Pentagon threatens Americans over Ukraine – Tucker Carlson

Energy News Beat

Fund Ukraine or your children will have to fight Russia, X host claims Congress was told

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reportedly told members of Congress that unless they approve more funding to Ukraine, Americans will be sent to fight Russia directly, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson said on Thursday.

According to Carlson, Austin spoke at a classified briefing for members of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, and at one point told members that “we’ll send your uncles, cousins and sons to fight Russia” unless Kiev gets the $60 billion in aid requested by the White House.

“The Biden administration is openly threatening Americans over Ukraine,” said Carlson said on X (formerly Twitter), summarizing Austin’s message as “Pay the oligarchs or we’ll kill your kids.”

“He really said this?” asked X owner Elon Musk.

“He really did. Confirmed,” Carlson replied.

Carlson was by far the most popular host of an evening talk show on cable TV when Fox News mysteriously chose to part ways with him in April. He has since speculated that its corporate owners “really didn’t like” some of his coverage that challenged official narratives. In May, he launched his own show on Musk’s platform in a format similar to his long-form interviews for Fox.

On Tuesday, his guest was Congressman Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican opposed to sending any more money to Ukraine – on account of the US being too heavily in debt.

“How could Washington possibly send tens of billions more to sleazy oligarchs in Ukraine now that the whole enterprise has been revealed as a fruitless, corrupt and incredibly destructive disaster?” Carlson wondered in the introduction to that interview.

The US Congress has approved over $120 billion worth of aid to Kiev since the conflict with Russia escalated in February 2022, in the form of weapons and ammunition coming from the Pentagon’s stockpiles as well as cash payments to the Ukrainian government. 

That money has mostly run out at this point, and the White House has asked for $60 billion more – choosing to bundle it with aid for Israel, weapons for Taiwan and “border security.” Some Republicans in both the House and the Senate have refused to go along, however. GOP senators stormed out of their briefing on Wednesday and later voted against advancing the aid package.

Meanwhile, Republican chairs of the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence committees in the House of Representatives have embraced the White House talking points in a memo aiming to persuade their party members to back the Ukraine funding bill, according to Axios.

 

The post Pentagon threatens Americans over Ukraine – Tucker Carlson appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Ukraine declares power emergency

Energy News Beat

The Ukrainian government on Thursday requested emergency assistance from Poland, Romania, and Slovakia as freezing temperatures caused a shortage of power in the electrical grid, the state utility Ukrenergo has said.

Demand for electricity grew higher than what the Ukrenergo grid could support as snow fell in Kiev and the thermometers dropped to -4 Celsius (25 Fahrenheit). The company said it would import power from Ukraine’s neighbors.

“From 11:00 to 19:00, emergency imports of electricity from Slovakia, Romania, and Poland will be used to balance the energy system,” said a message Ukrenergo sent to customers across the country.

Power restrictions are not planned “yet,” the company added, but urged Ukrainians to save as much electricity as possible to ensure this remains the case.

Ukraine’s power grid was heavily damaged last year by Russian air and missile strikes. Moscow called the attacks a reprisal for the terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge in early October. Kiev initially denied having anything to do with the truck bomb – while celebrating the attack – but eventually admitted responsibility

The Russian missile campaign ended in March and Kiev triumphantly announced it had restored the power grid and resumed exports in April, thanking the West for the help. In June, however, Ukrenergo head Vladimir Kudritsky said Ukraine would have to boost production and import electricity in order to meet demand long before the onset of winter.

In late November, Ukrenergo sounded the alarm about the “difficult situation” of the energy system. 

“Power plants cannot generate enough electricity to satisfy all the needs of consumers: solar power plants almost do not work due to dense clouds in all regions, and at coal power plants, some units are still under repair,” the company said at the time.

 

The post Ukraine declares power emergency appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

ENB #162 – ESG Invsting is now including oil and gas contributing to the M&A activity. Where do Deals Happen – and How are Deals Evaluated?

Energy News Beat

Well, if Bill Gates and Larry Fink, the CEO of the world’s largest ESG fund, both say that climate change won’t kill us and that oil and gas investing is ok, what changed?

Let’s table that thought. ; Michael and I have been inundated with oil and gas deal evaluation requests. We also started the ENB Deal Spotlight to show investors how oil and gas deals are evaluated. Our team also has four booths at NAPE to have live podcasts and live deal evaluation tool training. Investing is getting complicated; with renewable companies losing money and projects canceled, the fund managers are turning to oil and gas and Bitcoin mining for the ESG funds.

So, we thought it was important to talk with Le’Ann Callihan, VP, and Drew Guntert, Director at NAPE, to get the skinny on the February 2024 gathering in Houston. And it is wild to hear how many investors, Bitcoin miners, ESG, offshore, E&P, and OFS companies will be there.

If you are a CEO or industry leader, don’t hesitate to get in touch with me, and we can get you interviewed before NAPE and even live at the show.

Thank you Le’Ann and Drew, for stopping by the ENB Podcast. I had a blast and look forward to talking with the executives before and at NAPE. – Stu

 

00:00 – Intro

02:05 – Nape’s Value and Evolution – Discussion on Nape’s positive impact, diversity, and evolution from 1993 to a global event with an energy business conference and technical tracks.

12:05 – Nape’s Success and Contribution – Highlighting Nape’s success, low booth costs, and contributions to not-for-profit organizations, fostering long-term industry relationships.

18:29 – Energy Industry Culture – Exploration of the energy industry’s unique and collaborative culture, emphasizing Houston’s role as an international energy hub.

23:53 – Texas as an Energy Hub – Focus on Texas’s thriving business environment, economic impact, and industry generosity, supporting charitable causes through events like Nape.

30:28 – Governors Forum and Nape Events – Promotion of the Governors Forum, inclusivity, and additional Wednesday events during Nape.

31:42 – Post-Event Activities – Explanation of the Nape team’s immediate post-event activities, including planning for future events.

33:12 – Last Thoughts – Closing remarks from Leanne.

33:39 – Last Thoughts – Closing remarks from Drew.

34:38 – Outro

Reach out to Le’Ann here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/le-ann-callihan-a4b6b87/

Reach out to Drew here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drew-guntert-48832167/

News: https://energynewsbeat.co/

Podcasts: https://energynewsbeat.co/industry-insights-2/

The post ENB #162 – ESG Invsting is now including oil and gas contributing to the M&A activity. Where do Deals Happen – and How are Deals Evaluated? appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Tesla Model Y is #2 US Bestseller in 2023 through Q3, Behind Perennial #1 Ford F-150, and Ahead of Toyota RAV4

Energy News Beat

Sales of EVs soar 56.7% in 2023 through Q3. Sales of vehicles with gasoline engines languish at +1.4%. The new registrations are out.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

Tesla’s Model Y was the #2 bestseller in the US in 2023 through Q3, with a market share of 2.5% of all new light vehicles sold, according to registration data provided by Experian today.

The Ford F-150, the bestseller for eons, was again the #1 bestseller with a share of 3.5%. Toyota’s RAV4 was #3. Tesla’s Model 3 was the #10 bestseller, with a share of 1.4%, just behind the Toyota Corolla.

Share by automaker. In terms of new vehicle registrations by automaker, spread across all their brands: GM (Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, and GMC) was #1, Toyota (Toyota, Lexus) was #2, and Ford (Ford, Lincoln) was #3. Tesla was #9 with a share of 4.2%.

Sales of EVs Soar, sales of ICE vehicles languish. In 2023 through Q3, new registrations of pure EVs soared by 56.7% year-over-year, to nearly 900,000 (no hybrids included). The full year 2023 will the first year when EV sales will exceed 1 million (likely somewhere north of 1.1 million).

New registrations, % change, year-over-year:

EVs: +56.7%
Vehicles with gasoline engines: +1.4%
Vehicles with diesel engines: -3.5%
Hybrids (plug-in and non-plugin): +43.1%.

Among EV brands, it’s still Tesla v. All Others.

There are now 30 EV brands with registrations (not just announcements) in the US. Some are EV-only automakers, such as Tesla and Rivian. Others are legacy automakers trying to chase after Tesla. And for them it has been a slog with lots of setbacks. But little by little, those 29 non-Tesla brands combined are whittling away at Tesla’s share of the booming EV market.

Tesla’s market share among EV makers declined to 57.4% in 2023 through Q3, down from 65.4% in 2022, from 68.2% in 2021, from 79.4% in 2020, and from 100% when it first put its Model S on the road.

The share of the other 29 automakers combined rose to 42.6%.

Chevrolet was #2 with a share of 5.9%, on the strength of its old Bolt and Bolt EUV, which after the price cuts, have been selling very well, and 2023 is by far their best year ever with nearly 50,000 deliveries through Q3.

But earlier this year, GM announced that it would discontinue the Bolt and Bolt EUV by the end of this year, and that would be the end of the Bolt. Then in July, it did an about-face and announced that it wouldn’t be the end of the Bolt after all, that there would be a new Bolt sometime in the future based on its Ultium platform. But until the whenever-arrival of the future Bolt, there will be no Bolt at all, and GM will just abandon this lower-priced EV segment. The infinite wisdom of the US legacy automakers never ceases to astound.

Ford was #3 with a share of 5.5%, with its F-150 Lightning, its Mustang Mach-E compact SUV, and a retrofitted electric van, the E-Transit.

Ford and GM have encountered numerous problems, surprising problems, including Tesla’s price cuts, which nixed their dream of selling large numbers of overpriced EVs and making $20,000 on each of them. Now they have to go back to the drawing board to be able to compete.

But instead of going back to the drawing board and investing this cash in the development of EVs that can compete, they announced that they would incinerate billions of dollars on more share buybacks to prop up their shares. Like I said, the infinite wisdom of the US legacy automakers never ceases to astound.

Hyundai was #4 with a share of 4.8%.

Others: Rivian, the startup selling full-size pickups and SUVs whose deliveries soared by 136% year-over-year, jumped to #6 with a share of 3.5%, sandwiched between BMW (3.7%) and Mercedes-Benz (3.2%). Volkswagen was #8 with a share of 3.2%.

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.

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Tesla Model Y is #2 US Bestseller in 2023 through Q3, Behind Perennial #1 Ford F-150, and Ahead of Toyota RAV4 appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Andrey Sushentsov: Will the UN survive and what could replace it?

Energy News Beat

Global players may decide that the organization is too Western dominated and look for a new arrangement in the 21st century

The world has entered a period of qualitative change that will irreversibly alter the structure of the international system and usher in a new format for international affairs. Over the past hundred years, humanity has learned some important lessons from situations like the one we’re in now. 

One of these has been a common understanding of the value of life on the planet and the realization that humanity possesses catastrophic powers of destruction, the imprudent use of which could lead to the death of our species.

This common interest continues to unite leading countries in the effort to avoid a global nuclear war and to preserve the general contour of stability in international relations. However, this does not exclude regional and local military flashpoints.

However, the UN and its Security Council continue to fulfill the primary purpose for which they were created – to prevent a devastating showdown between the great powers. In this respect, the institution is still relevant.

Often, technical questions about the location of the secretariat of these organizations in the United States and Western European states lead to a Western-centric narrative. These countries can also dominate the spirit and paradigm of engagement within the apparatus. The UN, as a result, is vulnerable to being a victim of Western manipulation and ceases to be a truly multilateral platform. In it, we often see pressure from leading Western countries on small and medium-sized powers and their representatives, many of whom keep their material resources and savings in those states or to educate their children there. This makes them susceptible to such leverage.

The true multilateralism and inclusiveness of this organization is gradually being washed away by the West. The UN is less and less reflective of the civilizational diversity of contemporary international relations. It is in danger of becoming less effective than it was a few decades ago because of its significant Western bias.

At the same time, the current state of the UN is a reflection of today’s international relations and crises. The situation will not return to normal until a new global balance of power becomes apparent to all. It is the lack of a firm understanding of what such a state-of-affairs looks like that disorients both the apparatus of this organization and many countries, as can be seen at the UN General Assembly. 

Once a new balance is found, the key states participating in this system will decide whether there is a need to reorganize the UN, reform it, or create another body to replace it in order to regulate relations between them in a reasonable way.

The US is trying to portray the Ukrainian crisis as a global upheaval that will define the character of the entire 21st century, offering countries a Manichean choice between black and white. Most states see the opportunities the crisis offers them and are trying to gain an advantage. But, at the same time, many powerful players realize that the steps the US is taking towards Russia and China could very easily be applied to them – and are making the rational decision to join BRICS.

Humanity came close to a major nuclear conflict several times in the 20th century, but each time common sense prevailed. The Cold War was useful in that it sobered up hotheads and made it clear that international security and stability are of equal concern to all and require considerable effort to maintain. That is why, in the Cuban Missile Crisis and in several other episodes where nuclear weapons could have been used, both sides shied away from using these instruments to achieve their political ends.

Unfortunately, this practice and experience is disappearing as a useful tool in the strategic thinking of many Western states. We hear statements that it is possible, for example, to transfer nuclear weapons to Ukraine. This makes us wonder about the reasonableness and sanity of some in the West.

Russia, before other countries, was faced with the need to determine the optimal rules of interaction with the West, which would be different from what the West itself offers to all states of the world. These principles have been shaped by Russian experts over several decades and are now of interest to many in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It is possible that, over time, a broad international consensus will emerge that these ideas are the most reasonable basis for interaction between states in the 21st century.

 

The post Andrey Sushentsov: Will the UN survive and what could replace it? appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Tensions escalating in Arctic – top Russian admiral

Energy News Beat

Washington and its allies are seeking to impede Moscow’s economic activity in the region, Nikolay Yevmenov has said

Russia is facing a growing security threat in the Arctic, the nation’s Navy commander, Admiral Nikolay Yevmenov, said on Thursday. The threat is particularly linked to the “growing foreign presence” in the region owing to Finland’s accession to NATO, he told an Arctic forum in St. Petersburg.

Last year, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that Russia posed a strategic challenge to the alliance in the Arctic, calling for an expanded military footprint in the region. Against this backdrop, Finland and Sweden applied to join NATO in May 2022 after the Ukraine conflict began. While Helsinki officially became part of the US-led military bloc in April, Stockholm’s application remains in limbo over the positions of Türkiye and Hungary.

Moscow is witnessing “negative tendencies in the field of regional security,” Yevmenov said, referring to the Arctic. He called Helsinki’s accession to the US-led military bloc and Stockholm’s aspirations to join it one of the key factors leading to such negative developments.

Competition among the leading world powers over access to the resources in the Arctic and the regional transport routes is growing, the admiral warned. “The collective West is ramping up efforts to impede Russia’s economic activities in the Arctic,” he said, adding that Norway particularly seeks to push Russia out of the Spitsbergen archipelago, also known as Salbard.

A Norwegian territory, Spitsbergen still has a Russian presence in the form of the Arktikugol mining company and the mining community of Barentsburg. Russia enjoys an equal right to engage in commercial activities on the archipelago alongside 13 other nations in accordance with the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, which also made the territory a demilitarized free-trade zone while recognizing Norway’s sovereignty over it.

Moscow warned back in September that NATO military expansion in the Arctic undermines regional security. The US-led bloc supports “forceful scenarios to increase its own security in the North at the expense of the security of other countries,” a senior Russian diplomat, Nikolay Korchunov, told RIA Novosti at that time. The official also warned that Moscow would respond to the challenge with “a set of necessary measures, including preventive ones.”

 

The post Tensions escalating in Arctic – top Russian admiral appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

ExxonMobil, Chevron set sights on more oil & gas along with low-carbon and new energies

Energy News Beat

Two U.S. energy giants, ExxonMobil and Chevron, have disclosed their capital investment expectations, encompassing oil and gas plays, which go shoulder to shoulder with emission-reduction solutions, as these oil majors are no strangers to the uncertainly that surrounds the energy transition and low-carbon landscape. As a result, they are taking a shot at chasing more hydrocarbons alongside decarbonization.

While climate action heats up at COP28, many new decarbonization efforts are springing up to slash emissions from the energy sector, with recent signs indicating that the final text of the climate talks is heading towards a showdown on the question of phasing out fossil fuels. There is no doubt that throwing a commitment to exit the fossil fuels age into the final agreement at COP28 is no small feat, especially in the light of Sultan Al-Jaber’s remarks that limiting warming to 1.5°C does not necessarily require phasing out fossil fuels.

While some may not be on the same page as the COP28 President when it comes to fossil energy, as they do not think that ending oil, gas, and coal production would send humanity back to the Stone Age, the energy crisis has pushed countries into putting all energy sources at their disposal to good use to avoid a new supply crunch down the road.

Well-versed in the nuances of the current energy ecosystem, ExxonMobil’s Chairman and CEO, Darren Woodssaid at the APEC Summit in San Francisco last month that the plan to tackle climate change and energy demands would need to go beyond expanding wind, solar, and EVs. According to ExxonMobil’s CEO, the world needs to commit to solving its “energy and emissions challenges simultaneously” to bridge the global North-South divide.

Woods also stated that the problem was not oil and gas but emissions, echoing Kevin Gallagher, Santos’ Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, who underscored that “the climate enemy is emissions, not fossil fuels” while addressing a WA Energy Club luncheon in Perth, Western Australia.

ExxonMobil steps up its low-carbon game with over $20 billion

Based on ExxonMobil’s updated corporate plan through 2027, the company is intent on continuing the execution of its strategy to provide the energy products the world needs and to lower not just its own emissions but also those of others. The U.S. player highlights that the execution of its strategy has increased the earnings power of the corporation, adding about $10 billion to its annual earnings and cash flow at a real Brent price of $60 per barrel since 2019.

For the oil major, these improvements provide “a strong foundation” to further grow annual earnings and cash flow by $14 billion from year-end 2023 through 2027, as it continues to reduce structural costs and improve the mix of its business by growing production from low-cost-of-supply, advantaged assets and increasing sales of high-value performance chemicals, lower-emission fuels, and performance lubricants.

“By any measure, our plans have and will continue to deliver exceptional value. We remain committed to providing the energy and products that raise living standards around the world while building a new business to reduce emissions in hard-to-decarbonize parts of the economy. ExxonMobil is uniquely equipped to do both, and we’re confident that both present significant opportunities for profitable growth,” underlined Woods.

ExxonMobil plans to deliver $6 billion in additional structural cost reductions by year-end 2027, bringing the total structural cost savings to approximately $15 billion versus 2019, while Upstream earnings potential is on track to more than double by 2027 versus 2019, resulting from investments in high-return, low-cost-of-supply projects. Over the next five years, approximately 90% of the firm’s planned Upstream capital investments in new oil and flowing gas production are expected to generate returns greater than 10% at a Brent price of $35/bbl.

In line with its decarbonization agenda, the U.S. giant has made inroads in executing its plan to reduce Upstream operated greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 40% to 50% by 2030, compared with 2016 levels, having already achieved approximately half of this planned reduction. The firm expects oil and gas production in 2024 to be about 3.8 million oil-equivalent barrels per day, rising to about 4.2 million oil-equivalent barrels per day by 2027, driven by growth in the Permian and Guyana.

ExxonMobil now anticipates total annual capital expenditures and exploration expenses of $23 billion to $25 billion in 2024 and $22 billion to $27 billion annually from 2025 through 2027, generating an average return of approximately 30%. Greater than 90% of the capex has payback periods of less than ten years. The company points out that the increase in capex from 2025 is driven by the growth in Low Carbon Solutions’ opportunities to reduce emissions.

The U.S. oil major remains on track to complete $17.5 billion in share repurchases in 2023 as part of the $35 billion repurchase program previously announced for 2023 and 2024. After the Pioneer merger closes, the go-forward pace of the program in 2024 will be increased to $20 billion annually through 2025, assuming reasonable market conditions.

Source: Offshore-energy.biz

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

 

The post ExxonMobil, Chevron set sights on more oil & gas along with low-carbon and new energies appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Some Democrats join Republicans in voting to strike down Biden’s EV mandate

Energy News Beat

The House voted Wednesday evening in favor of legislation striking down federal regulations targeting gas-powered vehicles which, according to the White House, are designed to “accelerate the transition to electric vehicles.”

In a 221-197 vote, the House approved the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales (CARS) Act with 216 Republicans and five Democrats voting in favor. A group of more than a dozen Republican lawmakers, led by Reps. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., and Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., introduced the legislation in July in response to the Biden administration’s tailpipe emissions regulations unveiled months earlier.

“The passage of the CARS Act is a massive victory for every consumer and the entire American auto industry,” Walberg told Fox News Digital. “Biden’s mandate has always been unrealistic, and a textbook study on how central planning and Bidenomics simply do not work. Mandating EVs has never been a responsible or affordable solution.”

“Americans should always have the option to buy whatever car suits them the best and the House has taken a massive step toward ensuring that opportunity still exists,” he added.

Opponents of EPA’s actions — which are part of the Biden administration’s broader effort to increase EV ownership in the U.S. and fight global warming by curbing carbon emissions produced by the transportation sector — have argued the new standards would ultimately harm consumers through higher costs and by forcing them to buy certain vehicles.

They have also argued that a large EV push will benefit Chinese industry which currently dominates global EV battery supply chains.

“Voting for the CARS Act and taking a stand against EPA’s de facto ban on most new gasoline, diesel, flex fuel and hybrid vehicles should not be a partisan issue for members of the House,” American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Vice President of Government Relations Aaron Ringel told Fox News Digital prior to the vote Wednesday.

“Banning vehicle and fuel technologies based on just one category of emissions is unlawful, illogical and bad for consumers, families and our national security,” Ringel said. “It would trade our hard-earned energy security for dependence on China.”

He noted, under the CARS Act, the EPA would maintain its authority to issue technology-neutral vehicle emission standards, but that those standards could not be manipulated to “force vehicle electrification.”

Ahead of the vote Wednesday, though, Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee circulated a memo stating that aggressive emissions standards are vital to reduce pollution and reduce premature deaths.

“Republicans are employing scare tactics to deliberately mislead the American people about EVs in order to prop up Big Oil corporations,” the memo stated. “The reality is that EVs are already popular, cheaper to own, and ongoing technological advancements are translating to better options for consumers every year.”

Following the vote Wednesday, the CARS Act now moves to the Senate, where it has already received bipartisan support. However, the White House said in a statement Monday that President Biden would veto the CARS Act if it is passed.

Source: Foxnews.com

The post Some Democrats join Republicans in voting to strike down Biden’s EV mandate appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Chevron Plans to Spend $14 Billion on Oil and Natural Gas Production in 2024

Energy News Beat

Chevron will allocate $14 billion for upstream investments in 2024, the company said in a budget update that saw the total capex planned for 2024 at between $18.5 billion and $19.5 billion.

That would be an 11% increase on 2023 spending, Reuters noted in a report on the news.

Of the amount dedicated to upstream investment, Chevron plans to spend two-thirds on domestic projects. Of that sum, $6.5 billion will be spent on shale oil and gas, Chevron said. Almost all of that shale spending, or $5 billion, will go towards developments in the Permian.

At the same time, Chevron said it will allocate a quarter of its total U.S. investments for Gulf of Mexico projects, including the Anchor project scheduled to start commercial production in 2024. The Anchor project, which was greenlighted in 2019, is the first deepwater high-pressure oil development project in the region.

The company will also spend about $1.5 billion on offshore operations in Kazakhstan, with the sum constituting half of its affiliates budget for 2024.

Investments planned for the downstream segment are significantly smaller than the upstream total, at $1.5 billion, with 80% of this to be spent at home, Chevron also said.

“Included in the upstream and downstream budgets is approximately $2 billion in lower carbon capex to lower the carbon intensity of traditional operations and grow new energy business lines,” the company said, adding “Chevron’s Geismar renewable diesel expansion project is expected to start-up in 2024.”

In pursuit of its oil and gas expansion plans, Chevron in October took over Hess Corp. for $53 billion in stock. The acquisition has given the company access to the Stabroek Block in Guyana, where Hess and Exxon have tapped more than 11 billion barrels in oil reserves.

“We’re maintaining capital discipline in both traditional and new energies,” CEO Mike Wirth said. “These investments are expected to underpin durable free cash flow growth to support our objective of returning more cash to shareholders.”

Source: Oilprice.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Chevron Plans to Spend $14 Billion on Oil and Natural Gas Production in 2024 appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

The Oil Demand Outlook COP28 Leaders Would Hate

Energy News Beat
The International Energy Agency said in its recent oil report that oil consumption is close to peaking, thanks to transition efforts and energy efficiency gains.
Goehring and Rozencwajg: In 12 of the past 14 years, the IEA has underestimated oil demand by an average annual of 820,000 barrels per day. 
Goehring and Rozencwajg: “If the IEA’s error were a country, it would be the world’s 21st largest oil consumer,”.

This week, a report from a climate organization warned that emissions from the combustion of hydrocarbons are set for a record this year.

This is despite the massive buildout of wind and solar capacity, hundreds of billions of investments in alternatives of hydrocarbons, and pledges for a lot more.

There appears to be a gap between stated goals and ambitions and reality. It might be more difficult to see looking at the oil futures market, but it is there. And it may be getting deeper.

Like emissions, oil demand rose this year. Yet the International Energy Agency said it is close to peaking, thanks to transition efforts and energy efficiency gains. Oil producers slammed the IEA for manipulating data. The investment world was divided. And some recalled the Jevons Paradox as proof that the hopes being pinned on energy efficiency, especially as it related to oil demand, were empty ones.

In their latest quarterly market commentary, contrarian natural resource investment managers Goehring and Rozencwajg did just that: they reminded everyone watching COP28 and listening to all the talk about efficiency and demand for hydrocarbons that gains in the former never lead to a decline in the latter.

“It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.” This is what William Stanley Jevons, a British economist and logician, wrote in the 19th century. He was talking about coal. Close to 200 years later, the paradox still stands.

Yet it is not just the mistaken belief that greater energy efficiency would lead to lower consumption of hydrocarbons that has led Goehring and Rozencwajg to predict that oil demand is set to continue strong for more than a decade yet. There is also an issue with the IEA’s demand forecasts: they have been underestimating oil demand for more than a decade.

In 12 of the past 14 years, the IEA, according to the investment firm, has underestimated oil demand by an average annual of 820,000 barrels per day. This is quite a substantial amount when something as important as oil demand is being estimated.

“If the IEA’s error were a country, it would be the world’s 21st largest oil consumer,” Goehring and Rozencwajg wrote. But this error can create a false narrative on the futures market that could end in a nasty surprise for many.

The IEA said in its latest World Energy Outlook that tripling generation capacity from wind and solar and other low-carbon sources must go hand in hand with an annual rate of energy efficiency improvements of 4%.

What it did not say is that even if this annual rate of efficiency gains is achieved, it will only lead to more energy demand, which would translate into more oil and gas demand. This is because the new low-carbon sources of energy that transition advocates favor cannot compete with hydrocarbons on supply reliability, at least not yet.

While all this is happening, the oil industry is not investing enough in future production, not least because of the transition pressures applied to it by activists, governments, and financing institutions.

As a result, Goehring and Rozencwajg write, “When the realization dawns that oil and gas demand is not in free fall, investors will be forced to confront how little the industry has invested to offset declines.” This will lead to a reversal in investor thinking and a rush to buy into oil and gas. Needless to say, this will not exactly be bearish for prices.

The rush will likely be a stampede, too, because of something else that tends to get overlooked amid all the transition commitment noise. China is the biggest wind, solar, and EV market. India has major ambitions in all three areas. Yet these two countries alone represent the biggest driver for oil, gas, and coal demand. And their role in global hydrocarbon demand growth is only going to become bigger.

Emerging markets as a whole currently account for 45% of global GDP. By 2040, this will rise to 53%, representing 70% of global GDP growth. And these markets are energy intensive, meaning energy demand will be rising over the next 17 years, at least, efficiency gains and all. With that, demand for hydrocarbons will be rising, too, whatever commitments current governments make at the COP28.

The reason for that last prediction is evident in the report on emissions cited earlier: when energy demand grows, so does hydrocarbon demand because they can supply energy quickly in the form of liquid fuels and reliably in the form of baseload electricity generation.

Predictions from the IEA and other transition-oriented outlets seem to assume that a reversal in these processes is possible. They seem to assume that it is possible to cut energy demand in the developed world by a significant percentage.

It is quite likely that these assumptions are wrong because they go against fundamental truths about human civilization, such as the fact that going from comfort to forced discomfort is not something many would readily embrace, to put it mildly. The implications of basing investment decisions on wrong assumptions should be obvious enough—as many offshore wind investors realized earlier this year.

Source: Oilprice.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post The Oil Demand Outlook COP28 Leaders Would Hate appeared first on Energy News Beat.