Energy News Beat

India’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports rose in November compared to the same month last year, according to the preliminary data from the oil ministry’s Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell.

The country imported about 2.34 billion cubic meters, or about 1.8 million tonnes of LNG, in November, a rise of 5.3 percent compared to the same month in 2022, PPAC said.

During April-November, India took 20.09 bcm of LNG, or some 15.4 million tonnes, up by 12.4 percent, PPAC said.

India paid $1.2 billion for November LNG imports, down from $1.5 billion last year, it said.

As per India’s natural gas production, it reached 3.04 bcm in November, up by 7.1 percent compared to the corresponding month of the previous year.

During April-November gas production rose by 5.1 percent to about 24 bcm, PPAC said.

At the moment, India imports LNG via seven facilities with a combined capacity of about 47.7 million tonnes.

India’s Adani and France’s TotalEnergies started supplying natural gas in April to the grid from their 5 mtpa Dhamra LNG import facility located in Odisha, on India’s east coast. In August, the partners completed the first truck loading operation at the facility.

During April-October, Petronet LNG’s 17.5 mtpa Dahej terminal operated at 95.1 percent capacity, while Shell’s 5 mtpa Hazira terminal operated at 37.1 percent capacity, PPAC said.

The Dhamra LNG terminal operated at 26 percent capacity, it said.

The post India boosts LNG imports in November appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Daily Standup Top Stories

Woke Duke Energy Jacks Up Electric Rates to Pay for ESG, Zero Carbon Mandates

EXCLUSIVE: Conservative State Files First-in-the-Nation Lawsuit Against BlackRock Over Deceptive Climate Policies

Follow Stuart On LinkedIn and Twitter

The post Daily Energy Standup Episode #273 – Duke’s Rate Hike, BlackRock Lawsuit, and Global Supply Chain Concerns appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

The COP28 UN climate conference in Dubai ended last week with a flurry of self-congratulatory commentary about the “historic” nature of the final agreement in which parties, for the first time, overtly backed a process of “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner.”

The final language was an enormous relief to many on the far left. Early in the conference, COP President Sultan Al Jaber shocked and offended that faction when he reminded participants that moving away from fossil fuels too quickly would “take the world back into caves.”

For those who haven’t attended a COP, think of it as the world’s largest trade show (80,000 people attended COP28) and copy-editor Survivor where high officials negotiate stilted prose over almost two weeks. COP statements have no binding authority on participating countries, but all participants and observers invest considerable time and energy in shifting the Overton Window toward their preferred policies and worldview.

The post COP28: A Win for Climate Realism appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat
This year has seen a flurry of oil mega-mergers worth more than $100 billion.
Big deal flow and rising US production point to industry forecasts of big demand for years to come.
The “inevitable” consolidation suggest oil companies are shrugging off peak demand concerns.

A string of multi-billion dollar mergers and acquisitions across the energy sector this year has coincided with a boom in US oil production, and together the trends point to an industry shrugging off peak oil demand concerns, with expectations of a healthy market for years to come.

Deals for companies active in the Permian basin, a key drilling region that stretches over a swath of west Texas and into New Mexico, have exceeded a record $100 billion in 2023, consultancy Wood Mackenzie said in a report published December 12.

Exxon Mobil’s $59.5 billion proposed deal for Pioneer Natural Resources — the largest oil and gas producer in the Permian basin — headlined those figures, in addition to Chevron’s $53 billion takeover of Hess, and Permian Resources’ $4.5 billion, all-stock acquisition of Earthstone Energy.

“Oil demand is expected to continue growing through the rest of the decade, hence consolidation in the US oil patch is a more measured approach to address this need via reduced costs and economies of scale,” Matt Smith, lead oil analyst for the Americas at Kpler, told Business Insider.

That contrasts to the boom-and-bust approach and “wildcatting” — or exploratory drilling — of the past.

“Continued consolidation within the shale industry is inevitable,” said Jesse Jones, head of North America crude production at Energy Aspects.

Jones told Business Insider oil production from private producers has ramped up faster than that of public companies over the last three years, and US oil production broadly has exceeded estimates.

This year, the US has averaged 13 million barrels a day of output. Some analysts have forecasted that will increase in 2024. US production hit a record 13.2 million barrels a day in September, which happened as OPEC+ leaders like Saudi Arabia and its allies like Russia struggled to get a handle on oil’s recent downward spiral.

“Upstream consolidation gradually ratchets down the growth potential from areas like the Permian, which is one reason we see US growth slowing appreciably next year,” Jones said. “But that should also result in healthier financial results over time as a larger portion of the operator universe is incentivized to exercise capital discipline.”

More confidence in demand than IEA

International Energy Agency executive director Fatih Birol in September forecasted the beginning of the end for global crude demand, but the oil and gas industry has effectively bet on the opposite.

A JPMorgan commodities strategist this week said demand for oil in emerging markets is vastly underestimated, and peak oil demand won’t be seen in our lifetime.

Jim Mitchell, head of Americas oil analysts for Refinitiv, said the surge in deal-making means corporations expect oil to be a major source of energy for a long time, and US firms are growing at a rate that allows them to compete on a bigger scale.

“For the biggest of oil and gas companies, the mergers mean they can compete on the world stage with oil companies owned by nations,” Mitchell told Business Insider. “For the mid-size and smaller oil and gas companies, the mergers give financial health in an environment where financing will continue to be difficult.”

The pace of merger and acquisitions next year will likely cool, in his view, but the oil market will remain strong.

“We’re seeing big players buying up smaller companies, as it is an easy way for them to add incremental production to their books,” Kpler’s Smith said. “It’s also an efficient way of them snapping up tried and tested assets and acreage.”

Meanwhile, notwithstanding recent declines in crude prices, Mitchell highlighted that a prolonged run of relatively higher prices has helped heal balance sheets from the “financial bloodbath that was COVID,” and provided capital for investments or returning money to shareholders.

“My opinion,” Mitchell said, “is that both the consolidation and the oil boom suggest demand will remain high and increasing at least through the remainder of this decade.”

Source: Finance.yahoo.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post The oil industry’s mega-merger spree and a US production boom point to strong crude demand for years to come appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Duke Energy has thrown consumers under the proverbial (electric) bus to make their operations carbon neutral by 2050. As a result, electricity prices in North Carolina may increase by 19% over the next three years.

The company’s president, Lynn Good, receives more than $20 million annually in compensation financed in part by ensuring that consumers lower their carbon emissions.

Following the 2021 enactment of the Energy Solutions for North Carolina Act, the vertically integrated Duke Energy is attempting to decarbonize the Tar Heel State by 70% by 2030 and fully decarbonize by 2050. This misguided initiative will force everyday families to subsidize a complete overhaul of the state’s power grid at a total cost approaching $160 billion.

The North Carolina Utilities Commission report and Chapter 4 of Duke’s 2023 Carolinas Resource Plan encourage the exploration of using dynamic rate designs in order to raise prices just when consumers need to use power the most. Essentially, the plan would increase the prices for power in the dog days of summer and the depths of winter. Even everyday activities such as cooking dinner, watching a TV show, or doing the laundry in the late afternoons and evenings could be subject to rate increases.

Duke’s exclusive focus on environmental, social, and governance nonsense has led it to shut down 56 coal-powered generators since 2010. The company has abandoned meritocracy and has mandated that a quarter of its workforce be women and people of color, irrespective of ability. Additionally, it wants to reduce customer energy consumption by 24,000 gigawatt hours and lower peak summer demand by 7,000 megawatt hours by 2025.

This focus on fake frugality over providing value can already be seen in its corporate history.

Duke announced it would pay more than $200 million to clean up its leeched toxic coal waste that spilled into ground water in Indiana, but subsequently tried to illegally and retroactively raise rates on the very consumers it harmed to pay for it. Additionally, Duke shut off power to more than half a million residents of North Carolina on Christmas Eve of 2022. No warnings were given when it took 1,300 megawatts of coal and natural gas capacity offline, ruining many family gatherings as temperatures fell to the low single digits.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp. warned Duke and other operators in the South in its 2018 report that these power plants needed to be weatherized properly. Additionally, the largest factor leading to outages was Duke’s failure to purchase dedicated or firm gas supplies for Christmas Eve, the exact issue a 2019 report from the American Petroleum Institute addressed.

Perhaps Duke—which employs more than 26,000 people and serves almost 10 million customers with natural gas and more than 50,000 megawatts of electricity in North and South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee—should refocus its efforts on providing electricity, rather than virtue signaling.

With an annual profit of $2.56 billion in 2022, Duke has ample resources to stabilize the grid without raising rates.

Instead, the quest to decarbonize North Carolina would cost between $140 billion and $160 billion through 2050, according to the John Locke Foundation’s analysis of Duke’s various carbon plans. The plans’ overemphasis on solar and wind and on unrealistic pricing of hydrogen come at the expense of “reliable, dispatchable power plants that would decarbonize at the lowest possible cost.”

Perhaps Duke is even aware of this, as it is trying to sell off its unregulated renewables division to Brookfield Renewable, which explicitly assumes carbon pricing in its investment process, despite the cost of carbon being far from settled. However, Duke is still pushing forward with its $150 million lease of the Carolina Long Bay for an offshore wind farm that will have the same inefficiencies, ecological damage, and tourism-destroying effects as New Jersey’s.

Even if the entire United States halted all fossil fuel emissions right now, global temperatures would only decline by 0.02 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100.

Despite the math not being in their favor, Democrats have weaponized ESG by imposing corporate environmental and social policy on companies that then in turn lobby legislatures, such as North Carolina’s, for decarbonization and massive tax subsidies.

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve has been indirectly backing the ESG wokeness that has pervaded corporate America, potentially leading to another banking crisis. North Carolina should repeal its law and join the ranks of the 31 state attorneys general who stand against woke investing.

Instead of continuing down the ESG path, North Carolina should take a page from South Carolina and explore electricity market reform.

The Brattle Group’s report for South Carolina suggested making a Southeast Transmission Organization with North Carolina and other Southern states to save each customer between $115 and $187 annually. Additionally, the benefits for South Carolina adopting such competitive investment reforms could be as high as $370 million a year if the state fully participates. Other states, such as North Carolina, could also see similar benefits, and it would further stabilize every state’s power grid.

If North Carolina wants to strengthen its economy and serve its residents, the state should deregulate the electricity market and foster a business culture encouraging economic development, regardless of ideology.

Renewables projects and their storage capacities that are economically viable should be able to compete against other sources without $160 billion in state subsidies or making consumers pay for the energy transition.

Certainly, North Carolina should not support policies that make electricity increasingly unaffordable to its residents and push them into poverty.

Source: Dailysignal.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Woke Duke Energy Jacks Up Electric Rates to Pay for ESG, Zero Carbon Mandates appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat
Attacks linked to war in Gaza are threatening global trade
Oil and gas prices jump as big companies avoid Red Sea

Shipping in the Red Sea is grinding to a halt with oil tankers idling and container vessels rerouting around Africa as violence linked to the Israel-Hamas war threatens to undermine the global economy.

Two European oil and gas giants said Monday that their tankers would avoid waters off the coast of Yemen — an unavoidable waypoint for ships using the Suez Canal to cut between Europe and Asia. They join major container shippers who pulled out of the area last week as Iran-backed Houthi militants stepped up attacks in support of Hamas.

European natural gas prices surged by as much as 13% amid the most concrete sign yet of disruption to energy flows since the start of the war in Gaza. Brent oil futures jumped as much as 3.9%.

From BP Plc to A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, companies that transport consumer goods, commodities like coal and corn, and energy supplies face longer journeys. While there’s some slack in global supply lines to absorb the recent capacity strains, the sudden closure of the Suez Canal in 2021 showed how fragile networks are when major links break down.

US officials are scrambling to come up with a response as global trade comes under threat. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will convene fellow ministers Tuesday to discuss next steps to deal with the Yemen-based militants. But it’s not straightforward, and Gulf allies in the region don’t agree on the correct approach.

John Kirby, spokesman for the National Security Council, told reporters that the talks will be about reinforcing “an existing maritime force under the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.” He said “what we’re trying to do is strengthen, bolster it and operationalize it in ways that perhaps it hadn’t been operationalized prior to these Houthi attacks.”

Trade Threat

The incidents are threatening a trade corridor through which about 12% of seaborne commerce normally passes. They’re happening at a time when the world’s other vital ocean-to-ocean waterway — the Panama Canal — is being severely restricted by drought. They also come as central banks remain wary about inflation risks.

“Rising uncertainty in the Suez channel combined with the global economy rebounding because of easier financial conditions could put upward pressure on goods inflation over the coming months,” Apollo Global Management chief economist Torsten Slok said.

Fifty-six merchant ships entered or left the Red Sea on Saturday and Sunday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s down by 35% from the start of the month.

BP said it would “keep this precautionary pause under ongoing review, subject to circumstances as they evolve in the region.” None of its ships — those it owns or those it hires — will pass through the Red Sea. It’s statement was followed hours later by Norway’s Equinor ASA, which said it will reroute ships. Mosaic Co., one of the world’s top makers of phosphate and potash fertilizer, diverted one of its ships traveling from Saudi Arabia to New Orleans.

Those moves came as a fuel tanker was struck by an “unidentified object” on Monday, according to its owner. Attacks are now occurring almost daily.

“It has been escalating beyond what we have seen at any point in time really,” Lars Barstad, chief executive officer of the management unit of tanker owner Frontline Ltd., said in an interview with Bloomberg TV. “It is a huge risk concern.”

Israel Link

The Iran-backed Houthis say they’re targeting any vessel with a connection to Israel as a response to the country’s war with Hamas, which has been designated by the US and European Union as a terrorist organization. Those links have appeared increasingly tenuous in the past week or so, and the owner of the tanker attacked on Monday, the Swan Atlantic, said there was no connection.

“There is no Israeli link in the ownership (Norwegian), technical management (Singapore) of the vessel nor in any parts of the logistical chain for the cargo transported,” Rieber & Son said in a statement on its website.

The tanker was transporting biofuel feedstock to Reunion from mainland France when it came under attack. There were no injuries and the vessel is sailing using its “own machinery with all systems operational,” Rieber & Son said.

Insurance Reappraised

The London-based Joint War Committee, which advises Lloyd’s marine-insurance underwriters on risk, on Monday expanded the portion of the Red Sea that it considers to be part of the world’s riskiest waters. That means the amount of time that ships need cover against war risks will increase. The cost of such cover has surged almost 10-fold since the attacks first began.

Three container ships came under attack in the space of about a day late last week, prompting owners including MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA, A.P. Moller-Maersk, CMA CGM — the top three — to announce plans to stay away. On Monday, German container carrier Hapag-Lloyd AG said it was sending several ships around southern Africa instead of going through Suez. That will continue until the canal and the Red Sea are safe again, a spokesman said.

The post Houthi Attacks Start Shutting Down Red Sea Merchant Shipping appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti on Monday sued the investment company BlackRock for deceptive practices.

“BlackRock has said two things that can’t both be true,” Skrmetti, a Republican, told The Daily Signal in an interview Monday. “The first is that they’re taking investors’ money and investing it purely for the purpose of maximizing the return on investment. But they’ve also put out statements saying that they’re committed to net-zero [carbon emissions to combat] climate change by certain dates.”

“They’ve made lots of statements about working to use all of the assets under their management to further the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and both of those can’t be true,” he added.

In the suit filed in Williamson County Circuit Court, Skrmetti alleges that BlackRock violates the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act by engaging in deceptive practices regarding its so-called environmental, social, and governance goals. BlackRock has helped lead the movement to force climate alarmism goals on companies in the name of ESG. These goals often involve pledging to alter business practices to decrease or offset carbon emissions in the name of helping the environment, even though science on carbon emissions destroying the climate is far from settled.

In 2020 and 2021, BlackRock joined the climate alarmism groups Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, committing to use the weight of all assets under management to advance many environmental, social, and governance goals and achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Yet BlackRock operates many non-ESG funds, claiming that such funds “do not seek to follow a sustainable, impact, or ESG investment strategy.” The company further claims that there is “no indication” that non-ESG funds will adopt an ESG investment strategy.

Although BlackRock claims these funds don’t advance its ESG goals, it has adopted a companywide commitment to ESG goals and aggressively urged climate goals on other enterprises it invests in. As a shareholder in many other companies, BlackRock carries considerable weight and has pushed them to make climate-related commitments.

“BlackRock’s pledge as a member of [the climate groups] is to force companies to disclose targets for net-zero emissions for environmental and political reasons (limiting warming to well below 2°C), without regard to materiality to the particular company’s financial performance,” the lawsuit argues. “BlackRock makes no mention of this commitment to non-material factors when explaining its portfolio company disclosure expectations to fund investors.”

The lawsuit cites many instances where BlackRock used its influence over companies it invests in—including Chevron, United Airlines, and Walmart—to push climate-related shareholder proposals. Yet BlackRock claimed in a December 2022 statement responding to state attorneys general that the company doesn’t “dictate to companies what specific emission targets they should meet or what type of political lobbying they should pursue.”

BlackRock also claimed that its role “is to help [clients] navigate investment risks and opportunities, not to engineer a specific decarbonization outcome in the real economy.”

As for ESG funds, Skrmetti’s lawsuit cites this claim by BlackRock: “The global aspiration to achieve a net-zero global economy by 2050 is reflective of aggregated efforts; governments representing over 90% of GDP have committed to move to net-zero over the coming decades.”

However, only 15% of countries that have made a net-zero commitment have enshrined such commitments in law, and only 10% of global emissions would be covered by legally binding pledges, according to Tennessee’s lawsuit. The lawsuit lists 14 statements that BlackRock could have added as disclosures to make that statement less deceptive, such as noting that no country in the world has implemented policies that will prevent the world climate from increasing 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to the Climate Action Tracker.

BlackRock also has presented contradictory claims about whether ESG goals align with positive financial outcomes.

BlackRock has said that its “focus on climate risk and energy is about driving financial outcomes for clients,” but the company also has admitted that sustainability metrics “do not provide an indication of current or future performance nor do they represent the potential risk and reward profile of a fund.”

Contrary to BlackRock’s claims, ESG-guided funds don’t yield higher returns on investment, according to the lawsuit. It cites a 2019 study finding a “statistically significant negative relation between ESG investing and investor returns.”

“BlackRock’s acts and practices concerning the marketing or sale of products and services, as alleged herein, are deceptive to consumers and other persons in Tennessee,” the lawsuit states.

Skrmetti asks the circuit court to find that BlackRock violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, that the court order BlackRock to cease making misrepresentations, that it order BlackRock to “restore the money or property lost as a result of the alleged violations of law,” and that it order BlackRock to give up its “ill-gotten gains.”

Skrmetti asks the court to fine BlackRock a civil penalty of $1,000 to Tennessee for each violation of the law, and that “all costs, including discretionary costs, in this case be taxed against BlackRock.”

BlackRock is the leading exchange-traded fund provider in the world, with $9.4 trillion in assets under management.

Although some states have passed laws to restrict the use of ESG goals in making investment decisions, Skrmetti’s lawsuit represents the first civil enforcement action against BlackRock for ESG deception.

“Ultimately, this is a case about the truth, and the biggest takeaway for me at the end of the day is we can get clarity for consumers,” Skrmetti told The Daily Signal in the interview. “If you’re going to make decisions about how companies should have to behave to do business, those are decisions that ultimately have to flow from the people, and this is part of, I think, a broader effort on the part of some elites to make sure that the American people don’t have that kind of oversight over their economy.”

Source: Dailysignal.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post EXCLUSIVE: Conservative State Files First-in-the-Nation Lawsuit Against BlackRock Over Deceptive Climate Policies appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Africa’s Energy Industry has found itself under a harsh spotlight as global concern over climate change increases. Various governments and IOCs around the world are pledging and planning to reduce their emissions – with varying degrees of ambition – in response to global climate change.

Approximately 140 global financial institutions have decided to limit thermal coal financing, insurance or investment, and we are now witnessing a similar, accelerating shift of capital away from oil and gas exploration. With 50 major European financial institutions leading the charge to increase renewable energy investments as risks in the oil and gas sectors rise due to falling demand and climate change, many other global financial institutions are exiting oil and gas while others are tightening policy loopholes to demonstrate a greater commitment to the Climate Accord.

In agreement with the European Investment Bank, “Energy is the key to all socio-economic development: an essential resource in agriculture and food processing, as well as in higher-value added services and industries”. As such, without energy we cannot improve social services, empower women or combat climate change.

With about 600 million people or above without access to electricity (about 57 percent of the population), sub-Saharan Africa has a particular need in this field. There is a wide recognition regionally and globally that this challenge needs to be addressed with some urgency. The African Development Bank (AfDB) has, for instance, identified access to energy as one of its High 5s – that is, one of the five areas that must receive priority as it rolls out its development strategy for the subcontinent.

The Clarion Call in Context

As many as about 600 million Africans do not have access to electricity; also, more than 730 million rely on biomass for cooking.

Today, 770 million people worldwide still live without access to electricity, mostly in Africa and developing countries of Asia. The IRENA energy progress report of 2021 estimates that 75% of the world population without access to electricity is based in sub-Saharan Africa. The COVID‐19 crisis delivered a setback, slowing progress on new connections while also weakening the ability of households to pay for electricity (Figure 1).

Preliminary data show that the global number of people without access was broadly stuck at where it was between 2019 and 2021, after improving 9% annually on average between 2015 and 2019. In sub‐Saharan Africa, the number of people without access increased in 2020 for the first time since 2013.

   Figure 1: About 40% of Africa’s population have no access to electricity

Source: World Energy Outlook; Electricity Access Database, IEA

Energy: A Driving Force for Africa’s Industrialisation Agenda

In sub-Saharan Africa, 13.3 percent of enterprises in the World Bank Enterprise survey cited lack of reliable electricity as the biggest obstacle to their business. The survey also found that across the countries surveyed, an average 48 percent of firms owned a generator to supplement their electricity supply; and 4 percent of losses in annual sales was due to electrical outages.

Africa’s energy potential is enormous, with only a fraction of it being currently tapped

As stated by BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015, “Africa holds close to 9.6% of the world’s proven oil and gas reserves – with approximately 125.3 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves and over 15 trillion standard cubic metres of natural gas”. This can help satisfy the continent’s future energy demand and play a key part in the electrification of Africa. Fossil fuels offer considerable development opportunities. Over the last decade, oil and gas operations have expanded to include new producers such as Ghana, Mozambique and Kenya; and in recent years, nearly 30% of the world’s oil and gas discoveries were in sub-Saharan Africa – while 2015 marked the largest gas discovery ever made in Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea. Increasing estimates of oil and gas reserves in Eastern and Southern Africa create significant opportunities in the mediumo to long-term, with several countries progressing toward commercial development.

Hydropower provides around a fifth of current capacity, but not even a tenth of its total potential has been utilised. The International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that the technical potential of solar, wind and geothermal energy is significant. Countries such as Cabo Verde, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco and South Africa have launched major initiatives to utilise solar, wind and geothermal energy, resulting in over 10 GW of capacity contracted.

Let’s Bump the Breaks

African Energy Financial institutions might very well serve as a catalyst in establishing priorities for the energy sector from 2024 to 2032. Such financial institutions will help to transform Africa’s energy sector and promote inclusive growth, as well as aid in the transition to green growth by increasing energy production, expanding energy access, improving affordability, reliability and energy efficiency, and improving the sustainability of energy systems.

I believe that by mobilising domestic and international capital for innovative financing in Africa’s energy sector, assisting African governments in strengthening energy policy, regulation and sector governance, and increasing Africa’s investments in energy and climate change, we can establish a transformative partnership in energy for Africa.

This Energy Bank should be focused on five major strategic themes to address issues currently holding back the development of our energy sector, by: (i) creating an enabling policy environment; (ii) significantly increasing the number of bankable energy projects, and also broadening the funding pool to deliver new projects; (iii) supporting ‘bottom of the pyramid’ energy access programmes; (iv) propelling major Intra-Africa projects and driving integration; and (v) rolling out waves of country-wide energy ‘transformations’.

How to Finance this Transformation

An innovative financing structure will change Africa’s energy outlook. Domestic financing on the continent is on the rise, with finances coming from government budgets, sovereign bonds and pension funds. President-African Energy Chamber, NJ Ayuk, has offered some very insightful and compelling solutions in raising capital for our energy projects.

NJ suggests that: “African governments can set aside a percentage of their oil and gas revenues for new project funding. In Africa Energy Outlook 2021, the African Energy Chamber projected that African governments’ earnings from royalties, profit oil and other taxes in 2021 would reach US$100billion. Even 5% of that amount would produce US$5billion, and that could be leveraged for exploration, development or infrastructure.

“We can also raise capital by investing African pension funds in African energy projects. According to Cape Town-based investment firm RisCura, local pension funds collectively manage around US$350billion of assets in sub-Saharan Africa, and they are actively looking for new places to invest. Why not encourage them to add oil, gas, and renewables projects to their list?

“Investing pension funds in the energy sector is hardly a new practice. Some of America’s largest pension funds are invested in fossil fuel producers, and pension funds around the globe are investing in green energy projects. This would not be a giveaway: Investing in fossil fuels, especially gas projects and developing marginal fields, provides a large return on investment. And millions of Africans would be participating in our growth and our future.”

Our capital-raising options do not end there. We should also ask for the assistance of wealthy Africans who want to invest in a better future for Africa. Total private wealth in Africa was estimated to be around US$2trillion as of December 2020. Not to mention the African diaspora. Imagine what we would achieve if we all worked together. In 2014, the private sector invested US$4.8billion in energy, with US$2.5billion being pure private sector funding. As evidenced by the large IPP electricity production in Egypt, Kenya, Morocco and South Africa, the private sector has shown a robust and sturdy interest in developing projects in Africa.

Whatever the final contribution of public and private sectors or DFIs to bankrolling the sector may be, the current priority is aimed at getting all players to substantially increase their contributions – and most pertinently, getting governments to establish conducive conditions that are attractive to investment.

Establishing African energy banks is one way for our countries to safeguard themselves from these social and economic threats. In the advancement of this distinctive economic structure, China may be a credible partner for Africa. It provides a lifeline to flawed but essential support systems.

Conclusion

It goes without saying that Africa requires the establishment of a Continental Energy Bank. That is the only ideal solution for African countries to continue exploring the continent’s humongous hydrocarbon resources. Africa requires a dedicated energy policy that shifts away from highly centralised energy systems that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It also requires specialised energy-sector governance and financial transparency. Considerable ideological leadership will be required.

With the financing in place, African companies will be able to not only produce oil and gas but also provide self-sustaining funding flows for all types of African energy – as well as support local social inclusion, develop green energy markets and be critical to the sub-Saharan energy transition’s progress.

Africa is well-positioned to lead the global energy revolution, unlock the potential for skilled jobs, create economic transformation and reduce inequity by investing in its oil and gas industry.

Source: Thebftonline.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post African Energy Banks: A silver bullet for Africa’s Energy transformation appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News BeatFormer Albertan Yakout Mansour moved to California two decades ago when he was recruited to run the state’s power grid under then Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The way he tells it, it sounds like the government policy-makers had latched onto big changes in the electricity system, not fully understanding the consequences, and he was brought in to fix the fallout.

The post He fixed California’s power grid for Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s worried about the energy transition appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

ENERGY TRANSITION #91 – COP 28, coming home

Highlights of the podcast:

 

The Podcast Hosts for The Energy Transition

Energy Thought Leader, Podcast Host, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
International Author writing about energy, mining, and geopolitical issues. Bulgaria
Principal at DB Energy Advisors, energy author, and podcast host.Principal at DB Energy Advisors, energy author, and podcast host.

Energy Consulting Specialist

Energy Analyst | Economic and Geopolitical Analyst | ExFounder U&I Global | Consultant, Advisor | Commonwealth Scholar

President, and CEO, Sandstone Group, Podcast Host

Blubrry Podcast:

 

 

ENERGY TRANSITION #90-Venezuela wants Guyana’s oil

 

Armando Cavanha [00:00:02] Energy transition. 90. Venezuela wants Guyana’s oil. Some some people talk as Guyana pursue Guyana but internationally I suppose is Guyana. Good morning David Blackmon. Let me show more light. Yeah. His LinkedIn. Good morning. Stuart Turley. His LinkedIn page.

Stuart Turley [00:00:28] Good morning.

Armando Cavanha [00:00:29] And good afternoon. Dr. Tammy Nemeth. This is her page. And so.

Tammy Nemeth [00:00:39] Yeah. Armando.

Armando Cavanha [00:00:42] Yeah. So very good to see you both. Please let me share a video that’s short one. 40s. From Exxon Mobil president?

CNBC news Interviewer [00:00:57] Well, I mean, they can’t defend themselves at the Venezuelan’s decide. They want to do something.

CNBC Darren Woods [00:01:01] I’m not sure Guyana is standing on its own, to tell you the truth. I think, you know, there are a lot of. We’ve all seen what happens when nation sovereignties are challenged and unilateral actions take. And I think the world and our states community have grown pretty sensitive to that. So my expectation is there’s more support, more broad, more broad support in the international community to make sure that the right processes are followed to resolve this dispute. From our perspective, we know what we need to do in-country, develop those resources economically, environmentally, responsibly and do what we’ve been contracted to do. That’s what our organization is focused on.

Armando Cavanha [00:01:39] I’m not sure Guyana is standing on its own. Stuart Turley for own companies, short European and place. Is it better the reserves be in Guyana or Venezuela?

Stuart Turley [00:01:52] Well, I’ll tell you. Just to start it off, thank you so much for having me this morning. Good afternoon. Good evening. Everything else I love love your interviews, intros. Guyana, I don’t think can stand on its own. And when you have Hess and Chevron, you know, and they’ve been supporting it and then you have Maduro, who has been in charge for Venezuela. The only reason that man is in charge is because he has made all of his generals millionaires. He takes care of his generals. The generals take care of the colonels. The colonels go out and they take care of the sergeants. Sergeants go out in the street and beat the snot out of everybody. And so that’s how he’s keeping control. Guyana has a tugboat out there, and they call that their navy. And we’re doing ships out there with them. David, you’ve had probably the best single stories out there. But Guyana’s 11 billion barrels in reserves, they’re only doing about 400,000 barrels per day. Now, that could be three X in a few years. Here’s the gotcha. Why is Maduro going after Guyana? Is because the great Venezuelan oil machine has been crippled for so many years due to his corruption. And if he shows up on my doorstep, you’re going to see me jumping under my desk. But it’s because of the corruption. They’ve destroyed the Venezuelan oil fields. So why is our president, President Biden, relieving the sanctions on Venezuela to get more oil to the market? Because he can’t steal any more from the strategic oil reserves. And so this chess match going on with the Biden administration is basically put the thumb under Guyana and either intentionally or unintentionally, I don’t know yet, but it’s because of stupidity in geopolitical. And I hope I didn’t cross the line or if I made sense, which is rare for me on a Monday morning. I notice David’s over and damn, you’re both going,.

Armando Cavanha [00:04:13] Oh yeah,.

Stuart Turley [00:04:15] Pull him off the stage. Pull him off the stage.

Armando Cavanha [00:04:17] You brought some good points, David, because. He mentioned the 11 billion barrels of recoverable reserves and the production was 3 million barrels a day. Now is. 700 going to 1.2. They are forecasting 1.2, 1.4. How do you see this amount of money being, let’s see, not in a war?

David Blackmon [00:04:45] Well,. You know, Venezuela is by many estimates, the wealthiest country in the world in terms of just pure reserves of crude oil. And yes, Maduro and before him, Hugo Chavez. I mean, the Venezuelan oil and gas industry was very vibrant when Hugo Chavez took over in 1999. Chavez didn’t do all that much to destroy it until he decided to confiscate the holdings of foreign countries or companies in his country. I was at Shell when all of that began to percolate up to the top in 2007. Maduro has completely collapsed his industry and this whole country’s economy. The inflation rate in Brazil, you know, we Americans whine about a 6 or 8% rate of inflation. This year’s inflation rate in Venezuela is 359%. And that’s a vast improvement from the 65,400% rate of inflation in 2018. That’s the Maduro economy. So Biden nomics looks pretty good compared to that. But, you know, Maduro’s desperate to to find a new source of income. Exxon Mobil and Hess and the Chinese national oil company Sener did a fine job of developing the Stabroek block in a very responsible and efficient way. They’re going to be producing this new set a million barrels a day by 2027, at which point Guyana would rank as about the 12th largest exporter of crude oil on the face of the earth. It’s the fastest growing economy on the face of the earth the last two years. And so it’s no secret why Maduro is doing this. And I suspect, although no one, I think has established hard links yet, but Maduro made his announcement that he was going to hold this recent referendum three days after he met with Vladimir Putin or had a phone call with Vladimir Putin two weeks after he had met with Xi Jinping. Both those countries, China and Russia, have established major economic and military inroads in Venezuela over the last five years. And I suspect those two countries are playing a big role in motivating this as well. And the question just becomes now, what is the Biden administration going to do about it? They held joint military exercises last week with the Guyanese security force. They don’t call it an army. They call it a security force. It’s very small. Obviously, this is a country of 800,000 people. So Guyana, if Venezuela does decide to mount a military operation, Guyana will need the help of the United States and Brazil and other interested countries.

Armando Cavanha [00:07:44] Yeah, that’s right.

Tammy Nemeth [00:07:44] Yeah.

Armando Cavanha [00:07:45] Dr. Tammy Maduro, interested in an election campaign next year in Venezuela, probably will hold a summit. We supposed they will hold elections. And the problem he’s trying to avoid to discuss internal problems and making war something bigger. What do you think about this?

Tammy Nemeth [00:08:08] You know, that’s a really good point. I think with respect to what’s going on there, there is lots of different variables and factors involved. And I think David’s highlighted two really important ones, and that’s Russia and China involved in, you know, support. I don’t think Ruggiero would have gone and done this without the backing of those two nations. I mean, China holds I think they’re the biggest debt holder in in Venezuela. So they can’t really keep operating without financial assistance from China. When Chavez changed this, the when they kicked out the private companies, they said only state oil oil firms were allowed to develop in Venezuela. And so you had Rosneft get involved. You had China, the Chinese national oil company, get involved and whatnot. And so when the production goes down and they’re looking to build back up again, I think Guyana’s a oh, Guyana is a threat. They’re a threat to Venezuela’s future. So when you have China and Russia doing this kind of thing and they they will seek to benefit because it puts the United States off balance. It’s in the American back backyard. It’s another distraction away from what’s going on. In Ukraine. Will the United States be more likely to insist on some kind of negotiated settlement with the with the war in Ukraine now that they have this distraction? Does it allow China more flexibility in asserting its power in the South China Sea and and in the Middle East and whatnot? Because America’s distracted in, you know, in its own backyard. So there’s all of these other issues. And then, of course, Maduro is happy to do it because he’s like, okay, I can help in this situation. And I have an election coming up which will distract the local people and we can push nationalism and and this kind of thing. But it baffles me, like you mentioned, that Venezuela has all of these incredible resources. They have these massive reserves. So why do they need more? They have this, you know, first or second largest reserves in the world. Why do they need this? Well, I would submit that they they don’t need it. It’s to keep it off the market because then it’s a it earns more for Venezuela for whatever production they do manage to squeak out in its corrupt system.

Armando Cavanha [00:10:38] Perfect. Very good. Good morning, John. Thank you.

David Blackmon [00:10:42] Good morning, John.

Tammy Nemeth [00:10:43] Good morning, John.

Armando Cavanha [00:10:45] Tammy Tammy you put something very interesting because Venezuela has a huge reserves. 300 billion barrels recoverable. But they need because the type of oil they have, the reserves, they need technologies and products to solve this production. And they do not have a lot they need the United States very close to them to produce this, Stuart Turley.

David Blackmon [00:11:10] Do I know you? I’m sorry. My system cut out. What was the question again?

Armando Cavanha [00:11:14] The question is the following. Venezuela to produce more oil than production today. Right. Need the United States supporting US companies like Halliburton, Schlumberger, so that they cannot produce alone?

David Blackmon [00:11:28] No, they absolutely cannot. And their infrastructure has been weakened so much over all of the the last so many years. Very much like the French in their nuclear fleet, they never put any money back into it. Oil and gas does not happen without maintenance. Oil and gas does not happen without CapEx investment into new wells, into infrastructure. None of that has been done. You know, it’s kind of like if Maduro was wanting to bring in and say, I’m going to give it general millions of dollars or invest back into my infrastructure. Hmm. Okay. So, you know, General Juan Nido, whereas gets $1 million and then this offshore rig falls into the sea. So that’s exactly what’s been going on.

Armando Cavanha [00:12:25] Yeah. And David, you see that.

Tammy Nemeth [00:12:28] I went out there that.

Armando Cavanha [00:12:31] Sorry. Go ahead, please. Please

Tammy Nemeth [00:12:32]   Armando, I would add that you know that the state oil company of China invested heavily in the oil sands, which uses a significant a similar technology for extracting the type of oil that’s in Venezuela. So, yeah, I think they do need some American support for further developing their resources and whatnot. But I think that the Chinese state oil company, if they wanted to, could help increase that production. That’s just that’s just my point of view there.

Stuart Turley [00:13:06] Is that the same one that Hunter’s on the board? I’m not sure.

David Blackmon [00:13:10] No.

Stuart Turley [00:13:10] Okay. Yeah. Just

Armando Cavanha [00:13:13] See Tammy in Russia, Schlumberger, Halliburton and Baker are working very hard that they they they are the high technology that that.

Tammy Nemeth [00:13:21] Yeah.

Armando Cavanha [00:13:22] Sometimes is necessary for this.

Tammy Nemeth [00:13:25] Okay.

Armando Cavanha [00:13:25] Yeah. They you see the U.S. has a position in terms of a Guyana or Venezuela on on their reserves but it depends on on the party. I mean Democrats or Republicans are different thing.

David Blackmon [00:13:41] Well it shouldn’t You know, we have the Monroe Doctrine that’s been in effect in the United States for 200 years. And and that just basically says that any time a foreign power is making an incursion into the Western Hemisphere whose interests are hostile to those of the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere, the United States military would intervene to prevent that from happening. That’s obviously been happening in Venezuela with Russia and China coming. I mean, China’s in the process of establishing a military base in Venezuela right now. So that’s that’s a clear threat to American interests. That’s this is a clear cut case of of declaring this U.S. vital interest under the Monroe Doctrine they dispute. Now, this dispute goes back all the way to 1899 over the Ezequiel Akiba excuse me territory, which makes up two thirds or almost three quarters of Guyana’s geography and about 125,000 of the 800,000 citizens of Guyana live in the region. In 1899, an international panel that was I really don’t even understand how it was constituted declared this to be territory of Guyana, which had been a British territory at the time. The Venezuelan government in 1899 disputed that. That finding is an example of colonialism. But in 1905, Venezuela’s government, as a result of a negotiation, agreed to the current borders along with the Guyanese government. And so this has been an established border and established Guyanese region since 1905 for 118 years. And Venezuela has attempted to raise this claim periodically in the intervening years since. Whenever it turns out that some gold mine was discovered in Guyana or, you know, and now you have the big oil presence that the most of the stabroek block offshore would go along with this to convey with the Eskimo region. So, I mean, this is clearly just an economic grab. Venezuela’s claims, you know, some people will say, well, it’s legitimate, but, you know, this is 118 years of an established border. And to be raising it now is just clearly an act of aggression and an a grab for the billions of dollars in revenues that stand to accrue from the stable block. And so, you know, I just think it’s it’s really pretty clear example of of of an instance where we can expect the American government and American military to intervene on behalf of Guyana. And I think that means that at the end of the day, Maduro is not going to make any sort of military incursion.

Armando Cavanha [00:16:48] We’ll have a comment from. John.

David Blackmon [00:16:53] All the major supplying us.

Armando Cavanha [00:16:56] Yeah, well, that’s.

David Blackmon [00:16:56] Certainly true in in the shale plays in the United States.

Armando Cavanha [00:17:00] And I would like to add, because some United States are importing 7 million barrels a day at this time and with the problems and restrictions from Middle East oil. So come from Venezuela could be very interesting in terms of logistics. Stuart, Tammy and David.

Stuart Turley [00:17:23] Yeah, and especially this is a heartbreaker on that. And we I would much rather trade with our beloved Canadians on the heavy oil sands and, and see a Keystone pipeline might have helped that a bunch. We would not need to import that and David and Damian this is this is something that has been talked about David has written about that and that is the blending of our refineries needs the heavier oil to come from the sweet oil out of the Permian and our other basins. So we need heavier oil in. And so we’re it’s going to get kind of ugly on that is when we take a look at the importing in the blending, we may be doing 7 million barrels per day importing. We wouldn’t have to that right now they’re coming in by rail and you can’t get that much in by rail. I believe Warren Buffett and most of that rail, we’ll leave that alone.

Tammy Nemeth [00:18:27] There are a fair number of pipelines as well. They come from Canada and Canada is the number one supplier to the United States. We we overtook Saudi Arabia some time ago. And it’s interesting when you look at the Energy Information Agency data about oil imports and you see Venezuela just fall off a cliff and Canada takes up and and you’re right. I mean, Keystone could have been such a huge benefit to the United States, you know, fortress North America and all that, which is one of the reasons why the Biden administration wanted to make sure it was canceled so there couldn’t be a fortress. North America. Mexico was also a large exporter to the United States, but their supplies are are starting to drop. Guyana recently has started to, of course, be a supplier to the United States. But it’s it’s quite small, but not that much smaller than Venezuela, which is interesting. And historically, Venezuela has been part of the the Western Hemisphere coalition of exporters to the United States, which was supposed to be a counterbalance to the Middle Eastern oil. And the Middle Eastern oil was supposed to predominantly supply Europe. And then you had the Western Hemisphere sources that were supposed to supply the United States and North America. Then there was supposed to be this sort of interdependence. But of course, with Chavez, that all kind of and the and the various other coups that have taken place in Venezuela over the years often throw that into disarray. But then it comes to, I think, Brazil in all of this, because Brazil is supposed to be there. They’re not the mediator for this meeting that’s supposed to take place on Thursday between Venezuela and Guyana on on a Caribbean island. But they’re there as an observer. And and I’m curious to know what Armando thinks about the role of Brazil in this, because if you think about it, there’s a question there about Iran. Well, that’s part of the the BRICs plus now. And and so is this a way for the BRICs to sort of assert their own strength of oil supply in the face of Cop 28 and everything else? And Brazil’s part of that. So what side are they going to take in this dispute? Armando, what do you think?

Armando Cavanha [00:20:53] Yeah, I think that that is not that good. A good place to Brazil because you are being a friend, friends of a dictator. That’s the real case. And the middle class in Brazil that do not accept this situation. And Maduro in the past threatened Brazil several times with this. That in itself we are not so friends. This can be another thing. Brazil exporting one more than 1 million barrels a day. And I see that a great opportunity in the United States to receive this 1 million barrels a day because and I do not know how they do not reach a good deal because.

Stuart Turley [00:21:37] Can I can I ask a follow up to Tammy’s great comments now? Sorry, Tammy did not mean to compliment you, but great comments. With Brazil being admitted into OPEC plus that would follow into that. Armand, there’s this great company called Petrobras. And I believe the CEO of Petrobras said, we don’t care about yours. We don’t need no stinking quotas and we’re going to pump everything we can. I believe that was in the movie a long time ago. We don’t need no badges. He doesn’t like no quotas as he goes in. Do you think that BRICs and OPEC Plus are going to play into the Brazilian oil markets?

Armando Cavanha [00:22:23] It’s a dubious position, so it is not clear the direction we are taking because OPEC plus BRICs, at the same time trying to be the developing country. So it’s complicated for Brazil, I suppose.

Tammy Nemeth [00:22:40] And you’re saying Brazil. Lula’s around there going around telling everybody how green they’re going to be and they’re going to be all this renewable stuff, but at the same time, increasing oil production. It’s one of those contradictions, I guess.

Armando Cavanha [00:22:54] Exactly. Ever see at the same time and the opposition to their actions is not good and some people are afraid to be moderation in Brazil. So the current government goes to the mayor. Maduro is a trend. It’s not a good thing for my opinion that there are people thinking differently. They should like.

David Blackmon [00:23:15] Your point about Brazil’s potential to be a major exporter into the United States is a great one because between Brazil, Venezuela, Guyana, Mexico and Canada, the United States really would have no need to import oil from any other part of the world outside the Western Hemisphere.

Armando Cavanha [00:23:37] Is this just the.

David Blackmon [00:23:38] Financial companies arrange their contracts with those five major supply and growing suppliers. Venezuela, if if it could get its industry back on track, was once exporting almost 3 million barrels of oil per day.

Tammy Nemeth [00:23:54] Yes, absolutely.

David Blackmon [00:23:55] Of what, half a million or something like that. Chevron is is continuing to operate down there in Venezuela. It managed not to have its assets confiscated by the Chavez government. And so it’s really almost the entire industry is in Venezuela.

Stuart Turley [00:24:12] And Iran picked up that slack because they’re now over what I believe it’s 3.5 million.

David Blackmon [00:24:18] Barrels

Stuart Turley [00:24:19] And when Biden took office, they were at 400,000. So a huge win for Iran picking up that slack.

Armando Cavanha [00:24:31] And, David, that could be something regional and some countries being friends and supporting themselves and then do not reach this point they cannot reach. Sorry, because I have several things on the same screen that you can help me.

David Blackmon [00:24:46] It is my understanding that Iran’s IRGC operatives are well established in Venezuela. Isn’t it also possible that Iran figures in Maduro’s decision to pursue aggression against its neighbor? Certainly, you know, Maduro is a bad guy. Folks, let’s let’s just all be honest about this. Maduro is a youth who is is more than happy to be influenced by terrorist supporting regimes like Iran, by China, by Russia. He’s going to take help from wherever he can get it because he knows his whole regime is collapsing. And if he ever does hold an actual free election, which he’s never going to do, he would lose miserably with the voters there in Venezuela. But, you know, and that’s the irony of this whole situation, right, is that the United States agreed to lift its sanctions on Venezuela in exchange for a promise from literally the worst despot in the Western Hemisphere to hold a free election next year. Well, my, does anybody really think that’s going to happen? Of course it’s not. This guy who makes Vladimir Putin looks like look like an angel in terms of holding elections. So it’s just this just the most naive.

Stuart Turley [00:26:03] Do you think that’s where the Biden administration got the Dominion servers was from a left over election in Venezuela?

David Blackmon [00:26:11] I don’t know

Stuart Turley [00:26:12] That was a joke. That was a joke. Maybe a joke.

Armando Cavanha [00:26:18] There is another comment here from our.

David Blackmon [00:26:24] Pick up Maduro and his orchestra. Put them behind bars. The whole conflict will be over. Peace and happiness will be back to Venezuela. True. True. But someone has to take the initiative to do that. And unfortunately, the Biden State Department has the whole world on fire right now. And we’re distracted in places like Ukraine and in the Middle East. And so there’s no real focus here, you know, yet. We’ll see see what happens in the coming months.

Armando Cavanha [00:26:53] Dr. Tammy You see that investments. And thus in the region because this conflict.

Tammy Nemeth [00:27:00] Yeah, that was one of my concerns, is that, okay, so Chevron, Exxon, Hess had found these fields and they’re they want to develop them. Will those developments go on hold if there is the prospect of of armed conflict? I don’t know. Are they would they be anticipating that they would hire private defense contractors or maybe the American military would come in to protect those assets from the potential of Venezuela coming in and doing whatever it is they’re going to do? So, yeah, I’m not sure. I think David probably knows more about how the the the major companies would operate in those kinds of circumstances. What do you think?

David Blackmon [00:27:42] Yeah. I mean, I think if there was an actual armed conflict arise, they would probably shut down operations and evacuate their personnel if if they perceived any threat that that their personnel could come in harm’s way. I would you know, it would be just like having a hurricane come through the Gulf of Mexico. You just shut it all in and get your people out of there and keep them safe.

Tammy Nemeth [00:28:07] Yeah.

David Blackmon [00:28:08] You know, you hope it doesn’t come to that. It shouldn’t if cooler heads prevail. But it’s hard getting harder and harder to identify the cooler heads in this world these days.

Armando Cavanha [00:28:20] Stuart do you see, as some some American companies, let’s see, going going back home and do not extend exploration this area?

Stuart Turley [00:28:33] I think it’s an excellent question, Arman, and I think that’s probably why you’re seeing so many countries wanting to invest in the oil and gas space. That’s why you see total investing in natural gas energy plants in Texas. That’s why you see people wanting to not invest in CapEx in outside the U.S. Now, there are areas like off of Africa’s coasts that there are still some good investments, but it’s getting tougher out there because you don’t know where you’re going to and find a geopolitical problem popping up. It’s we’re going to need the oil. And the oil is not being explored for the known reserves.

David Blackmon [00:29:27] That’s a great point, by the way, that we need to to emphasize here is this Stabroek block. Offshore Guyana is a major focal point of the capital budgets, future capital budgets of the two American major integrated oil companies, Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

Stuart Turley [00:29:51] That is Correct.

David Blackmon [00:29:51] To acquire Hess. This is Exxon’s top priority, international development globally. Okay. And it’s about to become among Chevron’s most critical international developments globally as well.

Stuart Turley [00:30:06] That is correct.

David Blackmon [00:30:07] So the implications here for the American oil and gas business, if this should fall into Maduro’s hands, are enormous. They can’t be overestimated. And, you know, this is a U.S. government, this current administration that’s pretty hostile to American oil and gas companies and has said repeatedly that it wants to put them all out of business in ten years. So, you know, that that also complicates this whole situation and really makes it a very tense thing inside these oil companies.

Armando Cavanha [00:30:40] Yeah. And you can see the map, the companies that are working in front of them.

David Blackmon [00:30:47] Yeah. Yeah. I mean, in Suriname, you know, you have Apache Corporation over there as well. Chevron has a big position. ExxonMobil even has interests offshore, Chevron, Shell, you know, So this is just a real major hot spot right now for the American oil and gas industry.

Tammy Nemeth [00:31:08] Yeah, that’s an excellent point about that. The the forward looking of the of the majors because it’s become so difficult to do any increased exploration and production in supposedly democratic regions that they end up having to go elsewhere in order to invest in the in those kind of capital expenditures for for research and about, well, development, exploration and development. So yeah, that’s a really good point. Thank you.

David Blackmon [00:31:39] And unfortunately, the Biden administration has has created so much damage to the ability of these companies and the United States to have faith in the fair application of laws and regulations and the stability of the legal and regulatory system. And that’s been an intentional thing by this administration then. And so it really makes it harder and harder to invest in exploration for new reserves in the United States.

Tammy Nemeth [00:32:08] Yeah, and the same in Canada, the same type of regulatory burdens and the endless litigation by environmental groups and other interested parties who who wish to see the the oil and gas companies die and the oil and gas left in the ground. If I could make one point about Venezuela and they’re supposed to have these free elections, well, it was five days ago that Venezuela’s top prosecutor put out an arrest warrant for, I think it was 12 members of the opposition saying that they were they were taking the side of a Guyana and were trying to sabotage the referendum or something like that. So so much for the possibility of free elections if they if they’re using the referendum as an excuse to arrest the opposition leaders.

David Blackmon [00:32:53] Gosh, it sounds like the Biden administration.

Stuart Turley [00:32:56] David, I am so proud of you. I was about to say that. And you beat David. David Blaze, thank you very much. David, I am so proud of you.

Armando Cavanha [00:33:08] I regret that. Good. So going to the conclusion, do you see any any solution, possible solution for this next month’s situation?

Stuart Turley [00:33:19] I think we sent Hunter Biden down. And I think that his he has enough that in negotiation skills that we know that then the Biden administration would be interested in doing this. So I think you think I’m making a joke. I think that if there is actually financial implications for the Biden administration, we might actually get some decent. Somebody laughing about that. So I’m serious. We’ve got to get the Biden administration interested in this to actually do something right for the country. 10% for the big guy may be a joke, but it may be a theme song in Guyana.

David Blackmon [00:33:59] I just think that they’re a show of force by the United States, this conducting of joint military operations and a statement from the Biden State Department, you know, note putting Maduro on notice that the United States would intervene on Ghana’s behalf would pretty much but a quiet a sign any military operations coming from Venezuela. But, you know, it also the administration would be reluctant to do that because they don’t want to be criticized by their normal support base for engaging in colonialism and all the talking points that would come in opposition to that. So, you know, it’s it politically it’s a difficult thing for the Biden administration because it has to be sure it doesn’t alienate its own voter base. So it’s this a tough deal for everybody.

Armando Cavanha [00:34:50] Dr. Tammy you see Trudeau can help us to solve this problem.

Tammy Nemeth [00:34:55] Oh, my gosh. Yeah, that’ll be great. Send Mr. Fancy socks down there. They can compare notes or something. Yeah, It’s so in all seriousness, I think it’s too soon to tell what the outcome will be on all of this this situation. I’m curious to see what happens on Thursday at the meeting, but. I don’t know. It’s it’s just too early. And I hope that that a show of force will be enough to get Venezuela to back off. But given that they aren’t coming into an election election year, who know for anything. can happen In these days.

Stuart Turley [00:35:34] A show of force,

David Blackmon [00:35:34]  United States.

Stuart Turley [00:35:36] Oh, I was like.

Tammy Nemeth [00:35:38] Oh, my gosh.

Stuart Turley [00:35:39] Oh, yeah.

Tammy Nemeth [00:35:39] They would send the beer boat. You know, that’s what we’ve got, is we have a freighter with that hauls beer around seriously.

Armando Cavanha [00:35:48] And Tammy Tammy in England, UK, UK is not concerned about this because was something.

Tammy Nemeth [00:35:54] It’s not it’s not in their neighborhood. And so unless BP or something was involved, I think they they know this is an American in the Americans neighborhood and the Americans need to deal with it. I think the UK is just dealing with its own mess in Europe and Brexit and everything else.

Stuart Turley [00:36:14] You’re saying the Falklands was not such a good thing?

Tammy Nemeth [00:36:19] Well. I don’t know. But now with the new fella in Argentina, I don’t know. Maybe the UK will get pulled into that one again.

David Blackmon [00:36:29] There he is.

Tammy Nemeth [00:36:32] Yeah.

Stuart Turley [00:36:33] I think he threw.

Tammy Nemeth [00:36:34] A cabinet, though.

Stuart Turley [00:36:37] Yes. I think he.

Tammy Nemeth [00:36:40] Done.

Stuart Turley [00:36:41] Sorry. I think he’s. He’s an entertaining cat. I’d love to get him on our podcast. So the offer is there and and I would even fly down to get that interview. I think that would be an absolute.

Armando Cavanha [00:36:56] That’s great. Thank you so much. Was a great pleasure to have. Having a Stuart Turley, David Blackmon and Dr. Tammy Nemeth. Thank you.

David Blackmon [00:37:07] Thank you Armando

Tammy Nemeth [00:37:08] Thank you Armando, Thank you gentlemen

Stuart Turley [00:37:10] It’ll be a great week.

Tammy Nemeth [00:37:12] For sure. Bye.

 

Sponsorships are available or get your own corporate brand produced by Sandstone Media.

David Blackmon LinkedIn

DB Energy Questions 

The Crude Truth with Rey Trevino

Rey Trevino LinkedIn

Energy Transition Weekly Conversation

David Blackmon LinkedIn

Irina Slav LinkedIn

Armando Cavanha LinkedIn

 

ENB Top News

ENB

Energy Dashboard

ENB Podcast

ENB Substack

 

Our Podcast Sponsor

The Sandstone Group.

The post ENERGY TRANSITION EPISODE 91 -Filmed Live On YouTube on December 18, 2023 appeared first on Energy News Beat.