Yo yo, long Island. Here we go, and I think we've also heard people whose names have been circulated. I heard about, for the Department of Energy, chris Wright, who's been CEO of an oil patch company providing oil field services and has talked about fossil fuels as a tool of energy dominance for the United States and has downplayed the need for the energy transition. Another important agency, commerce and I'm very interested actually to see Linda McMahon's name mentioned as a potential appointee in that. Linda McMahon, many folks know, famously started a large wrestling organization that's very famous and popular in the United States, but she's also a small business administration director in the previous Trump administration, and so really may bring this focus on building up small businesses around the US too.
Speaker 2:Well, all of these appointees, to my mind, a point to the ability to move forward. I don't think we're going to be stymied. You never know. You never know what's going to happen. You've got some things like the. I'm going to say beware of the dog.
Speaker 2:The doge, the doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, to be headed up by Elon Musk and and Ross Swamy. This is very unique. It's been described as something external to government but overseeing government working with OMB. Two trillion trillion cuts in federal budget. This is going to be a hugely difficult task, but it is going to be change things in a big way, really have an influential role on the organization and staffing at a federal government level right Making these very high-level recommendations.
Speaker 2:staffing at a federal government level right, making these very high level recommendations. So you don't know where all of these things are going to head. Even though there's indications of opportunities, there's also all kinds of things that can come up.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and in our thinking about trying to gain some perspective on what might come to you know, I just wanted to mention, kind of take a minute or two to mention Project 2025, the Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise, which is a document and a group that a lot of people have been talking about in the news and take the time to read through it, because it is a very long but interesting document that has a lot of relevance for lots of different ways that the federal government is organized and lots of different ways that the federal government is organized and lots of potentials for improvement or, I should say, change, because some of those, really, I think there's probably a lot of unintended consequence too for very significant change. But it does talk quite a bit about energy and it does talk quite a bit about the need for America's energy and science dominance throughout the organization. That gives you a mindset, too, again, of what's likely to be influencing the incoming administration. Is this concept that America needs to dominate energy? It does appear to have language that favors traditional fossil fuel development and its role in the American economy. It uses the same language we used at the start of the show abundant, reliable, affordable. It uses the language that I know is very popular in the oil and gas industry. All of the above solutions are needed as we transition.
Speaker 1:I would say there's a lot of support for all kinds of things that we still believe offshore wind has to offer to the United States, as well as offshore oil and gas. It does have some key things around a focus on a hemisphere level energy policy to work closely with the others in the Americas. It has a strategy for Arctic development. It mentions US shipbuilding and how it wants to return the US to be the envy of the world in shipbuilding. It also has a kind of an aside around the Jones Act exemptions and whether or not those would be useful to help enable American shipbuilding. I think that's a nuanced point that would be great to discuss someday in much more detail. It also talks about using the tools of Treasury to promote investment in domestic energy, including oil and gas. By the way, I'm reading that part because I thought it was important to highlight. It doesn't say just oil and gas, it says domestic energy, including oil and gas.
Speaker 1:Good point. I will point out that there's very specifically call-outs and some targeting around EPA and NOAA and the roles that they serve and also the challenges that both of those administrations often cause to project development right, because they're often responsible to enforce the environmental regulations and some of the social requirements of those. There's also strong support for the Small Business Administration's Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs. Now I know a lot of folks have talked about those. Particularly DOE uses a couple of models of those. This is the one in SBA and they think they're really consistently demonstrating value to fund advanced technologies that help get innovation to market in America's heartland and for America.
Speaker 2:There's a lot of Project 2025 that is quite outside American energy policy. That is very controversial and, of course, I think it's pretty much known that, while there's a lot of overlap, that document doesn't necessarily represent the Trump administration's priorities.
Speaker 1:And it is 900 pages. So you know there's a lot in it. Jim, let's start.
Speaker 2:I haven't gotten to the last 899 of them.
Speaker 1:yet One of the things that we have heard talk about in the media and generally in comments from kind of the folks who have been named as appointees, is the use of the executive order. What's your experience? What can you tell us about how well these work and what you've seen before?
Speaker 2:That's a great question. I think there's a huge concern about the use of the executive order that by simply saying that, that it necessarily means very bad things and very much bigger things than it may mean there are. I think it's pretty clear there'll be some executive orders issued very quickly. A lot of the questions are going to be whether the executive orders are going to be very sweeping or set a general policy direction. But to give you some historical background, you know we've and back to Trump Trump rescinded the oil and gas moratorium that was put in place by Obama and prioritized fossil fuels, and that prioritization was rapidly rescinded by Joe Biden in the early days, if not the first day, of his administration and replaced with executive orders that called for advancing clean energy, including wind, and transition in general to clean energy sources. And although it wasn't directly an EO, it led to the 30 by 30 goal. That was a driving force in the Biden administration, as well as a very reassertion of the leasing process with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, including the New York, bight, massachusetts and California.
Speaker 2:And what are we going to see in Trump, too? Are we going to see reduced leasing and permitting? That's a good question. I'm not sure. Are we going to be revoking energy goals wind energy goals, another good question and are we going to see a more general executive order that makes it clear that we want to be pursuing energy independence versus combating climate change? These are all good questions and the use of the executive order does not necessarily mean that you're going to have a fundamental shift or very specific negative actions across the government.
Speaker 2:Well, jim, but this also, you have the private sector experience, and this also, aside from what it means across the government, what does it mean across the private sector?
Speaker 1:This swing in the use of executive orders is really hard to deal with. Developers are literally preparing for the election by putting big pieces of expenditure on hold while they wait to see the results of election.
Speaker 2:I think they're waiting past that. Not just the election, but actions after the election.
Speaker 1:Exactly what the new administration actually starts to put energy towards, to see if that is going to shift the foundation upon which you're trying to do your project. Each project lives and dies potentially on its own. Each project has its own multitude of technical, economic, commercial, operational, organizational and political factors. These flips back and forth with either enabling or disenabling policy are very difficult to deal with, and so we've got to really improve that process in the US if we really want to be serious about the size and scale of energy development in the US. That will help contribute meaningfully to our energy goals.
Speaker 2:So the question is basically whether the Trump administration is going to actively obstruct the offshore wind industry, and I'd like to suggest I don't think so, for many of the reasons that we've already identified, not the least of which is contractual obligations. In fact, liz Burdock of the Oceanic Network made note of that the tendency not to interfere with existing contracts. So, leasing aside, I think there's every potential for the industry to be moving forward. I think, though, that this is a great opportunity for the Republicans to pursue the development of a viable offshore wind policy, not just for Republicans, but for the nation as a whole, and a policy that is constructive and can be pursued on a bipartisan basis, both during this coming administration and for administrations to come.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think those of us involved in the sector, Jim, recognize this is a national interest kind of issue. A lot of it is around language that's been used in the past, and I think this is a real opportunity again to hit those points that we were talking about. This is in the national interest, especially to meet our energy production targets, to do all the other things that we want to do, like be dominant in AI in the United States, you know, and data centers and that sort of thing. So that's all power hungry, and so we're going to need it. I'm not sure we're going to get it all from more oil and gas development on federal land. So this is one of those things that I really like the way you put that too. And let's hope, Jim, you've been on the insider seat for a long time and I know that there are other ways that administrations can put a thumb to the scale of activities around development.
Speaker 2:That's a good point. It can be what I refer to as a slow roll, and that's basically, and I think basically this happened in the last administration and that's basically, and I think basically this happened in the last administration, when the desire was to slow things down and maybe not move leasing quite as fast as it had been moving. The administration can get the word out that things are not going to be moving forward as far as leasing is concerned. It was, in fact, and can be, de facto policymaking. It doesn't require an executive decision, it doesn't require an executive order, and it can affect lease sales. Fortunately, though, we have a lot of lease sales in place. We have a lot of work ahead of us to reach whatever goals we're pursuing, so that's a mechanism that could be used, but I don't think it's going to bring the industry to a halt by any stretch of the imagination.
Speaker 1:And Jim, I would say from the developer perspective that at least seems more fair before people put capital at risk and developers come in and bid on leases with the expectation to potentially be able to develop them right, good yeah. So by saying there is no opportunity to bid on leases would probably be the best of a harder situation because you're not suddenly spending money and unable to have any recoup from it. Right On the other side of things as well, as projects are maturing. Where are you most concerned and where aren't you as concerned?
Speaker 2:Well, the individual projects and the potential for intervening in the construction operation plan or COP review process can occur at various points along the timeline. Certainly, pre-planned submittal would be subject to what we can ascertain that the administration is going to allow or not allow. And on the pre-planned submittal, just the chilling effect and we talked about this a little bit and we'll probably talk about it a little more just the chilling effect of policy concerns that are antagonisticistic towards offshore wind uh can result in less activity. Uh, post plan submittal, same sort of thing. Once the plan is approved, it becomes a lot more difficult and there's uh, there's legal questions that I'm not in a position to answer. But uh, we have a number of approved plans and as plans are approved and after construction, it's less and less likely to my mind that the administration is going to intervene, because I think we're going to see good things.
Speaker 1:And that intervention later in the process is really the most impactful to a developer in their bottom line.
Speaker 1:You know, if you think about a timeline of a project's development and if you're thinking about the way cash is flowing from a project in the beginning, it's all flowing out of the developer's coffers, right, but the most cash flows out when you start to build, when you literally have to mobilize steel and people to go build the equipment that you hope to install offshore, and then there's an intervention that stops the project.
Speaker 1:That really has the most harmful impacts on project economics, right. If you're looking at the total NPV of a project's return to a developer over the course of its lifetime, that's a really hard situation, right. We're thinking about some other ways that you know change in administration might impact a project, and one of them because of that Project 2025. Reading that I did strikes me as a concern around NOAA, for example, and their role in threatened and endangered species and other offshore species are appropriately assessed in an impact assessment around the project. If NOAA were to be impacted, I almost don't know how to imagine that could cause implications to a major project down the line seeking to get its various kinds of IHA permits, for example.
Speaker 2:You know, it would be extremely difficult to replicate elsewhere the valuable functions that NOAA provides and would still be legislatively required under the process as we're working through it the Marine Mammal Protection Act yeah, threatening Endangered Species Act, as well as well as several others. Yeah, threatening Endangered Species Act, as well as well as several others.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And several other acts, of course, in different arenas of resources that could be impacted by activities On the other hand there are more focused possibilities that could be of concern.
Speaker 2:These vulnerabilities exist with smaller organizations. I think one of the bigger ones, of course, is the grant program over at the Department of Energy. That is very, very large and would seem to be a very good target for some of the government efficiency efforts. Some of the government efficiency efforts, uh. But on the other hand, uh, with time that those programs have developed, they've developed constituencies, uh, they've developed a lot of economic interests, uh, in States that either have been or are now red States, um and so, uh, how that's going to play out is hard to say. I think it's clearly going to be scaled back, but I don't think you're going to see elimination, but we'll see, you can see the potential for a lot of best intentions with unintended consequences.
Speaker 1:as you start to dive into this right, beware the doge.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's what we were talking about earlier right.
Speaker 1:Uh, beware the doge. Yeah, that's what you're talking about. You know, this is that's one of those things where, um, it's, it would be great to be efficient. Let's make sure that just doesn't have some consequence further down the line. That really hangs stuff up. That you didn't foresee, right um?
Speaker 2:hey, and another example is the federal, the uh fC, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, which was set up not for wind but to address major projects and keep them on task moving forward. It's a small organization but it's a new organization in the last several years and it could be, on the one hand, it could be a stabilizing influence that keeps federal activities going steadily forward. On the other, it could become a target. So it's hard to know exactly how it will play out in that regard.
Speaker 1:Jim, I know you've also been thinking about some of these things that might push an administration in a certain direction straight away.
Speaker 2:Yeah, obviously the use of global climate change as a justification for activities is not going to be a priority for the new administration. Never know what, what you know, with all the uh, the sequencing of disasters, uh, or new revelations with regard to climate change, or our inability, uh, to address global climate change effectively, we could have changes like covet 19 that are so pervasive that it it totally changes the uh, uh, the approach we take towards things. I don't think that that's directly translatable into offshore wind, but that's another podcast or another several hours of discussion, whatever.
Speaker 1:That's a different podcast too. Yeah, for sure, I mean, those things occur and we have to react to them too. And of course, one you know it's very front of mind, I think, to a lot of people across America is Russia's war in Ukraine, you know, and beyond, the very geopolitical implications of that war and the balance of power in the world and that type of thing that has had a really tremendous impact on US energy commodities, particularly natural gas right. That war has caused a natural gas security concern across Europe, because much of the natural gas of Europe came from Russia, and so this conflict really forced all of the nations of Europe to think about their energy security and, in fact, created a tremendous opportunity for US energy production and transportation of natural gas over to them, right.
Speaker 2:So- Just to reinforce that, I was over in Germany three years ago something like that on an offshore wind fact-finding mission and working with the state governments, and they had really the issue of natural gas and the Ukraine was coming to fruition and you could tell from just the things that people were saying this was of great, great concern. It was not just a localized potential issue. It was a major, large-scale concern that the people in the country were trying to deal with and it has the implications that you're talking about.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean long-term planning for a nation's energy security is is now something that we talk about frequently, and you know I hope folks in the U? S recognize that we import an awful lot of oil and gas too, right, and so, even though we are the world's biggest producer, we still use more than we produce here, and so there are those concerns too that we have to address. And, of course, I think we've all heard that one of Trump's priorities will be to expedite LNG export permitting right, particularly because there is this tremendous market opportunity geopolitically to satisfy that need with American production.
Speaker 2:Well, there's no question that these larger, as you say, geopolitical issues, geopolitical instability, can be a game changer for everything that we've been talking about, but we do need to keep moving forward.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and having a nimble response to those things is always in our nation's best interests, right? Well, jim. Hey, we chatted for quite a while, so maybe we hold here.
Speaker 2:Yeah, sorry for running over. I'm sorry for the length of my horrible voice.
Speaker 1:No, I really appreciate it. I hope our listeners do too. Any last drops in the ocean for this week, Anything that you'd like to bring up that we maybe haven't hit exactly.
Speaker 2:I love that Last drops in the ocean. Okay, let's see. Well, I think there's a couple of points. I think there's a couple of points. I guess my main point that I think people need to recognize is that we need to recognize all the possibilities and, yes, speculations about all the bad things that can happen. I think it's a natural human tendency. But, aside from the possibilities and the extreme possibilities, keeping in mind the probabilities is essential to being able to move forward in a constructive fashion, and I think that's what we need to do from this point over the course of the next several years.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I guess my last drop kind of comes back to something that I said earlier too is that here in the US we don't need energy and offshore energy to be such a partisan language. There's so much benefit in the US for both sides of the political spectrum to be working towards common goals. I know there are some hard details in that. What is the mix of conventional and oil and gas-based energy, or fossil fuel energy and renewables? But we're not nearly as far apart sometimes as a lot of this seems during political discourse. We've got to grow America's strength. New investments in our nation's energy infrastructure, shipyards, ports, a focus on energy independence, domestication of supply chains and affordability are all in US citizens' best interests Absolutely, so let's start talking the same language across the aisle.
Speaker 2:I absolutely agree, absolutely agree, and that means staying engaged. So I want everybody who's listening to be thinking about continuing to follow and subscribe to our podcast. Leave a review, let us know where we're doing well, let us know where we're way off base, and please feel free to tell us topics or whatever that you think we ought to be pursuing more rigorously.
Speaker 1:We'd love to invite special guests to join us. If you're interested or if you know of a particular special guest that you think would make a fascinating interview, please send it to us. Send us an email or drop a line on LinkedIn. Jim and I will respond and we take all suggestions under consideration. Our next episode delivering on the promise of 30 by 30, 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, obviously very topical, and we discussed a lot of parts of that here with the incoming Trump administration. But I think it's time we take a hard look at what else needs to be done. It's not all political risk.
Speaker 2:Very good, and I just want to say thanks and express my gratitude to everybody that's tuned in and is listening, and with that, back to you, ian.
Speaker 1:And I'll see you next time Beyond the Horizon on the Offshore Energy Podcast.
Speaker 2:See you soon, cheers.