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 4 - The Promise and Pitfalls of Ambitious Goals
The Biden Administration set ambitious targets for America's offshore energy future with 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030. Listen in as industry veterans Jim Bennett and Ian Voparil discuss how these targets influence public perception, the allocation of government and private resources, and clarity of the path to market needed to secure investments in this next wave of offshore energy development.
Drawing parallels with historic endeavors, like the U.S. Mission to the Moon and the Interstate Highway System, we investigate how goals, strategic planning, and standardization have historically paved the way for industry success. Reflecting on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we explore the interplay between federal, state, and private sector efforts that are crucial in shaping America's renewable energy future.
We've had some success with the growth of offshore wind here in the US over the past few years. Many would maintain that one of the contributing factors was the establishment of clear goals, most notably 30 gigawatts by 2030. Whether that is indeed the case and whether that success will continue is in doubt. Do we need to reset our goals, and who will do that? What is your role in setting goals for the offshore wind industry? Let's take a look at that. The Offshore Energy Podcast. Next. I'm Jim Bennett and I have over 40 years of experience developing energy in the ocean.
Speaker 2:I'm Ian Valpero and I've spent the last 20 years developing offshore energy projects around the world, and this is the Offshore Energy Podcast. Hey, jim, yes, good day. How are you Nice to?
Speaker 1:see you. Hey, very good, thank you, hope you're doing well.
Speaker 2:Doing great. Hope you had a good Thanksgiving. This is the week after Thanksgiving. I ate plenty of turkey and got to see my boys. One was home from college. How about you?
Speaker 1:Same thing, same thing. I had my grandkids over and that was a handful and a lot of fun.
Speaker 2:Awesome, jim. Today, episode four, we're talking about these big, hairy, audacious goals that politicians seem to put out there, and whether or not they're useful and what we all can do to contribute to them. Give me a little bit of your background and why you love this topic so much much.
Speaker 1:Well, we've seen many goals in a variety of settings, most notably, of course, in the wind industry over the last decade or so actually more than that and they do serve a role. It's a little bit difficult to understand exactly how effective that role is, because there's the additional element of the private sector having control over what moves forward. It's not simply setting a goal like a personal goal or a corporate goal, where there's more control over the outcome. And we'll talk about that a little bit more, with some examples coming up.
Speaker 2:Jim, you may know this about me I'm one of those kinds of people who likes setting goals and objectives, both personally also professionally, and I think thinking strategically about how you can go and do ambitious things is useful. So I really would love for our country to have a big energy goal, so let's get into it, yeah.
Speaker 1:And in the absence of a clear energy policy, which has pretty much been the case for several decades now, it's difficult to go there, and I think you're raising a really good point also about having a goal in place has value in and of itself. Being able to attain it is something that can be really, really productive and good, but it may not necessarily be in the cart.
Speaker 2:Particularly, I'm thinking for politicians. Your feet can be held against it too, if you don't reach it right.
Speaker 1:So, Jimim, let's get precise here for our listeners I think our goal setting, that we're focusing on here uh is public policy goal setting, uh and uh unlocking american offshore energy, uh, both in the conventional sense and in the renewable sense, the energy industry, oil and gas and certainly offshore wind.
Speaker 2:They don't want administrative flips every four years, particularly when projects take much longer than that to develop. So when you have even the CEO of Exxon talking to presidential administrations about keeping the path, you know that there's a good opportunity for us to be more consistent with the applications of public policies across administrations. Sounds really great, right, but I know I'm kind of living in fantasy land too sometimes.
Speaker 1:You've got a couple of things to consider here, and that's that. What is the purpose of the goal? What is intended to be achieved? Is it to reset and completely wipe away the landscape and start over again, or set a new goal, which we'll talk about in a minute, or is it to just expand our grasp and make our goal a little bit further, a little bit more than what we're expecting under the status quo? And that's an important distinction between good goal setting in the proper environment versus goal setting that might not serve the purpose. Goals need to have clarity. They need to be able to be communicated clearly. Hopefully and I think this is one of the purposes of both the goal established by 2030 is to galvanize public opinion and make people recognize that there's something out there that we're in pursuit of and that results in the prioritization of resources. I think another thing as far as goal setting successful goal setting is whether or not we have control over attaining that goal or whether, like we suggested before, there's multiple parties that would prevent us from attaining that goal.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I know many people are you know, certainly in their personal and kind of professional careers are familiar with this acronym around SMART goals. Right, smart goals are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound goals, and I know that when I worked for a big energy company, you know that was part of my personal performance plan each year were to develop smart goals and the metrics we'd use to measure against them and whether or not we were successful. And I think some of the things you just said are really important Are they achievable, are they realistic, are they time bound? We're definitely seeing the disconnect between these national energy ambitions and whether or not they can be completed in the times of the administrations that make them. So it's a real challenge, right, and it's one that the energy industry is already reacting to.
Speaker 2:We'd love to see more consistent application of big goals towards energy development in the country. But goals are really useful generally, right. They help you break down BHAGs, right. Big, hairy, audacious goals is one of the phrases that was used about 20 years ago, but it allows you to break it down into smaller pieces that can help you set smaller milestones, that kind of make sure you're staying on track to deliver towards that bigger picture.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think that's an important point about the time specificity. When goals get out there and they're very soft edged and there's no clarity as far as when we're expecting that or when we're going for that, they just kind of dissolve into the ether.
Speaker 2:We need to be really explicit with how to get to some certain goals, and when we're talking about energy policy in the United States, it's not as much as a comment by a politician. That's not going to get us all the way there. That's not going to get us to the situation that we all want. But there are some great historic examples where as a nation we've set ambitious goals and achieved them. Start us out what jumps to your mind.
Speaker 1:Well, I think you're right off. The thing that comes to mind is the Second World War and how the entire country galvanized behind a particular goal and obviously achieved it, not only through the arsenal of democracy but the actual execution of the war itself. It was pretty clear what the goal was. It was pretty clear it needed to be as soon as possible, but I think the quintessential goal, successful goal, is the space race and the lunar mission in the 60s, which was established by, as we all know, and there was a lot of support and a lot of research went into it before President Kennedy announced that we should be trying to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, which was a pretty ambitious goal and but it also had some very good features to it. One was that it was very, very clear I mean anything short of putting a human foot on the lunar surface was not going to achieve that goal.
Speaker 2:The goal was very clear. It was very specific and measurable.
Speaker 1:by the way, using that acronym, yes very specific, measurable, and it also had a very specific timeframe.
Speaker 2:If it was.
Speaker 1:January 1st 1970, it would not have been successful. Maybe the overall effort would have been successful and the goal would have contributed to it, but the goal was very, very specific by the end of the decade, and it's a great example of a goal that was achieved and it was also had. The span of control to work towards that end was also very well defined. It was with the American government and it had the support by and large of the American people, so it had multiple features that were all very, very positive and in fact the Department of Energy used this as their analogy, their shot for developing offshore wind. I think the difference there is that there were different variables in that arena. Probably a good thing, but not as clear in time frame, not as clear in exactly what the end achievement would be.
Speaker 2:And I think about all of the great successes of the DOE SHOP program. It is still trying to define improvements in technology that help a sector, but still that sector relies upon private companies, which are usually publicly held companies, to continue to produce a profit quarter after quarter after quarter, and it requires a whole bunch of additional stakeholders and responsible parties. In the span of control program, it's or the, I should say, the apollo program was a much, uh much better defined governance structure and responsibilities that didn't rely so much on the private sector.
Speaker 1:There were outside factors, of course, but of course, uh, they were much more under the control of the government agency, nasa. That succeeded in achieving that objective.
Speaker 2:And it sure had, you know, with some ups and downs, great support from the American public for lots of different reasons. Right, there were lots of different motivations for us to put a man on the moon, not the least of which was distinct competition with Russia, right.
Speaker 1:Yes, yeah, very true, and there were a lot of spinoff benefits, even separate from the goal itself. The obvious one which I've since been disabused of is Tang, the breakfast drink.
Speaker 2:It's a great great benefit.
Speaker 1:We all remember Tang and actually that was developed by General Foods before they just adopted it with the program. But also some really important developments, like Teflon was developed through the program. Guidance systems, computer systems, development in general all of these things were side benefits of the program in its effort to achieve the stated goal.
Speaker 2:Well, jim, you're really shooting for the stars. When you thought of the track record for great examples, I was thinking a little more down to earth. Maybe my vision is yours, but I was thinking of the interstate highway system and for those who know me and my play in offshore wind, I often talk about the interstate highway system as an analogy that we ought to think about for transmission, particularly HVDC transmission across the United States. But I thought this is also one of these incredible examples that had all the right, I'd say, motivations to build this interstate highway system for the benefit of America and Americans. But it wasn't easy either and if you look at the interstate highway system, it was first planned in the late 30s. World War II intervened and took attention away from its development after that and there was no mechanism initially in place that provided funding for it.
Speaker 1:It was also. It served multiple purposes, Aside from what we think of it today as a place to get in a traffic jam. Aside from that, the transport of both the citizenry from one city area to another city area is one thing, but it was also set up for civil defense purposes as well, and that was a benefit of the program. That was very clearly stated as to what the end state needed to be. I always think about.
Speaker 2:So who's going to pay for it? Right, so the Federal Highway Act in 56 established the mechanism that would pay for this interstate highway system. Federal gas tax provided ultimately 90% of the cost of building this. Federal gas tax. States were responsible for 10% of this, but that was codified in legislation and moved forward. Another key part of this was that technical standards were highly regulated across the system. Right, and so you, for example.
Speaker 2:I used to always wonder this too when I was riding around in a car as a little kid how come bridges are at least 14 feet high? You know, you have 14 feet of clearance off the highway, and I used to notice that because I drove a lot of highways with my family growing up. That's because that was a requirement All bridges had to have at least 14 feet of clearance. Guess what that allowed? Right? Not only did it allow the movement of military equipment, which was one of the reasons for creating it, but it allowed us to also standardize the shipping and transportation, the trucking companies and the trailers that they could pull around the system.
Speaker 2:And I think. One last point about the highway system too, and this is one of these retrospectives that we've got to keep in mind now it way exceeded the initial cost and schedule estimates. Right Back in the 50s, when they were planning or when they started to implement the planning of the system, they predicted it cost something like $25 billion and would take 12 years to complete. Guess what? It cost over $130 billion and it took over 35 years to complete. It's become a tremendously valuable asset for the country and in fact has created much more return on investment than anyone could have imagined in the past.
Speaker 1:It's absolutely changed American life in a way that was definitely foreseen to some degree, but not foreseen with regard to other aspects. Let's bring this back to ocean energy, which is what we're here to talk about, and we have some historical background on setting of goals for the OCS, and we can start with oil and gas and that, if we start back in the 70s, early 80s, under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act called for a five-year plan, a plan. It was a plan, not a goal. It was a call for the government to establish a plan on the size, timing and location of offshore wind leases. It was not a goal with respect to X million towards making clear what our direction was and whatever goal it is and in this case it was basically the market would determine the exact level but it was a clear statement of moving forward and developing the energy resources on the outer continental shelf through the 70s and the 80s and since.
Speaker 2:Yeah, still in effect. And the five-year plan for OCS oil and gas development, I think, provides the private sector with this kind of predictable opportunity for access Right for access right. As you said, it doesn't control the price of oil, nor does it control you know how many projects are going to be successful versus how many fail.
Speaker 1:So it provided that opportunity to develop at a reasonable pace, recognizing market constraints at any given time.
Speaker 1:It also, I think the plan, or the requirement for a plan, created an opportunity, some would say, for appropriate involvement on the part of the public and various stakeholders, and others would say simply created a target for litigation in order to stop things from moving forward. Target for litigation in order to stop things from moving forward. So, and the example, of course, is the requirement to conduct NEPA analysis, national Environmental Policy Act analysis, environmental analysis for every federal action, and I don't know the history of exactly what the determination was back in the 70s, but there definitely was a decision to conduct NEPA analysis and execute the environmental impact statement process for the five-year plan. I know that from a number of different places, not the least of which is many years being involved in contributing to that environmental effort. So on the one hand, you got kind of the double-edged swords On the one hand it provides certainty, it provides direction, and on the other hand, it creates a mechanism that could actually slow down the process.
Speaker 2:When you're talking about the challenge of litigation. Of course, as a private sector entity, you would hope that all of those challenges are worked through before the private sector leases the area and then takes the answer, because you would certainly hope that any litigation around the process occurs earlier than you have to start spending money on a project. So that makes some sense to me, but I but I do recognize that that's also. It creates a flash point for potential. You know disruption and litigation activity yeah, I, I, I.
Speaker 1:I have to agree with you that, yes, on on one hand, you can look at at all that litigation and the creation of a plan, et cetera, as fodder for lawsuits et cetera, but on the other hand, well, maybe we need to have those lawsuits, have that litigation, solve those issues up front.
Speaker 2:And it's just a Get your house in order. Yeah, government, come on, let's not ask too much. But, jim, I know you were also starting to talk about the alternative in renewables energy, so I think this is a you know. Help us understand and walk through the timeline of setting goals in alternative energy and renewable energy development.
Speaker 1:As you know, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 clarified some confusion as to whether the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management had authority to lease for alternative energy.
Speaker 1:Some would argue that indeed it already had, but Congress made it very clear that we definitely do have that authority, or that BOEM definitely has that authority, and that in itself is kind of a direction. It's obviously not a goal, but it kind of points towards where we want to be going in the future, and the states also, of course, were involved in renewable portfolio standards, where they were identifying a set percentage of new energy development that needed to be renewable, and so that again wasn't a specific goal. It kind of was. It kind of was a specific goal, but it did not mandate particular projects or any particular mechanism for going forward. But it did indeed provide direction and it made clear on the part of states what they wanted to see in a very positive way or a very supportive way for offshore wind, and many states have pursued that and in many ways it's driving what's going on on the federal side on the outer continental shelf.
Speaker 2:The federal government has what's defined as a regulatory process for offshore energy development.
Speaker 1:It's been battle tested a number of different times. The state's RPSs have added specific state goals that have to work hand in hand with those things when offshore energy is part of a state's needs and a way that a state can meet those development goals. As the offshore wind program developed with the Cape Wind Project the first project kind of before we actually had the authority, the clear authority, to be moving forward and that project transferred from the Army Corps of Engineers to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which was the Minerals Management Service at the time. Uh, but, uh, uh, everybody I always talk about how the program at that point uh had the opportunity to take off the uh, the perceived black hat of oil and gas and put on the white hat of renewable energy and everybody's going to love us and we're going to have nothing but support as we move forward.
Speaker 1:But in fact uh, the Cape wind projects disabused us of that notion in that there was considerable opposition, and it was opposition focused on the wind industry through a single project, because that was the only game in town at the time and the project specific concerns, as well as the larger concerns, were focused on that project and there was no larger context in terms of goals. We had a kind of a general direction that we could go forward if the private sector was supportive, but that was an example, to my mind, of the lack of a larger structure in which to review the project. So that put us on a track that included the establishment of a program of a regulatory regime in 2009. And that made it clear that this is not just a one-off situation or a case-by-case basis. There is, there will be, a process for reviewing these projects and determining where to go forward. Again, not a specific goal, but movement towards that.
Speaker 2:So that was the Obama administration, right? Obama came into office in 2008. So we see kind of these things coming together right a programmatic way for development of the ocs related to offshore wind, uh, and we start to see market forces making it more and more attractive to the private sector, right, which really started to happen, I think, under under the Trump administration the first Trump administration, if I'm correct.
Speaker 1:Jim, yeah, ironically, yeah, it did. The real watershed event, of course, was the New York Bites sale in 2016. And it occurred after the election in 2016, but before the inauguration in 2017. And that sale, along with the North Carolina sale that was indeed in the during the Trump administration, followed by a Massachusetts sale, made it clear that this was moving and was going to be moving pretty fast, and the administration, for a variety of reasons, slowed it down there's no other way to put it. And that changed, of course, with the Biden administration which, through its 30 by 30 goal, made it very clear and provided the predictability and certainty, insofar as it could with our election processes, that they would be pursuing aggressively. Offshore wind.
Speaker 2:So we see that the regulatory process, the private sector interest and even now, you know, in the Biden administration, a big, hairy, audacious goal around output, coming together to really help the industry and help the sector move forward on behalf of America.
Speaker 1:A couple of things about the 30 by 30 goal, and one of them is that you know it was kind of an incremental change. It was an identification of what was practical or feasible or was thought to be feasible at the time. So to me it was an extension of what we were doing, what was going on, and the pursuit of more of that as opposed to a game-changing goal like as opposed to a game-changing goal like the lunar mission was where we're looking at. Hey, we have to give this attention because it's going to change from something in the 20 gigawatts up to maybe 20, maybe 50 gigawatts, maybe not realistic, but a game-changing, watershed goal, which may have been what was needed, but anyway. And then you also have the other aspect of the 30 by 30 goal.
Speaker 1:In that many view the goal setting like 30 by 30 goal. In that many view the goal setting like 30 by 30 to be a relatively meaningless effort, because government goal setting is fine. But, as we talked about earlier, the offshore program, both the oil and gas program and the renewable energy program, are built upon private sector investment and activity. Yes, of course the federal government needs to conduct the leases and approve construction and operations plans, the COPs and the states need to create offtake opportunities and create an encouraging environment for project review and approval. But in the absence of private sector commitment, the program would be going nowhere and goals on the parts of the state and federal government managers would just be of very little consequence. I don't think that was the case for 30 by 30. I think it served a number of purposes and was useful, but there's that other side of the coin as far as goal setting is concerned.
Speaker 2:It really suggests that for these goals to be useful, we need clear, predictable regulatory process around the leasing process. We need movement towards economic feasibility to attract financial interests, private sector interest for investment, and outcome goals like RPSs that the states have, and maybe the 30 by 30, which was a federal outcome goal, maybe the 30 by 30, you know, which was a federal outcome goal. It does provide some sense of clarity and direction that can help assure investment from the private sector. But private sector nor government can do these things alone. I think that's a really important point, jim.
Speaker 1:I'm glad you brought it up, and I agree with the way you phrased it. I do think that we have an opportunity here to bring this all back. There's an opportunity here to help set the goal. I know that everybody's looking at this as an administration chain that's going to be nothing but detrimental to offshore wind. I don't necessarily think that that is the case. Wind.
Speaker 1:I don't necessarily think that that is the case, but, in any case, I think there's an opportunity for the offshore wind industry, the offshore wind community, to help identify what the proper goals should be. But we do have to ask what are the things that we want to focus on here? What are the things that this goal setting should be mindful of or be in pursuit of? You got decarbonization out there, and there's questions as to whether we can or should be making the program revolve around decarbonization and attempting to alter the scenarios for global climate change, and that also includes clean energy production, ocean energy production. These are objectives that you would not think would be—you wouldn't think of them as being a problem in terms of garnering support. And then, of course, there's always the all of the above, which has been the goal prioritize in terms of those many factors.
Speaker 1:And that dialogue or that discussion, I think would be a very, very positive development.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and help us set these goals that don't necessarily switch with each administration moving forward.
Speaker 1:As opposed to just waiting for something from on high.
Speaker 2:I think there's opportunity to greatly influence what that is about American energy dominance, export of US energy companies, technology and people around the world to improve America's geopolitical standing and secure access to energy resources as well as critical other resources that the US uses and needs.
Speaker 2:We've heard about affordable, independent and resilient energy for Americans. And we've heard about affordable, independent and resilient energy for Americans. And we've heard about making American shipbuilding the envy of the world again, and you know, as an American, I hear those things and I'm behind those. You know those sound like good things for us to do. I know there are some details in there. We've also heard the next administration strongly support traditional oil and gas development right as kind of one of those foundations upon which the American economy has been built, and we've heard some of Trump's campaign comments against offshore wind. But really offshore wind is one of the ways that American can achieve the goals of this next administration, using that same language that they've been talking about in their policy documents. This is not an either or this doesn't have to be a competition between sources of energy for the United States.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. I got to keep coming back to what my perspective is on this and that's that pitting conventional energy against renewable energy just is not. It's not constructive and it's not beneficial for our domestic energy situation. I think that they are not incompatible, that the demand for energy is going to outstrip both the existing production of conventional fuels as well as the expanding production of renewable energy, and there's room for both of them. So let's talk about the various goals or the various policy directions that the industry could be taking. And I say the industry could be taking because I'm not just talking about the Trump administration's declaration. I'm talking about influencing the Trump administration to be moving in the direction that is most beneficial for offshore energy.
Speaker 1:And you can approach it from the standpoint of laissez-faire approach, where there are no specific goals. There's no need to set goals. We should just depend on the market to be moving forward in all directions as possible. We could approach it from the standpoint and I invite the viewers to be thinking about this and generating their thoughts as to what our goal setting should incorporate what our goal setting should incorporate. On the other hand, the government could set a prescribed mix, like the renewable portfolio standards. The government we do not have a federal prescribed mix that we ought to be pursuing. We have some state goals, but should the government state and federal be prescribing what the mix should?
Speaker 2:be, yeah, and something as complicated as the energy system, where governments and the private sector and the public, as you're well reminding us play such an important role on what we can try to achieve together. I think it's really important too that we keep that in mind. You know, with the private sector's important involvement in the energy systems of the world, frankly, we do have to make sure that the direction that we wish to go is feasible economically. Yes, right, you wouldn't expect a private sector company to forego profits for quarter upon quarter, year upon year, and something that we know like the energy transition is likely to take decades to occur. That's not feasible, right? So what's the role of government in establishing that kind of clarity of process that either makes those steps towards the energy transition feasible economically or helps reduce the risk of those? That's a key role that government can play in aligning us around that mission to the moon for energy policy in the United States.
Speaker 1:Right, I agree. And are we in a position where we simply want to maximize energy resources and set separate goals for the two programs? Or and this is where I would argue that we would be best off do we want to integrate planning for conventional and renewable energy in a way that makes it clear the direction we're going, that the government wants to go, and how the future should? Indeed?
Speaker 1:look, the government can continue those long duration signals to head in a direction so that we can build the private sector towards those Rather than a five-year plan for oil and gas and kind of a less formal statement of program intentions and goals on the renewable side. We should be looking more holistically at energy generation.
Speaker 2:Yep. And if you look at you know what I mentioned before if you look at the key phrasing from the next administration here in the United States, all of those things are completely consistent with that integrated plan to develop ocean energy resources.
Speaker 1:I think viewers should be thinking along the lines of how they can contribute and what their thoughts are as to what contributions they want to make from an argument standpoint, from a policy standpoint, to the new goal setting for offshore wind.
Speaker 2:Yeah, this is the time for really all of the offshore energy industries not just offshore wind, not just offshore oil and gas to help the next administration recognize how we can achieve these futures that combine both of them in success for the United States. Jim, what are your key takeaways from our discussion?
Speaker 1:Well, we really just touched on them and my key takeaway is that everybody should be involved and everybody should be thinking through these issues so that they can contribute to the conversation in a way that will identify what the substance of new goal setting should be and who should be doing the new goal setting. How does it come about? And that's really my key takeaway.
Speaker 2:I know we're all watching the news, particularly for Offshore Wind. There are a number of projects now that have talked about pausing their activities while awaiting the new administration's formal positions or maybe executive orders around it. These are issues that are so important for Americans and America that we can get a lot closer politically Any last drops in the ocean that you wanted to mention to our listeners.
Speaker 1:this week A real dearth of good offshore wind jokes. They're terrible, they're. All the ones on the web are big fan. There's got to be. There's humor in just about any other industry and I just think you know at some point, if we collect enough or make a call for them, it's not going to advance the offshore wind industry, but it is going to make. Could make the podcast a little more interesting. Sounds great. We're about to tell you what the topic will be for the next session, which will be, I think, more controversial than we think.
Speaker 2:And let's discuss regulatory streamlining. It's a phrase that's easy to say. It's so easy to say, in fact. I think I've heard all sides call for it, all the time.
Speaker 1:What is the benefit that we can expect from regulatory streamlining at this point in time? And without giving away what my opinion is, I think there's a lot of different aspects to that, and that's what we're going to talk about for the next podcast.
Speaker 2:It's going to be exciting, jim and listeners behind the scenes. We're seeing steadily increasing listenership, so thank you. We love the comments, emails and calls we're receiving from you, so please keep them coming and spread the word about our Offshore Energy podcast. Jim, it's great to see you, as always.
Speaker 1:You too. I don't know if we're going to be uh, uh on on the air, so to speak, before christmas, but, uh, if not, have a great christmas and uh, uh, we'll look forward to, uh, to the new year and participation from folks on these various topics with regard to ocean energy and we'll see you on the next Offshore Energy Podcast.