Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Sign up today to receive our weekly newsletter and special announcements.
Good morning to all. I am John Fox Sullivan. I am chief executive of the Atlantic Media - one of the partners along with Aspen in this three year experiment which seems to be going pretty well. Welcome, hope you all had a good time last night. Let me ask you a question before we get started. How many people were at the discussion last evening with Jim Layer and T.A Robinson? Okay so that these folks don't have a sense of how many 'heard what'. This is an early morning informal sort of breakfast casual conversation. This is the first year we have done this. And this could be a very relaxing conversational affair. One thing I like about Aspen Ideas Festival, I always claim that the most of the people if not all in the audience have as much right to be up on the panel discussing and leading as our panelists. So do not hesitate to participate, get involved and what have you As you may notice, Gary Hart is not with us. He was scheduled to be on this panel and he did not make it for some reason. But we have two extraordinarily very bright and talented and knowledgeable and smart folks Jim Woolsey and Andy Karsner, I think many of you know them already, but Jim as you all know is Vice President of Booz Allen in whose room we are in believe is that right - is this your room Jim? It's best roughly speaking Jim is piece of the turf here. Jim is with Booz Allen everybody knows him. He is got in very - very involved in energy issues last couple of years. He is certainly well known also just in terms of his global experience in the world of intelligence. He was the head of director of the CIA as everybody knows. And he has served on numerous - numerous commissions and panels which I would describe as anytime as a major international problem in which a President is looking for a serious responsible human being to participate on it, Jim is often asked to do that. Andy Karsner Andy is assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Also we heard phrases we heard last night, good deal. He is a private sector entrepreneur by background doing a couple of years of godly service in the administration. And I am going to turn it over to two of you and Jim you want to just start? Let's just encourage our Andy is going to. Okay - and on behalf of Chevron who is sponsoring this Booz Allen in whose room we are, Atlantic and Aspen welcome all again. Okay good morning we are supposed to reflect on last evening's chat a little bit. Talk about oil. And so what I did was I brought it down few notes about last night. Just talking points and I think we told some brief comments and make this as conversational as possible. The there was a lot of words spreading about last night independence, the ideas, leadership. So some of what I want to talk about is definitions, which I think is the definitional semantics are real important to the discourse that the country is engaged in and hopefully important to the evolution of ideas that we will have here at this festival. I also wanted to talk about roles and responsibilities. Proportionality and perspective, we had a prospective last night. I think some of it was very valid, very important contributions to the national and global dialogue. But I think it's also important to recognize that it is not the perspective from the standpoint of what's necessarily in the public interest of finding 20 - 30 - 50 - 100 year views and solutions. So the last thing I want to talk about is time value and the importance of understanding time value matrix when you talk about our addiction to oil. And when you try to innovate the right policy ideas that can begin to address with seriousness and a sense of purpose our addiction to oil. One of the ideas that we have had such put forward that President launched in the state of the union was to reduce our gasoline consumption as a national objective by 20 percent within the decade. We haven't got in a lot play with that I have talked to the folks on the news hour and said you know, somewhere in between the Iraq war and Paris Hilton you just can't quite make a headline with it, but it is important as a baseline for discussion I think. Because we have never in this country tabled for legislation and for mandate a policy that has been this ambitious in size or in scope or in time table. And right now that's been hotly debated on capital hill, a version of it pass through the senate, it's still cooking in the house and the goal always is to get the president when he gets signed. And why is that different than every thing passed. Because everything passed is been aspirational and rhetorical, and this is policy and this is law. And this is legislating an outcome that, for the first time decouples the price of oil from the price of alternatives to oil in the market place. And last night some unfortunate language was used I thought when someone said this was hallucinogenic, that would make me the hallucinogenic in charge. And but you know, one man's hallucination is another man's vision. And this nation needs a bit of vision because as I said the metrics in proportionality and perspective are not necessarily going to be the same from participants in our corporate sector as there will be participants in our public sector leadership forums. And why it's important to distinguish is because sometimes in America we fuzzy up the line too much. We ascribe moral roles to things like corporations. And in truth, there is an ethic that belongs to our participants in the private sector. I personally believe that there is no more powerful mechanism for change or transformation in the world than what has evolved in the US private sector. But because the market can deliver results is not necessarily tandem out to allowing the market to have responsibility for the national vision. So just to say a doctor has a Hippocratic oath and a commitment to cure a patient even if it is enemy on the battle field, just as we have our lawyers and respect them for their ethics when they defend a murderer in court because these are unique to the domain. So too do corporations have limitations and that one of those limitations, one that I am very happy with actually as a share holder of private stocks is that they have a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders to maximize their profitability. And there is nothing wrong with that. That is a good thing. But it should not be mistaken for being tandem out to the long term interest of the nation or the vision of the nations future for problems that are impracticable and go beyond the metrics of net present value, return on equity, internal rate of return etcetera. And so let me say that my reflection on last night, unfortunately is that I haven't been to an Ideas Festival before. I came here because, I think Jim James rightly said folks in the audience are at least as important as anybody on a stage. And so for me I have come to listen because I don't think anybody has a monopoly or has the cornered the market on the ideas we need in the area that I have management responsibility for. But I didn't think we heard enough ideas last night. If ideas are about innovative thinking to and problem solving, what - when I heard more of was a defense of extension and enhancement of the status quo and what we need right now is disruptive thinking because disruptive thinking is what is required for disruptive policy and disruptive technology to have connectivity with disruptive markets. And so those are the things that I am on about, I don't mean to be unduly harsh about that except for to say this, I view my job with a sense of urgency. And if we miss the opportunity for time value when the opportunity and the economics and the technology are on our side but time is not, then we are failing our nation. And so as public leaders, we have responsibility to look beyond the scope and time table of our rates of return and I view that as our job. And what I found missing last night that I hope we emerged from today, Jim is a sense of urgency in the problems that we are dealing with, whether it is reduction of green house gas emissions, through alternative fuel sources in the fasting scrolling sector of green house gas emissions, the transportation sector, whether it is enhanced energy security and the very logical recognition that people are leveraging - people are hostile to our ideas and values are leveraging energy economics over our way of life or whether that is our competitiveness in the quality of life our children inherit. Urgency matters, time value matters. And I hope that we will look the discussion in that broader sense. Let me turn it over to you captain. Okay. I think there is absolutely nothing more deceptive in talking about oil than to regard it as an ordinary economy economic commodity in an ordinary market. There is nothing ordinary about it. And if you make the assumption that it is an ordinary commodity in an ordinary market, you will miss at least 90 percent of the issues. Now, lets start with the fact that it's under the control of a cartel or a goblet but that cartel is heavily under the control of the single state Saudi Arabia that controls some 25 percent of the world's proven reserves and the lion-share of the world's ready reserves to be pumped on to in to the market. The Saudis may not have the flexibility that they had some years ago in the mid 80's, when they drove the price of oil down to $5 a barrel and bankrupted the Synfuels corporation, the Soviet Union, my home state of Oklahoma and lots of other institutions in the world. Possibly because of peak oil, possibly because of Indian and Chinese demand. But none the less, the overall control structure of oil is a hugely important factor. The second one is that oil is what salt was up until the beginning of the 20th century a strategic commodity. A loose analogy to the wonderful Anne Corn who writes very well in these areas. Until around the beginning of the 20th century salt was the only way to preserve meat. So although this is lost in the memories of our grand parents largely. Salt actually was something people fought wars over, in the 19th century and through 100's and 100's of years before. It mattered a lot whether your country had salt, needed it from some place else controlled it or not. That was destroyed in a relatively brief period of time. That strategic commodity level was destroyed in a pretty brief period of time by refrigeration. By the application of electricity to refrigeration, making it possible to preserve meat, a lot more effectively with electricity. And as a result, salt is gone as a strategic commodity. It's not gone but on your table. I warned that nobody here knows where it came from or what the price is. And certainly nobody's international power anymore grows out of whether or not they have got salt. The objective that we should be pointing toward at least in my view is to due to oil what electricity and refrigeration did to salt. Destroy it not in on of itself but as a strategic commodity because oil today, 97 percent of our transportation runs on oil derived products. It is essential to transportation. In the same way the salt was essential to meat preservation. If we can bring that about it will necessarily mean that we are oil independent. We may buy some oil from overseas, so what? - where fortune is determined by where the salt on our table came from, no if oil is cheaper, is the feed stock for chemical plants, to natural gas, then use oil. But if it's no longer essential, we have done a very great deal. This is important far beyond the role that it seems to be given in economic models. Just for starters, two years ago, there was or a year and half ago, there was a Al Qaeda attempt to attack Abqiaq, the largest oil production facility in the world in north eastern Saudi Arabia. The sulfur clearing towers there, if destroyed, and my friend Bud McFarlane who is President Reagan's national security advisor who is an old Marine artillery man said "it's easily done with a few mortar rounds". If those sulfur clearing towers go, you take something like six million barrels a day offline for well over a year send oil, well over a 100 probably over a $150 a barrel for long time. Al Qaeda tried again a couple of months ago, and got ported in Saudi Arabia - grateful for the Saudis policing abilities at least so far. And if that's not enough, look at what the funds that are provided to that part of the world by our purchases of oil - gulf oil in no small measure not just ours it doesn't matter whether or not the funds comes directly from United States or from some other part of the oil consuming world, its the over all world market that matters. But Saudi Arabia gets some thing like a 160-170 billion dollars a year from selling oil and some five billion or so a year go to the Wahabi sector in Saudi Arabia, which according to the orange light in the leaning tower which I think is single best book about the lead up to 9/11. Approximately 90 percent of the world's Islamic institutions are funded by the Wahabis. Now what that means is that what's taught in those institutions. And I have some experience going over these materials and the tale from my years as chairman of the board of freedom house. What's taught in those institutions is for our practical purposes genocidal with respect to Shia Muslims, Jews, homosexuals, and Apostates and massively oppressive with regard to every one else including particularly women. That's what the madrasas in Pakistan, teach that are funded by your oil money, that's where the little suicide bombers were taught beginning at the age eight, to be suicide bombers come from. So when you wonder who is paying for these damn terrorists attack, do what I try to remember to do each time when you stop at the filling stations, to charge you gas before you get your credit card out turn your rear view mirror just a few inches so your are looking at your own eyes, now you know who is paying for it. Only war, the US has ever fought which we pay for both sides, not a real good strategy. If that's not enough what else are we getting out of oil, well we are getting a situation now in the gulf in which is a result of Iran feeling its odds and developing the nuclear weapons, for over six Sunni states have announced that they are going to have nuclear right electricity programs too any takers on the bet that since the number of these states have massive reserves of oil and gas they might be interested in some thing other than just electricity out of nuclear power, so we are on the verge of seeing a Sunni/ Shiite nuclear arms raise in the gulf all funded by oil, and on and on and on. Well none of that - none of that is ever even whispered off in the economic discussions about oil independence what those who define the problem tend to want to define it as, is to say look at these foolish people who are working for oil independence, we are going to define independence as "ottarchy" buying no foreign oil and since we import about 60 % of our oil today, and we can only replace about 20 % of it over the course of next decade or two with ethanol and so forth, clearly independence is not in the cards and clearly those who are working in those directions are as recent. Amazingly council foreign relation's report says we are doing a disservice to the nation. Well, the way you get in to that particular mindset is by assuming that the problem to be solved is to replace imports with something else rather than to do what Annie Corn has suggested, destroy oil as the strategic commodity, it's not that we shouldn't ever import any oil, it's that we shouldn't care any more than we care about salt. And if we can with several approaches of which I think the most promising and important is electricity can began to move toward propelling vehicles with other sorts of fuel. We will find ourselves possible, I find it possible, I think to move towards such a destruction of oil as a strategic commodity a lot faster than people believe just one set of numbers. General motors has now announced that they will go in to production with the Chevy Volt in 2010 as the Volt will be a 40 mile plug in hybrid gasoline electric vehicle which get you 40 mile driving and then you become a regular hybrid you don't have to plug in again right then you drive 40 miles, then you become a regular hybrid. So you are in a car that is getting some thing up in a range of 100 miles gallon. If when you need liquid fuel you are moving in a direction with your national polices such that what's in your tank is C- 85 part of it from Celluolocic ethanol lets say or perhaps before too long butanol or some form of of methanol which derived from bio mass. And that's 85 % of what's in your liquid fuel tank, now you are getting some thing like 500 miles per gallon of gasoline, because most of your driving is being done on electricity and the alternative fuel. None of that is stuff that's just in the laboratory, that's stuff that's in pilot plants and real production plants by real corporations with in the next couple of years. Will it happen immediately, no will there be glitches, yes and so on and so on, but I would submit for the reasons I suggest that those who were trying to help us move in that direction such as Annie are not doing a disservice to the nation. Thank you.