Speaker 1: Welcome to zero. I am Akshatrati Today Egxon at COP thirty.
Speaker 1: It's been a year of bad news for climate policies.
Speaker 1: The biggest force has been Donald Trump, who, in his
Speaker 1: second term as US president, has systematically dismantled climate action
Speaker 1: at home and made concerted efforts to attack climate initiatives abroad.
Speaker 1: He has championed fossil fuels and single handedly slowed down
Speaker 1: the energy transition, at least in the US. Trump's actions
Speaker 1: have also given license to many to ignore and deny
Speaker 1: climate change. But the CEO of Exon Mobile, Darren Woods,
Speaker 1: isn't quite following suit. Darren spears the CEOs of other
Speaker 1: international oil companies have stopped coming to COP climate summits,
Speaker 1: but Darren came to a side event here at COP thirty,
Speaker 1: his third COP in a row. For context, Egxon is
Speaker 1: one of the world's largest oil and gas companies, and
Speaker 1: Darren is in charge of overseeing its operations and what
Speaker 1: areas of the energy transition the company pursues or ignores.
Speaker 1: Last year, at COP twenty nine in Baku, I got
Speaker 1: a chance to ask him questions about how Egxon, which
Speaker 1: has a long history of sowing doubt about climate science
Speaker 1: can be trusted to now be acting in good faith
Speaker 1: to tackle climate change. I quized him on Exon's lobbying
Speaker 1: efforts on the oil industry's favorite climate solution, carbon capture.
Speaker 1: I also talked to him about the millions of dollars
Speaker 1: Exon spent advertising algaebio fuels without ever scaling up the
Speaker 1: technology for commercial use. If you haven't listened to that conversation,
Speaker 1: I recommend that you do. We link the episode in
Speaker 1: the show notes because this year I wanted to ask
Speaker 1: him different questions and follow up on some of the
Speaker 1: answers he gave me last year. Why is EGXON backing
Speaker 1: a new carbon accounting idea which many climate advocates worry
Speaker 1: is yet another delay tactic. What is his plan now
Speaker 1: that many of the tax credits under the Inflation Reduction
Speaker 1: Act for low carbon solutions have been gutted? And how
Speaker 1: is he planning to deal with the tactics that Trump
Speaker 1: is using to go after businesses, the same tactics that
Speaker 1: could be weaponized against his industry by a future administration.
Speaker 1: As you will hear, it was a good conversation with
Speaker 1: a healthy amount of disagreement. These are the kinds of
Speaker 1: conversation I'd like to see happen more often where we
Speaker 1: aren't questioning the accepted science of climate change, but debating
Speaker 1: the ways in which we should act quickly. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to zero, Darren.
Speaker 2: It's good to be back.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: I know your schedule is always very tight.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you are in Brazil.
Speaker 1: Have you been to the Amazon ever before? Have you
Speaker 1: been to a rainforest before?
Speaker 2: I've been to a rainforest before, but not the Amazon.
Speaker 2: Maybe next time, maybe, next time. Yeah, I like that.
Speaker 1: So it's been a year since Donald Trump's election. He's
Speaker 1: been in office for ten months and there's been a
Speaker 1: radical shift in policies, obviously in the US, away from
Speaker 1: climate action and in favor of fossil fields. What changes
Speaker 1: have you liked?
Speaker 3: Well, I think, to me, what I focus on is
Speaker 3: the dialogue that's occurring in the fact that there's a
Speaker 3: debate and I'd say a challenge to some of the
Speaker 3: paradigms that have been established as to how best to
Speaker 3: accomplish this objective. If you think about the whole effort
Speaker 3: in this space, it's been defined, frankly by a set
Speaker 3: of solutions that have been proposed by a lot of
Speaker 3: ideologues primarily on the left, that this is the way
Speaker 3: we're going to solve the problem with this set of solutions.
Speaker 3: And I think unfortunately the problem and the challenge of
Speaker 3: climate change has then been defined by this solution set,
Speaker 3: and either you're for these solutions or against. And I
Speaker 3: think what we need to do is focus less on
Speaker 3: the proposed solutions. Some of them are valid and have merit,
Speaker 3: and they're necessary, but they're not sufficient.
Speaker 2: We need a broader aperture, and so less.
Speaker 3: Focus on that set of solutions, more focused on the
Speaker 3: opportunity to address the real challenge here, which is emissions.
Speaker 3: And so I actually like the fact there's a debate
Speaker 3: going on both sides of the argument. And I think
Speaker 3: generally speaking, when you have people debating about how best
Speaker 3: to achieve an outcome or to balance one challenge or
Speaker 3: issue with the other challenges and issues, that's an important
Speaker 3: dialogue and debate to have.
Speaker 2: And I feel more that's happening today in the US
Speaker 2: and in the past.
Speaker 1: Well, there are ideologues on the left, but there are
Speaker 1: idea logues on the right too, because.
Speaker 2: Are on both sides. Absolutely many of.
Speaker 1: The things that have happened under the Trump administration are
Speaker 1: things that the oil and gas industry as a whole
Speaker 1: doesn't like. You know, the API came out in support
Speaker 1: of keeping the greenhouse gas reporting, which the EPA wants
Speaker 1: to get rid of, for example. But you told me
Speaker 1: last year that you liked a lot of what was
Speaker 1: there in the Inflation Reduction Act, and obviously under the
Speaker 1: Trump administration that's been gutted, almost all of the incentives
Speaker 1: that were there are gone. Does that change your thesis
Speaker 1: on the investments that you were looking forward to making
Speaker 1: and all sorts of low carbon solutions like carbon capture,
Speaker 1: like hydrogen.
Speaker 3: So I think what we talked about last year is
Speaker 3: what we've been very focused on is how can we
Speaker 3: contribute to the challenge of emissions and reducing emissions based
Speaker 3: on our capabilities and our core competitive advantages. And that's
Speaker 3: very much focused on the molecule side of the equation,
Speaker 3: so carbon capture and storage, low carbon or virtually carbon
Speaker 3: free hydrogen, biofuels. We ended up moving into lithium based
Speaker 3: on our ability to process produced water, brine water, all those. Frankly,
Speaker 3: if you look at the changes the Trump administration is
Speaker 3: made to the IRA have not reduced the incentives for
Speaker 3: those but I will tell you that as you look
Speaker 3: at those different areas that were focused on, always said
Speaker 3: that our investment in the space was a function of
Speaker 3: good policy policy that incentivizes that in the short term,
Speaker 3: but very importantly for markets developing and for there to
Speaker 3: be a customer demand, because ultimately any of these policies
Speaker 3: to be successful are going to have to evolve into
Speaker 3: market driven forces. Government can afford to subsidize these solutions
Speaker 3: in perpetuity, and so markets have to develop, and technology
Speaker 3: needs to evolve so that we can get the cost down,
Speaker 3: because today in some of these areas the cost are
Speaker 3: too high for the long term, and so those three
Speaker 3: things have to happen. They have to improve, and we're
Speaker 3: going to pace the investments associated with what we see
Speaker 3: in the development there. Frankly, with our largest project, the
Speaker 3: Baytown Blue Hydrogen project, one of the big challenges there
Speaker 3: is customers buying the product, and so we are potentially
Speaker 3: going to pace that based on our ability to sign
Speaker 3: customers up, much less a policy issued in that case.
Speaker 1: But you started by saying, in terms of getting climate
Speaker 1: solutions or solutions that would reduce a missions being technology neutral,
Speaker 1: starting point having policies is helpful. In the US, you
Speaker 1: get this swing to the left and to the right.
Speaker 1: How much does that war do you well?
Speaker 3: Your point about their ideologues on either side of the
Speaker 3: aisle is I definitely agree with that. That's why we
Speaker 3: shouldn't be trying to solve this problem through ideology. I mean,
Speaker 3: ideology only takes you so far and then you hit
Speaker 3: the reality of the real world and need to practical
Speaker 3: constraints and how you manage through those. And I think
Speaker 3: from our perspective, we're trying to keep a very clear
Speaker 3: view on what is the problem statement, which is trying
Speaker 3: to find ways to productively reduce emissions that don't slow
Speaker 3: economic growth, they don't impact people's standards of living, find
Speaker 3: ways to do that based on what we're good at
Speaker 3: and achieve both. We refer to it as the end equation,
Speaker 3: and we're absolutely convinced that we can do that. And
Speaker 3: that dialogue that I have and the work that we're
Speaker 3: doing is consistent whether it's you know, a left administration
Speaker 3: or a right administration, or whether it's an ideologue or
Speaker 3: somebody who center. The foundational fundamental of how we address
Speaker 3: this issue over time do not change with political cycles
Speaker 3: or who get selected.
Speaker 1: You told me last year that given the scale of
Speaker 1: the energy transition, no single president in any country can
Speaker 1: do much to detail or to accelerate the energy transition.
Speaker 1: Do you still feel the same given how effective Trump
Speaker 1: has been at stifling clean energy projects. This is not
Speaker 1: just clean hydrogen projects, but also carbon capture projects. Obviously
Speaker 1: lots and lots of offshore wind projects that were canceled.
Speaker 1: Are you still of the same view that one president
Speaker 1: cannot shift the pace of the energy transition?
Speaker 3: What I would say is the energy industry, the basis
Speaker 3: on which we make decisions, the time frame that those
Speaker 3: decisions play themselves out, and the duration of those investments
Speaker 3: exceed any political cycle. So my point is that we
Speaker 3: have to look beyond the political cycle in terms of
Speaker 3: making these decisions. I think one of the things the
Speaker 3: Trump administration is challenging is a parameter that frankly has
Speaker 3: not been given the intention it needs, which is the
Speaker 3: affordability of these things. And you know, is it a
Speaker 3: productive use of money? You know, the challenge today is
Speaker 3: there's not a policy banker around that can tell you
Speaker 3: what is the cost for the benefit of a ton
Speaker 3: of carbon removed? And every government has its constraints and limits.
Speaker 3: Every organization has its constraints. We don't have unlimited budgets,
Speaker 3: and so I think every government around the world should
Speaker 3: be focused on how do you get the biggest bang
Speaker 3: for the buck. How do I remove the most emissions
Speaker 3: for the least spend. You can't do that today without
Speaker 3: because we have no carbon accounting mechanism, no mechanism to
Speaker 3: understand the benefits.
Speaker 2: Of the policy.
Speaker 3: So as a result, we get very expensive solution sets
Speaker 3: that frankly aren't sustainable. And so I think stepping back
Speaker 3: and trying to understand what are the economics, the underlying
Speaker 3: cost and the affordability of some of these solutions is
Speaker 3: a critical part to laying the right foundation for the future,
Speaker 3: and I think challenging that today to try to get
Speaker 3: to better solutions is appropriate.
Speaker 1: Specifically, though, how do you feel about Trump canceling offshore
Speaker 1: win permits projects that were fully permitted, some were under construction.
Speaker 1: There's a risk another president comes in who's left leaning,
Speaker 1: whose for clean energy, and uses the kind of policy
Speaker 1: weaponizes it against ail and gas projects.
Speaker 3: Well, we've certainly seen that with Biden came in and
Speaker 3: canceled the pipeline coming from Canada. So you're absolutely right
Speaker 3: that challenge sets on both sides of the aisle. And
Speaker 3: I think frankly, for businesses to be successful, particularly businesses
Speaker 3: like ours that invest very large sums of money over
Speaker 3: a very long horizon, you need stability, you need predictability,
Speaker 3: and so I think that's one of the challenges that
Speaker 3: we have today with permitting is the way it can
Speaker 3: be challenged, the way it can be changed, challenged, the
Speaker 3: legal system, and so I think a reform of that
Speaker 3: whole area is very appropriate. Focused as you advance these things,
Speaker 3: you advanced projects, you get the permit that you have
Speaker 3: to have confidence that those permits are going to continue
Speaker 3: to exist and allow you to make those investments. I
Speaker 3: think that's critical for every industry, every business, and for
Speaker 3: every government.
Speaker 1: You had also told me last year that if the
Speaker 1: energy transition provides opportunities outside the US, you will pursue those.
Speaker 1: In the US. It's pretty clear the energy transition is
Speaker 1: going to slow down. It's not going to stop. We
Speaker 1: know that electric car sales are going to rise, just
Speaker 1: not as much as it was predicted. Solar and wind
Speaker 1: projects will get deployed. But if you look outside the US,
Speaker 1: even there the Trump administration is having an impact. So
Speaker 1: one thing that Exon has long supported is carbon pricing. Ideally,
Speaker 1: you would want a global carbon price that would be
Speaker 1: level playing field for everybody. We were about to get that.
Speaker 1: You know, the politics have been very difficult around carbon pricing.
Speaker 1: But at the International Maritime Organization there was a vote
Speaker 1: to have a global carbon tax on shipping. Were you
Speaker 1: supportive of the net zero framework there?
Speaker 3: So just to the first point that you made around
Speaker 3: things have slowed down. If you actually look at what
Speaker 3: the Trump administration did with the build and the legislation,
Speaker 3: incentives for carbon capturing storage remain. In fact, they increased
Speaker 3: them for enhanced oil recovery, and so there is a
Speaker 3: scenario that says more carbon is captured in sequestered through
Speaker 3: enhanced oil recovery as well as seequestration under the Trump
Speaker 3: administration because the incentive for that has gone up, and
Speaker 3: for a low carbon hydrogen the incentive remains there. It's
Speaker 3: just a shorter time horizon. So I don't think you
Speaker 3: can jump immediately to there's going to be less investments
Speaker 3: made in low carbon. It's not as I think, black
Speaker 3: and white, as you point out.
Speaker 1: On carbon capture specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency wants to
Speaker 1: get rid of the greenhouse gas reporting at asset level,
Speaker 1: which is crucial to get your forty five Q tax
Speaker 1: credit that would enable carbon captured projects to go forward. Yes,
Speaker 1: doesn't that change your investment thesis if you're not able
Speaker 1: to tap into the forty five Q tax credit even
Speaker 1: if it's available to you, because you can't do the
Speaker 1: carbon accounting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's right.
Speaker 3: But I think also the Trump administration is supportive of
Speaker 3: forty five Q and so I think the question is
Speaker 3: what mechanism gets put in place to allow that to happen.
Speaker 3: And that story hasn't been written yet, but we're very
Speaker 3: actively involved in terms of how can we do this.
Speaker 3: We were supportive of continuing to report emissions. We think
Speaker 3: it's important if that happens, and so we've got to
Speaker 3: find an alternative if not that, to ensure that we
Speaker 3: can report on those emissions.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, that is critical.
Speaker 1: And on the energy transition slowing down, this is not
Speaker 1: my analysis. This is analysis done by different groups, Rodium Group,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Enif it's more to do with the speed at
Speaker 1: which low carbon stuff will get deployed, and so you
Speaker 1: know emissions reductions, which is what matters, which is what
Speaker 1: you know. A lot of the low carbon work that
Speaker 1: you do is aimed at is going to slow down
Speaker 1: as a result of the policies that have been brought in.
Speaker 1: So maybe carbon capture doesn't get affected because forty five
Speaker 1: Q will be sorted out, but so many solar and
Speaker 1: wind projects have been canceled, so the energy transition does
Speaker 1: slow down in the US.
Speaker 2: I think it slows down in Europe as well.
Speaker 3: I think actually what you see happening around the world
Speaker 3: is that the incentives that people have put in place,
Speaker 3: and frankly, some of the impractical aspects of the policy
Speaker 3: that put in place and it's been rolling out is
Speaker 3: starting to be manifest itself. And so you see even
Speaker 3: in Europe that the cost of energy has gotten so
Speaker 3: high that they're stepping back and rethinking what needs to
Speaker 3: happen in order to achieve their missions reductions while continuing
Speaker 3: to provide affordable energy and reliably available energy. So there's
Speaker 3: a broader recognition that's needed that these solution sets that
Speaker 3: are out there today have their limits, and to blindly
Speaker 3: follow those and to assume that that is the only
Speaker 3: solution and not step back and think more broadly about
Speaker 3: what else can be done to address the issue is
Speaker 3: going to slow it down everywhere in the world the
Speaker 3: practical aspects of the problems associated with some of the
Speaker 3: solutions being proposed. The deeper you penetrate it, the more
Speaker 3: manifest those become going to slow things down.
Speaker 1: But one of those was having a global carbon price,
Speaker 1: at least on shipping, which the International Maritime Organization in
Speaker 1: the countries in it were going to vote for. Were
Speaker 1: you supportive of that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Actually as a concept having a price on carbon,
Speaker 3: we've always thought that at global price on carbon is
Speaker 3: an effective way to control the emissions to the extent
Speaker 3: that governments around the world want to control those emissions.
Speaker 3: I think with climate change in particular, as you think back,
Speaker 3: the governments are put in place, are elected to represent
Speaker 3: their people, and so that's what you see happening around
Speaker 3: the world. I don't have a perspective on what government
Speaker 3: shooter shouldn't be doing. Their obligation is to their people.
Speaker 3: What I focus on is not the what, but the
Speaker 3: how best to achieve it.
Speaker 1: But it's part of the industry which is not just
Speaker 1: you exonmobile, but you support a lot of lobbying organizations
Speaker 1: that speak the voice of the industry as a whole.
Speaker 1: Was the industry supportive of the carbon tax in shipping.
Speaker 2: Because we were not advocating against it.
Speaker 1: What we saw was an extraordinary attempt by the US administration.
Speaker 1: This is again not my words, but we've spoken to
Speaker 1: lots of diplomats who were there in the room who
Speaker 1: said that those activities were extraordinary. That there were not
Speaker 1: just threats made at the country level, which were public
Speaker 1: and were published on the White House website, but also
Speaker 1: personal threats, visa restrictions or individual sanctions, which caused many
Speaker 1: of them to then really rethink whether they would go
Speaker 1: forward with the vote. If you get another chance to
Speaker 1: have a global carbon price, how would you speak to
Speaker 1: the Trump administration and how would you get them to
Speaker 1: change their mind on something that they currently aren't supportive of.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm not familiar with all the things you talked about,
Speaker 3: so I don't know if that happened or not. And
Speaker 3: I certainly wasn't involved in the Trump administration and their
Speaker 3: dialogue on this, so I can't pretend to know the
Speaker 3: complexity of the discussions that were happening. What I would
Speaker 3: tell you is what we have consistently advocated for with
Speaker 3: the Miid administration, with the Trump administration is what thoughtful
Speaker 3: policies can be put in place to help reduce emissions
Speaker 3: that don't compromise economic growth, that don't penalize people's standards
Speaker 3: of living. We've been very consistent with that, and there
Speaker 3: are opportunities to go do that. In fact, you know
Speaker 3: today at this Action Agenda that there is a drive
Speaker 3: for carbon accounting. That is a critical first step in
Speaker 3: establishing a more uniform approach to how we address emissions
Speaker 3: and getting from carbon accounting to carbon intensity standards, so
Speaker 3: you can start specifying that on products and letting every
Speaker 3: government around the world establish what those specs should be.
Speaker 3: Is a very flexible approach that allows every government to
Speaker 3: tailor that to the needs of their constituency and to
Speaker 3: their specific economic conditions. That's an approach that I think
Speaker 3: has very broad application and can be very effective.
Speaker 1: I'm definitely coming to coboniccounting because that's an interesting change
Speaker 1: since we last talked about it. But before we get there,
Speaker 1: you to only last year that you want the Trump
Speaker 1: and administration to stay in the Paris Agreement. I understand
Speaker 1: that you've even delivered that message directly to the president.
Speaker 1: Why did they not listen to you?
Speaker 3: You'll have to ask President Trump that there are a
Speaker 3: lot of people that don't listen to me.
Speaker 1: So, now that the US is officially going to be
Speaker 1: out of the Paris Agreement by January, what kind of
Speaker 1: harm does that do to the US is the only
Speaker 1: country that is leaving.
Speaker 3: You know, I look at the challenge here over a
Speaker 3: very long horizon, and again, our action here, the work
Speaker 3: that we do, the engagements that we have with governments
Speaker 3: all around, remain consistent. We're going to continue trying to
Speaker 3: do that because our view is there is something that
Speaker 3: needs to be done in this space, and that we
Speaker 3: have a role to play and can contribute, and we
Speaker 3: will work with whatever administration comes in and continue to
Speaker 3: drive in an agenda that we think makes sense, that
Speaker 3: doesn't compromise economic growth or people standards of living. We
Speaker 3: think there's an option to do that and open the
Speaker 3: aperture to the solution set. You're framing all of this
Speaker 3: as a US Trump, I think you should frame it
Speaker 3: more as an opportunity to open the aperture for a
Speaker 3: broader set of solutions to achieve the real objective, which
Speaker 3: is lowering emissions, versus the objective that people have been
Speaker 3: working to, which is getting rid of oil and gas.
Speaker 3: And I think that's one of the big challenges is
Speaker 3: that we've gotten the objective statement wrong, or the problem
Speaker 3: of statement wrong, and we've got to go back to
Speaker 3: how do we best reduce emissions? And the approach being
Speaker 3: taken today is centrally controlled government's dictating what the solutions
Speaker 3: need to be and then trying to force companies to
Speaker 3: implement their solutions. We've seen how controlled economies work, the
Speaker 3: Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, East Germany plan. Centralized government
Speaker 3: control does not work. You need the markets to be engaged.
Speaker 3: There hasn't been a solution set out there that engages
Speaker 3: the markets. That's absolutely needed. Ideology only takes you so far,
Speaker 3: and then you need practical systems that deal with the
Speaker 3: real market constraints and the challenges of making things happen.
Speaker 2: That's what we got to get to.
Speaker 1: You didn't raise the exception China, where things are working.
Speaker 2: I would tell you that that's a mix of things.
Speaker 2: You do need.
Speaker 3: Some government has a role. Don't get me wrong, not
Speaker 3: suggesting government doesn't have a role, but picking the solutions
Speaker 3: as a function of ideology versus a function of i'd
Speaker 3: say strategy, are two very different set of circumstances. I
Speaker 3: think the Chinese government operates a little differently than some
Speaker 3: of the democratically elected governments around the world, so it's
Speaker 3: a different decision making process.
Speaker 1: So one way in which you think you can address
Speaker 1: that is through carbon accounting. Last year you talked about
Speaker 1: the idea, but today you have the initiative in front
Speaker 1: of you. It's called Carbon Measures, right. It's based on
Speaker 1: a concept that's been developed academics at Harvard University and
Speaker 1: Oxford University. The goal is to make carbon emissions work
Speaker 1: almost like financial liabilities, that once you sell the goods,
Speaker 1: you pass on the liabilities emissions liabilities that come with it.
Speaker 1: And you wanted that system so that you could get
Speaker 1: coben accounting at a product level. The trouble is that
Speaker 1: the only way it's going to work is if you
Speaker 1: have all parts of the supply chain of that product
Speaker 1: also reporting under that framework.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is but be clear, this is not a
Speaker 3: reporting framework. This is not an accounting in the pure
Speaker 3: sense of a financial accounting. This is an accounting analog.
Speaker 3: So there's a financial model that we think makes a
Speaker 3: lot of sense in terms of how to think about accounting,
Speaker 3: but it's also anchored in chemistry, and frankly, a molecul
Speaker 3: of emissions or CO two is created once, and so
Speaker 3: accounting for where in that value chain that emission is
Speaker 3: generated is critically important. So I don't think of it
Speaker 3: as a financial you know, an asset register in terms
Speaker 3: of liabilities or assets. I think of it as understanding
Speaker 3: where in a value chain for a product or a
Speaker 3: service is the emissions generated, and that's critically import and
Speaker 3: if you want to eliminate all emissions, you damn will
Speaker 3: better be able to account for.
Speaker 2: All of them.
Speaker 1: Conceptually, what you're saying is right, and the way the
Speaker 1: academics have put it is that once you have the
Speaker 1: concept in place, the way it will work is through
Speaker 1: reporting emissions at a product level through the supply chain
Speaker 1: and having these liabilities be passed on from company to
Speaker 1: company as the product moves through the supply chain before
Speaker 1: it's delivered to the brand customer.
Speaker 3: But I would keep I mean you refer to as
Speaker 3: a liability being passed on, and then it's almost talk
Speaker 3: about it from a reporting standpoint the opportunity here is
Speaker 3: to be able to understand what is the carbon intensity
Speaker 3: of a service or a product. And when you have
Speaker 3: a standard that uniformly calculates that, there is an opportunity
Speaker 3: to begin to regulate carbon intensity of products that in
Speaker 3: my mind takes you that will bring in market forces.
Speaker 3: That's the element that's of interest to me that I
Speaker 3: view would make carbon and carbon emission and just like
Speaker 3: every other parameter that we control in the products that
Speaker 3: we sell, sulfur and lead and other things that we
Speaker 3: control in our products.
Speaker 1: Liabilities is the word that the academics use.
Speaker 2: They call it an academic Sure, I'm a realist.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm the guy who's making this stuff, and
Speaker 3: so I think that's how we think about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean they called it eliabilities. It went nowhere,
Speaker 1: and then it got rebranded as carbon Measure, and I
Speaker 1: think it's now getting momentum. So you know, I totally
Speaker 1: from a conceptual perspective, I'm on your side here. What
Speaker 1: I wanted to get to though, was that to get
Speaker 1: it to work, you need the entire supply chain to
Speaker 1: be able to agree on this framework, and that means
Speaker 1: it's going to take years, decades, right, the Greenhose Gas
Speaker 1: protocol that you don't like, which has Cope one, two
Speaker 1: and three emissions. It's been in place for twenty five
Speaker 1: years now. So there are climate advocates who are worried
Speaker 1: that carbon measures is just another delay tactic. How do
Speaker 1: you address their consults?
Speaker 3: Well, first, i'd say you don't have to get rid
Speaker 3: of the GHG protocol. You can do this in addition
Speaker 3: to that. So I'm not sure, you know. I think
Speaker 3: there's always view that it's an either or option that
Speaker 3: are keep coming back to.
Speaker 2: This is an and option.
Speaker 3: But I would also tell the JSP protocol first of all,
Speaker 3: it's not an accounting system.
Speaker 2: It's a reporting system.
Speaker 3: And the other issue is is if you're going to
Speaker 3: use it account it doubles triple counts, which means it
Speaker 3: doesn't add up to the total planet's emissions. That's a problem.
Speaker 3: It also attempts to assign accountability where it doesn't belong.
Speaker 3: And I make a point with Scope three all the
Speaker 3: time to ask me, as a company that produces products
Speaker 3: that are in demand and that are desperately needed by
Speaker 3: communities all around the world, that I can't sell that
Speaker 3: to them because I need to reduce their emissions.
Speaker 2: I think is unreasonable.
Speaker 3: It's an unreasonable request, and it ends up with an
Speaker 3: outcome that nobody wants. We've got four billion people on
Speaker 3: the planet that living in energy poverty, that desperately need reliable,
Speaker 3: affordable sources of energy. Today, those sources have emissions associated
Speaker 3: with them. Okay, we need to address that, but we
Speaker 3: can't do that by robbing them of the tools and
Speaker 3: the leverage and enabling them to grow economically and to
Speaker 3: improve their lifestyle. And so we've got to figure out
Speaker 3: how we do both. I don't know how how long
Speaker 3: it takes. You know, you can start. This doesn't have
Speaker 3: to be a big bang from my perspective. I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm a big believer in the pareto that there are
Speaker 3: twenty percent of the products or services are causing eighty
Speaker 3: percent of the emissions.
Speaker 2: Let's start by focusing on those and by.
Speaker 3: The way, you don't get it perfect, get eighty percent
Speaker 3: of the twenty percent and start there and then eve
Speaker 3: all that and get better as you go. There are
Speaker 3: lots of ways to address this in a thoughtful, objective way,
Speaker 3: but we've got to do it in that way, thoughtfully
Speaker 3: and objectively, based on the science of CO two emissions
Speaker 3: and generation of CO two, and then accounting philosophy for
Speaker 3: how best you do that get started.
Speaker 1: I think on the people who are worried about the
Speaker 1: delay tactic, they would welcome the view that you can
Speaker 1: have both green as Grass protocol and the combon measures
Speaker 1: accounting system, because that would allow you to in a
Speaker 1: market of ideas competitions.
Speaker 2: Anybody is suggesting you get one, Yeah, that's exactly right. Market.
Speaker 2: It's a competition of ideas.
Speaker 3: And if you've got a good if you've got a
Speaker 3: good idea, you shouldn't be afraid of competition.
Speaker 1: Join me after the break for more of my conversation
Speaker 1: with Darren Woods, CEO of Exon Mobile, And if you'd
Speaker 1: like more from Bloombergreen at cop thirty, sign up for
Speaker 1: our daily newsletter at Bloomberg dot com Forward Slash Newsletters.
Speaker 1: So let's come to the low carbon side of the
Speaker 1: ideas that you are funding. You have been clear in
Speaker 1: multiple forums that EGXON strength is in the molecules business,
Speaker 1: and that's why you haven't really made a play in
Speaker 1: solar or wind deployment. But what we've seen over the
Speaker 1: past few decades is that the demand for electricity has
Speaker 1: been typically at double the pace of energy from molecules.
Speaker 1: With AI that's a more recent phenomena. We are seeing
Speaker 1: the gap grow between the demand for electricity and rest
Speaker 1: of energy. Are you reconsidering getting into the electricity business
Speaker 1: as it is?
Speaker 3: I would start by reminding you that the electricity is
Speaker 3: generated from molecules, not always majority of them, a majority
Speaker 3: of them, and if you go well into the future
Speaker 3: to twenty fifty, you're still going to see the majority
Speaker 3: of power being generated by molecules. So no, I'm not
Speaker 3: reconsidering that. I think there is a capability that we
Speaker 3: bring there. And I would also strongly make the point
Speaker 3: that hydrogen and carbon molecules go into a lot more
Speaker 3: products that society needs that enable modern living than just
Speaker 3: combustion products. And so I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea
Speaker 3: that over time there will be elements of the products
Speaker 3: that I make which are no longer needed by society
Speaker 3: because we've found better alternatives with less emissions maybe other benefits.
Speaker 3: I'm okay with that. We have historically evolved as a
Speaker 3: company on that basis. That doesn't change, though the fundamental
Speaker 3: need for our ability to transform these molecules into products
Speaker 3: as society needs. I just very quickly give you two examples.
Speaker 3: One of them is we recognize that one carbon molecules
Speaker 3: are in low demand, high supply, and so you know,
Speaker 3: my business drives the low cost what can we make
Speaker 3: with low cost carbon molecules? Our organizations invented a unique
Speaker 3: carbon molecule that has properties that lend themselves to anodes
Speaker 3: and batteries, and we're seeing through third party testing that
Speaker 3: are carbon this used in nanodes gives thirty percent faster
Speaker 3: charging times, thirty percent further range, and over four times
Speaker 3: the battery life. So there's a huge improvement in lithium
Speaker 3: ion battery with a product that I'm making out of
Speaker 3: a molecule.
Speaker 1: Let's come to that battery breakthrough, because that's recent the
Speaker 1: announcement at least, and you know, batteries are something that
Speaker 1: the world wants a lot of right now, and so
Speaker 1: having new materials is good. There's lots of innovation that's
Speaker 1: happening in that space. But with any technology breakthrough, and
Speaker 1: this is not just a battery problem, but any technology breakthrough,
Speaker 1: there tends to be a certain amount of hype that
Speaker 1: comes with it before we can see it in action.
Speaker 2: With this company.
Speaker 1: Well, we can take the example of algae fuels that
Speaker 1: you know, Eggson was supportive of thought there was a breakthrough,
Speaker 1: but now that doesn't become a practical solution.
Speaker 3: So how we should You should make the distinction between
Speaker 3: pursuing a technology breakthrough and announcing one. And what we
Speaker 3: talked about with biofuels was the need to produce the
Speaker 3: productivity of algae, to generate the amount of oil to
Speaker 3: make it economically viable. That's what we were working on and
Speaker 3: we saw the potential there. We never announced the breakthrough
Speaker 3: that said we were there. I would contrast that with
Speaker 3: what we're saying with carbon material, which is to say
Speaker 3: we had a view and an idea, we've developed the molecule,
Speaker 3: we've graphatized it, we've put it into application, and we've
Speaker 3: had third parties testing it, and those results are what
Speaker 3: we're reporting on.
Speaker 2: That's a very different construct.
Speaker 1: So when might we see that carbon molecule in an
Speaker 1: actual battery, in a commerce product.
Speaker 2: When will we see that.
Speaker 3: We're working really hard to get that commercialized by the
Speaker 3: end of this decade. But I think you know, again,
Speaker 3: in my mind, we don't over promise and hun to deliver,
Speaker 3: and what we try to do is report on what
Speaker 3: we're trying to do and accomplish. We've got to commercialize that.
Speaker 3: We have gone from the lab to a demo unit
Speaker 3: and we have to commercialize that.
Speaker 2: So that will take time.
Speaker 3: These are large scales, and by the way, we're only
Speaker 3: going to pursue the things that are large and make
Speaker 3: material difference. Stacks on mobile I can't have a bunch
Speaker 3: of nickel and dime businesses. So it doesn't bother me,
Speaker 3: and it should not suggest that because it's going to
Speaker 3: take time, that it's not real. I think you know,
Speaker 3: the difference may be in your mindset versus ours. We
Speaker 3: think in terms of decades because we understand what it
Speaker 3: takes to make these very large scale investments in the
Speaker 3: time that it will take to bring them online and
Speaker 3: then penetrate to markets. And that's true with all all products.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about some of the other low carbon solutions
Speaker 1: that you've worked on. You have a lithium extraction idea
Speaker 1: that you are working on now. Lithium prices, as you
Speaker 1: well know, are even more volatile than fossil fuel prices.
Speaker 1: Does that make the investment thesis less attractive?
Speaker 3: No, because we look at lithium no different than we
Speaker 3: look at any other products that we make, which is
Speaker 3: where does our production sit on the cost of supply curve.
Speaker 3: So you know, if I independent upon a commodity, if
Speaker 3: I'm in a commodity business where prices are set by
Speaker 3: supply and demand, I do not control the supply and
Speaker 3: I do not control the demand.
Speaker 2: So I'm a price taker.
Speaker 3: Across majority of my businesses, I'm a price taker, and
Speaker 3: so I will never know where prices are going to be,
Speaker 3: and I know that they will fluctuate based on where
Speaker 3: demand goes and how much supply comes on. Our strategy
Speaker 3: for being successful in a volatile market is to bring
Speaker 3: production on that's the low cost of supply. Because I
Speaker 3: know in these markets that the least efficient supplier required
Speaker 3: to meet the demand is going to set the price.
Speaker 3: I've got to be better than that producer to get
Speaker 3: a margin. And that's what we're working on and in
Speaker 3: lithium exactly the approach that we're taking. And I would
Speaker 3: tell you with respect to that, we're still working to
Speaker 3: convince ourselves that we can get on the low end
Speaker 3: of the cost of supply curve. So we're building small
Speaker 3: units to test that to drive the technology. Whether that
Speaker 3: will be successful, we don't know yet. But what I'll
Speaker 3: tell you is we know we have a concept. We're
Speaker 3: demonstrating the ability to do that. We've made lithium. Now
Speaker 3: the question is can we commercialize it at scale at
Speaker 3: a cost that's competitive with Chinese cash costs.
Speaker 2: That's a question that's yet to be answered.
Speaker 1: And would that be the same answer for direct air
Speaker 1: capture technology?
Speaker 3: Direct air capture the same thing everything that we're doing.
Speaker 3: It's a little different in that it's a cost of abatement,
Speaker 3: but it's the same principle. We have to be on
Speaker 3: the low end of the cost of abatement curve because
Speaker 3: if it can't compete economically, then we're not interested in
Speaker 3: And I would tell you that's true even for the
Speaker 3: businesses today that are being.
Speaker 2: Subsidized by policy.
Speaker 3: What I tell the organization is we can begin the
Speaker 3: business based on that, but we're not going to end
Speaker 3: up there. And so anything that we're doing, we have
Speaker 3: to convince ourselves that over time we'll find a way
Speaker 3: to get on the far left hand side of the
Speaker 3: cost of supply curve so that when market forces take
Speaker 3: over and by the way they have to if we're
Speaker 3: going to be successful as society, that I better be
Speaker 3: advantaged with respect to that production. And if I can't
Speaker 3: clear that hurdle and convince myself of it, we won't
Speaker 3: go in that business or make those investments.
Speaker 1: Another low carbon commitment you have is to reduce the
Speaker 1: methane intensity of natural gas, so the amount of methane
Speaker 1: that you leak as a result of the processes that
Speaker 1: are involved in extracting and delivering natural gas to customers.
Speaker 1: You have a goal for twenty thirty to try and
Speaker 1: be near zero methane leaks, and that's crucial here at
Speaker 1: COP thirty, where there's going to be a big discussion
Speaker 1: around methane and maybe even a methane deal of some sort.
Speaker 1: You know there's already a target, but how do you
Speaker 1: actually get to that target. Lots of countries are talking
Speaker 1: about that now. The Inflation Reduction Act would have benefited
Speaker 1: companies like yours who are starting to work on reducing
Speaker 1: methane intensity because it was going to put a methane
Speaker 1: fee on those who leak. A lot that's gone now
Speaker 1: to use stop investing in methane reductions. As a result
Speaker 1: of the incentive going away.
Speaker 3: We were driving methanetense reductions before the IRA came along,
Speaker 3: and we'll continue to it long after the IRA has expired.
Speaker 3: So we don't our commitment to reduce emissions CO two emissions,
Speaker 3: methane emissions isn't a function of policy being put in
Speaker 3: place or being incentivized by penalties.
Speaker 2: Our objective there.
Speaker 3: Is to be a responsible operator, and from my perspective
Speaker 3: from the dagout in this job, it was if we're
Speaker 3: producing something, it's our responsibility and obligation to keep it
Speaker 3: in the pipe, and we need work to do that.
Speaker 3: And we've made huge progress in that, irrespective of the
Speaker 3: commitments that we've made publicly. That was if you go
Speaker 3: back in time, before methane was had the profile that
Speaker 3: it has today, we began reducing our methane emissions intensity
Speaker 3: before even this became a very public issue or a
Speaker 3: high profile issue, and we're going to continue to do that.
Speaker 2: We make great progress with it.
Speaker 1: One of the things that has happened over the last
Speaker 1: few years, which has been exceptional relative to other oil
Speaker 1: and gas companies, is that EGXON has signed lots and
Speaker 1: lots of permitting deals around the world, so recently grease,
Speaker 1: but also you're re entering Iraq, Trinidad, Libya. Given where
Speaker 1: we are in oil and gas markets, generally there's lots
Speaker 1: of oversupply right now, prices have been falling. Why are
Speaker 1: you expanding your permitting regimes aggressively?
Speaker 2: This is a depletion business.
Speaker 3: The bigger you are, the more production you have, the
Speaker 3: bigger the whole you dig through depletion. So every barrel
Speaker 3: who produces a peril that's not available to us. So
Speaker 3: you can think of it, it's like having a bottle
Speaker 3: of water. Every sip you take is less water in
Speaker 3: the bottle. Eventually the bottle runs out of water and
Speaker 3: you need to find a new bottle. So that's the
Speaker 3: job that we have is as we continue to produce
Speaker 3: as a large producer, we have to find ways to
Speaker 3: replace the barrels that we've put on the market.
Speaker 2: That's a huge challenge.
Speaker 3: And given that if you go out to twenty fifty
Speaker 3: and beyond that oil and gas will continue to play
Speaker 3: an important role and the energy mix and providing products
Speaker 3: that the world needs. We know those barrels are going
Speaker 3: to be needed, and so finding opportunities to bring more
Speaker 3: production on to fill the depletion curve is a critical
Speaker 3: part of the job. There's only really three levers that
Speaker 3: we have to pull there. One is for the resources
Speaker 3: that we already have today, how do we recover more.
Speaker 2: That's a technology challenge that we're working very hard on.
Speaker 3: The other is you can go out and bring a
Speaker 3: technology advantage or a production advantage or operating advantage to
Speaker 3: buy somebody else's assets and produce those more effectively, get
Speaker 3: better recovery, and do it at a lower cost. And
Speaker 3: then the third is you've got to find new things
Speaker 3: and explorations are a critical part of that.
Speaker 1: In getting those permits. How much has the Trump administration
Speaker 1: been helpful?
Speaker 2: We don't work through the US government on those.
Speaker 1: Would you be interested in on gas assets in Azuela
Speaker 1: if they were to open up?
Speaker 3: So you know, we've been expropriated for Minnesota at two
Speaker 3: different times, and so I think we have our history there,
Speaker 3: we have an experience set, and so certainly looking at
Speaker 3: what follows and what's in place, and how comfortable and
Speaker 3: confident are we that if we made investments, that we'd
Speaker 3: see the return on those investments. It would be a
Speaker 3: critical part to evaluating that. And then we'd have to
Speaker 3: see what the economics look like. So I wouldn't put
Speaker 3: it on.
Speaker 2: The list or take it off the list.
Speaker 3: We'd have to see what the circumstances are at the time,
Speaker 3: which today I don't know what they're going to be,
Speaker 3: if they're even different.
Speaker 1: You said previously that you don't work with the Trump
Speaker 1: administration on permitting deals abroad, but there is a clear
Speaker 1: indication from the Trump administration that they would like more
Speaker 1: oil and gas production globally. Has there been any support
Speaker 1: to help you figure out where that might be?
Speaker 2: We don't need any help in that area.
Speaker 1: Now. Key to your efforts to turn around performance at
Speaker 1: Exomobil one hundred and fifty year old company has been
Speaker 1: what you've classed as your focus on winning. Some of that, though,
Speaker 1: has included layoffs and cost cutting internally, it's also doing
Speaker 1: active as shareholders and even taking a rival to arbitration court.
Speaker 1: Can you define what winning means to you?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you've mixed a lot of things up in that
Speaker 3: question that frankly don't are. You've got apples, oranges, bananas
Speaker 3: and pairs in there. I think, first of all, what
Speaker 3: I would tell you is what we've been very focused
Speaker 3: on the winning is bringing a unique set of capabilities
Speaker 3: and competitive advantages to the marketplace and realizing those advantages
Speaker 3: on the bottom line. And so if you look at
Speaker 3: the transformation the company's been making, the changes that we've
Speaker 3: made in our organization, it has been restructuring to more
Speaker 3: effectively bring the advantages of scale, bring the advantages of
Speaker 3: the integrated businesses that we have and the synergies that
Speaker 3: exist between those businesses to the bottom line, taking advantage
Speaker 3: of and driving technology and technology benefits to the bottom line.
Speaker 3: It's a focus on execution excellence, to drive capital efficiency,
Speaker 3: to drive reliability, to drive a lower maintenance, higher safety,
Speaker 3: better environmental performance. And then it's been about unlocking the
Speaker 3: potential of our people. That's what the changes that we've
Speaker 3: been driving to unlock this advantage we've been very focused on.
Speaker 3: We've made great progress, and the layoffs that came from
Speaker 3: that is a function of the restructuring and better organizing
Speaker 3: our people in a way that they can work more
Speaker 3: productively and take advantage of everything Excellent Mobile has to offer.
Speaker 3: It was more about effectiveness less about efficiency, But like everything,
Speaker 3: when you focus on being more effective, you find efficiencies,
Speaker 3: and so that's what's driving that With respect to the lawsuits,
Speaker 3: this is really around protecting the value that we're creating
Speaker 3: for our shareholders and importantly defending ourselves against activist attacks
Speaker 3: which are generated by an agenda that's not aligned with
Speaker 3: the value of the company or the value that we
Speaker 3: create for our shareholders. And unfortunately, we've gotten to a
Speaker 3: place in society where the courts are being used frequently
Speaker 3: to bring challenges to some of these activities. We're going
Speaker 3: to use the same tools that our antagonists use to
Speaker 3: defend the value that we're creating for our shareholders.
Speaker 1: But sticking to layoffs, Egxon currently has fourteen thousand fewer
Speaker 1: employees than in twenty nineteen, and there are plans to
Speaker 1: lose another two thousand jobs. And Eggxon isn't the only
Speaker 1: company doing this. We've seen jobs in Kinneco Phillips being
Speaker 1: cut twenty percent to twenty five percent. Chevron has said
Speaker 1: it would cut about twenty percent of its workforce. Do
Speaker 1: you think it's a sign of the industry shrinking, that
Speaker 1: its social license is eroding.
Speaker 3: I can't speak for Kindaco and Savon, I can speak
Speaker 3: for ourselves, and it's not. If you look at the
Speaker 3: layoffs that you're talking about for us like three percent.
Speaker 2: Of the workforce global workforce.
Speaker 3: So again this is we've been very focused on changing
Speaker 3: the how we work, as I mentioned the transformation that
Speaker 3: we're trying to make to unlock our competitive advantages. What
Speaker 3: we've shifted to as we've changed the how is to
Speaker 3: focus on the where. And if you look at our
Speaker 3: global footprint and where we were located, it is based
Speaker 3: on an operating model, a construct that was developed decades ago,
Speaker 3: and so we're bringing our operational footprint, our facility footprint
Speaker 3: in line with how we work today. That is my mind,
Speaker 3: an optimization step and it is not a deep cut
Speaker 3: to drive. And again it wasn't driven, wasn't focused on
Speaker 3: a cost cutting. It was focused on taking advantage of
Speaker 3: our people and the teamwork and the collaboration and the
Speaker 3: innovation that comes from that that we have unlocked with
Speaker 3: these changes, and we can only do that when people
Speaker 3: are in the same location. I'm a big believer in
Speaker 3: working together, not working remotely.
Speaker 1: Well, the two thousand ars yes, three percent, but since
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen it's more than twenty five percent because you
Speaker 1: have sixty three thousand employees now, so which comes.
Speaker 3: From the transformation in the organizational. We had I think
Speaker 3: eleven independent unique companies siloed in our organization. We've gotten
Speaker 3: rid of the silos today and reorganized. We have a
Speaker 3: one team, one goal mentality. People are working collaboratively together
Speaker 3: and so you need less people when you take away
Speaker 3: the artificial construct that exists. That's a function of improving
Speaker 3: your effectiveness, getting better at what we do, and you
Speaker 3: see that in the results that we have. If this
Speaker 3: was a pure cost cutting exercise, you wouldn't see the
Speaker 3: improvement that we're getting in safety, personnel safety, and process safety.
Speaker 3: You wouldn't see the improvement that we're getting in our
Speaker 3: reliability and we now have record reliability with our operations.
Speaker 3: You wouldn't see that in the projects that we're delivering,
Speaker 3: which today are industry leading both in cost and schedule.
Speaker 3: And so there's a lot of benefits that you can
Speaker 3: see that's happening in the company because of this effectiveness thing.
Speaker 1: If we dig that five year period, the stock price
Speaker 1: has certainly done wonders for eggs on. But if we
Speaker 1: just take the last twelve months since Donald Trump's selection,
Speaker 1: but since all these regulatory rollbacks, since the push to
Speaker 1: try and get more fossil fuels. The stock price hasn't
Speaker 1: done all that well. It's a little bit lower than
Speaker 1: it was exactly one year ago. Now very much.
Speaker 3: You have to I think anytime you look at the
Speaker 3: stock price of the company, you have to look at
Speaker 3: the commodity price market that we're in. Our stock price
Speaker 3: is highly correlated with commodity prices, and so it will
Speaker 3: move up and down. So the absolute number is less
Speaker 3: important than the relative number over time and the things
Speaker 3: that you're doing to improve that. So I don't have
Speaker 3: any concerns in that space.
Speaker 1: You've been in the role for nine years. How long
Speaker 1: do you plan to stay on?
Speaker 2: Well, the board gets to decide that, not me.
Speaker 1: And what would you like to get done before you
Speaker 1: step away.
Speaker 3: You know, we've made a lot of changes, as you've
Speaker 3: talked about. Many of those have been recent. In fact,
Speaker 3: we just announced this week the formation of a global
Speaker 3: operations organization, and we've got to bed those in and
Speaker 3: I think we're only beginning to see the benefits of
Speaker 3: that change, and I would like to have time to
Speaker 3: really focus the organization on improving the effectiveness of the
Speaker 3: changes that we've made we are rolling out. I think
Speaker 3: the largest instance of SAP were today under our corporation,
Speaker 3: the first time in our history, we will have a
Speaker 3: system that spans the entire corporation and a data structure
Speaker 3: that's consistent for every business we do everywhere around the world.
Speaker 3: So it unlocks huge opportunities if you think about that
Speaker 3: in conjunction with AI, where data and data consistency and
Speaker 3: integrity is so critical to the benefits of AI, we
Speaker 3: will have an unmatched platform with more data than anybody
Speaker 3: else in our industry. And so I think i'd like
Speaker 3: to see that through GOT We've got a program that
Speaker 3: we're developing that through the next several years.
Speaker 2: So there's still a lot to be.
Speaker 3: Done in the company that's going to keep me busy,
Speaker 3: and I'd like to see some of that land and
Speaker 3: begin to produce the results that we're counting on.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Dear, Thank you good talking with you.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to zero. If you liked this episode,
Speaker 1: please take a moment to rate and review the show
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. This episode was produced by
Speaker 1: Oscar Boyd with additional help from annam Azarakis. Our team
Speaker 1: music is composed by Wonderly Special. Thanks to Sommersaudi, Moses Adam,
Speaker 1: Laura Milan and Sharan chen i'm Akshadrati Baksu