The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty or the poverty paradox, is the phenomenon of countries with an abundance of natural resources (such as fossil fuels and certain minerals) having less economic growth, less democracy, or worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. There are many theories and much academic debate about the reasons for and exceptions to the adverse outcomes. Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions. In our final episode of season three of the Future of Energy, Kyle Koerner moderates a panel of three distinguished experts, Dr. Don Paul from ECET, USC, Tisha Schueller of Adamantane Energy and Trem Smith. Even our student podcasters get to ask the experts their questions. Thanks for all your support.

In an era defined by rapid technological advancement, rising global tensions, escalating environmental concerns and the quest for sustainable energy, our nation’s future hinges on strategic investments in the energy sector. Petroleum engineering enrollment and other disciplines related to subsurface energy resources like petroleum geology and the resulting degrees granted are greatly affected by oil and gas prices, and the changes lag prices by 2.5 years. But the academic timeline to produce new engineers is 4 to 5 years long. When industry petroleum engineering requirements increase, it will take several years to increase the supply of engineers to take advantage of the new opportunities. How does the industry deal with this time lag? Our topic for this episode is the next generation of energy workforce. We understand that you have recently prepared a paper on this topic for a Western Region SPE conference. What were your conclusions? What are the major challenges in recruiting, training, and retaining the next generation workers? Our topic for this episode is the next generation of energy workforce. Mike Hauser, working with researchers at USC recently prepared a paper on this topic for a Western Region SPE conference. We talk about his conclusions and the major challenges in recruiting, training, and retaining the next generation workers?

What is the cost of going green? Actually no one really knows for sure and it depends on the scope of the transition. But a recent study by the consultancy, McKinsey & Company said this: “We found that if you look at those (energy) systems today, we’re spending about $5.7 trillion (annually) on both high-emissions spending (gas power or internal-combustion-engine-based vehicles) and some low-emissions spending. Under a transition scenario, over the next three decades, that $5.7 trillion would need to rise to $9.2 trillion (a year). Also, about 75 percent of that $5.7 trillion is going to high-emissions spending. Going forward, 75 percent would need to go toward low-emissions spending. So it’s not just a scale-up of capital; it’s a reallocation of capital.” The finance system is integrating net zero with new financing commitments and mechanisms, but a $41 trillion funding gap remains. We already spend a lot of money for the current energy economy based on fossil fuels. Another challenge is to keep the lights on and manufacturing plants working while others are building a new energy infrastructure. There are even carbon taxes in some places. The topic of climate finance isn’t something we think much about so we am glad to see that we have Brad Handler from the Sustainable finance Lab of the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines on the episode to help us better understand where the public and private investments are going to come from.ReferencesSustainable Finance Lab at the Payne Institute for Public Policy https://payneinstitute.mines.edu/payne-institutes-latest-initiative-sustainable-finance-lab/World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/