Energy News Beat

The United States will impose fees on Chinese-built ships docking at American ports—regardless of ownership, in a ruling the global shipping community has been waiting tentatively to hear about for months. The glimmer of good news for non-Chinese owners is that the final measure is less severe than the originally proposed flat fee of $1.5m per docking. Chinese owners, on the other hand, are potentially on the hook for millions of dollars more in fees than originally envisaged in the latest example of the Trump administration singling out the People’s Republic for economic punishment.

Non-Chinese shipowners will be charged the higher of two calculated fees: a weight-based fee, starting at $18 per net ton as of October 14, 2025, and gradually increasing to $33 per net ton by April 17, 2028, or container-based fee, starting at $120 per container discharged on October 14, 2025, that will increase to $250 per container by April 17, 2028.

Non-US-built ships carrying cars will be charged $150 per vehicle.

LNG carriers are required to move 1% of US LNG exports on US-built, operated and flagged vessels within four years. That percentage would rise to 4% by 2035 and to 15% by 2047.

The fees will be applied once each voyage on affected ships, a maximum of six times a year.

Temporary suspension of the fee—up to a maximum of three years—may be granted if the vessel owner orders and takes delivery of a US-built ship of equal or greater net tonnage.

Exemptions apply to smaller vessels, ships on domestic voyages as well as to the Caribbean and in the Great Lakes, and certain specialised vessel types. Also exempt are empty bulk carriers arriving at US ports to load up with exports such as wheat and soybeans. The measures announced yesterday do not apply to container vessels smaller than 4,000 teu. They also do not apply to voyages shorter than 2,000 nautical miles.

Chinese shipowners and operators do look to be hit with far higher bills. They will initially be charged $50 per ton of cargo, rising by $30 a ton each year for the next three years.

For container shipping, where Chinese operators COSCO and OOCL typically operate ships of around 13,000 teu on the transpacific – equivalent to around 60,000 net tons – this translates to to fees of $8.4m per vessel, according to calculations by Lars Jensen, the head of container advisory Vespucci Maritime, who noted today that the new US proposals have no upper limit charges, while the previous proposal had a $1m limit.

“Ships and shipping are vital to American economic security and the free flow of commerce,” US trade representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “The Trump administration’s actions will begin to reverse Chinese dominance, address threats to the US supply chain, and send a demand signal for US-built ships.”

Not done on its mission to target Chinese maritime infrastructure, the USTR has set May 19 as the date for a hearing into 100% tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes, chassis that carry containers and chassis parts. 

While US steel and shipbuilding unions applauded the news from the Trump administration, many shippers voiced concern, amid a time when trade on the transpacific is already collapsing because of the trade war between China and the US. 

“We are deeply concerned that the newly announced port fees and shipping mandates are destined to have devastating consequences for American workers, consumers, and exporters,” said Nate Herman, senior vice president of policy at the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA). 

Analysts at Signal Ocean, a Greek maritime data analytics company, said the new fees represent a “major cost shock”.

“The short- to medium-term consequences may include rising freight rates, reduced export competitiveness, and shifts in trade routes. Without parallel investments in US shipbuilding capacity and greater policy clarity, the risk of trade disruptions and inflationary pressures will persist,” Signal warned. 

The post US unveils much-anticipated port call fees appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

The post Change at the top at Britannia appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

The post Saipem and Lamprell extend offshore cooperation with Saudi Aramco appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

The post ScottishPower Renewables hires vessel trio for work on UK offshore wind farm appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

Metros with YoY price drops double to 14: Austin, Tampa, San Antonio, Phoenix, Dallas, Orlando, Atlanta, Miami, Denver, Raleigh, Houston, Birmingham, Charlotte. YoY gains narrow sharply in San Diego, Los Angles, Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Columbus… 20 below 2022 peaks.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

March is the time of the year – the spring selling season – when home prices in many markets rise sharply after declining during the winter, and they did so a year ago.

But this March, prices of single-family houses, condos, and co-ops across the US rose only 0.2% from February. A year ago, they’d jumped by 1.1% in March from February.

This small month-to-month price increase in March caused the year-over-year price gain for homes that sold in March to get whittled down to 1.1% overall, from 2.1% in February. A year ago, the YoY price gains were in 4.5% range. During the peak of Housing Bubble 2 in mid-2021, YoY gains exceeded 18%.

Similar scenarios played out in all of the 33 metros here: Month-to-month gains in March – if any… Miami and others had declines – were a lot smaller than a year earlier.

Those markets with YoY price declines in February saw these YoY declines widen in March. Seven of those that still had YoY gains in February flipped to YoY declines in March. And others saw their YoY gains narrow, in some cases to near-nothing, such as San Diego.

All data here is from the “raw” mid-tier Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI). The ZHVI is based on millions of data points in Zillow’s “Database of All Homes,” including from public records (tax data), MLS, brokerages, local Realtor Associations, real-estate agents, and households across the US. It includes pricing data for off-market deals and for-sale-by-owner deals. Zillow’s Database of All Homes also has sales-pairs data. The index is not seasonally adjusted.

The 33 Most Splendid Housing Bubbles.

Here we track the prices of single-family houses, condos, and co-ops in 33 large Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). To qualify for this list, the MSA must be one of the largest by population, and must have had a ZHVI of at least $300,000 somewhere along the line.

The metros of New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, etc. don’t qualify for this list because their ZHVI has never reached $300,000, despite the massive surge of home prices in recent years, but from low levels.

Down year-over-year: The group of the 33 metros here whose prices declined year-over-year keeps growing. In March, 14 of these 33 metros had year-over-year declines, up from 7 metros in February.

The 14 metros with year-over-year price declines:

1. Austin: -4.6%
2. Tampa: -4.5%
3. San Antonio: -2.7%
4. Phoenix: -2.5%
5. Dallas: -2.4%
6. Orlando: -2.2%
7. Atlanta: -1.8%
8. Miami: -1.5%
9. Denver: -1.1%
10. Raleigh: -1.0%
11. Houston: -0.9%
12. Honolulu: -0.8%
13. Birmingham: -0.3%
14. Charlotte: -0.1%

Down from the 2022 peaks: Prices in 20 metros of our 33 metros are down from their 2022 peaks, led by the metros of:

• Austin: -23.2%
• Phoenix: -10.2%
• San Francisco: -10.8%
• San Antonio: -9.4%
• Denver: -7.9%.

Home prices exploded through mid-2022, fueled by the Fed’s interest rate repression and QE, resulting in below-3% mortgages. But the Fed hiked rates starting in 2022 and has shed $2.2 trillion in assets through QT. Mortgage rates have been above 6% since September 2022 and over 7% for some of that time. Prices are now simply too high after spiking like this, and demand has plunged.

The 20 metros that are below their highs of mid-2022.

The YoY decline worsened from -3.8% in February. Prices are back where they’d been in April 2021.

The Austin MSA includes the counties of Travis (Austin-Round Rock), Williamson, Hays, Caldwell, and Bastrop.

The YoY decline worsened from -1.6% in February. Prices are back where they’d first been in January 2022:

In February, the YoY increase was still +2.4%.

The MSA includes San Francisco, Oakland, much of the East Bay, much of the North Bay, and goes south on the Peninsula into Silicon Valley through San Mateo County.

Prices are roughly where they’d first been in June 2021.

The YoY decline worsened from -2.0% in February. Prices have dropped to the lowest level since January 2022.

The YoY decline worsened from 0% in February. Prices are back where they’d first been in February 2022.

The YoY drop worsened from -1.4% in February.

February’s YoY gain of 1.3% nearly vanished in March.

The YoY drop worsened from -3.6% in February.

In February, the YoY gain was +1.3%. Prices are back where they’d first been in January 2022.

The YoY gain in February of +0.6% flipped to a YoY loss in March.

In February, the YoY gain was +2.7%. Prices are back where they’d first been in March 2022.

The YoY gain in February was +4.3%.

A deterioration from February’s YoY 0%.

The YoY decline worsened from -0.2% in February. The index is where it had first been in April 2022.

In February, the YoY gain was +1.3%. The index is where it had been in April 2022.

The YoY gain in February was +2.4%.

In February, the YoY gain was +4.2%.

In February, the YoY decline was -0.7%.

The index flipped from a YoY gain in February (+0.9%) to a YoY decline in March (-0.1%).

YoY decline worsened from -1.4% in February.

The 13 markets are higher than in mid-2022:

Miami’s market is turning south:

• The YoY decline worsened from -0.2% in February.
• In March 2024, prices jumped by 1.0% from February. In March 2025, prices fell by 0.4% from February.
• Since the high in July, the index has dropped by 3.0%.

In February, the YoY gain was +2.3%.

In February, the YoY gain was +3.1%.

In February, the YoY gain was +3.1%.

In February, the YoY gain was +3.1%.

In February, the YoY gain was +3.9%.

In February, the YoY gain was +4.0%. The index is roughly unchanged from June 2024.

The vast and diverse metro includes Washington D.C. and parts of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.

In February, the YoY gain was +4.2%.

In February, the YoY gain was +4.1%.

Though the month-to-month price gain in March looks big, it was a lot smaller than in March 2024, causing the YoY gain to narrow from +4.7% in February.

In February, the YoY gain was +5.1%.

In February, the YoY gain was +5.6%.

In February, the YoY gain was +7.6%. The index is roughly level where it had first been in May 2022. Some crazy action:

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

The post The Most Splendid Housing Bubbles in America, March 2025: The Price Drops & Gains in 33 of the Largest Housing Markets appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

ENB Pub Note: Mike Umbro, a great guest on the Energy News Beat Podcast, was mentioned in the article, and his cover picture. He truly has the right ideas for California, unlike the current political leadership. The oil and gas business has been decimated in California by design. They want you to walk and not own a car. Watch how high the prices go when California starts importing Diesel and Gasoline from China. 

Analysts say Californians could be paying significantly more for gasoline with the impending closure of two Phillips 66 refineries in Los Angeles, which account for about 8 percent of the state’s oil refining capacity, by the end of 2025.

Before the refiners made their announcements, the California Energy Commission had proposed that the state take over oil refineries to try to mitigate price hikes.

Analysts say Californians could be paying significantly more for gasoline with the impending closure of two Phillips 66 refineries in Los Angeles, which account for about 8 percent of the state’s oil refining capacity, by the end of 2025.

Before the refiners made their announcements, the California Energy Commission had proposed that the state take over oil refineries to try to mitigate price hikes.

The post California Ponders Takeover of Oil Refineries as Facilities Shut Down appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

Obama judge ordered EPA to restart $20B taxpayer-funded green scheme, forcing admin to resume funds for NGOs, including one run by Stacey Abrams.

​A federal judge ruled late Tuesday evening that the Environmental Protection Agency must immediately restart a $20 billion Biden-era green energy program that the Trump administration terminated last month, restarting the flow of taxpayer funds to eight environmentalist groups, including one linked to Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams. [emphasis, links added]

Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, whom former president Barack Obama appointed in 2013, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump EPA’s actions, but did not immediately explain the ruling.

Plaintiffs—a coalition of eight environmental groups that the Biden administration awarded massive grants to under the program—had asked for the injunction, arguing that terminating the program would cause them irreparable damage.

The ruling is the latest blow courts have dealt to the Trump administration, which has been on the losing end of several court-ordered injunctions since January. It also gives a lifeline to a slew of taxpayer-funded environmentalist groups.

The EPA appealed Chutkan’s ruling on Wednesday morning.

The case relates to the Biden administration’s handling of the so-called Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which was created under the Democrats’ 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

In April 2024, the EPA announced it had selected eight recipients to receive $20 billion under the program and use that money to bolster green energy efforts nationwide.

The program, as designed by the Biden EPA, functions as a “green bank,” using a pass-through mechanism to support local climate projects.

Shortly after taking office, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin’s team discovered that Biden officials parked the $20 billion at an outside financial institution—Citibank.

The first-of-its-kind arrangement limits oversight of the funds and creates barriers for the Trump administration’s efforts to claw the funding back.

The Washington Free Beacon then reported that one of the eight recipients of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants was a brand-new nonprofit linked to Abrams, who was a vocal proponent of former president Joe Biden’s green agenda and campaigned for former vice president Kamala Harris.

The Biden EPA granted that group, Power Forward Communities, $2 billion to replace gas appliances with electric alternatives in low-income communities nationwide despite reporting just $100 in revenue in 2023.

“As we continue to learn more about where some of this money went, it is even more apparent how far-reaching and widely accepted this waste and abuse has been,” Zeldin told the Free Beacon at the time.

“It’s extremely concerning that an organization that reported just $100 in revenue in 2023 was chosen to receive $2 billion. That’s 20 million times the organization’s reported revenue.”

Read rest at Free Beacon

We give you energy news and help invest in energy projects too, click here to learn more

Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Obama Judge Revives $20B Biden Green Scheme, Which Includes Stacey Abrams-Linked NGO appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

Corporate and global leaders are ditching empty green pledges as pressure mounts to refocus on energy, growth, and development basics.

Over the past decade, the leaders of corporate and international organizations became used to being lauded for making grand but ultimately empty, green promises on stages in Davos and climate summits. How quickly things have changed. [emphasis, links added]

Fear of being called out by the Trump administration is forcing many leaders into changing course—at least in their rhetoric.

World Bank president Ajay Banga’s first move when he took over the institution in 2023 was to extend its mission from ending poverty to incorporate climate change and making the planet “livable.”

Last November, as he headed to the COP summit in Azerbaijan, Banga graced the cover of Time magazine’s “climate issue” and warned that climate change was “intertwined” with every challenge.

Yet today, he somewhat implausibly tells reporters, “I’m not a climate evangelist.”

The shift in self-identification is frankly meaningless without deeper change. For the development banks, there is much work yet to be done to end poverty.

Astonishingly, the World Bank and the African Development Bank ring-fence a whopping 45% and 55% of annual financing, respectively, for climate projects.

Both institutions divert half or more of these climate funds to projects that reduce the emissions of poor people – an absurdity when energy poverty remains a huge barrier to development.

It is hypocritical and ultimately immoral to insist that poorer countries rely on intermittent solar and wind when every single rich country has access to a vast amount of affordable, dependable energy, mostly from fossil fuels.

Indeed, Africa has been forced to finally get its own energy bank to fund fossil fuel projects because the major development banks refuse to invest in them.

It remains to be seen whether the U.S. will use its significant shareholdings in the World Bank and African Development Bank to encourage a return to less glamorous development basics, or whether the Trump administration will be content with just a change in language.

The development banks could take a leaf out of corporate America’s book. Parts of the private sector have moved ruthlessly to abandon green virtue signaling and return to their core work.

Climate change is undeniably a real problem that has tangible economic impacts. However, climate solutions also come with their own set of costs, often demanding that businesses and individuals rely on pricier, less dependable energy sources.

The decision to balance the expenses of climate policies with the advantages of climate action falls rightly under the responsibility of governments, not profit-driven businesses.

Yet over the past decade, even major contributors to climate change, such as the fossil fuel industry itself, invested in extraordinary green policies.

Five years ago, BP made an astonishing promise to slash its oil and gas production by 40% by 2030, while increasing green energy generation twentyfold and becoming net-zero.

Even after the world has spent $14 trillion on climate policy, more than four-fifths of global energy remains supplied by fossil fuels.

Now, along with other big, Western oil companies, it has abandoned those farcical green promises and recommitted to its primary activity: fossil fuels.

No doubt, this U-turn will be lamented by green activists. But the truth is that these promises were always an inefficient way of helping the planet, and very shortsighted for fossil fuel companies.

Even after the world has spent $14 trillion on climate policy, more than four-fifths of global energy remains supplied by fossil fuels.

Over the past half-century, fossil fuel energy has more than doubled, with 2023 again setting a new record.

Consumers and businesses are crying out for more energy, while competitor state-owned oil companies from the Middle East have continued to provide more fossil fuels. It is a foolish energy company that declares it will supply less energy.

Banks also had a fling with green policies, and have now dumped them, with the six largest U.S. banks leaving the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, and Wells Fargo officially abandoning its goal of achieving net-zero emissions across its financial portfolio by 2050.

While some industries are moving faster than others, there are signs that many companies will just change their language, and not their inefficient climate policies.

A recent global survey of 1,400 corporate executives found that 58% of companies “are deliberately planning to decrease their level of external communications” about climate policies, even though most intend to spend even more on these than before.

Shareholders need to ask hard questions about what these policies do for the planet and what they add to the bottom line.

As leaders of international organizations and corporations scramble to adapt to an entirely new world, they [must] go further than just shifts in rhetoric.

The era of being cheered on for every green promise and vow, regardless of how silly or self-defeating, has come to an end. Now it’s time for those leaders to get back to business.

Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus, visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First.”

Read more at Fox News

Trading Desk

Is Oil and Gas An Investment for You?

The post Green Goals Crumble As Businesses Prioritize Growth And Profits appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

ENB Pub Note: This article from Climate Realism has some excellent points. Because the climate alarm agenda has been used to regulate the energy industry, prices have doubled or tripled in many cases worldwide. “Renewable” is not renewable nor sustainable under current technology. 

The New York Times warns of climate-driven economic collapse, but critics say the real threat is policy overreach—not the climate itself.

​In the recent New York Times (NYT) editorial “Climate Change Could Become a Global Economic Disaster,” author David Gelles paints a picture of impending economic collapse, driven by climate-induced destruction of real estate markets, insurance availability, and global GDP. [emphasis, links added]

Gelles’ claims are speculative, based on a faulty analysis of climate change and a flawed understanding of economics and history.

The evidence suggests that these apocalyptic scenarios are not only built on worst-case modeling completely divorced from real-world empirical data, but also ignore humanity’s long record of adaptation, innovation, and resilience in the face of change.

Let’s start with the article’s centerpiece claim: that global temperatures are “all but certain” to exceed 2°C and may reach 3°C by century’s end. This assertion leans heavily on scenario-based climate models, not observations.

As noted at Climate Realism, even the IPCC now quietly acknowledges that its previously touted high-emissions pathway, RCP8.5, is increasingly implausible. And yet this outdated scenario remains the go-to for media catastrophism.

Real-world data shows warming trends more consistent with the lower-end projections, with no sign of the runaway feedback loops that media outlets breathlessly parrot.

Moreover, models are routinely adjusted retroactively, and their forecasts rarely match actual climate observations. As Roy Spencer, Ph.D., has detailed, models overestimate warming compared to satellite data, a point conveniently omitted by the NYT.

The NYT parrots an old favorite: cities like Miami and Osaka will be underwater. The implication is one of a biblical deluge, yet actual tidal gauge records and satellite altimetry show no acceleration in sea-level rise.

Sea levels continue to rise at a modest, linear rate of around 3mm per year—consistent with trends observed since the 19th century, and certainly nothing that improved infrastructure to prevent flooding can’t handle.

And what about that “$1.47 trillion in lost real estate value” forecasted by 2055? That claim is based on reports from First Street Foundation, whose track record includes exaggerated flood maps that frequently misrepresent actual local risk.

These so-called models overlook local infrastructure improvements, stormwater management, and elevation protections.

They are tools of advocacy, not science.

In fact, population increases continue to this day in areas historically prone to natural disasters like floods, hurricanes, and wildfires, as is reflected in rising property values.

Gelles’s warning of declining crop yields under 3°C warming is flatly contradicted by global agricultural data.

As Climate Realism explains, yields for major crops—corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans—have continued to break records year after year as the Earth has modestly warmed.

There is no impending famine due to climate change—only misleading headlines crafted to push policy agendas.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), the supposed villain in this narrative, is actually a plant nutrient. Increased atmospheric CO2 boosts photosynthesis and water-use efficiency—facts that real farmers know even if climate bureaucrats pretend not to.

Yes, localized crop failures can occur from drought or heat—but global food systems are more diversified, mechanized, and resilient than at any time in human history.

There is no impending famine due to climate change—only misleading headlines crafted to push policy agendas.

One of the more theatrical claims comes from Allianz SE board member Günther Thallinger, who warns that “entire regions are becoming uninsurable.” This narrative is increasingly deployed by activists hoping to push regulatory and financial compliance to extreme climate agendas.

But as Climate Realism notes, the real drivers behind insurance withdrawal from certain areas are not climate-induced disasters, but political and regulatory pressures—price controls, legal liability risks, and zoning decisions.

Insurers adjust rates and coverage areas based on risk, profit margins, and policy interference. That’s capitalism, not climate collapse.

Suggesting that the entire financial system is on the verge of implosion because of climate change is a falsehood, built upon an ignorance of how insurance markets work in tandem with government regulations.

The final paragraph of the editorial warns that, due to climate risk, the financial sector may collapse, and “capitalism as we know it ceases to be viable.” That’s not science—it’s propaganda.

No credible economic historian or climatologist has made such a claim based on empirical evidence. This is the NY Times at its most hyperbolic: throwing rhetorical grenades instead of engaging with facts.

Instead of holding alarming, unverified climate claims up to scrutiny, the NY Times prints them as gospel truth.

In fact, throughout the period of recent climate change, global and regional GDPs have continued to increase, more people have become wealthy, and fewer are mired in poverty now than ever before.

The real risk to economic systems isn’t climate change—it’s climate policy overreach. From carbon taxes that cripple industry, to forced electrification without grid readiness, the rush to “fight” climate change results in skyrocketing energy costs, manufacturing decline, inflation, and lost consumer freedom.

It seems the NY Times’ story is built on a fact-free “House of Cards,” emblematic of the mainstream media’s increasing tendency to write “Fake News” and ignore facts, especially when the issue is climate change.

The New York Times has long since abandoned journalistic neutrality on climate issues. Instead of holding alarming, unverified climate claims up to scrutiny, the NY Times prints them as gospel truth.

This piece isn’t journalism—it’s advocacy.

Any systemic climate risk to the economy comes from the misreporting of climate facts and government policies enacted in response to the false climate claims, not climate change itself.

Read more at Climate Realism

Trading Desk

The post NYTimes Falsely Claims Climate Change Will Trigger ‘Global Economic Disaster’ appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

Follow Michael On LinkedIn and Twitter

ENB Top News

Energy Dashboard

ENB Podcast

ENB Substack

ENB Trading Desk

Oil & Gas Investing

– Get in Contact With The Show –

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

Stuart Turley [00:00:00] The EU and the UK are following a path to decouple from the US and embrace China, while individual countries in the EU are looking to negotiate their own trade deals with the President Trump’s team. If those trade deals line up like they appear, the EU may have some real stability issues in the sale of the U.S. Dollar is through bond sales and currency holding for trade It is too early to see what the dollar has fallen under,.

Stuart Turley [00:00:33] Hello everybody, welcome to the Energy Newsbeat Daily Standup, my name’s Stu Turley, President of the Sandstone Group. It is crazy out there on the news desk, today is April 17th. Buckle up, we got us some stories. The steel curve America faces, excuse me, the steep learning curve America face if it wants to return to previous shipyard glory days. Got steel on my mind and you’re going to need a lot of steel to start building ships again. Going to be a big one. Let’s go to the next one. What are the potential effects of reclassifying CO2 as a non-pollute? How to strike trade deals in record time is really a very important item. There’s a pretty interesting points in here. OPEC vows to offset 4.75 million barrels per day of overproduction by June 2026. Buckle up. Got some information on that one. EIA says oil production will peak in 2027. Oh man gotta love a good peak story.

Stuart Turley [00:01:47] All right let’s start with the first story here. The steep learning curve America faces if it wants to return to the previous shipyard glory days and we take a look at what the actual ship building capacity is. The United States has numerous shipyards around various states. As of recent data, it has approximately 154 private shipyards actively engaged in shipbuilding that are very small, and there’s only 4 public shipyards dedicated to naval vessel maintenance and repair. We’re in a world of hurt when you consider the number of vessels that China builds in a year is about a thousand and we build three. So you’re you’re talking a Huge number of ships. Unbelievable. And we’ve got a list in here of all the different ones that are out there. The article that’s also in the story is from America’s shipyards. The stats around the surrounding steep learning curve want to claw back any market share and shipbuilding are astonishing. And the, but we are way, way behind. We are way way behind that’s a cross between a president Trump and Fonzie. So we’ll just leave that alone. The U S accounts for less than 1% of global output. How do you go attack? You got 99% you can go after, but you’re going to have to face a really big employed in shipbuilding today. It’s around one in every thousand. It’s just amazing when you take a look at that chart, it is really amazing. And so one of the things that I was really kind of trying to bring up to this point. The U S Navy has nuclear reactors down to a science and we could branch that expertise out into the commercial sector and keep the control and licensing under the U S military framework. What about reactivating the merchant Marines and building an entire business process around selling a ship? But having the United States maintain ownership of that nuclear plant on that ship, their LNG carriers are being built all over the place. So having a small nuclear reactor and a contract for 30 years to maintain it sounds like a pretty good deal because you have zero emissions. The United States has a trading partner. And you got the merchant marines reactivated and controlling this i would say that would be some pretty cool things to think about instead of just creating ships that are going to be around for 10 years 20 years build a ship that’ll be around for a long time put a nuclear reactor in the environment’s better have the u.s marine Merchant Marines maintain control of those reactors, then you could even leave the ships out if you wanted to or sign long-term contracts. I’ve got a bad little idea, but the steep learning curve America faces is about also all the workers getting rid of the Jones Act, all the steel mills that go with it, all of the engine components. This is a huge undertaking.

Stuart Turley [00:05:16] Let’s go to the next story here with old Lee Zeldin. What are the potential effects of reclassifying CO2 as a non-pollutant? The Trump administration is having a global impact for the better of humanity. I put that in there and I think that this is very important when you take a look at EPA being led by Lee Zeldon has a global impact even before they finished. Reconsidering the endangerment finding which classifies Co2 and other greenhouse gasses as pollutants under the Obama Clean Air Act. Yesterday, the Washington Examiner published the story, Green Banking Group softens rules in bid to stem Wall Street exodus. One of the largest international green banking alliances moved to loosen its climate targets. Roughly 80% of the NBZA members voted Tuesday on changing the rules with 90% of financial institutions voting in favor of loosening the targets. This is very, very important. And you take a look at the Exodus in In December and January, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America departed from the International Alliance. Why is this important? If you take a look at the banking industry not participating in the global impact of CO2 now, this is going to be huge. As President Trump has pulled out of the Paris climate accords. I would like to see us pull out of the UN, like COP 28 series or 29 series coming up and all of the other UN and EU things around the weaponization of the greenhouse gasses. And I think that when the banks follow and they do this, the insurance companies are also gonna follow along as well. Take an EV, your EV, when you buy an EV your insurance price on a car doubles. This is going to be very much the same way. The Trump administration’s EPA has not officially, but I go into a lot of different details in here, the Trump administration claimed that policies save households about 2,500 annually through lower energy costs that has yet to be seen yet, but, I believe that they can and the other way the left is saying that because Trump is now forcing the money back from the inflation reduction act, or as you heard Dan Bongino say the porculous bill, it would actually cost families $110 more in line lines that it’s going to save money rather than that. And the story ABC news blames Toronto tornado on, I’d like to blame Toronto, blames tornado No surge on climate change, but data says otherwise. I’ve been talking to folks for a long time and we’ve had seen a lot of data manipulation by the green energy policy folks for their own benefit. I’m glad to see that the EPA is really cooking along and following along. I’ve got Nathan Hammer that I’m going to have on the podcast and we’re going to talk more about regulations and that’s what I like is leaning on experts. When we talk about, also,.

Stuart Turley [00:08:40] The next story here, how to strike trade deals at record time. This story is from Wendy Cutler at foreignpolicy.com. She has some very interesting points and I disagree with some of them, but I agree with some her points as well too. And I’d love to have Wendy on the podcast to have her go forth and describe some of her solutions and things. Her statement that the dollar is falling instead of rising a defiance of tariff theory shows investors are losing faith in America. I totally disagree with that and what we’re seeing is more a shift in fundamentals. The EU and the UK are following a path to decouple from the US and embrace China, while individual countries in the EU are looking to negotiate their own trade deals with the President Trump’s team. If those trade deals line up like they appear, the EU may have some real stability issues, and the sale of the US dollar is through bond sales and currency holding for trade. It is too early to see what the dollar has fallen under. It’s too early see what it’s doing because the dollar has actually been lower under COVID. And so Wendy points out though, in her article, and she is the vice president, the Asia society policy Institute, countries around the world are scrambling to pull together their best teams and develop strategies and sudden offers on trade negotiations. Thus far the Trump administration has referenced a long list of requests from their foreign counterparts. And I think that president Trump is on the right track and go for it. Energynewsbeat.co and take a look at the full rest of this story here. But I think Scott is doing a bang up job, Scott Besson, and he is really running around trying to solve the problem. We are seeing a right sizing in trade. President Xi is meeting and he’s trying to work out more In Asia partners and he’s meeting with Malaysia and you take a look at Malaysia I’ve been looking up how much Malaysia is capable of drilling in natural gas and in oil and you take a Look at the amount of oil that Malaysia exports to China and then the amount of oil they are capable of producing and refining and they’re shipping a lot more oil to China than they are. So I think you just found one of the avenues for Iranian or Venezuelan or any of the other dark fleet oil going to China is through Malaysia because the numbers don’t add up. Don’t have proof on that, but the numbers don’t add up and when the numbers in the oil market don’t add up, you can generally find it on a dark fleet tanker somewhere.

Stuart Turley [00:11:46] Let’s go to one of the last stories here. Before I do, I want to go ahead and give a shout out to Reese Energy Consulting. Steve Reese and the gang over there at ReeceEnergyConsulting.com are fabulous leaders in the energy, natural gas, oil and gas markets. And if you are in Bitcoin, if you want to find stranded natural gas or you want a data center, Steve, I just had my podcast with him last week. The staff is working on it right now to get it produced and cut. And it is phenomenal. I believe it’ll be coming out on Friday, so that’ll be pretty cool. When we sit back and take a look at Reese Energy Consulting, they also do training. So as we go through and we mentioned training, there is a lot of training in natural gas that in oil and gas space that needs to be done, because we got a lot workers. Natural gas is going to be here for a long time, so… Check them out. If you also need oil and gas, buy a load of LNG, ship it around, they can track molecules all the way and have the ability to do that from the Haynesville Permian all the way out to Germany or around the world. You want something moved, they could do it.

Stuart Turley [00:13:03] Let’s go to OPEC Plus vows to offset 4.57 million barrels per day of overproduction by June 2026. This is a great article. From oil price, and I apologize. I cannot even begin to pronounce your name. Chatsavanya from oil, price.com. She brings up great points when the U S or other countries need money. They just print money. But when other OPEC plus countries, which, you know, you have Russia, you have Iran, you haven’t as well as you have all of those countries that are in there need extra money. They just drill for oil and gas and they sell more outside their quotas. So she brings up OPEC Plus members have submitted plans to compensate for a total of 4.57 million barrels per day in overproduction. Compensation plans detail meth monthly offsets primarily between May and October of 2025. But watch the dark fleet because you will probably see more activity in there and watch China. More and more activity is going to be going on through China and its satellite countries like Malaysia that are going to selling them things that they need outside of saying. The producers in OPEC plus who have quotas have busted their overall output ceiling by a mouse of 319,000 barrels per day according to the plant survey. So I applaud Saudi Arabia. In fact, I just had a great interview with a great thought leader and Mike McDonald and you’re going to see that podcast come out hopefully in the next week or so. We talked about Saudi your ABA and their leadership. They’re doing the best that they can to try to keep the oil price. In my opinion I think that there is evidence to see that they needed around the 80 to 85 dollar range. There’s also discussions that they only needed around the 75 dollar range I’m more inclined to believe that they still need it around the eighty to eighty five dollar range and I they do the best they can, to keep that price.

Stuart Turley [00:15:18] The EIA says U.S. Oil production will peak in 2027. So as we take a look at this, because listen to this quote, a single oil and gas play does not determine a nation’s energy output. That’s a great quote. Oh, that’s from me. The E.I.A. Projects U. S. Crude oil production and will peak approximately 14 million barrels per day in 2027. This is from the EIA, the Department of Energy. I agree it might, but I disagree from the standpoint. There are still a lot of places around a drill. Shale oil production in the U.S. Is expected to peak in 2027, but there’s other places to drill. It just means you need to plan now so that you can go after those other places. After the peak, U. S. Oil production is forecast to decline through 2050. All of this is assuming that oil demand is going to go away. Until new technologies come around you’re not going to see the oil demand we need and still it is well documented four trillion dollars worth of oil and gas investments just to meet normal decline curves. If China is already arranging to buy oil from the dark fleet in other capacity, they still think they’re going to have some oil on demand and they are working on contracts outside of the Trump tariff war going on right now. So I think that we are not going to see that. I don’t have enough information to say that definitively the I agree with the EIA. I don’t. Because I happen to know there’s still a lot of oil up in the Arctic. There’s a lot of oil in Alaska, and there’s a LOT of oil off the Gulf. There is a lot oil in California that can still be drilled, but you’re going to have to have new leadership in that area.

Stuart Turley [00:17:24] So with that, like, subscribe, share this, read this to your pets, give them a hug, and we sure appreciate all of our listeners and We’re still on track for 15.5 million transcripts read. That’s not including the download. We’ll be well over 2.2 million downloads this year and we appreciate everybody listening to energy neewsbeat podcast, I’m Stu Turley Have a great day!

The post Striking Fast Trade Deals appeared first on Energy News Beat.