GLOBAL H2 ENERGY GROUP

Unlocking the Global Potential

THE NEXT TRILLION-DOLLAR INDUSTRY

People around the world generally accept that increased prosperity depends on increased energy consumption. Yet many do not recognize the interconnections among the factors that impact this increased prosperity, including our choice of energy sources, availability of those resources, and what the environmental impact of using these resources is.

Globally, over 1.5 billion people are still without access to electricity and about 3 billion still use solid fuels — wood, charcoal, coal, and dung for cooking and heating. To bring the present world population that reached 7 billion people in 2011 up to some acceptable solution of just 1.5 kilowatts of electrical generating capacity per capita worldwide will require building a 6,000 gigawatt (6 million megawatts) of generating capacity. This is hardly an achievable task considering that the worldwide push to address the climate change is creating regulatory changes which will make a large chunk of fossil fuels reserves unburnable for large CO2 emitters.

Much of the world, especially in the wide areas of Asia, coal use is growing as the main source of energy simply because for the most part, it is still the most inexpensive option using the inferior grade of coal coupled with the limited technical sophistication of the power plants and the only reason the users don’t have to pay for the environmental damage.

Worse yet, 4.5 billion people, over half of the world population, have no choice but to keep burning whatever is available to cook their meals and keep warm. Realistically, it is hardly a manageable problem. The only way we can help to accomplish this, or at least come close to a solution, is to concurrently alongside of increasing and expanding the capacities of the central generating power systems, we must empower millions of

1

individual households to produce their own electrical power which will help in the transition and the use of clean eH2Fuel.

The world's fossil fuel burning power plants will make or break the Global Warming struggle

Highlights of the opportunities for significant cost and Carbon reductions

Crucial facts about CO2 science:

• The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~ 1000 years

• The earth absorbs anthropogenic CO2 at a limited rate

− The atmosphere will accumulate emissions during the 21st Century

− Near-term emissions growth can be offset by greater long-term reductions

− Modest emissions reductions only delay the growth of the

concentration (20% emissions reduction buys 15 years) − Emissions would have to drop to about half of their current value by

the end of this century to stabilize the atmospheric concentration at 550 ppm

− This in the face of a doubling of the energy demand in the next 50 years (1.5% per year emissions growth)

A New Way to Solve the Global Energy Crisis

Redefining the Scope of Utilities

Electricity is our most convenient form of energy and at the heart of the global energy challenge. As an emitter of approximately 40% of the world’s CO2 emissions, the power sector plays an essential role in ensuring an effective transition toward a low-carbon economy. While the electricity sector is experiencing sustained growth, it is also grappling with fundamental issues of security, reliability, affordability, environmental impacts, and basic access. Concerns over fuel supplies and barriers to alternatives are accelerating the use of coal despite the impact of its emissions on the global climate. Reliance on aging and over-stressed networks is increasing

2

the risk of blackouts. More than a billion people still have no access to electricity. These trends are not sustainable.

• Carbon is a valuable resource, over $5.00 worth of carbon products can be extracted from a gallon of gasoline.

• Carbon is the major component of fossil fuels and the most versatile of all elements. With it we can make materials that are lighter than aluminum, stronger than steel, conducts heat or electricity better than copper, and there is no need anymore to burn it as a part of our fuels and pollute our planet.

Fewer Global warming emissions per kilowatt-hour means little to third-world countries' electricity providers. 

Making electricity much cheaper and clean, allows for making more money for shareholders than with polluting coal, which should get everybody’s attention.

Never underestimate the power of price, because this fuel is domestic and affordable to all.

• The power utilities mostly rely on a few big generating plants to serve widely spread load centers, contrary to the concept of micro grids. The proliferation of smart grids is already eating up the revenue base of those utilities. With the changing power industry landscape, utilities by necessity have to switch from being entities that primarily generate and distribute power to companies that help manage the surge in distributed generation flowing via micro grids, creating a revenue stream for keeping the grid stable.

• Case in point: According to the documents, RWE wants to move away from simply being a developer and owner of centralized power plants and instead help use its expertise to help manage and integrate renewables into the grid. 

• Instead of simply transmitting electricity and selling kilowatt-hours, RWE wants to think of itself as a conduit for renewable energy projects -- helping manage risk without making dramatic new capital investments. RWE has been forced into a tough spot by the surge in distributed generation, particularly in Germany, where more than half of renewables are owned by customers. Major utilities like RWE directly own only a small portion of renewables in the country.

• The first casualties are the power utilities, in the EU coal-power utilities are feeling the change first hand and scrambling fast to dig themselves out of the hole, as wind and solar are driving the wholesale price for electricity to record lows and they are unable to compete with those prices.

3

• “More than ever, electric utilities need to carefully consider clean hydrogen fuel as a replacement to fossil fuels. In conjunction with the future of distributed generation and the role it will play in actually fulfilling and managing all the energy customer needs and not just electricity requirements.”

• With the rapid development in distributed energy generation technologies, micro grids and CHP are making their presence felt globally. Utilities will most likely need to embrace this change and adapt their long-term strategies.

The challenge has been to change how utilities deal with renewables, to build it into their business so they make it into a profitable business for their shareholders in light of the fact that consumers use about 70% of energy in the form of heat that power plants are unable to provide yet they are releasing over 60% of heat from fuels to the atmosphere. As a result, the average single-family home through the use of central power electricity adds more than twice as much greenhouse gas (CE) emissions to the atmosphere as the average passenger vehicle.

The True Cost of Power and Heat

The direct cost of electric energy produced by a thermal power station is the result of the cost of the fuel, capital cost for the plant, operator labor, maintenance, and such factors as ash handling and disposal.

Indirect, social or environmental costs such as the economic value of environmental impacts, or environmental and health effects of the complete fuel cycle and plant decommissioning are externalities and are not assigned to the generation costs for thermal stations in utility practice, but may form part of an environmental impact assessment.

4

Cost of regulatory compliance is growing and that creates pressure to the existence of coal and other fossil fuels power plants.

Fossil –fired steam power-generating plants account for the majority of the power generated today throughout the world. Such plants have been dominant in electric generation worldwide for more than a century and fossil- fueled coal power plants have dual environmental challenges:

Eighty-five percent of the energy used worldwide is obtained through the combustion of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas. 93% of the energy generated and used in the U.S. is from nonrenewable resources. The major problem is low ~ 30- 35% energy transfer efficiency that we are able to utilize and the fact that power plants are a major CO2 emitter.

Because central-station power plants and many industrial power plants are built to function for 40 - 50 or more years, fuel selection choices are extremely important. Thus, a fuel chosen today – coal, oil, gas, or any of the waste – product types – may become much costlier in future years especially if carbon dioxide and other GHG caps are lowered for the chosen fuel.

Since the amount of fuel burned in a steam plant is a function of the steam cycle's efficiency with better cleaner fuel with higher efficiency, less fuel is burned, and the plant’s operating cost is lower.

When a smaller amount of coal fuel is burned, less atmospheric and landfill pollution will be caused by the fossil-fueled generating plant.

Coal is 35-85% carbon and every kg of carbon burned that combines with oxygen in the air creates 3.6 kg of CO2 which is our largest contributor to GW.

For every 100 tons of coal burned, 65 -70 tons is completely wasted under the best of circumstances, 100 tons of coal burned generate some 100,000 kWh while producing 293 tons of CO2 , not to mention other pollutants like fly ash, dust, mercury, selenium, and arsenic coming out of coal combustion.

There is ~2.93 kg of CO2 released to the air for each kilogram of incinerated coal.

On average, about 23 gallons/87 liters of water must be used to produce one kilowatt-hour by central power producers.

The direct use of water to produce eH2Fuel will generate some 3456 kWh from the same 23 gal of water.

5

The big unknown for everyone – from engineering designers to plant owners – is the fiscal impact of controls required to reduce GHG from coal-fired electric –generating plants. Given the GHG problem, the regulators will win and end the century long dominance of coal-fired electric-generating power plants.

The evolving energy demand and energy fuels are altering the economics of power plant operations.

Replacing power generation portfolios is not a short-term activity. It takes years to seek permission to close plants, decommission facilities, to address fuel shifting issues, and ultimately to permit and construct new capacity.

The worldwide energy system contains fundamental problems that result directly from the use of unsustainable fuels and a lack of energy system integration. There is a need to adopt an integrated, sustainable energy system for our society.

Utilities are hesitant to decommission existing conventional power production because they do not want to give up generating sites. Or, because they can’t yet make sense out of the uncertain regulatory and economic environment.

• Regulations are emerging that create both compliance obligations and compliance opportunities for power utilities.

• U.S. Clean Air Act

• Clean Water Act (316B)

• Environmental requirements will reduce plant output (reduced capacity)

• It is because of this unprecedented level of economic and regulatory change, that the future of the power industry will be won by those who address these issues in a strategic and decisive fashion.

THE ECONOMICS OF POWER GENERATION

The basic premise of power plants is to: 1) Create heat 2) Boil water 3) Use steam to turn the turbine 4) Use the turbine to turn the generator 5) Produce electricity

6

“Burning Fossil Fuels is Burning Cash Literally”

Coal is by far the most expensive component of the day-to-day running of a power plant. Lots of effort goes into working out where best to get it from, how much to transport at a time and what exactly to do with it once it gets there.

However, a much more important aspect is the energy conversion rate and efficiency that any fuel may be converted to provide useful work, improving efficiency in generation which will bring substantial improvements to the profitability and the bottom-line.

Central power has only ~ (30-35% Efficiency) 65-70% of heat is discarded,

unable to utilize the heat!!!

Reducing 90% of the amount of CO2 emitted by coal-fired power plants may be accomplished by switching to burning clean eH2Fuel, and it is not just feasible but most desirable if they want to stay in business. Retrofitting will be far cheaper, not just for the power company to improve its bottom-line. But it will be effective in reducing global warming and results in enormous savings for the society as we do not need to spend trillions of public money to clean up the emissions mess from coal and oil.

Conventional Thermal Power Plant Fuel Cost:

In light of Global Warming concerns, the cost of working the deposits and the investment in technology needed to meet increasingly stringent emissions standards have increased the cost of burning coal.

Carbon sequestering CO2 sequestering and storage costs $30-40/ton of coal.

7

Adding the pollution controls is estimated to cost roughly $1,000 per kilowatt of energy produced.

eH2Fuel Retrofit Economic Example:

The coal-fired boilers at TVA’s Kingston Fossil Plant near Knoxville, Tennessee, burns coal to heat water to about 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit (540 degrees Celsius) to create steam. The plant generates about 10 billion kilowatt-hours a year at about a 33% conversion rate, or just over 27 million kWh per day which is enough electricity to supply 700,000 homes. To meet this demand, Kingston burns 14,000 tons of coal a day, an amount that would fill 140 railroad cars.

That amounts to 51,100 railroad cars and 5,110,000 tons of coal a year.

This plant operates with a heat rate of 8890 Btu/kWh. An analysis of the refuse pit gives a higher heating value of 2605 kJ/kg or

2 469.0636 Btu = 0.723 kWh/kg. An orsat analysis of the flue gas gives 13.78% CO2, 4.9% O2, and 0.75% CO.

(a) The thermal efficiency of the power plant.

(b) The coal rate.

c) The capacity of the f-d fan, in kg/min and ft3/min, assuming atmospheric conditions 50 oC, 0.93 atm, and a relative humidity of 50%.

Kg of coal in this plant will generate 0.723 kWh * 583,300 = 421,726 kW per hour

Assuming 10% transmission and associated losses, 379,553 kWh will reach the consumer.

Assuming the coal is delivered by rail, for more complete combustion it must be dried and pulverized on-site to the consistency of flour to be ready to burn, all in all for a total cost of ~$100 per ton = $1,400,000 @day for fuel, or $511 million in year.

Efficiency of ~33%, heat recovered to generate electricity = 67% loss = $342.37 million, spent on the Btu’s in coal being completely wasted year after year, because the plant is not able to utilize all the heat coal provided, with another ~10% lost in transmission to deliver electricity to the consumers.

Burn rate 583.3 ton per hour = 583,300 kg at 33% conversion rate. Cost per hour $58,333. - $39,083 is wasted every hour in generation. As generated electricity is sent through the grid another ~10% is lost =

$5,833.

8

Every hour a total of $44,916 is wasted, meaning $1,077,984 is wasted every day.

$393,464,160 from $511 million for the cost of the fuel is utterly wasted every year!!!

When accounting for other associated losses NET electricity at consumer socket is below 13%.

To generate the same 421,726 kW per hour, 10,422 kg of eH2Fuel will be used at a cost of $5,211 vs. coal $58,333.00 (Adjust accordingly with your production cost).

Hourly savings on coal fuel: $53,122 Savings per day: $1,274,928 Savings per year in one plant only: $465,348,720 in fuel cost alone. 50% fuel savings sharing with leasing the custom sized eH2Fuel system

will guarantee 50% savings in fuel cost and eliminate all the ecological compliance cost!

That is only one plant and coal in the U.S. is relatively cheap, globally there are some 30,000 coal burning plants, another 15,000 burn oil, biomass, and natural gas, spewing billions of tons of CO2 year after year totaling over 40% of all CO2 global release.

Many older plants and most of the plants in developing countries including India and China in large part of their lower calorific value and higher ash content in their coal reserves have efficiency typically below 30 percent. They also have additional losses in transmission and the distribution factors are much higher than in the West and range from 25 to 30 % with additional technical losses of 15 to 20%, and have issues like faulty meters which make the overall performance much lower than the power plants in the West and that also means more wasted fuel, heat, and money.

Adding to the operating cost of the power plants, is increasing regulatory compliance costs for CO2 and other dangerous emissions they must follow to stay in business.

Depending on the size of the plants in portfolio, it will cost millions to a few billions in regulatory compliance.

The cost of generating electricity by burning coal and other fossil fuels in no longer cheap.

A ton of delivered ready to burn coal in different countries may be as high as $300 and the amount of money wasted in efficiency alone is staggering.

Emissions, economics, and the priority of the threat vary greatly around the world

9

If you own a coal burning power plant or any plant producing CO2 here are the most compelling reasons why you would want to convert to burn clean no carbon eH2Fuel.

More effective approach:

Clean, low cost, abundant, deployable, and available 24/7

Produced on-site, no transportation cost, no storage cost.

Rather than wasting millions in fossil fuel costs and millions on regulatory compliance on scrubbers and decarbonizing the coal to use the dirty fuel, all coal power plants may be retrofitted to burn clean eH2fuel for a much lower cost financed by large fuel savings on fossil fuels, avoiding the possibility to be scraped due to not being economically viable.

Note; You may not reap the full efficiency potentials of CHP, but the transition may be less costly and painful if you close the power plants within their useful life before retiring them and replacing them with a totally new system. The generation efficiency will improve up to about 55-60% similar to best natural gas fired plants from the current ~30-35% using coal.

An improvement of the profitability and the bottom-line is substantial while the major costly problem with CO2 emissions and other pollutants may be eliminated entirely, along with the enormous societal savings and avoidance of expenditures in the fight of Global Warming. Converting the world’s coal power plants to burn clean eH2Fuel – will remove about 40% of CO2 per year of ALL Global Warming.

Small amount of Electricity and Water = eH2Fuel is “Domestic Resource.”

eH2Fuel is over 1000% cheaper than oil and readily available. No Discovery Needed No Drilling Needed No Storage Needed No Transportation Needed Produced Safely On-site Small Footprint Produced on Demand and only as Needed Produced Any Time Anywhere Most Practical Universal Fuel Operating in Full Harmony with the Environment Security of the Energy Supply

10

Energy Independence from Fossil fuels Imports Preserve Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal for Future Product use Not just Feasible but Most Desirable Allows for Individual Energy and Power Generation Electrification of Transport Industry Appeals to all forms of Transportation Appeals to most other Industries No Expensive Infrastructure Needed Gradual and Easy Transition May bring Shockwaves to Fossil Fuel Industry eH2Fuel of the Future is Ready Today

Water and electricity are domestic resources!!

eH2Fuel may be economically produced in any amount, anytime, anywhere on demand.

On-site fuel production of eH2Fuel with energy content of ~135,528 Btu/39.7 kWh is $0.50/kg (assuming 10 cents retail /kWh in the U.S. and $5.-cubic meter, ton of municipal water.

Allowing to burn eH2Fuel in a thermal power plant assuming 60% efficiency will generate 23.82 clean kWh.

$1= 2 kg of eH2Fuel

2 kg of eH2Fuel = 271,056 Btu or 79.4 kWh.

Assuming 40% - 31.76 kWh loss in power generation using eH2Fuel net clean energy gain is 47.64 kWh per $1 spent or $0.02 cents per kWh.

While burning coal will generate less than 1 kWh per kg of coal at a cost of 10 cents per kWh.

Your coal power plant ready for retrofit has these benefits already in place:

1. Already paid for - NO NEW COSTS FOR MOST OF THE EQUIPMENT 2. Already wired to our cities - NO NEW TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAYS

NEEDED 3. Already have cooling water - NO NEW RIPARIAN OR PRIOR APPROPRIATION

RIGHTS NEEDED 4. Already have access roads - NO NEW ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS NEEDED 5. Already have railroad tracks - NO NEW RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS NEEDED 6. Usually have ample land for several additional future units - NO NEW LAND

NEEDED, COAL YARD LAND MAY BECOME PARK SOON

11

7. No construction delays - THEY ARE ALREADY RUNNING, CAN CONTINUE TO RUN DURING FUEL RETROFIT UPGRADE EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION

8. Already have proven operators who know the equipment - FEWER OPERATORS LOSE JOBS, EXISTING OPERATORS MAY BE BETTER PAID

9. Cleaner working environment - NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE CLEAN BUT DANGEROUS AND MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE

Distributed Energy using eH2Fuel in ”Microturbines” Advantages to the Utility

The traditional provider of electricity also realizes a number of advantages in distributed generation.

Transmission losses are reduced, perhaps significantly if the mean power generation capacity matches the mean power consumption at that location. The need for the upgrading of the existing transmission capacity may be postponed or eliminated.

When comparing a distributed system to a centralized generation facility, the capital investment and risk required increasing the reserve generation capacity is greatly reduced or even eliminated, for several reasons. In a distributed system, capacity is added to the network incrementally, that is, in small amounts for small capital outlays, but with great frequency. The increase in network generation capacity increases smoothly. In contrast, centralized generation is added to the network infrequently in large amounts.

The centralized facility requires a much greater lead-time for planning, approval, construction, and commissioning. Once brought on-line, there is a large excess of generating capacity that may take many years to diminish, which depresses the price of the electricity sold. The return on the capital investment is initially zero, and is then low. A distributed installation has a lower design cost, and can be mass-produced to reduce costs. Production, installation, and commissioning time can be measured in weeks, similar to consumer white goods. If driven purely by the demand for electricity, installation is scheduled on a much shorter lead-time, only as required, and soon after can be delivering its full generating capacity to the network. A more likely scenario is that the investment in the distributed generation plant will be made by the consumer of the electricity, rather than by the utility.

The utility then has no capital outlay or risk at all. If marketed correctly, the benefits to the consumer will be significant enough to motivate the purchase. Other secondary costs such as maintenance costs of the generation facilities, and the installation of additional power transmission infrastructure will be reduced or eliminated.

NEW FUEL PLANT TECHNOLOGY ON SAME SITE

12

1. Construction is made *cheaper* because all necessary roads, water transport, and rail lines are already in place. This leads to huge savings relative to a green field plant and even a currently operating natural gas plant.

2. Licensing:a. Water usage for everything from cooling to potable water. In place.b. Sewage and waste water discharge. In place.c. Air pollution (not that it's needed) in place, frees up carbon licenses if this occurs.d. Hazardous waste storage/processing (all industrial facilities have to pay for this, regardless). In place.e. Lube oil and chemical usage/storage licenses. In place.3. Control Room(s). Only a retrofit of the existing coal plant (to bring it up to eH2Fuel-stamp standards) controls may have to occur.4. Grid access. The grid and switchyard is *in place* and ready to swap over. If MW output is close to the same, it's even possible the same main bank transmission can be used, a huge savings, along with, BTW, all the associated remote monitoring (relays for undervoltage, overvoltage, shorts, grounds, etc.), already in place. No major transmission upgrades needed if MWs are to stay the same and even then, only minor ones at worse.5. Human Resources. The coal plant will have trained operators and maintenance personnel many/some/a lot of whom will be able to migrate over (literally by walking) to the new plant after a few qualifying sessions.

6. Overall reduced footprint. Wildlife sanctuaries can be built as security belts around the formally soot-laden, coal spewed, plant site. Allows room for expansion for subsequent PBMR/LFTR use (desalination, chemical/hot process steam usage, etc.).

The MEGA-NINJA ImPS™– Independent micro Power Station

“Quick mobility, quick installation, quick commissioning!” for coal, oil, and biomass replacement, and regions with insufficient power generation infrastructures, or emergency response…

The MEGA-NINJA, a package product consisting of on demand in line eH2Fuel gas production generator cells, able to satisfactorily generate combined electrical and thermal 3.5 MW up to 6.9 MW any place any time. No fuel storage is needed and when combined with ImPS – Independent micro Power Station using microturbine generator with control console loaded into an ISO 20 or 40-foot (approx. 6 or 12m) container, it is capable of generating power soon after being transported to its installation site by trailers. It can also accommodate cogeneration system through simultaneous use of a 20 or 40-foot container for waste heat recovery, and with its quick transport, quick installation and quick commissioning, is able to promptly respond to power and heat demands in any area.

13

No CO2 emissions, as a matter of fact burning eH2Fuel there are no emissions’ of any kind, and eH2Fuel system only needs free air intake to provide plenty of air, and doesn’t have or need any chimney stacks and is 100% safe to burn in any indoor setting.

eH2Fuel will easily retrofit in fossil fuels burning power plants. eH2Fuel gas generators delivers heat flames of any intensity up to

6000 degrees F over 2,834 °C for every purpose. Municipal water is a domestic resource and readily available at cost

$2 to $7 per ton in most industrialized countries.

Water has the highest concentration of Hydrogen of any known, stable, non-carbon substance; there is 111.89 kg/246.15 lb of Hydrogen in every ton -cubic meter of water bound safely with Oxygen. To recover the hydrogen, we need less than 5 kWh of electricity from any source, grid, wind, solar, or any generator to produce kg of eH2Fuel worth 39.7 kWh.

The hydrogen cycle is analogous to the natural carbon cycle , except that no carbon is involved.

Heat value of kg eH2Fuel -142,990 kilojoules = 39.7 kilowatt hours

14

NO CARBON

On Demand

eH2Fuel

20 eH2Fuel generating cells modules capable to produce each 5.6 kg of fuel fit in 20’ container sized to make it mobile will produce 112 kg/h of eH2Fuel containing over 15 million Btu (15179136 Btu) capable to generate combined electrical and thermal 4446.4 kWh ~4.5 MW assuming 75% efficiency that is 3.375 MW of clean usable energy.

40 eH2Fuel cells modules fit in 40’ container will produce 224 kg/h with heat capacity of over 30 million Btu and able to generate 8892.8 kWh/8.9 MW thermal heat at 75% efficiency = 6.675 MW of clean electricity and heat.

eH2Fuel/ImPS co-generate power at less than 2 cents kWh – 96% efficient.

Each of the 40 eH2Fuel cells - 1520 x 900 x 1490

L H W

Weighs 620 kg gross

Consume 31 kWh AC 380 Three Phase Power

Global H2 Energy Group can help deliver a global energy transformation, if business stakeholders and political leaders do their part.

A hydrogen energy system is a coherent, comprehensive, and permanent solution to global energy-economic-environmental problems, and as such deserves support from individual governments and industrial organizations.

Hydrogen energy technologies are particularly interesting for the developing countries that do not have a need to protect the huge investments in energy infrastructures in place. These countries do not have to follow the industrialization path of the developed countries wasting ever more costly primary fuels by building huge power plants, power transmission lines, pipelines, transportation infrastructure, energy intensive industries, etc., and creating even larger environmental problems associated with such development. Development of an energy infrastructure for an energy system that will not last long anyway, does not make much sense. Instead, those countries may adopt a “softer” path by relying more on dispersed renewable energy sources and both traditional and advanced technologies for their utilization.

Electrification projects in developing regions can also yield new business opportunities. Further, shareholders and stakeholders are exerting increasing pressure on the sector to manage its carbon exposure as climate policies take hold, even in those countries that did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, such as the U.S. Therefore, participation in the development of energy and climate policies and any new international framework will enable the sector to share its expertise and

15

contribute to effective and efficient solutions. Consequently, communicating with policymakers and regulators to ensure investment conditions meet the needed developments within the industry has never been more important. This engagement will enable the industry to consider their concerns, integrate their knowledge, and ensure that decisions are made in a holistic manner.

16