The Offshore Energy Podcast

Episode 8 - Trump's Energy Executive Orders & Memoranda

• Ian Voparil & Jim Bennett • Season 1 • Episode 8

Share episode

Send us a text

In this latest episode, Jim Bennett and Ian Voparil analyze the immediate impact of Trump's executive actions on the offshore energy sector. We dive into the presidential memorandum halting wind leasing, explore the historical context behind these changes, and discuss how the industry can navigate the new economic challenges and shifting political landscape.  

• Examination of Trump's executive orders and their implications 
• Discussion on the temporary halt of wind leasing and its impact 
• Historical parallels with previous administration actions 
• Importance of balancing energy sources in the national narrative 
• Role of the Secretary of the Interior in shaping future energy policy 
• Calling for continued advocacy among stakeholders in the offshore energy community

Speaker 1:

The Trump administration has been fast out of the gate with executive orders, presidential memoranda and DOGE actions. For those of us in offshore energy of its different stripes, at least five of these actions impacts you and our business stripes. At least five of these actions impacts you and our business. In this episode, jim and I will discuss their implications on projects in offshore wind and in oil and gas, and how the new administration intends to tilt the offshore energy sector.

Speaker 2:

I'm Jim Bennett and I have over 40 years of experience developing energy in the ocean.

Speaker 1:

I'm Ian Vilperil and I've spent the last 20 years developing offshore energy projects around the world, and this is the Offshore Energy Podcast. Hey Jim, hey Ian, how are you? I'm really good, jim. Another week, another Monday, shoveling snow.

Speaker 2:

Another examination of what the effects of the change in administrations is going to be Lots of contemplative time this morning. More and more detail, more and more revealings as we move through this.

Speaker 1:

We're going to talk about some of Trump's executive orders, presidential memorandum and other actions as he's delivered them to the federal government and agencies, and we want to make sure we at least touch on some of the big picture issues that are coming up and also recognize when maybe there's more clarity still to come. We certainly don't have a crystal ball on all of this, but we can take our measured and informed perspectives and do a little reading Sound good and do a little reading Sound good.

Speaker 2:

Well, to start with, of course, we've been hit by a pretty surprising directive. A lot of people were taken by surprise with regard to the presidential memorandum on temporary halt for wind, and of course, we have to recognize first off that this is what he said he was going to do. I personally, and a lot of people, really questioned whether that would be the case, and it's not unusual, of course, for a new administration to call a halt to some things to take a look at whether or not they're really on track, and that is clearly what he's done here. This has been done in the past and it wasn't a new administration. But I think back to the presidential task force on OCS oil and gas leasing that was put together soon after the Exxon Valdez spill back in late 80s, or was it 1990?

Speaker 2:

Well, 89, right 89, 90, something like that. And of course, on a broader scale, you have efforts like Gore's reinventing government, which was a re-examination of regulatory structure, and hiring freezes we've dealt with a number of times, either as an indication of policy direction on both sides of the aisle or because of just budget stalemates. So these things have been done before. Yeah, Um. So that's not uncommon.

Speaker 1:

Jim, one of the things I was thinking about is, um, donald Trump is coming strong out of the gate with these presidential actions. Uh, I'm not sure exactly, but they're about 50 so far and we're, you know, just a couple of weeks into the administration. Looking at past presidents in the recent past, that's not an unusual number of presidential actions coming kind of in the first year of the presidency. And if you look far back and I, you know, I had the good fortune to have Google at my fingertips to take a look, you know, at the presidencies we find that the executive orders really started to come about Right.

Speaker 2:

Theodore Roosevelt issued a whole bunch of them.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and listed the most presidential actions throughout the course of their administration, and so that's kind of the peak and listed the most presidential actions throughout the course of their administration, and so that's kind of the peak of the number issued by presidents as they come into office. And now we're kind of back down towards something that really seems, at numbers' sake, pretty regular. As the administrations change, lots of these things are being issued to help set the president's agenda on the first day. Now they're coming faster under Donald Trump, right. A lot of these were day one or two or three.

Speaker 2:

I'm catching up. That was indeed the promises that he made, that they would be done on day one, and so it isn't unusual for these things to come down, and you make a good point about the various administrations. What is a little uncommon, if you will, is at least for the presidential memorandum on wind, where he has called for a temporary halt on approvals to a call for a temporary halt on approvals, and he's calling for a review of the process and possibly review of existing leases, all of which is understandable from the standpoint of what he said in the past. What's not so common, I think, is the way wind has been targeted, if you will, and the way the executive orders include apparent positioning of the policy statements that are wishing to be made and, quite frankly, a lot of them and this doesn't apply just to wind, of course but the ambiguity that's contained in them and less than full vetting of it before it was issued, and the reason I say that is just casually looking at them.

Speaker 2:

There's some fundamental issues here. Terms like offshore continental shelf as opposed to outer continental shelf, the use of the term windmills, the declaration about intermittent wind these are all not that they make a lot of difference in the long run. But the point is, you got to wonder how much he, how well he's getting advised as to what these orders should contain and is it getting the attention that it deserves? Is it getting the attention that the president, the office of the president, deserves and, uh uh, that the american people deserve when they when, when they are, are faced with the sweeping issues like this? And I do think there's some interesting things that are contained and we should, we should discuss let's dive in.

Speaker 1:

and so, listeners, we're going to talk about a couple of the presidential actions, mostly related to energy and offshore energy, of, of course, for Jim and I and I think, jim, this is a perfect one to start with, the temporary withdrawal of all areas on the outer continental shelf from all solar wind leasing and the review of the federal government's leasing and permitting program for wind, her wind, and so also, listeners, in our episode notes we'll put a list of the presidential actions we'll talk about, as well as links to them, because you ought to take a look and read them for yourselves as well, as Jim and I and many, many others have been doing it, obviously.

Speaker 1:

So, jim, as we dive into that first one, you know that first section, section one, we dive into that first one. You know that, first section, section one temporary withdrawal of areas. You know the president hereby withdraws from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas of the offshore continental shelf, ocs potentially a typo there uh, this withdrawal shall go into effect january 21st 2025 and remains in effect until this presidential memorandum is revoked. You know, that to me seems pretty clear, right? That's clear that we are won't see any additional leasing of offshore areas for offshore wind development that is.

Speaker 2:

That is the long and short of it. Indeed, let's just hold off on leasing. Now I have to make an observation with regard to the first administration. They were in there for the first Trump administration was in there for a couple of years before they moved to what I refer to as the slow roll of slowing down and eventually stopping leasing. And the difference here, of course, is that this is a day one declaration that we'll stop leasing at this point and do a review and we'll get into the implications there. And we'll get into the implications there. But it's a different, more expeditious approach, if you will, and it has some complications.

Speaker 2:

I do think we need to point out some of the questions, regardless of the content and the structure. Regardless of the content and the structure, I think there's some substantive issues that the president has brought out, that the new administration has brought out with regard to offshore wind, that need addressing, and among them are, first, subsidies. That's going to be a key word in the review of these projects. I think, quite frankly, you've got one side of the aisle, all about subsidies and leasing and everything else. Any and all that could be put forward should be pursued, and the other side of the aisle is saying no, not at all, and that's where we are right now. Just like a lot of issues, we're pretty much at opposite poles of the issue with that regard. The other thing they've brought up is about the reliability which gets to. How does wind get integrated into our mix of energy? And, of course, what you would take away from the executive order is that it's not or it shouldn't, but I'm not sure it's that simple and we'll talk more about that.

Speaker 1:

Jim, pardon me, I just wanted to comment on two points brought up in the Miranda. Reliability means showing up for work on time, and renewables generations, like offshore wind, are variable but also reliable. They differ in time but we can predict that very well and understand when they're going to be generating a lot of power Now, considering the economic costs and cost effectiveness of renewables. I recognize offshore wind is in early days in the United States, but if we think of what happened around the economics of onshore solar development, we see the path to be followed. Back in the 70s and 80s it was three times more expensive to develop onshore solar than it was any other source of energy, but now it's the cheapest source of energy available on the grid. So let's get back to your points.

Speaker 2:

Jim. And then the third point I want to, or the third thing I think that he's bringing up, is he you've already touched on it and that's leasing. Are we doing enough leasing? Should we be doing more leasing? Should we be doing less leasing? Should we be doing no leasing?

Speaker 1:

These are our issues that he has brought up in his day one, and these are issues that I think there's legitimate basis for constructive dialogue, uh, as opposed to just the extremes that we're seeing and it's, I think it's important to point out in that first section too, that this withdrawal doesn't apply to leasing for other purposes, but not limited to oil, gas, minerals and environmental conservation, and there's a statement that nothing in this withdrawal affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas. There's a however there, yeah there's a however there.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, there's a big however there.

Speaker 1:

The Attorney General, as needed, and the Secretary of Interior will conduct a comprehensive review, you know, and determining or amending any existing wind lease areas, identifying any legal basis for such removal, and submit a report with recommendations to the President. And so that's another milestone or decision point, then, that the president will have whether or not they wish to pursue the withdrawal of rights on existing leases. That hasn't happened yet, but it looks like it could in the future. Pending this review and I don't mean I'm sorry, go ahead. Well, jim, you know, this is one of those parts where I think your expertise is really important because, as I'm aware of the leasing program, there is a comprehensive review of ecological, economic and environmental necessity of the leasing program, one of the most robust parts of the OCS-LISC program for oil and gas and offshore wind in the United States. That's one of the things that makes it so powerful.

Speaker 2:

I think that's true and I think that's what you'd find, certainly with any objective evaluation of the process.

Speaker 2:

And the other side of that, of course, is that many people complain that it just takes too long.

Speaker 2:

And it takes too long because we're very, very thorough Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is very, very thorough in their efforts to the idea that you know if this review or this call for a review of existing leases is just a mechanism for selectively targeting certain leases offshore in order to, you know, create further obstacles or bring them to a halt, create further obstacles or bring them to a halt, and if that is the case, I think that's most unfortunate, because what's really being brought up here is an opportunity to look at the process, and if the process is good, then what are the parameters in terms of those other, those several issues that I just mentioned that would allow for the wind industry to appropriately be moving forward, if indeed that is what should be allowed, and it's a great opportunity, and we'll talk more about how that will play out, but that's a very important point. That process is very thorough, it's very well defined both in law and regulation, and I think that's what an objective review of that process would find.

Speaker 1:

And a very opportune time for the industry, the offshore wind industry particularly, to really advocate for the benefits that they provide to the US in energy, energy security, employment revenue, et cetera, et cetera.

Speaker 2:

And the economic effects. Another huge difference between the two the first Trump administration and the second Trump administration is the simple fact that the industry is a completely different thing in 2024 than it was in 2020. And that needs to be taken into consideration as well, because bringing to a halt which, even if it's temporary, is going to have effects on the industry and pretty negative economic effects, and we should be very cognizant of that and very thorough in our evaluation of what we ought to be doing.

Speaker 1:

Jim, that's section one. Section two of that one right is now the temporary cessation and immediate review of federal wind leasing and permitting practices. This is now a federal review of the practice to ensure that negative impacts are appropriately addressed and mitigated and that the overall balancing of costs and impacts and benefits is appropriate, and they call upon Secretary of Interior, secretary of Agriculture, secretary of Energy, administrator of the EPA and heads of all other relevant agencies to participate in this comprehensive assessment and review of the federal wind leasing and permitting practice. That sounds like a large scope of work to me. I don't see any clarity on how long that's going to take and indeed, in a worst case scenario, that could take all of the president's administration. You know what's your experience in government.

Speaker 2:

Good point. There is one experience that I was involved in that to me is comparable and it's not a small undertaking, and that was the. That was the presidential task force on OCS, leasing under under the first Bush the elder administration, the first Bush the Elder administration. But you know, I got to note that at the same time that we're calling for this very thorough review, we're calling for this whole halting effort to be temporary in nature. So it's a hard struggle to see how the two are going to be accomplished and I do think that, by comparison, the president's task force in the late 80s, early 90s did indeed take quite a while.

Speaker 2:

I'm not sure that it changed that much in terms of the position of the two parties and the administration policies that would be going forward. I mean, in a lot of ways offshore wind is relatively new. In the case of OCS oil and gas, that wasn't new. That was a few decades old. But wind is now, has had a birthing decade and a maturing decade as well, and it's still got some ways to go. But a lot of things have been worked out and a lot of things have been identified and the review process is there and I'm hoping that they will indeed find that there's a good process in place, even though it may not accommodate everyone's wishes all the time the presidential action effectively means is that for those potential offshore wind leases that we saw in years, further out from 2025, those are all effectively not there anymore.

Speaker 1:

Right, those are?

Speaker 2:

I'm not sure even on hold is the right word, but we, yeah, I don't I, we don't really know whether it's it's a question of whether they're on hold or they've gone into the ether and are no longer around. We'll see, we'll see. But we're not going to see action on those items in the immediate future. Regardless of how temporary it is, the Bureau that the federal government pursues in terms of leasing and in terms of site assessment, in terms of everything leading up to the construction operations plan, uh are, are we're? We're probably not going to see a lot of that. Yeah, uh, so we and things get listed.

Speaker 1:

What we saw in the, you know, in the previous leasing schedule were activities in the next four years. That would be returns to different basins a return to the Gulf of Mexico, a return to uh for offshore wind, leasing to the central Atlantic, for the New York bite, for California, uh and the Gulf of Maine and the first time for considering consideration of Hawaii. So those now are definitely on hold until we see what the if this becomes a non-temporary and becomes revoked by the president I, I would agree.

Speaker 1:

I don't think you can rule it out, at least in theory, but yes, uh, you're probably not going to be seeing a lot of activity there and as we talk about the timeline for a specific or an individual project, from, you know, pre-lease to lease sale, to site assessment, to construction and operations planning, to technical reviews, to the approval of that and then potentially to construction and operations activities and then ongoing activities, we would expect all of those to be uncertain and on hold at this point because each of those requires a federal action right.

Speaker 1:

To help them move forward through decision gates. There are a couple of other sections of this memorandum that deal specifically with the Lava Ridge Wind Project. I'm not personally familiar with that one, neither am I Okay, so I personally familiar with that one, neither am I. Okay, so let's agree. Sorry, listeners, we're going to skip that part because we don't have any particular insight into the challenges there.

Speaker 2:

Let's note one thing, though that the mechanism has been used to target that very specific project. Yeah, and I think it would be really disappointing if this same mechanism or this review process is simply used to target other specific projects, without answering larger questions about how wind energy fits into the bigger picture energy mix for the country. We have an opportunity to do that.

Speaker 1:

And Jim, this isn't the first time we've seen an executive order that targets a specific energy development project. Right Developers tend to hate them because they're usually not for good reasons.

Speaker 2:

It's not like it's the first time it's been done. These executive orders have been used many times. That get very, very specific, and I'm not saying there might not be a legitimate reason for it in this particular case, because I'm just not that familiar with.

Speaker 1:

I'm thinking back to and yeah, I think you have a point there too, jim well balanced. You know, especially in the offshore energy business, where projects take more than an industry from inception to delivery Sorry, more than one administration it is awfully hard to deal with 180 degree turn where each side is flipping the landscape with the use of presidential powers and action. Jim, that was the first one. Anything else that we ought to discuss around the temporary withdrawal.

Speaker 2:

We should note that the direct effects of this are pretty sobering, but the indirect effects are even more sobering, or probably even more extensive, in terms of slowing the industry down, which may be appropriate to do, but without even having the reviewer pulling the review team together, there's a very clear reluctance to be moving forward on the part of the industry.

Speaker 2:

I do think that there's opportunities to be moving forward, but we need to recognize that both the direct and the indirect effects of these efforts can be pretty substantial, very uncertainty. And then there's also, you know, when you look past the I guess the initial impression would be when you look at the presidential directive, you see that, well, it looks like if your project's approved, you move forward. So which construction operations plans are ready to go? And on the surface, yeah, that makes some sense. But there's so many and let's call it deep permitting. There's so many permits that are required, and this particular directive calls on federal agencies to not approve anything. If you've got a Corps of Engineers permit that needs to be approved after your COP approval, you might have a situation.

Speaker 1:

For those projects that are in between, there are still potential other activities to perform that don't require federal approval, and so you could see, while Trump's presidential memorandum is in place, work to mature technologies, particularly technologies that may need underwriting and lending right, so those approvals towards commercial readiness and deployment. You can certainly see other work on finance strategy for major projects, on procurements with the states and ensuring that those are well aligned with the procurement principles that will help offshore wind projects at some point in the future. Obviously, engagement with important stakeholders is always important and we can't say it enough because it always is challenging and a difficult topic, because you can't talk too much. You just can't do it in major project delivery and other parts of the infrastructure. You know ports are still critically needed for America's maritime dominance as well too.

Speaker 2:

Well, I would agree with that. I do think also that you know a lot of the challenges that the developers face and that we all face may be outside of specific federal approvals. The federal approvals are one thing, but these other challenges are not going to go away. There's opportunities for moving forward on those fronts. What about the other executive orders and presidential uh directives, presidential memorandum that are going to affect uh ocean energy?

Speaker 1:

another one of the executive orders unleashing american energy. That was a really interesting um presidential action as well too. Let's talk a little bit about that one, shall we?

Speaker 2:

Sure, you want to start. You bet, let's go with the facts, because if you want an opinion, I'm ready to go.

Speaker 1:

When I first read Unleashing American Energy, so much of it resonated very strongly with me that there is an opportunity and a policy of the United States to encourage energy exploration and production on federal lands and waters in order to meet the needs of our citizens and solidify our standing as a global energy leader long into the future. Energy leader long into the future to establish our position as a leading producer and processor of non-fuel minerals, including rare earth minerals, which will create jobs and prosperity at home. To protect the US's economic and national security and military preparedness. And to ensure that all regulatory requirements related to energy are grounded in clearly applicable law. And that's the first four parts of the policy described in this presidential action Sorry, in this executive order. And, and frankly those resonate with me, those sound very clear to me and I am so happy to see those in writing that the president is focused this way. It does turn and focus in the policy on some additional specifics eliminating the EV mandate in quotes right.

Speaker 1:

Safeguarding people's ability to choose from goods and appliances things like light bulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, et cetera. Things like light bulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, etc. Ensure that the global effects of a rule or action be reported separately from its domestic costs and benefits to promote and prioritize the interests of the American people. That sounds reasonable. To guarantee that all executive departments provide opportunity for public comment and rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis I'm fully behind that one.

Speaker 2:

Kind of hard to argue with that.

Speaker 1:

I love that one and to ensure that no federal funding be employed in a manner contrary to the principles outlined in this section. So if I read the policy description, there's a couple of call-outs to EVs and other kinds of goods and appliances. The rest of it seems very mom and apple pie. You know, this is all good for America.

Speaker 2:

And nothing wrong with this kind of review and these kind of policy declarations. I think they fit very well. Of course, the devil is in the details. And how does that play out for all other sources of energy? And this is where I think the problem, or the dialogue, is kind of caught up in a false choice between renewable energy and oil and gas, conventional energy sources. And conventional energy sources and renewable energy are not at each other's throats. They are not slices of a fixed pie. Slices of a fixed pie, they will serve to complement each other and there is enough demand for energy that expansion of all of these sources of energy will be beneficial insofar as they're economic, will be beneficial for the American people and for the nation's energy portfolio. And if we get away, if we pursue those policies in a way that gets away from a tradeoff between wind versus conventional, I think it would be a very constructive dialogue, unconventional. I think it would be a very constructive dialogue, even if it's not as beneficial to renewables and wind energy as we might like it to be.

Speaker 1:

The devil of the details comes later in the document, and some of the challenges are the fact that it revokes a number of previous presidential and regulatory actions, and there's quite a long list of revocations.

Speaker 1:

One of them, very specifically, is the implementation of the energy and infrastructure provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. And we all know that that is one that creates some incentives for, you know, the investment and production of renewable power in the United States that many renewable power developers rely upon, and that's not solely focused on offshore wind, and so the the the impact and the consequence of this is quite broad and a little fuzzy still in my mind. There's also a Section 5 on unleashing energy dominance through efficient permitting, and so there are a number of proposals, for example, rescinding CEQ's NEPA regulations found at 40 cfr, 1500 at all, or at sequence uh, sorry, I forgot my my latin, got your latin there. Sorry, I was using the wrong latin. It's not clear, then, how some of the benefits that the Environmental Policy Act and subsequent executive orders created to try to align CEQA to promote efficient, effective permitting of major projects, just exactly how that's going to change if the NEPA regulations are rescinded. Do you have any insight?

Speaker 2:

Well, I my insight, is based on basically going to graduate school and having an environmental background that fed directly into NEPA and NEPA has been a key component of everything for the last several decades.

Speaker 2:

Nepa is a law that is for the last several decades. Nepa is a law that is. Yes, it's unfortunately the source of some inefficiencies, but it made very clear that the government of the United States was going to be communicative and was going to be taking hard looks at the actions that it's taken and it's been revised very little. There are instances, like I say, where maybe it's been abused or implemented improperly, but overall it's a fixture of the relationship between the government of the United States and the people of the United States in a very, very big way. In so far as it has been abused, that might be case-specific. In so far as it is more general, as has been identified a couple times in the past that it should be corrected, that's fine, but they're relatively small corrections. Yeah, I don't foresee a removal of the basic principles behind NEPA. There is great opportunity to be more efficient in its implementation, but I do think it's basically a fixture at this point.

Speaker 1:

I haven't been around long enough to understand how we might function without NEPA involved. To understand how we might function without NEPA involved, and the role that it was intended to play is this, you know, kind of coordination of agency activities to ensure that these issues were addressed appropriately, and efficiently.

Speaker 2:

That, to me, is very much up to the administration, and examples in the past include the ability for all of government to be stepping forward and saying this is the decision and this is the direction that we are going and we are going to make this process work, and that can be a very good thing.

Speaker 1:

The weak part of it to me is where the government, in an inability to coordinate policy objectives, basically lets that process goitting and construction of critical energy infrastructure, providing greater certainty on the permitting process, prioritizing environmental analysis, as well as then incorporating a number of the concerns of this presidential administration.

Speaker 1:

So those generally seem like good things to do. Again, it's just it's not clear how long this will take or what happens in the interim. So, but, jim, I did want to hit one specific section, because I know a lot of people have been talking about this, and it's section seven, terminating the Green New Deal, and it states that all agencies sell immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and so that's an interesting thing to include in an executive order, because it apparently conflicts with the constitutional separation of powers that Congress decides how to impose, tax and spend taxpayers' money and a sitting president can veto a bill, but Congress also has the power to override that when they have the votes. That's. That's a fundamental check and balance in our system that forces political negotiation between the parties. I agree that that negotiation tends to lead to more durable outcomes right when everyone is Well, if I understand you.

Speaker 2:

If I understand your question correctly, I see it as less of a constitutional issue and more of a policy direction, and that's that the administration, to me, is saying and I'm not speaking for the administration, of course, but they're saying that they're not in favor of the Green New Deal. They're not in favor of the Green New Deal, they don't think it plays out properly and is I'm going to use the climate change word is that something that is a justification for all things renewable? And I think what they're saying is that, as a matter of policy, we don't believe it is, and, whether you agree with that or not, I think it's a legitimate exercise of their policy initiatives and of the administration's desire to set things in a new direction there businesses operate upon the existing paradigm, the existing legislation, regulation, tax policy.

Speaker 1:

you know when that changes dramatically, that changes business decisions. So, yes, you know, that's, that's the reality, um, and so we'll see how this continues to play out, with the, I'm sure, a lot of discussion, potentially litigation, around it too, as winners and losers are kind of selected by a new political and policy landscape, jim, the other one that I thought we ought to take a look at is the declaration of a national energy emergency, and I was at first really interested to read this, because I've never heard of a presidential declaration of a national energy emergency, although I bet one happened back in at least the Carter administration, because I remember, when I was really little, the gas crunch and crisis.

Speaker 2:

You know I don't remember de facto. Yes, there was a national energy emergency but, I, don't remember a particular declaration and maybe listeners can correct us there.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, that'd be great.

Speaker 2:

It became the key issue of the day and the development of national energy policy. To address that issue was certainly there, but I don't know if there was a declaration of a quote-unquote emergency or not.

Speaker 1:

He discusses or they discuss, I should say the need for reliable, diversified and affordable supply of energy to drive our nation, to drive manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, defense and sustain the basics of modern life. And military preparedness Again sounds good, right, maybe most of us can agree on that. That sounds like a good reason to have energy in this country.

Speaker 2:

What that points towards, ian, is you can't get away from all of the above energy strategy. It doesn't matter whether your objective is energy independence, energy sufficiency, green energy. It all comes back to an all of the above strategy, and hopefully that's what we'll arrive at after some objective evaluations of policy. I think there's a very key person in this situation, and that's the designee for the position of Secretary of the Interior, doug Burgum, from the Dakotas. He has been aside from being nominated to be secretary of the interior, he's also been designated the energy czar. He's also been designated the chair of the newly created White House Energy Council these I don't know exactly what all that means, but they sure sound important, don't they?

Speaker 2:

And they are clearly putting the energy task, the energy policy, on the resource management agency Department of the Interior to be moving forward, not the least of which is his position as just secretary by itself is huge. He is in a very, very strong position, and the administration is in a very, very strong position, to help develop a more comprehensive energy policy that is based on these many issues. Comprehensive energy policy that is based on these many issues and not one that will just pick winners and losers and continue the battle across the different philosophies, but to me, burgum is in a very unique position to demonstrate leadership and show support. Remember, too, that he's very relatively speaking. He's very popular across the aisles. Both Republicans and Democrats are very supportive of him, and insofar as he supports a policy that everybody can get behind or at least most can get behind and demonstrate the leadership that's associated with that, I think we have some great opportunity there for the country.

Speaker 1:

I don't think we've seen this many day one, two, three presidential actions addressing energy in a long time.

Speaker 2:

That's true.

Speaker 1:

This is front and center on President Trump's agenda and I think, as you say, it's going to get a lot of attention and a lot of focus. The final part of our chats are always any last drops in the ocean for the week are always any last drops in the ocean for the week.

Speaker 2:

Energy policy has always been very, very ambiguous and very, very difficult to nail down, and this gives us an opportunity to bring the poles, the extremes on both sides, back towards the middle in a way that's constructive for everybody. And how about you?

Speaker 1:

We enjoy each other's optimism at times, and so I think that is a really optimistic view. I know that there are some in the offshore wind community in specific who are feeling pessimistic about a lot of this. My last drop for this week last week I went to the Louisiana Wind Energy Week down in New Orleans, had a fantastic time catching up with colleagues and friends and really hearing some great discussion that's still focused on offshore wind development, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. That's its focus. There were other folks there who also discussed transmission planning and interconnection challenges, who discussed some onshore wind issues, and the things that resonated with me are the people of Louisiana are really jumping in to provide the new technologies for all kinds of different energy, including wind, and I was really enthused by the discussion I heard and participated in. Jim, for you, maybe next year, put it on your calendar.

Speaker 2:

Okay, really interesting event.

Speaker 1:

Thanks for listening. We're always interested in other topics and speakers. Reach out to us if you'd like to chat with the Offshore Energy Podcast. Jim and I are always happy to make new friends with the Offshore Energy Podcast. Jim and I are always happy to make new friends, Jim it was great seeing you this week. You too, hope you have a good time. I will get back to shoveling some snow, and I'm glad that snow has left your part of the, your neck of the woods.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, the snow's been rained out, so we're back. It's still cold, but we're back to a no-snow environment.

Speaker 1:

All right, jim, it's still cold, but we're back to a no-snow environment Until we meet again on the next Offshore Energy Podcast.

Speaker 2:

Thanks, Bye, bye.