Low-emissions steelmaking could be big business for Minnesota’s Iron Range, experts say 

Energy News Beat

The following story is the first in a series produced in collaboration with KAXE/KBXE, an independent, nonprofit community radio station that tells the stories of northern Minnesota. 

World leaders in Dubai this week are concluding the latest United Nations conference on climate change, where experts and advocates repeated urgent pleas for governments to phase out fossil fuels and transition to clean energy. 

In Minnesota, that change is underway. A new state law requires power companies to only sell clean electricity by 2040. Electric vehicle sales are growing, and energy efficient heat pumps are starting to replace gas furnaces — even in northern Minnesota.  

But one of the biggest challenges for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota will be finding clean energy solutions for one of the state’s biggest industries: taconite mining. The state’s Iron Range supplies three-quarters of the raw material used to make domestic steel. Getting it out of the ground requires massive, diesel-powered trucks and other heavy-duty equipment for which less-polluting options aren’t yet widely available.  

The steelmaking industry is facing pressure from customers and governments to reduce its climate impact, and Minnesota mine operators Cleveland-Cliffs and U.S. Steel are both exploring new fuels and technologies to help them meet sustainability goals. 

According to the companies’ public statements to shareholders, the path forward is likely to include investments in new, more efficient vehicles and equipment, along with a switch to powering them with renewable electricity, biogas, or hydrogen instead of coal or gas. 

U.S. Steel announced in April 2021 a goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Cleveland-Cliffs says it’s already exceeded its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 25% by 2030. 

The transition to clean energy could create new economic opportunities for the Iron Range, experts say, including the possibility to process iron ore on-site into a cleaner, premium product. 

A recent event hosted by the city of Duluth and the National Renewable Energy Lab called industrial decarbonization the “billion-dollar question for the Northland.” Rolf Weberg, leader of the University of Minnesota-Duluth’s Natural Resources Research Institute, says industrial operations have a real interest in reducing their carbon footprints. 

“When you look globally between steel and concrete, that accounts for between 16-18% of carbon dioxide emissions globally,” Weberg explained. “Countries and industries are really trying to reduce their carbon footprint because we’re not meeting carbon goals across the globe.” 

Weberg said NREL is interested in Minnesota because of its resources. Hydrogen, for example, is a clean-burning fuel that can be produced with no emissions using water and renewable energy – both relatively plentiful in Minnesota. 

“(This includes) infrastructure for future energy, access to water — all of the things you need to have a hydrogen-based approach to preparing green iron and steel,” he said. 

Aaron Brown, a Hibbing native and columnist who has written extensively about the region’s culture and economy, says the Iron Range is in a unique position to capitalize on new technologies and production methods designed to eliminate climate emissions. For example, one strategy steelmakers are exploring involves processing higher-grade iron pellets in electric arc furnaces, which is less geographically constrained by access to coal. 

“What the new technology might do is create opportunities for entrepreneurs, and existing companies like Cleveland-Cliffs or U.S. Steel, to produce (steel) in Minnesota,” Brown said in a phone interview. “Now, whether that will happen or not, of course, is subject to speculation, but it is an opportunity to open up modern industry near the mouth of iron mines. And that should be very interesting to people in northern Minnesota.” 

The U.S. Steel Minntac taconite mining operation near Mountain Iron, Minnesota.
Credit: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Minnesota’s Iron Range has experienced monumental shifts since settlers found iron-rich deposits there in the late 19th century. The giants of American industry — James J. Hill, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller — collectively created U.S. Steel, the world’s first billion-dollar company, with iron ore largely mined from the Iron Range. 

Taconite is a hard, dense rock containing a mixture of silicates and magnetite. After it’s mined in vast open pits, it is crushed into a fine powder, with the magnetite extracted to eventually create marble-sized pellets that contain over 65% iron.  

Mining efforts in the Mesabi Iron Range have focused on taconite ore, a lower-grade iron ore processed from vast pits, since the 1950s. Taconite mining transformed the region after underground mining depleted the high-grade hematite deposits. Forty million tons of iron ore are mined there each year.  

That ore from Minnesota is shipped across the Great Lakes to plants from Chicago to Pittsburgh, where it is combined with coke, a product derived from coal that is shipped by rail from Appalachia to make steel. 

But what if coal were taken out of this equation? New shifts in technology are moving toward using specially formulated iron briquettes in electric arc furnaces instead of lower-grade iron materials in coal-powered blast furnaces. And Iron Range taconite plant owners Cleveland-Cliffs and U.S. Steel are both increasing production of a new type of iron pellet that does not require coal-powered blast furnaces to process into steel. Electricity can be used instead, meaning a rail connection to coal mines may no longer be necessary for processing the raw material into steel. 

These direct reduced-grade pellets are a metallic iron product instead of an iron oxide product like taconite. And they require less energy to process. The company did not respond to interview requests, but its website lists the environmental benefits of these pellets. 

“If we converted United Taconite’s full standard pellet production … net greenhouse gas emissions would decrease by approximately 370,000 tons per year,” Cleveland-Cliffs states. 

U.S. Steel announced in 2022 plans to break ground on a new $150 million direct reduced iron production facility near Keewatin on the Range. In November 2022, the company announced Keetac was the selected site for the expanded operation. Keetac currently employs about 400 people. 

“Keetac’s high quality ore body and long mine life makes it the best choice for DR-grade pellet capabilities. We will have the ability to produce both blast furnace and DR-grade pellets at Keetac in the future. These actions will allow us to become increasingly self-sufficient to feed our mini mills segment with key metallics.” 

Hibbing Taconite mine pits are visible through a barbed wire fence and trees.
Credit: Aaron Brown

Weberg defines “green” iron and steel as having no fossil fuels involved at any point in its production. 

“Our iron industry in Minnesota has been working toward this for some time,” Weberg said. “Our colleagues at Cleveland-Cliffs and at U.S. Steel have been making significant progress with direct reduced grade pellets.”  

Brown speculated about a possible future with steel created using hydrogen power and what that could mean for the Iron Range.  

“What hydrogen steel might do for Minnesota is create the opportunity … for efficient and profitable steel production near where the mining occurs — an opportunity that doesn’t exist now because the cost of getting the coke and coal …  to Minnesota is prohibitive,” Brown said.  

As in decades before, the ebbs and flows of the global steel market will continue to impact the Iron Range. As policymakers and manufacturers look toward a sustainable future, the Iron Range may be well poised to prosper in a new, green economy built on the industrious foundation of its core: mining. 

 

The post Low-emissions steelmaking could be big business for Minnesota’s Iron Range, experts say  appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

M&A boom sees Permian oil deals surpass $100 billion in 2023

Energy News Beat

Oil Price

The Permian basin saw a surge in mergers and acquisitions this year, with the total value already exceeding a record $100 billion, led by the mega deals announced by ExxonMobil and Chevron, energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie said on Tuesday.

Source: Oil Price

The Permian, the top oil-producing basin in the United States, saw a return of M&A activity this year as large operators look to add more acreage and expand their reserves and production.

The latter part of 2023 saw major deals announced, including $50-billion-plus deals for each of Exxon and Chevron.

In October, Exxon announced a deal to buy Pioneer Natural Resources in an all-stock transaction valued at $59.5 billion. The implied total enterprise value of the transaction, including net debt, is approximately $64.5 billion.

Exxon said back then that the proposed transaction “transforms ExxonMobil’s upstream portfolio, more than doubling the company’s Permian footprint and creating an industry-leading, high-quality, high-return undeveloped U.S. unconventional inventory position.”

Weeks later, Chevron said it would buy Hess Corporation in an all-stock transaction valued at $53 billion with a total enterprise value, including debt, at $60 billion.

The frenetic deal-making this year also included Permian Resources buying Earthstone Energy in an all-stock deal valued at $4.5 billion, which is expected to create a $14-billion premier producer in the Delaware basin in the Permian.

The latest announced deal was Monday’s statement from Occidental Petroleum, which said it would buy Permian oil and gas producer CrownRock for cash and stock in a deal valued at around $12 billion, including debt.

The acquisition will boost Occidental’s premier Permian portfolio with the addition of around 170,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boed) of high-margin, lower-decline unconventional production in 2024, as well as approximately 1,700 undeveloped locations, Oxy said.

“This transaction cements an absolute banner year in Permian acquisitions and divestments spend,” Robert Clarke, vice president of upstream research at Wood Mackenzie, said in a statement carried by Reuters.

“Coupled with other mega 2023 deals like ExxonMobil and Pioneer, it solidifies Permian scale and multi-decade longevity as a ‘must have’ trait for US Majors and Super-Independents.”

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

 

The post M&A boom sees Permian oil deals surpass $100 billion in 2023 appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Permian oil drilling rights jump to pre-COVID levels amidst mega shale deals

Energy News Beat

World Oil

(Bloomberg) – Drilling rights in the U.S. Permian basin are commanding prices not seen since the worldwide pandemic crushed oil markets more than four years ago. Occidental Petroleum Corp.’s $10.8 billion takeover of CrownRock LP equates to more $50,000 per acre for rights to drill some of the richest oil deposits in the hemisphere, according to data-analysis and research firm Enverus Inc.

Source: World Oil

That’s approaching the $60,000 threshold Occidental reached in its blockbuster 2019 deal for Anadarko Petroleum Corp., the biggest deal of Chief Executive Officer Vicki Hollub’s tenure.

Occidental is acquiring CrownRock amid a broader, industrywide campaign by the biggest oil operators to secure top-notch drilling targets key to ensuring future production and cash-flow growth. More than a decade after shale-drilling innovations triggered a renaissance in Permian oil production, the inventory of the very highest-quality targets will be exhausted in roughly six years, according to Enverus.

ConocoPhillips and EOG Resources Inc. are prime candidates to execute the next round of takeovers, and one of the most sought after targets is Endeavor Energy Resources LP, Enverus said. In the past two months alone, more than $120 billion in major U.S. oil acquisitions have been announced, led by Exxon Mobil Corp.’s $60 billion bid for Pioneer Natural Resources Co.

 

The post Permian oil drilling rights jump to pre-COVID levels amidst mega shale deals appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Daily Energy Standup Episode #269 – Geopolitical Energy Chess: Russian Uranium, Fossil Fuel Fumbles, and Venezuelan Border Dilemma

Energy News Beat

Daily Standup Top Stories

House passes bill barring imports of Russian uranium for nuclear power

The House on Monday passed legislation that would bar imports of Russian uranium for nuclear power plants. The measure was passed by a voice vote with bipartisan support. Ahead of the voice vote, Republican Rep. Cathy […]

Greens erupt as fossil fuel ‘phaseout’ is dropped from proposed climate deal

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The prospect of a deal to end fossil fuels faded on Monday in the oil-rich United Arab Emirates, when organizers of the U.N. climate summit released a draft proposal that […]

The Geopolitical Problem of the US—a German-Russo-Japanese Connection

ENB Pub Note: George McMillan III, ENB Contributor, and geopolitical energy expert, wrote this article. He was on an earlier podcast where we covered a fantastic global overview, and are tracking around the world in […]

Chevron CEO cautiously optimistic on Venezuelan-Guyanese border dispute, downplays military conflict risks

(Bloomberg) — The border dispute between Venezuela and Guyana is unlikely to escalate into a military conflict despite the growing hostile rhetoric between the South American nations, says Chevron Corp.’s top executive. “These things are […]

Highlights of the Podcast

00:00 – Intro
02:47 – House passes bill barring imports of Russian uranium for nuclear power
05:18 – Greens erupt as fossil fuel ‘phaseout’ is dropped from proposed climate deal
07:42 – The Geopolitical Problem of the US—a German-Russo-Japanese Connection
10:06 – Chevron CEO cautiously optimistic on Venezuelan-Guyanese border dispute, downplays military conflict risks
14:00 – Markets Update
14:28 – Oil falls more than 3% on softening demand, oversupply concerns
17:06 – Outro

Follow Stuart On LinkedIn and Twitter

Follow Michael On LinkedIn and Twitter

ENB Top News

ENB

Energy Dashboard

ENB Podcast

ENB Substack

– Get in Contact With The Show –

Video Transcription edited for grammar. We disavow any errors unless they make us look better or smarter.

Michael Tanner: [00:00:14] What is going on, everybody? Welcome to another edition of the Daily Energy News Beat Stand up here on this gorgeous Wednesday, December 13th, 2023. As always, I’m your humble correspondent, Michael Tanner, coming to you from an undisclosed location here in Dallas, Texas, joined by the executive producer of the show, the purveyor of the show, and the director and publisher of the world’s greatest website energynewsbeat.com. Stuart Turley, my man, how are we doing today? [00:00:38][24.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:00:38] It’s a beautiful day here in Dallas. I’ll tell you. I’m getting around. Yeah, it. [00:00:42][3.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:00:43] Nice to have you in town for a bit. [00:00:45][1.6]

Stuart Turley: [00:00:45] Yeah, that was in West Texas yesterday. [00:00:47][1.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:00:47] You’re all over the state. Luckily, the menu is fire, as always. First up, House passes bill barring imports of Russian uranium for nuclear power. We’ll follow it up with Greens Europe as fossil fuel phaseout is dropped from proposed climate deal. The cover image. You got to love the cop president flapping over that. But we’ll cover the fallout from that. Next up, the geopolitical problem of the United States. A German Russo Japanese connection. This is a follow up to George McMillan, the third, which Stu interviewed on the one and only Energy News Beat podcast. So we’ll be doing a little bit of a deep dive in there. And then finally, I mean, you got to love this headline. Chevron CEO Cautiously Optimistic on Venezuelan Guyana Border Dispute Downplays Military Conflict Risk. So studio oil will determine if he believes that or not, but he’ll then kick it over to me. I’ll quickly cover what’s happening in the oil and gas finance markets. We saw oil tumble about 3% today. Not good API. Crude oil inventories drop. So it’s good to see there. And then we’ll let you get out of here and start your week. As always, guys, the news and analysis you are about to hear before we dive in is brought to you by the world’s greatest website. www.energynewsbeat.com the best place for all of your energy news Stu and the team do a tremendous job of keeping it up to speed with everything you need to know to be the tip of the spear when it comes to the energy business, you can check us out again online. You can subscribe to us, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts at Energy News beat on YouTube. You can hit the description below in the podcast or the YouTube check out all the time Stamps and links to the articles. You can email the show [email protected] and you can check out dashboard.energynewsbeat.com our data news combo product at work. We’re really working hard to push in Q1 2024, so no better time to start on your Q1 goals for next year than now. With that, those two, I’m out of breath. Where do you want to begin? [00:02:44][117.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:02:45] All right, dude. Hey, let’s go over to the house. House passes Bill Barring imports of Russian uranium for nuclear power. Michael, we talk about this. This thread today is pretty amazing, but this is first order, second order. And this is going to have a third order of magnitude of a decision. Okay. We import as the U.S. 20% of our uranium from Russia. Mm hmm. Wow. That is a lot. You lose now in a critical mineral area. Michael, what happens to the price when you lose 20% of your market skyrockets? Yeah, retro. So the house passed it. The measure passed by voice vote with bipartisan support. I don’t get that. People don’t understand that a good chunk of our power in the United States is done. Needless to say, we need uranium for our ships. [00:03:44][59.0]

Michael Tanner: [00:03:45] Yeah. Now, the part where I agree with the two representatives, you know, Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Democrat Frank Pallone, you know, this is one of their quotes here, specifically from Cathy Rogers. She’s from Washington. One of the most urgent security threats to America right now is are dangers reliance on the Russian supply of nuclear fuels or our nuclear fleet, adding that the war in Ukraine, quote, intensified the issue. Right. [00:04:10][25.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:04:10] In what what good is it going to do to sanction Russian? [00:04:13][2.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:04:15] It’s not going to do anything. It’s not a huge revenue source. The question is, do where else do you source nuclear material from? [00:04:20][5.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:04:20] That’s what I mean. You just have to suck it up, buttercup, and leave it alone because sanctions don’t work. The bullet you handle Russia through other means. The only one that’s going to get hurt on this is a consumer. [00:04:34][13.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:04:35] What’s funny is this last quote, The combination of banning Russian and branding imports of Russian uranium and investing in domestic capacity will provide private industry with both the certainty and an incentives it needs to invest in the nuclear fuel supply chain. That could not be wrong. Banning Russian imports will provide the correct incentives. Yeah, I doubt it. [00:04:52][17.4]

Stuart Turley: [00:04:52] No, I doubt it too, because also you have the legislation through regulatory issues with Biden banning here going okay, which came first, the regulatory chicken or the uranium crossing the pond through Russia. You can’t have both eggs and eat them. At the same time. [00:05:11][19.0]

Michael Tanner: [00:05:12] I had to make that into a T-shirt. You can’t have both eggs and eat them at the same time. All right. What’s next? [00:05:16][4.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:05:17] Let’s go to the greens. Erupt as fossil fuel phaseout is drop in proposed climate deal. I’ll tell you what. I had a podcast today with Paula Glover. She’s the CEO over at the Energy Alliance, and they are an advocate for energy savings. Michael, you and I have been doing our podcast for three years. That was the first time I ever talked about saving energy by not using it. And she is energy agnostic. How that plays into here is the the president of Cop is basically an oil man and it has been loop watching all of the other folks not happy with the fact that we’ve got oil folks hanging out there. We got nuclear folks, the 22 countries that signed on to nuclear, it’s leaving Al Gore in the dust. Now, this one says the draft doesn’t really meet the expectations of this cop in terms of the urgently needed transition to clean sources of energy and the phase out of fossil fuels. The US climate Envoy. John, I had a funny name, but I’m going to leave that alone, Kerry said during a fractious closed door meeting late Monday night, Tuesday, which Politico listen to via an unsanctioned feed. Somebody had their phone in the pocket. How cool is that? Sitting next to lurch in somebodies get your pocket open member one idea tweeted the other day. Yeah that little. [00:06:48][91.0]

Michael Tanner: [00:06:48] Extra Heinz 57 on his sandwich charm at lunch. It’s absolutely unbelievable. [00:06:52][3.8]

Stuart Turley: [00:06:54] So and then just saying this is bull crap. [00:06:58][3.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:06:58] Yeah, you see that? Yeah, we’ll. Well, we’ll spare the podcast. [00:07:00][2.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:07:01] When they have because they realize they have to have. [00:07:03][1.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:07:03] It. Nothing better when you can get former US vice president or Vice President Al Gore to unload on the proposal. Here is his quotes. Do hop 28 is now on the verge of a complete failure. That’s I mean, that’s music to my ears. There could be nothing better as an outcome for Cop 28 than to hear Al Gore say that. [00:07:20][17.0]

Stuart Turley: [00:07:21] If Al Gore says that, it means it’s good. Yay. [00:07:24][3.4]

Michael Tanner: [00:07:27] He’s like the anti he’s the Kramer, It’s the anti Kramer. Just do the opposite. [00:07:31][4.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:07:32] The anti Kramer. Oh, absolutely. Let’s talk George. Make Billy’s out. George McMillan. Let’s go to George. I’ll tell you what. This one has been going off around the world. The article is the geopolitical problem of the U.S. a German Russo Japanese connection. He’s talking about some connections in our podcast that George was on. I go listen to that. For some folks, it’s a one hour, 50 minute podcast. And I tell you what, George is a academia, energy geopolitical guru. And what we’re talking about here is energy. You may have a country that you think is your ally. If you can’t support their low cost energy, they are not your ally. We may be losing Japan to Russia in order to get these pipelines done, and the U.S. is not going to allow that to happen. Ah, this is a problem. The reason why Germany is more important that Japan is that Germany world consists of Switzerland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, which shares a border with Germany on the Danube River. If the German oil and gas pipeline network is connected to Russia by any pipeline, then it could not only supply all the German world, but the Danube River and Slavic world as well. You see why the Nord Stream was blown up? [00:08:59][87.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:08:59] Yeah. I mean, you this series that you’re rolling out and are and will be rolling out with George Macmillan is is absolutely incredible. I think you highlight some well I thought it was the Ukrainians deals. [00:09:09][9.8]

Stuart Turley: [00:09:10] Yeah and on a sail a sailboat they went out on a three hour cruise to blow up the pipeline and only got three out of the four. So no. And that was such a deep, deep water event. A sailboat ain’t going to get the men there and back. So what are they, kamikaze pipeline bombers? I’m not buying it. So anyway, the background is let’s go to the next one. I see your hand going up. Okay. But anyway, everybody read that letter, you know. Okay. You know, I just got the hook guys for a podcast last year. Michael has a poker table. He leans back and he goes, Whoa, the arm goes up. And so when the arm goes up, I know that this is like my mom in church. She leans back and hits me in the back of the head. Michael would pop out. It’s the look. So I got the look. Folks, We’re going over to Chevron CEO cautiously optimistic on Venezuelan guy and. These border dispute downplays military conflicts. Thank goodness. Now, here’s the thing. I was on the energy transition on Monday talking to Armando. David Blackmon and Tami. That’s a heck of a panel. And you get some Scooby like me on there. It’s pretty much an honor. But here’s the problem. Chevron is the only oil major to have operations in Venezuela. The company recently agreed to buy Hess Corp for 53 billion, which would give it a 30% stake in the Guyana offshore oil development. Michael, as an investor, when you’re playing with your phone, would you sit back and take a look at when you calculate out, is that deal actually going to go a good thing now that this is going on or is it wasted money? Well, that’s a 53 bit dollar retro. Yeah. [00:11:05][114.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:11:06] Here’s the thing. I think clearly Chevron did some due diligence on this. And if they didn’t, shame on them. And they deserve to lose that investment because you should have you know, it’s not hard to hire a couple consultants to map out the geopolitical risk of, you know, purchasing this asset. What did they do? They have boots on the ground. They have that. I would be shocked if they did it necessarily take this into account. I think this is having talked with a few people closer to the situation. I actually have a friend of mine who’s very close who is from Venezuela, and he said this is nothing more. And then I’m quoting him, I’ll leave him anonymous. But the word I got from him is this is nothing more than show from Venezuela. They’ll never actually invade. This is more so that Maduro can come back to his people during a an election and say, well, the reason why we don’t have any electricity is because the Americans cut us out of Guyana, which. Sure. Maybe there’s some territorial dispute there, but that’s not going to change how they will, in my opinion, outside of a military conflict, nothing’s going to change hands. And again, as Mike Wirth, CEO of Chevron, said, that’s unlikely. So I’m with him. But hopefully they did their due diligence on this. [00:12:10][63.8]

Stuart Turley: [00:12:10] I think there’s a little more to this story than your friend is thinking. Right. And you have Venezuela who used to have a gigantic oilfield equipment and everything else. They have destroyed it. And so instead of taking $1 million, the way that he had has kept control the dictator there, he pays his generals extremely well. Million bucks here, million bucks there. The generals then turn around and pay the colonels. Colonels go around there and then the sergeants go out in the street, beat the snot out of the Venezuelans to keep everybody in line. That is how it’s been done. The money has been coming from the Venezuelan oil and they have not been putting CapEx back in. They don’t have the talent. They don’t have the offshore hands. They’ve got rid of everybody. And so this is a problem. They’re just skimming any money that they can do. And that in Guyana, Shell has gotten into Guyana and they’ve got it. You’ve got the old Diamondback out there, you’ve got has Exxon’s there on Anadarko. Exxon’s there. I mean everybody is sitting over in Guyana drilling. This is a big deal. I want to I think. [00:13:29][79.0]

Michael Tanner: [00:13:29] It’s one of the last few unexplored or hot new offshore. [00:13:32][3.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:13:33] Target. Yeah, absolutely. And I think it’s going to be a bigger problem. And it’s because Putin has been to his team, he’s been talking to the Maduro, and there is a bigger statement going on there, and it’s between Bhutan and China. [00:13:50][16.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:13:50] Interesting. As always, you keep that if you got anything else for us. [00:13:53][3.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:13:54] No. I just want to do my Biden imitation. I want to lean into the mic and go. Now. [00:13:58][4.4]

Michael Tanner: [00:13:59] On that scary note, guys will kick it over and cover finance. We saw the S&P 500 up about a half a percentage point. Nasdaq up about 8/10 of a percentage point yield. Ten year yields only up about a 10th of a percentage point. 4.2 on that yield, dollar index drops about a quarter of a percentage point. Crude oil drops about 3.2 percentage points currently sitting as we record this about 530 here on the 1268. 71. Absolutely. Kind of a cratering, really off. You know, a combination of demand feels like it’s softening on the demand side and people are beginning to forecast oversupply. Specifically on the oil side, we also saw natural gas tumbled to our month long low at $2 and 22/10. So this oversupply that we are in is not going to be good. We also saw the consumer price index drop today for November. That that came in higher than expected, which kind of bolsters that view that the Fed is going to continue to raise interest rates into the next year and not cut as maybe what has been expected. The EIA finally came out today, QE2, and lowered their 2024 Brant price forecast. To give you an idea. They’ve lowered it by a whole ten. They said it’s now going to average $83 in 2024 versus last month, where they said it was going to average $93 for the year. Taking a playbook out of out of us a little bit and slashing their price currently. As we talk, Brant was down. Brent’s currently trading 7419. The other interesting thing that happened is we saw the API drop their crude oil inventory estimates. They actually foresee a 2.2 million barrel drop here on the 13th. But again, you know, we keep talking about this number. I don’t know how much it’s impacted. Still work. The fundamentals right now or more specifically on what future supply and demand is going to look like versus what the current supply demand balances are right now. You know, it’s it’s not good when you see soft demand in an oversupply that leads to catering prices. [00:15:51][111.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:15:51] Yeah, but the old pricing norms are not there. And then there was another article that just came out a few minutes ago that said we don’t know when big demand is going to hit. [00:16:02][11.3]

Michael Tanner: [00:16:04] We don’t. So we do. We do. We do. You know, the oil markets deal with the realities that are happening on the ground. So, no, I agree with you. Oil is not going anywhere. But we have entered this interesting soft spot. I think the real question and this is something that we’re going to record a deal spotlight on Crown Quest and Oxy. We’re going to do that later this week. Try to get it out next week for you guys. It’s going to be more of kind of an overview. I don’t think I will deep dive it a little bit, but one of the questions I think we need to grapple with, Stu, is, okay, you have all of these dribble locations. Oil is 69 bucks. That strip price don’t look doesn’t look that good. That’s you know, if you were in yoga would be called downward facing dog. So the real question is what exactly, you know, do the budget plans change for any of these companies? I know budgets are really set, but is it really you know. [00:16:48][43.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:16:48] You don’t know. Yeah, Strip price may be rolling down to the 50s. I mean it’s. [00:16:52][3.8]

Michael Tanner: [00:16:52] The prices in the 56 is when you’re talking about later on getting into you know 34W down to 62, I guess. So what of the matter is to me interesting to see how how how some of these budgets hold up broadly to 2024. What am I missing still? What else should people be scared of? [00:17:07][14.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:17:07] Oh, buckle up. You never know when the tornado, manmade disaster or the grid may blow up according to the f e r c. Buckle up and be care. Be ready to take care of your family. [00:17:20][12.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:17:20] Buckle up, buckaroos. So. All right, guys, with that, we’re going to let you get out of here, get back to work. Thanks for checking us out here on this gorgeous Wednesday. For Stu Turley, I’m Michael Tanner and the rest of the energy news beat team. We’ll see you tomorrow, folks. [00:17:20][0.0][1001.3]

The post Daily Energy Standup Episode #269 – Geopolitical Energy Chess: Russian Uranium, Fossil Fuel Fumbles, and Venezuelan Border Dilemma appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Beneath the Skin of CPI Inflation, November: Core Services Inflation Accelerates on Rents, Insurance, Healthcare

Energy News Beat

But gasoline plunged and durable goods dropped. Food rose further from already painfully high levels.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

Inflation in services accelerated in November for the second month in a row, to an annualized rate of 5.8%, driven by housing, healthcare, and insurance. Services is where about 65% of consumer spending goes, and it continues to be the driver of inflation.

But gasoline continued to plunge. Durable goods prices (cars, electronics, furniture, etc.) continued to drop, though used car prices suddenly jumped again – surprise, surprise. Food prices rose to a new record from already high levels. So here we go.

Core CPI, a measure of underlying inflation that excludes the volatile movements of food and energy products, rose by 0.28% in November from October (red line), according to the Consumer Price Index data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Core CPI was pushed down by the decline in durable goods, but pushed up by the jump in core services.

The three-month moving average, which irons out the month-to-month ups and downs, also rose by 0.28%, the biggest increase since June (blue):

The Overall CPI inched up by 0.1% in November from October, driven down by the 6.0% month-to-month plunge in gasoline prices and the drop in durable goods. As you can see, this index jumps up and down a lot, driven by the often-massive movements of energy prices (red). The three-month average, rose by 0.18% (blue):

The year-over-year “Core” CPI rose by 4.0% year-over-year, same as in the prior month (red line).

The year-over-year overall CPI decelerated a hair to 3.1% (blue line), pushed down by the 8.9% year-over-year plunge in gasoline prices and by the 1.6% drop in durable goods, while the 5.5% increase in core services pushed in the opposite direction.

Core services got hotter, rents glow in the dark.

The CPI for core services (without energy services) on a month-to-month basis rose 0.47% in November from October, or by 5.8% annualized (blue line).

The three-month moving average rose by 0.46%, or 5.7% annualized, the sharpest increase since April (red line).

The acceleration of the three-month moving average in September, October, and November is very disconcerting:

Year-over-year, the core services CPI rose by a red-hot 5.5%, same as in the prior month, despite the 30% collapse of the messed-up year-over-year health insurance CPI within it that we’ll get to in a moment:

The “Rent of primary residence” CPI further accelerated to +0.48% in October (+5.9% annualized) and has been in this range since March, except for the outlier July, when it had dropped out of that range.

The Rent CPI is based on actual rents that tenants actually paid. The survey follows the same large group of rental houses and apartments over time and tracks what tenants, who come and go, actually pay in these units.

The “Owners’ equivalent of rent” CPI rose by 0.50% in November from October, or 6.2% annualized, a hair higher than in March.

The three-month moving average rose by 0.49%, the highest since June, and there hasn’t been any real improvement since May.

The OER index is based on what a large group of homeowners estimates their home would rent for, and is designed to estimate inflation of “shelter” as a service for homeowners.

What both CPIs for housing costs tell us is that the big month-to-month rent spikes in 2022 through February 2023 are over, and that the rent CPIs have settled at month-to-month increases of around 0.5%, or about 6% annualized, which also roughly matches what the largest landlords have reported in their earnings calls that they’re getting in rent increases. So about since March, it seems rent increases have gotten stuck at a rate close to 6%, and that’s very disconcerting.

Year-over-year, the Rent CPI increased by 6.9% (red in the chart below). And the CPI for OER increased by 6.7% (green):

“Asking rents…” The Zillow Observed Rent Index (ZORI) and other private-sector rent indices track “asking rents,” which are advertised rents of vacant units on the market. Because rentals don’t turn over that much, the ZORI’s spike in 2021 through mid-2022 never fully made it into the CPI indices because not many people actually ended up paying those asking rents.

This time of the year, the ZORI typically dips a little. In October it had dipped by 0.12% from the prior month, and in November it dipped by 0.23% to $1,982. The dips were smaller than a year earlier.

The chart shows the CPI Rent (blue, left scale) as index values, not percent change; and the ZORI in dollars (red, right scale). The left and right axes are set so that they both increase each by 50% from January 2017, with the ZORI up by 47% and the CPI Rent up by 35% since 2017:

Rent inflation vs. home-price inflation: The red line represents the CPI for Rent of Primary Residence (tracking actual rents). The purple line represents the Case-Shiller Home Price 20-Cities Composite Index. Both lines are index values set to 100 for January 2000:

The collapse of the health insurance CPI. November was the second month without the monthly push-down adjustments to the health insurance CPI, which started with the October CPI in 2022 and went through September 2023.

These odious health insurance adjustments had caused the health insurance CPI to collapse by nearly 4% month-to-month every month for 12 months through September, leading to the 37% year-over-year collapse by September. The problem arose because the pandemic healthcare distortions had blown up the model the BLS used to estimate health insurance costs, and the BLS was slow in changing the model. It has now tweaked the model. I discussed the old and new versions last month here: The Collapse of the Health Insurance CPI (How it Became Chickenshit).

Starting in October and continuing in November – and at least for the next four months – the health insurance CPI flipped the other way and jumped month-to-month by 1.1% for the second month in a row. Those two month-to-month increases reduced the year-over-year spike to +30.3% in November from +37.3% in September.

Here is the infamous chart of the Health Insurance CPI as index value, which back to where it had been in 2018, which is outrageously ridiculous. Now the index is reversing, and that little hook at the bottom represents the two months of 1.1% increases in a row:

Services CPI by category.

The table is sorted by weight of each service category in the overall CPI. The CPI for medical care services is the third largest item, with a weight of 6.3% in overall CPI, and over 10% in the core services CPI. The year-over-year drop of 0.9% was caused by 30% year-over-year collapse of the health insurance CPI within it.

Also note the continued spike in motor vehicle insurance.

Major Services without Energy
Weight in CPI
MoM
YoY
Services without Energy
62.7%
0.5%
5.5%
Owner’s equivalent of rent
25.8%
0.5%
6.7%
Rent of primary residence
7.7%
0.5%
6.9%
Medical care services & insurance
6.3%
0.6%
-0.9%
Food services (food away from home)
4.8%
0.4%
5.3%
Education and communication services
4.8%
0.1%
1.4%
Recreation services, admission, movies, concerts, sports events, club memberships
3.1%
0.1%
4.8%
Motor vehicle insurance
2.8%
1.0%
19.2%
Other personal services (dry-cleaning, haircuts, legal services…)
1.5%
0.3%
6.1%
Motor vehicle maintenance & repair
1.1%
0.3%
8.5%
Water, sewer, trash collection services
1.1%
0.3%
5.4%
Video and audio services, cable, streaming
1.0%
-0.2%
4.1%
Hotels, motels, etc.
0.9%
-1.1%
0.3%
Pet services, including veterinary
0.6%
-0.1%
6.4%
Airline fares
0.5%
-0.4%
-12.1%
Tenants’ & Household insurance
0.4%
0.5%
3.4%
Car and truck rental
0.1%
-2.2%
-10.7%
Postage & delivery services
0.1%
-0.6%
0.8%

Durable goods continue to drop, after huge spike.

The CPI for durable goods dropped 0.37% for the month and by 1.6% year-over-year, having now declined somewhat waveringly ever since the peak in July 2022, as the pandemic-era shortages, supply bottlenecks, and transportation chaos that created a historic price spike have receded

The index is dominated by new and used vehicles, information technology products (computers, smartphones, home network equipment, etc.), appliances, furniture, etc.

Major durable goods categories
MoM
YoY
Durable goods overall
-0.4%
-1.6%
New vehicles
-0.1%
1.3%
Used vehicles
1.6%
-3.8%
Information technology (computers, smartphones, etc.)
-2.7%
-8.3%
Sporting goods (bicycles, equipment, etc.)
-0.6%
-1.8%
Household furnishings (furniture, appliances, floor coverings, tools)
-0.7%
-0.3%

This chart shows the price level of the index, not the percent change:

New vehicles CPI has been roughly flat all year, after the 19% surge from April 2021 through March 2023. In November, it edged down by 0.1% month-to-month. Year-over-year, the index rose 1.3%.

For many years before the pandemic, the new vehicle CPI was essentially flat with some ups and downs, despite increases of actual vehicle prices. This is the effect of “hedonic quality adjustments” applied to the CPIs for new and used vehicles and also other products (here’s my chart and detailed explanation of hedonic quality adjustments).

The chart shows the price level as index value, not the percentage change:

Used vehicle CPI had spiked by 55% from February 2020 through January 2022. Since that peak, it has dropped by 11.5%. But it’s still up by 35% since February 2020.

Food & Energy.

The CPI for food at home – food bought at grocery stores and markets – rose by 0.2% month-to-month and by 2.9% year-over-year. Those increases come on top of already painfully high food prices that had spiked by 24% during the pandemic.

Food at home by category
MoM
YoY
Overall Food at home
0.1%
1.7%
Cereals and bakery products
0.5%
3.4%
Beef and veal
-0.3%
8.7%
Pork
-1.0%
-0.5%
Poultry
-0.9%
1.0%
Fish and seafood
0.4%
-1.5%
Eggs
2.2%
-22.3%
Dairy and related products
0.1%
-1.4%
Fresh fruits
1.6%
2.1%
Fresh vegetables
0.3%
-3.1%
Juices and nonalcoholic drinks
0.5%
3.6%
Coffee
0.4%
-0.1%
Fats and oils
0.5%
3.0%
Baby food & formula
-0.4%
7.6%
Alcoholic beverages at home
-0.1%
2.9%

Energy prices plunged, driven by the plunge in gasoline. Energy prices are linked to commodities which tend to jump up and down dramatically, which is why they’re excluded from “core” inflation measures to see the underlying inflation.

CPI for Energy, by Category
MoM
YoY
Overall Energy CPI
-2.3%
-5.4%
Gasoline
-6.0%
-8.9%
Utility natural gas to home
2.8%
-10.4%
Electricity service
1.4%
3.4%
Heating oil, propane, kerosene, firewood
-2.2%
-19.3%

Gasoline, which accounts for about half of the energy CPI, plunged by 6.0% month-to-month. Since the peak in June 2022, it has plunged by 31%.

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the beer and iced-tea mug to find out how:

Would you like to be notified via email when WOLF STREET publishes a new article? Sign up here.

The post Beneath the Skin of CPI Inflation, November: Core Services Inflation Accelerates on Rents, Insurance, Healthcare appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Yes, Heavy Regulation Hurts the Economy. Just Look at France.

Energy News Beat

It’s fashionable to claim that the free market ideas of Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman have failed the country, and that it’s time for new policies. Campaigning in 2020, Joe Biden declared that “Milton Friedman isn’t running the show anymore.” More recently, New York Times columnist David Leonhardt noted that people like Friedman promised that the free market “would bring prosperity for all. It has not.”

This is nonsense. For one thing, I wish we lived in a world fashioned more fully by Friedman’s ideas. Sadly, while his insights have indeed influenced some U.S. economic policies, particularly during former President Ronald Reagan’s administration, the extent of their implementation has been quite limited.

Friedman, for example, would be appalled that federal debt is now roughly the size of annual gross domestic product (GDP), having grown like a kudzu vine since registering at around 25 percent in the early 1980s. Taxes remain lower since the Reagan revolution took place, but our incomes are often taxed multiple times. Nearly every aspect of our lives is regulated by various agencies—local, state, and national. And—no surprise—cronyism is alive and well.

Still, Friedman’s critics are right to treat him as a monumental figure. His ideas helped make trade freer and school choice mainstream. His clarity in contrasting markets with government opened many eyes to the benefits of capitalism. We are immeasurably better off for it. If you don’t believe me, look at my native France, where Friedman has had almost no influence.

The French economy is weighed down by one of the heaviest tax levels among wealthy democratic nations, with regressive taxes and social security contributions representing a significant portion of GDP. This tax haul funds France’s extensive web of social welfare programs, including health care, education, and pensions.

French regulation is also comprehensive, covering many aspects of employment, business operations, and environmental protection. The labor code is particularly onerous. Additionally, its government plays a direct role in the economy, with a significant number of partially state-owned enterprises and interventionist policies intended to safeguard employment and prioritize equality and social cohesion.

Let’s see how they’re doing.

U.S. GDP per capita is now $76,398; France’s is $40,964. The U.S. unemployment rate is 3.9 percent. As of the second quarter of 2023, France’s was 7.2 percent—a relatively low figure for a country that often faces double-digit rates even outside of recession periods. We shouldn’t be surprised at any of this, considering France’s stringent rules on working hours, dismissals, and employee benefits, which make it difficult for businesses to respond to market conditions. The country is slathered with reasons not to hire people.

Youth unemployment is a significant indicator of how well an economy integrates its young population into the job market. As of May 2023, France’s youth unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, with historical data showing an average of 20.6 percent from 1983 until 2023. In November of 2012, it peaked at a Great Depression–like level of 28.20 percent. This is the result of well-documented structural issues distorting France’s labor market. Rigid labor laws dissuade employers especially from hiring young, inexperienced workers.

In contrast, in October 2023, the U.S. youth unemployment rate was 8.9 percent. These are not just numbers; they have real implications for young individuals’ economic prospects, skills development, and long-term career trajectories. As such, American youth, for all its complaints, is much better off than its French peers are.

Some claim that this is a fair price to pay for France’s social cohesion and equity. I don’t see it. Over the last decade, France has experienced significant social unrest rooted in economic, political, and social issues. One of the most notable periods of unrest was the yellow vest movement that began in 2018. It was sparked by the announcement of another increase in the fuel tax on top of hundreds of other taxes. It quickly morphed into a broader movement against economic inequality and the cost of living. The protests were marked by widespread demonstrations, some of which turned violent.

France is also renowned for its labor strikes, which often bring millions of protesters onto the streets. The frequency and intensity of these protests underscore the challenges that France faces in balancing economic reforms with social cohesion.

The U.S. isn’t perfect. Its social cohesion could certainly be better. But given a choice between an economic system that has been somewhat influenced by Friedman and one that’s barely been influenced by him at all, my choice is clear. I made it when I left France and became an American.

Source: Reason.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

 

The post Yes, Heavy Regulation Hurts the Economy. Just Look at France. appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy realities to consider as COP28 discussions wrap up

Energy News Beat

As COP 28 winds down, the Canadian oil and gas industry is faced with the unenviable task of making sense of the declarations, plans, proposals, and unrealistic promises and attempting to chart a path forward.

Global leaders aggressively addressed oil and gas methane cuts using a one-two punch of financial incentives and strict new regulations and yet failed to convince the world to abandon coal. Coal-intensive countries like South Africa and Indonesia backtracked on commitments (as reported by the Wall St Journal) with China showing no signs of slowing down – permitting more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, the equivalent of about two new coal power plants per week with construction started on half of those plants this past summer. As reported by Reuters, China’s top climate diplomat declined to say whether the country could agree to eliminating coal, oil and gas.

It was refreshing that oil and gas companies had some presence at the conference. Fifty oil and natural gas producers including Saudi Aramco and 29 other national oil companies attended and signed an agreement to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 and curb methane emissions to near-zero by 2030. Although he electrified attendees and media with pre-conference comments, COP28 President, Sultan Al-Jaber brought an informed voice to the conference and qualified his position telling reporters last Monday, Dec 4th, “I have always been very clear on the fact that we are making sure that everything we do is centered around the science.”

The US laid out their plan at COP28 to slash greenhouse gas methane from oil and gas and Canada announced an oil and gas emissions cap with reductions by more than one-third within seven years. In a December 10th interview on CTV’s question period, environment minister Guilbeault boasted “It’s a first …not only has it never been done in Canada We are the first oil and gas producer (ie producing country) in the world to do that.”

As the “tua culpa” and the “tua maxima culpa” were assigned and penance doled out with agreements reached on the contentious Climate-Damage Fund, discussions began to surface on quantifying the costs.

Texas-based public policy analyst/consultant David Blackmon asked in a recent Forbes article, “Where will all this money come from?”

Much of the concern centers on the rising cost of capital and whether the world can even afford the stunning price tag of the transition,” Blackmon states. “Cost estimates range from $110 trillion (per the Energy Transitions Commission) to $275 trillion (McKinsey & Co.), the latter of which represents roughly 2.6 times total global GDP for 2023… For some context, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act contained about $369 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for green energy investments over a 10-year time frame, or about 1/90th of the total global investment required during that time according to the estimate by the Energy Transitions Committee. It would take almost 250 IRA-sized tranches of money to meet the levels of investment envisioned by McKinsey & Co.’s estimate.”

Blackmon points out that the cost of raising capital has doubled since the 2022 McKinsey estimate and the magnitude of the problem is clear. There are incredible challenges to raising the level of capital required. He also points out that most of the capital would come from developed nations that are already deep in “near-overwhelming levels of national debt”.

Investors and consumers in Europe and the UK have not been happy with the costs of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. Predictions that the transition to net-zero carbon emissions could be an economic boon have faded as the costly economics of climate mitigation are revealed.

As French economist Jean Pisani-Ferry wrote in a report commissioned by the French prime minister and released in English in November: “By putting a price – financial or implicit – on a free resource (the climate), the transition increases production costs, with no guarantee that the reduction in energy costs will eventually offset them, while the investments it calls for do not increase productive capacity but must nevertheless be financed.”

Canadian oil and gas companies are left to ponder the ramifications of the many COP 28 declarations and decisions and chart a path forward.

In this “climate” of economic uncertainty for oil and gas, a recent Canadian Energy Geoscience Association presentation by Brad Hayes, President at Petrel Robertson Consulting Ltd titled “21st Century Energy Transition- Reconsidering Goals” had some great insights for the industry.

If you agree that context is the social system or structural framework in which a conversation takes place, Hayes’ talking points fit well into the context of the COP 28 aftermath.

Hayes called for a more careful consideration of the goals that societies, governments, and technical people set out in terms of where societies are going in the 21st century on energy and ultimately asked “Are we approaching energy transition the way we should? Or should we reconsider the goals that we have in front of us?”

He charted data from the early beginnings of the energy transition to 1800 when the only source of energy was traditional biomass. In the 1800s, coal entered into the equation and by 1900 coal and wood were being used. But as people were using just as much wood as before, coal was being employed in addition to wood to power steam engines on land and at sea. He makes the point that societies began expending a lot more energy as they discovered forms of energy that were more amenable to new applications. This continued into the 20th century, with access to oil supply being a determinant factor for the Allies in World War One as they had a better supply of oil than the other side. He traced the implementation of natural gas and later in the century, the implementation of hydropower and nuclear power – which emerged in the mid-20th century and grew fairly rapidly until a spate of nuclear accidents pit a pause on development. From the late 20th century to today, he charted the rapid rate of growth of renewables.

“What I think is the most important thing to note is that this energy transition that we’ve been undergoing for 220 plus years now is really an energy addition,” Hayes concludes. “We’re not using less of anything. We’re burning more wood and other organic material today than we did back in 1800 when it was the only source of energy. The reason is, that back then, there were fewer than a billion people on earth. Now there are more than eight billion people. So we just need more energy and like the addition of coal, every new energy form that comes in gives us access to new applications. Oil, for example, gave us fuels for aviation and vehicles. Coal was used for electrical generation, natural gas for electricity and petrochemicals. There has been no replacement of any energy form in the form of the energy transition. The forecasts for this year and next year are that we will consume more oil on a global basis than we ever have before and there’s no real reliable indicator of when that’s going to change.”

Hayes then turned his focus to the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and zeroed in on SDG goal #7  to “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all”. Keep in mind that the SDGS are identifications of elements needed for everyone in the world, to have peace and prosperity and an opportunity to live a decent life including things like access to food, access to clean water, access to political freedoms, education etc. Hayes identifies goal #7 as energy security and identifies it as one of the most essential goals and asks “How do we provide enough energy to meet human needs around the world?” He also identifies a critical definition of sustainability that is not married to any particular philosophy saying “What sustainability means is we have plans that we undertake today that allow us to continue to make plans for the future so that future generations can meet their own needs.”

Hayes is critical of the over-emphasis on SDG goal#13 “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”. He argues that it is fruitless to pursue urgent action on climate change at the expense of the energy security prescribed by SDG goal #7.

“I think that we need to reach all 17 goals but we can’t reach any of them without #7. If we don’t have energy security, we don’t have the energy to combat climate change, or provide enough freshwater or to provide education and political freedom. If you go to any country in the world that doesn’t have energy security, where people are worried about getting enough electricity or even gathering enough fuel to burn to cook their supper that night. They’re not worried about many of the other goals. They’re worried about finding that energy. So we’ve got to be in that position of energy security and have the time to go around and say ‘Now, how can we achieve these other goals?’”

Hayes pointed out that all energy sources have benefits and challenges and addressed them in insightful detail that regretfully I have to leave out of this article due to constraints of length. He then turned his focus to some realities impacting energy transition that need consideration.

One is the reality that the 8 billion world population continues to grow. Despite a slowing rate of growth it is still growing and, depending on the projection you examine, it may grow to 9.2 or 9.5 billion later in the 21st century, requiring an addition to available energy as developing countries aspire to the level of energy-rich prosperity achieved in developed countries.

Another reality is that supply chains are critical for what Hayes calls “the creatures of the energy transition” – electric vehicles, solar panels, and batteries, that require doubling or even tripling amounts of resources like critical minerals -magnesium, copper, cobalt, lithium, etc. This situation leads to the need for new energy infrastructure.

“Building new energy infrastructure, like building new anything gets to be complicated as you get down to actually planning projects.” Hayes said as he addressed the timelines in various EU countries to obtain a government permit for a new facility.

“For onshore wind, the EU has a target of 24 months or two years to get a new onshore wind project through the permitting process, so you can start building. The real-time varies from about 30 months in Romania to 10 years in Croatia. Ten years just to get the permit, then you can start doing the front-end engineering and all the other stuff you need to do to build it. For solar, it is not nearly as bad but there are only three countries that can get a permit for a new onshore solar facility in less than two years. So again, it’s very difficult to imagine that we’re going to radically change the amount of energy that’s going to be delivered by these technologies five years from now or even ten years from now when just a simple permitting takes so much time.”

Hayes also examined the IEA Net Zero by 2050 report, issued in 2021 and updated in 2022 and the Western society’s focus on emissions. He pointed out that the goals specified in the report and update were aspirations.

“They (the IEA) promoted the idea that net zero emissions – greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2050 would be a roadmap for the global energy sector. My question is, is it really? For example, in 2021, there would be no new unabated coal plants approved for development. In China, right now, I believe there are at least 15 or 20 under development today in 2023. I don’t know how many of them are innovative, but that is a miss. By 2025, sixty percent of car sales are prescribed to be electric with no new internal combustion car sales. So the question is again, is it a roadmap? Is it a set of plans that we need to follow to carry the energy sector forward? And you’re probably not surprised that my opinion is ‘No, it’s not relevant’. Because for any of the aspirations in the report or its revised version, there’s been no cost-benefit analysis of any of them. When you look at the supply chains, they haven’t thought about realistic timelines. My suggestion is that energy security requires plans for energy and sustainability means not only environmental issues, but it means doing things that meet the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations.”

Ultimately Brad Hayes left the audience with a crucial question  – in light of his discussions and revelations of the facts and history of energy development, current and future use, infrastructure complexity, and growth of global population and demand… what should our energy goals be?

As we contemplate the deeper context and implications of the changes prescribed by COP28 declarations and prescriptions, some countries are questioning their validity – should we?

Source: Boereport.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Energy realities to consider as COP28 discussions wrap up appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Shell agrees to sell stake in two U.S.-based renewable energy projects

Energy News Beat

Shell Wind Energy Inc. and Savion Equity, LLC, subsidiaries of Shell plc, have agreed to sell partial ownership stake in two U.S.-based renewable energy projects to InfraRed Capital Partners.

Shell will sell 60% interest in Brazos Wind Holdings, LLC, a 182-megawatt (MW) onshore wind farm in Fluvanna, Texas, and 50% interest in Madison Fields Class B Member, LLC (Madison Fields), a 180-MW solar development in Madison County, Ohio.

“This agreement follows our guidance at Shell’s Capital Markets Day to pursue dilutions in ownership from power interests while maintaining access to renewable electrons via select offtake agreements,” said Glenn Wright, Senior Vice President Shell Energy Americas. “We continue to take a disciplined approach within our current renewables portfolio, aiming to work with partners and focus on opportunities where we can integrate across the value chain through trading and optimization.”

Through the current agreement, Shell will retain 100% of power offtake from the Brazos project through Shell Energy North America L.P. The Madison Fields solar project will retain an existing corporate power purchase agreement in place with a third party. Shell will be the asset manager of Brazos and Madison Fields, and both projects will benefit from Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax credits.

The sale of both assets is expected to be completed by early 2024, with a December 2023 effective date.

Source: Bicmagazine.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Shell agrees to sell stake in two U.S.-based renewable energy projects appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

U.S. oil and gas jobs on the rise, industry shows resilience and growth

Energy News Beat

(WO) — The Energy Workforce & Technology Council’s monthly jobs report reveals a surge of 1,286 jobs in the U.S. oilfield services sector for November. This growth, based on preliminary data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), follows adjustments to October numbers and analysis by the Energy Workforce & Technology Council.

Compared to October, job availability across the sector increased by 0.2%, as the market continued adding jobs in ten out of the 11 months. When the pandemic hit U.S. shores in January 2020, the industry boasted 705,481 jobs, while today, the industry plays home to 652,398 in the energy services and technology sector.  Diving deeper into the analysis, we are only 54,130 jobs away from returning to pre-pandemic levels.

Nationally, the U.S. unemployment rate dropped once again, returning to 3.7% compared to 3.9% in the previous month. Reports indicate that government hiring, seasonal labor and the end of two significant strikes bolstered employment nationwide.

“Make no mistake, the latest jobs report directly reflects the oil and gas industry’s adaptability and determination,” said Energy Workforce President Molly Determan. “These latest figures are a testament to the industry’s commitment to growth.”

In a state-by-state analysis, Energy Workforce reported the following:

State and Oil & Gas Job Rate

TX: 317,287
LA: 54,368
OK: 49,550
CO: 26,435
NM: 24,352
CA: 23,831
PA: 23,570
ND: 20,250
WY: 15,106
OH: 10,808
AK: 10,092
WV: 9,962

Source: Worldoil.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post U.S. oil and gas jobs on the rise, industry shows resilience and growth appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

The Geopolitical Problem of the US—a German-Russo-Japanese Connection

Energy News Beat

ENB Pub Note: George McMillan III, ENB Contributor, and geopolitical energy expert, wrote this article. He was on an earlier podcast where we covered a fantastic global overview, and are tracking around the world in more detail. We are recording another podcast this week, and have several more articles in his series rolling out. Follow George on his LinkedIn page here, and reach out if you have any geopolitical energy questions. His analytical skills from the open sources and information are incredible.  Our first podcast is HERE:

The West-to-East German-Russo-Japanese Pipeline Alliance 

The possibility of the Alternative For Deutschland Party to defeat Olaf Scholz and the Social Democratic Party and repair Nordstream to purchase Russian Natural Gas is real along with the probability that they would immediately repair the Nordstream pipelines.

The Geopolitical Problem of the US—a German-Russo-Japanese Connection

The fundamental geopolitical problem of the United States boils down to preventing its two key allies, Germany and Japan, from purchasing cheaper Russian oil and natural gas. Delivered by pipeline, that cheap gas would make Germany’s and Japan’s heavy industries increasingly globally competitive. This would compel the secondary and tertiary industrial power centers in their regional orbit to follow suit, connecting to cheap Russian oil and natural gas in order to remain industrially competitive as well.

The reason why Germany is more important than Japan, is that the German World consists of Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Austria which shares a border with Germany on the Danube River. If the German oil and gas pipeline network is connected to Russia by any pipeline, then it could not only supply all of the German World, but the entire Danube River Slavic World as well.

Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg to the West would be sure to follow, as the Groningen gas field was scheduled to be shut down due to the ground tremors associated with natural gas extraction. The BENELUX countries have been connected to the German pipeline network for decades.

If Germany were to repair Nordstream, it is conceivable that more than a dozen countries could join a Russo-German natural gas market, paying directly in rubles and jettisoning the petrodollar.  In this scenario, all the other countries in the German world could pay Germany in Euros and Germany could then pay Russia in rubles. The external drop in the demand for the US Dollar would likely internalize inflation inside the US.

Petrodollar Primacy and the Long March Towards Globalism

Should Germany exit the petrodollar financial system that supports the US’s burgeoning $34 trillion national debt, not only would that debt-support be in peril, but it would effectively end the NATO alliance as well. The purpose of NATO is to (a) keep the US in Europe, (b) keep Germany down in Europe and (c) keep the Soviet Union/Russia out of Europe.  A Russo-German pipeline network reverses all of that proverbially overnight.

To emphasize: Gerhard Shroder’s Nordstream project implied, (1) a massive shifting of the global geopolitical alliances, (2) the nullification of NATO, and (3) the end of the petrodollar trading scheme—all  in one fell swoop. As Seymour Hersh reported in February 2023, Nordstream was blown up.

The Russo-German natural gas pipeline alliance would have radically and rapidly shifted the global center of gravity from Washington and London to Berlin and Moscow. As the Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992 revealed, power sharing is not part of the Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan and Bill Krystol “US sole superpower” ideal in their long march towards globalism.

The more one understands how the Russian natural gas pipeline advantage works in conjunction with both the post-Mahan and post-Mackinder geopolitical theories as well as the post-Clausewitz and Bismark DIME (Diplomatic, Infrastructural, Military and Economic instrument of national power measures), the more people will understand why the US is feverishly trying to block all Russian and Chinese infrastructural projects around Eurasia, with Nordstream being the most important project to stop. Other than a few people in some of the world’s intelligence agencies, only a relative few university graduates are ever exposed to these relationships.

Understanding the US Counterstrategy—Radicalizing Mackinder

This form of geopolitical modeling makes it easier to understand US Foreign policy following the collapse of the Soviet Union: The US counterstrategy is simply to block all logistical supply routes emanating from Russia to as many coastal rimland industrial power centers in Eurasia as possible.

The US counter strategy to the Westward expansion of Soviet/Russian oil and natural gas to the West can be summed up in the three aspects: first, the immediate expansion of the European Economic Council (EEC) and European Union Eastward as a cover for action to expand the Office of Security Cooperation Europe (OSC-E) and NATO for the purpose of surrounding the pipelines emanating from Belarus; secondly, move the EU/NATO into Romania to regulate direct access of Russia to its Slavic allies in the Balkans via the Danube River Valley; and thirdly to move into Georgia to control the South Caucuses that lead to the Caspian Sea oil and natural gas reserves. By controlling Georgia and Armenia the US can control Azerbaijan’s ability to transit oil and gas via pipeline to the Black Sea and onward to Bulgaria by an undersea pipeline as outlined in Fiona Hill’s 2004 article published by Brooking Institution.

Interesting background is that Fiona Hill’s article was written under the direction of Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institute. The three-part plan to envelop Belarus and Russia to take control of all of the oil and natural gas pipelines was well known within certain circles including Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland and brother of Frederick Kagan.  Frederick Kagan taught at West Point and is married to Kimberely Kagan, who along with Bill Krystol reconstituted the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) into the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). The “ISW” employs retired Generals Jack Keen and David Petraeus. In one way or another, the Kagans, Bushes and Dick Cheney all have the Yale Grand Strategies courses in common.

General Wesley Clark’s 2007 presidential campaign platform was based on the idea that US Foreign policy was “hijacked” by a relative few. That few were pursuing regime-change/nation-building and regime-change/destabilization strategies not widely known let alone debated in any of the democratic processes. Since “journalists” were unaware of this aspect of International Relations and International Political Economy the media did not and does not discuss it.

Clark argued that the foreign policy decision path was never discussed in the open and was barely known outside of certain very small circles. The critique of retired General Clark’s campaign speeches is that he neither defined the geopolitical strategies nor did he ever enlarge the decision-making circle to get past the Democrat primaries. In the US democracy, it is time to make the geopolitical Grand Strategies known to the general population for democratic debate.

[end]

ENB #160 What is the United States afraid of? George McMillan, CEO of McMillian Associates, stopped by the Energy News Beat podcast. – UPDATE

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post The Geopolitical Problem of the US—a German-Russo-Japanese Connection appeared first on Energy News Beat.