Energy News Beat

Senators Mary Beth Carozza (R-District 38), Johnny Mautz (R-District 37), Stephen Hershey (R-District 36), and Jason Gallion (R-District 35) are calling on Gov. Wes Moore to veto House Bill 1296 – Electricity – Offshore Wind Projects – Alterations. The House bill has been cross-filed with SB1161.

According to an email from Carozza’s office, “this legislation was introduced following the Jan. 25 decision by Ørsted to withdraw from the offshore wind energy industrialization project on Maryland’s Coast and would allow the sole remaining offshore wind development applicant, US Wind, to benefit from a renegotiated financing package that harms Maryland’s ratepayers.”

Here is a synopsis of House Bill 1296, from the official General Assembly website:

“Requiring the Public Service Commission to open a revised Round 2 proceeding on June 1, 2024, to evaluate certain offshore wind projects; prohibiting the Commission from approving an application for an offshore wind project unless the application includes commitments for in-State expenditures and investments; requiring the Commission to develop a certain plan to include a schedule of offshore wind energy procurements and proposed amounts of offshore wind energy for procurement through 2031; etc.”

Why Carozza, others are urging Gov. Moore to veto wind energy bill

In their April 23 letter to the governor, the senators wrote: “H.B. 1296 provides three methods to increase the subsidies that benefit the offshore wind energy developer and harm the ratepayers and taxpayers … all three methods allow US Wind to sell more of the higher-priced electricity and less of the lower-priced electricity, further burdening the ratepayer.”

According to the senators, “offshore wind energy projects in other states have revealed that the offshore wind energy developers’ business models fall well short of projections and these developers are either halting construction or asking the government for additional subsidies. HB 1296 may be only the start of future actions to make Maryland’s offshore wind projects financially feasible, and it’s at the expense of Maryland residents, taxpayers, and energy consumers.”

More from the letter from state senators to Gov. Moore on wind energy

According to the senators, “HB 1296 provides three methods to increase the subsidies that benefit the offshore wind energy developer and harm the ratepayer and taxpayer,” including:

allowing the Offshore Renewable Energy Credit – OREC 2 pricing to be changed up or down;
allowing the OREC 2 size to be reduced and OREC 1 size to be increased;
and setting the ratepayer cap for OREC 1 at $1.50 more per month and the ratepayer cap for OREC 2 at $0.88 more per month.

The senators state US Wind’s sale price for OREC 1 credits is $131.93, per OREC, and its price for OREC 2 credits is $54.17, per OREC. Therefore, “all three methods allow US Wind to sell more of the higher-priced electricity and less of the lower-priced electricity, further burdening the ratepayer.”‘

The senators also noted the mixed success of wind energy projects in other states:

“Additionally, results from other offshore wind projects have revealed that the business model for these projects has fallen well short of projections to the degree that those wind energy developers are either halting construction or asking the government for additional subsidies to make up for projected cost increases. HB 1296 may be only the start of future actions to make Maryland’s offshore wind projects financially feasible for the offshore wind energy developers but at the expense of Maryland residents, taxpayers and energy consumers.”

Senators also cite potential harm to marine life, size of turbines

The senator’s letter continued: “Since the passage of Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013, the project plans and business model for offshore wind energy development have met with multiple challenges and questions about the detrimental impact on the local economy and tourism, the damaging effect on marine life, fishing and the military, and the high costs for ratepayers and taxpayers. The project plans have had major changes with the size of the turbines growing to four times the height of the tallest building in Ocean City to the placement of the gigantic turbines as close as 11 miles from the Shore.

Source: DelmarvaNow

The post Maryland state senators urge Gov. Moore to veto wind energy bill. Here’s why. appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Following the Group of Seven (G7) forum’s declaration to phase out unabated coal by 2035, global coal organization FutureCoal has urged world leaders to adopt a balanced, pragmatic, and responsible approach to energy policy.

The post FutureCoal Calls for Balanced Approach to Energy Policy Amidst G7 Announcement on Unabated Coal appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

The post Tesla battery material supplier tops list of human rights abuses for second year in a row appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Dr. Benny Peiser recently spoke about how the E.U. and various European nations have started a ‘rollback’ of their climate agendas due to ‘increasing costs and increasing hostility from the public.’

A recent presentation given in Canada brings welcome news to the reality-based community: Net Zero’s days are numbered. The costs of the “utopian” green agenda have been realized, and the public are not buying it any more.

This is the message of Dr. Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who was in Calgary on April 9 to speak about “Europe’s Net Zero rebellion and the implications for Canada.”

“The game is over for anyone who is willing to commit industrial suicide through the implementation of Net Zero policies,” he says, going on to cite public opinion and political decisions which are driving the political agenda of the future.

 

 

Peiser shows how the European Union and the nations of Sweden, France, Germany, Britain, and Italy have started this “rollback” – due to “increasing costs and increasing hostility from the public.”

Saying that Canada, where he spoke, is “maybe five years” behind the Net Zero rollback in Europe, he said the agenda was in retreat there as its “astronomical” costs have now been grasped by the public.

“This is direct,” he says.

We have been telling [the public] for 15 years this will be very expensive … and your energy bills are going up because of the renewables.

This is all far too abstract for people. They don’t get that.

Citing reports which show that Net Zero will cost over a trillion euros a year, every year, he says:

This they get directly – the car they can’t drive, the way they heat their homes. What they’re allowed to do.

That has caused huge opposition and a lot of headache for governments.

Peiser says political parties across Europe have realized that they face being swept from power in the forthcoming elections in June.

Politics pivots back to reality

The headaches Peiser cites include the near collapse of the German government late last year over a policy to make heat pumps compulsory. A week after Peiser’s talk, news came that the Scottish coalition government has collapsed, with the Greens withdrawing support from the ruling SNP after the abandonment of climate change targets.

Politicians are faced with a choice between electoral oblivion and public opinion, and Peiser says this has led to structural change in European policy.

Peiser believes that the enormous public support behind the farmer protests, coupled with green policies creating crisis in the German government, has made the E.U. think again.

“As a result of these protests governments and the European Commission itself have begun to cave in,” Peiser said. “They are not just losing farmers but a large chunk of the public at the same time.”

Peiser is aware that election cycles see politicians shelve unpopular policies – only to resume them after the votes have been counted. Yet he notes a structural change in priorities.

“The E.U. in its draft agenda for the next five years has decided to relegate climate and shift to defense,” he continued, saying that the European Union is shifting from the green agenda to the “real agenda.”

This pivot to reality is one that is long overdue. As Peiser points out, the case for Net Zero is one that is made out of words, not of facts. To take one example, that of electric vehicles, he says “the biggest fear in Europe is not climate change. The biggest fear is cheap electric vehicles from China.”

The E.U.’s recent Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA) has been shaded by economic and industrial concerns, as well as fear from the climate lobby that it too is a rollback of Net Zero commitments.

Passed on April 25, its name alone would suggest business as usual for the climate agenda.

However, in a press conference introducing the Act last November, German “conservative” MEP Christian Ehler was keen to anticipate criticism from the Green lobby, saying “this is not an attempt to scrap social achievements or environmental law.”

Ehler’s emphasis here was on industry and whether Europe will have an economic and industrial future – or not.

Ehler stressed the need to keep industry “on our side” and that the past practices of regulation threatens the economic future of European industry,

It’s simply reflecting the very fact that our industry is burdened by regulation in a way that we can’t expect them to succeed – if we really want to have them on our side – and if we really have to have an economic future for the European industry.

READ: New documentary exposes climate agenda as ‘scam’ to increase globalist power and profit

An act in name only

This may explain why, according to two experts, the Act is in fact just words. Yet it is not only the threat of Green-inspired regulation which faces European industry.

Chinese dominance of the market has rendered E.U. Net Zero measures to create a “sustainable” industry producing “green technology” such as solar panels mere “paper tigers,” according to one analyst.

Simone Tagliapietra, a senior fellow at think-tank Bruegel said this in response to the E.U.’s new Act.

His comments, reported by Euractiv on April 26, included an explanation why the legislation “doesn’t change anything.”

A second analyst, Nils Redeker of the Berlin-based Jacques Delors Centre, agreed according to Euractiv that the new measures “could, in practice, and will most likely, be ignored.”

The green lights are going out all over Europe, most obviously in what was once its industrial and economic powerhouse.

Germany in crisis

Following a budget crisis which also threatened the survival of the German government’s “Red/Green/Yellow” or “traffic light” coalition last November, the former E.U. paymaster of Germany was said to be “likely in recession.”

The February 19 report by the Daily Telegraph noted the resulting “uncertainty” over Net Zero implementation. This is another sign of the impact of reality on the deeply unpopular policies of what Peiser called the “utopia” imagined by the Green lobby.

The Daily Telegraph also reported that the German central bank had warned of “no end in sight” for the “ongoing weakness” of Europe’s largest economy.

The Bundesbank added that “uncertainty regarding climate and transformation policy remains elevated.”

In his analysis of the electoral cost of Net Zero, Peiser seems to have read the room very well. The political climate has changed. 

As the British government is faced with power cuts over soaring demand for electricity, its refusal to build more gas-fired power stations may see the actual lights go out as well as the figurative beacon of an agenda the Conservative Party have greenlit for years.

U.K. climate chief quits

The outgoing head of the U.K.’s climate change committee has conceded that Net Zero is a toxic brand:

Net Zero has definitely become a slogan that I feel occasionally is now unhelpful, because it’s so associated with the campaigns against it.

Chris Stark, who looks exactly as you would imagine he would, blamed a minority faction of imaginary “culture warriors” whilst saying on April 22 in The Guardian that the cost of living was effectively irrelevant.

“It’s the culture warriors who have really taken against it,” said Stark. “A small group of politicians or political voices has moved in to say that net zero is something that you can’t afford, net zero is something that you should be afraid of … But we’ve still got to reduce emissions. In the end, that’s all that matters.”

Stark’s missionary zeal is untouched by a Europe-wide survey cited by in Peiser’s presentation. According to the survey, conducted in January by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), it is the climate zealots themselves who are the minority. 

With a sample from 12 European nations, it shows a clear majority in 10 countries for “reducing energy bills” over “reducing carbon emissions.” In Germany, support for lower energy costs is more than twice that for the higher ones promised by “reducing emissions.”

Peiser explained, “What [the survey] tells you is that a clear minority of Europeans are prioritizing the climate issue over their energy cost issue.”

READ: Climate expert warns against extreme ‘weather porn’ from alarmists pushing ‘draconian’ policies

Describing the clear majority of European citizens against the cost of Net Zero, he says “that is the most dramatic change I’ve seen in the last 20 years.” 

This “realization of cost moment” is one which Peiser shows had been predicted in the 1970s by Anthony Downs, whose “issue attention cycle” predicted public understanding of the true cost as the point beyond which climate policies will no longer enjoy public support.

The graph roughly charts the interest and support of the public, which moves from ignorance of the “problem” to generate public support through a sense of alarm. This enthusiasm steeply fades as the public realizes the price of the product they have been sold. 

Yet this process is based on the common sense to the common man. The U.K.’s former climate change chief Christopher Stark is immune to this determining factor. 

He displays the alarming detachment from reality which typifies the Net Zero zealot, and which Peiser warns is proving electorally – and industrially – suicidal.  

Speaking of the implementation of Net Zero, Stark claimed, against rapid deindustrialization, soaring energy prices, and former measures to restrict cars and home heating to costly and inferior alternatives, that “the lifestyle change that goes with this is not enormous at all.” 

This also ignores the likely “power cuts” that Britain will face, given a massive upsurge in Net Zero-driven electricity demand.

The Daily Telegraph, reporting accusations from the Green lobby that Rishi Sunak was “abandoning” Net Zero, said on March 17 that without more gas fired power generation, support for Net Zero “would collapse.”

The report continued that “the U.K. would almost certainly endure power cuts, causing civic and commercial havoc, without more gas-fired baseload in place.” 

The piece concludes with a verdict which is now becoming a theme: “And then the case for tackling climate change, already increasingly questioned, would become politically toxic.”

The rule of law – or the rule of lawyers

As Peiser notes, this toxification has weakened the power of politics itself, with the rule of law being replaced by the rule of lawyers. He notes a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which condemned the Swiss government for “violations of the Convention [on Human Rights] for failing to implement sufficient measures to combat climate change.” 

Peiser said the ruling showed that democratic majorities do not have the legal power to refuse an agenda enforced by activist judges. He went on:

The judges in their in their ruling said it’s kind of naive to think that democracy would work just with majorities in Parliament and that only judges can rule or decide what makes legal sense – that’s why it’s so important for judges to tell parliaments what they should do. 

That’s essentially what they were saying today.

Peiser was speaking on the same day the ruling was announced, which according to a Swiss report will “have a direct impact on the Council of Europe’s 46 member states” and that “its ramifications will extend to the whole world.” 

This element of legal insurrection is one direct example of how the sovereignty of democracy is being undermined. In this case, a group of elderly female climate campaigners received a sympathetic hearing from the ECHR’s presiding judge, Siofra O’Leary. Her judgment overruled the Swiss courts’ dismissal of the case. It read:

The Court found that the national courts had not provided convincing reasons as to why they had considered it unnecessary to examine the merits of the complaints. They had failed to take into consideration the compelling scientific evidence concerning climate change and had not taken the association’s complaints seriously.

As Peiser warns, we are ruled by Science Followers, whose emotional enthusiasm for the climate panic talks past the costs of the sale of this agenda. It is a product which most people now recognize promises the permanent collapse of living standards in the West, and is taking democracy down with cries for climate “justice.”

Suicidal policy vs. ‘populism’

Peiser says Net Zero is already “suicidal” – and not in name only. Changing the branding will not wash with voters, Peiser says, as the impact of cost and on freedom is “direct.” 

This, he says, is what is driving the beginning of the end of Net Zero. 

“Europeans have been told that this Net Zero issue and renewables and so on will make life easier for people.” Instead, he says, “the opposite has happened.”

They’ve been told that energy costs would go down. They’ve gone up.

He observes a factor which could apply to practically any of the policies he also claims are driving “populism.” 

So people are beginning to realize that what they’ve been told hasn’t actually materialized. 

The opposite has materialized.

Peiser himself notes that this “opposite effect” is driving the rise of “populist parties … skeptical of mass immigration, of Net Zero and of other mainstream policies.” 

He says, “I don’t know exactly why they’re called populist but something makes them popular.”

Yet his own presentation shows a simple explanation. What is called “populism” is simply a reaction to the insanity of the policies of national suicide presented as wisdom. The emergence of these parties is the opposite reaction to a political system whose every argument is a contradiction of reality. 

Peiser says that this political correction is coming, and soon.

The mainstream parties are concerned that they will hemorrhaging voters. 

That’s what the prospects are for the elections in June.

His assessment is shared by the European Council on Foreign Relations, which predicted a “sharp right turn” in the forthcoming E.U. Parliament elections. 

He says that for Europe “there might be – for the first time – a center right populist majority in Parliament. If that were to happen of course all bets are off.” 

What is more, Peiser concludes that political climate change is coming home – to yours:

That’s the situation in Europe which sooner or later will come to a theater close to you.

Source: Todayville:

Take the Survey at https://survey.energynewsbeat.com/

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Net Zero’s days are numbered? Why Europeans are souring on the climate agenda appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Russia’s state-controlled gas giant reported its first annual net loss since 1999 on falling shipments to Europe and lower prices for the fuel.

Gazprom Group, which also includes oil and power businesses, posted a 629 billion-ruble ($6.84 billion) loss last year compared with net income of 1.23 trillion rubles in 2022, according to an earnings report published Thursday.

The energy company’s shares fell as much as 4.4%, the steepest decline in more than a year, amid market concerns over its dividend prospects. Gazprom’s biggest shareholder is the Russian government, whose budget is under pressure amid rising military spending and Western sanctions.

The net loss follows restricted gas flows to Europe — historically Gazprom’s biggest market — amid the Kremlin’s retaliation for Western support of Ukraine after Russia’s invasion in 2022. Meanwhile, plunging gas prices amid mild weather, sluggish demand and brimming inventories contributed to Gazprom’s loss.

Revenue from gas fell by 40% to 4.88 trillion rubles, according to the report. While Gazprom continues to ship pipeline gas to several European countries, last year its flows to Europe fell to the lowest since the early 1970s, according to International Energy Agency estimates.

This year Russia expects its gas shipments via pipelines to foreign markets will increase 18% this year to 108 billion cubic meters compared with 2023, as the Power of Siberia link to China gradually reaches its nameplate capacity. But even as more supplies head to China, it can’t offset the loss of the European market.

Revenue from the group’s oil business rose by 6.7% to 3.88 trillion rubles last year, while sales at its power utilities business increased by 8.8% to 617 billion rubles.

Gazprom Group’s investments are planned at 2.57 trillion rubles this year, according to the report. That’s down by almost 16% from its plans for 2023.

Source: Rigzone:

 

Take the Survey at https://survey.energynewsbeat.com/

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Gazprom Group Reports First Net Loss in 24 Years appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

[[{“value”:”

The European Commission has warned three Chinese electric vehicle makers that they have not supplied sufficient information for its anti-subsidy investigation, according to two people familiar with the case.

If the Commission concludes that the provided information from sampled companies BYD, SAIC and Geely is insufficient, it could use evidence available elsewhere to compute tariffs, a move that can inflate them.

Warnings of this kind occur frequently in EU trade defence cases. Indeed, for all 10 past anti-subsidy cases against China for which measures are still in place, the Commission used such “facts available” to fill in certain gaps.

The companies have been given the right to respond to the warning, the people said.

SAIC said it had “fully cooperated” with the Commission and provided all necessary information in accordance with World Trade Organization and EU rules.

“It is worth pointing out that commercially sensitive information – such as battery formulation – should not belong to this category,” it said in a WeChat message.

The company declined to comment when asked if Brussels had asked for battery formulation information.

Geely declined to comment. BYD did not respond to a request for comment late on a public holiday.

The China Chamber of Commerce to the EU said the reported allegations of non-cooperation were unfounded and that the companies had participated in multiple rounds of questionnaires and facilitated on-site inspections.

It added the companies viewed some of the EU’s demands as excessive, including tight deadlines for detailed paperwork, demands going beyond the companies’ capacity to provide evidence and requests for business-sensitive supplier information.

The Commission, which oversees trade policy in the 27-nation European Union, launched an investigation in October into whether battery electric vehicles manufactured in China were receiving distortive subsidies and warranted extra tariffs.

The China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) said earlier this month that the investigation was stacked against Chinese manufacturers.

Among its complaints was the vast amount of information the Commission has demanded from the sampled Chinese producers.

“It cannot be precluded that the Commission may resort to what is called ‘facts available’ in trade defence parlance in order to inflate the subsidy margins,” CCCME vice president Shi Yonghong said then.

The investigation, officially launched on 4 October, can last up to 13 months. The Commission can impose provisional anti-subsidy duties nine months after the start of the probe.

Read more with Euractiv

“}]] 

The post EU says information from three Chinese EV makers insufficient appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

But the regulations angered mining companies and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who said they provided a loophole for Chinese companies to benefit from the electric vehicle incentives.

The post Biden’s EV tax credit rule offers big concession for automakers appeared first on E&E News by POLITICO.

The post Biden’s EV tax credit rule offers big concession for automakers appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Such an investigation would “achieve nothing,” the Swedish Foreign Ministry told the agency

 

The post Sweden rules out international Nord Stream probe – RIA appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Weekly Daily Standup Top Stories

Biden Administration Finalizes Power Plant Rule

Highlights of the Podcast

00:00 – Intro

01:02 – Biden Administration Finalizes Power Plant Rule

09:27 – China calls for ‘international investigation’ into Nord Stream attack

11:25 – Tesla Partners with Baidu for Full Self-Driving Rollout in China

14:33 – Kimmeridge Releases Presentation Outlining the Urgent Need for Board Change at SilverBow

18:09 – U.S. produces the energy everyone is looking for: 900 MW at the largest plant in the world

20:14 – When Worlds Collide – U.S. Gulf Coast Refiners Face Challenges To Accessing Heavier Crude Oil

25:57 – 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: [00:00:15] What’s going on, everybody? Welcome into a special edition of the Daily Energy News Beat stand up here on this gorgeous Saturday, May 4th, 2024. For our special weekly recap. It’s been a long week, folks. We did a bunch of solo shows. Stu and I are going to be back full time together in the chair next week, so appreciate everybody hanging in. Who’s a busy, busy week guys. I had an opportunity to rant for a few shows, lots of earnings calls, lots of interesting stuff going on in the LNG side. So I’m just going to go ahead and turn it over to the weekly recap and the team to cue us up right now. As always, guys, the news and analysis you’re about to hear, brought to you by the world’s greatest website, www.EnergyNewsBeat.com The best place for all your energy and oil and gas news. Go ahead and check out the description below, all the links to the articles, everything you’ll need to know. But with that, I’m going to turn it over the weekly recap we’ll see on Monday. Folks. [00:01:02][47.0]

Stuart Turley: [00:01:02] Biden administration finalizes power plant rule. This one. I’ve got several things for mass producer, to bring up as I talk about these things, there are five key takeaways. I have to, take a look at this. The and the EPA is finalized its power plant rule, which, forces existing coal and new natural gas gas plants to use technology that is either neither economic nor commercial to reduce carbon dioxide, emissions, or to shatter the EPA. Number two will define the requirements for existing natural gas plants. Later. The author of this story feels that it may most likely be after November election. This is to pacify the green movement. Don’t kid yourself. Number three, since natural gas and coal supply about 60% of the U.S electricity and backup intermittent weather driven wind and solar units, the rule calls into question the survival and reliability of the electric grid. I kid you not, this is not good. If you’re going to take out the coal plants in a very expedient manner, we cannot get the regulatory process, done for nuclear fast enough. This is a recipe for disaster, and the only thing that’s going to solve it is rolling blackouts or using even less energy. Tell that to the AI in the data center, folks. The number for the rule is drawn by, some bipartisan criticism for its potential impact on the grid, which groups are concerned with the importance of reliable and affordable electricity? The rule will increase electricity prices and decrease reliability and raise the potential for economic disruption in the United States. The author has all five of these key takeaways. Wonderfully. The changes include, need to start capturing 90% of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2032, rather than 2030 as originally proposed. So what, they’re still not going to be able to do it. And is carbon capture and sequestration technology is neither commercially available nor economically. We’re already be industrializing the United States, just like Germany and Germany is now. The EU is gone. And so when you sit back and take a look at the GDP growth for the EU and the economic people are going hungry, this is a significant issue. And, pacification of the, the left or the greenies that are out there, I’m all about let’s save the environment. Let’s save, the planet, let’s not pollute. But let’s have a discussion on this. Let’s also go into your fossil fuel plants that are not retrofitted with carbon capture systems. Must exit the grid by January 2039, instead of January 2040 as originally proposed. This is even more of an issue, because it’s just not going to be there. They’re making it fiscally, unsound for, power plants to keep their power on line. And solar is not going to be there. Wind is not going to be their facilities. That broke ground after the proposal came out last year and will run frequently, must capture 90% of their emissions or prevent that amount from emissions in some other way or close down. This is absolutely right. Mr. Producer, if you could bring up, the first video and let’s take a look at this video. The video is CO2, methane and generated around the world. I want to bring this up just from a standpoint as as we kind of watch this video go around. We start we’re looking at Spain, and you’re seeing that you can even see the this methane map and CO2 is picking up, a where the shipping and air and you take a look at China. Holy smokes. That is where most of the population and pollution is happening right now is India and China. Miss producer, can you go ahead and bring up the second video? The second video is a China coal power plant. And as I watch this, you take a look at the smog. This is one power plant. And we’re going to go through some of these other numbers here in a second. This is an eye opener for me. There’s an article that just came out yesterday. And it says that China is now putting out more CO2 than the rest of the Western. So as, as a western, civilized countries combined. Period. And so when you look at this video as we’re watching this video, you can understand why. Now, Mr. Producer, can you bring up the next global, coal plants globally, slide and you’ll take a look at that slide. It is amazing. Take a look at all of the coal plants in the U.S. and, and then, there’s, I have to take a look. There’s 6500 or so, and there’s 2000 some on in the U.S.. So. Thank you, Miss Producer. Let’s go to this other slide. U.S. power, generation capacity under development with construction, kickoff scheduling between 2024 and 2028. This graph really takes a good look at, in the southeast southwest and how the plants are all aligning out in the megawatt usage. I don’t have time to go through it now, but it is in the article. Take a look at it. And there is absolutely no way that we can get by without natural gas or coal. Now, if we just got rid of coal, I’m all in on getting rid of coal in an orderly fashion. But I did not know this in Miss Producer, in. Can you bring up the natural gas plants of the U.S. and of the natural gas plants in the U.S.? I did not know how many were in, California there. There are a significant number of natural gas plants in California. This is huge. Now, there is, coal plant in, Nevada. And I’m looking at how much in California is the largest energy importer in the U.S. they import coal, electricity from Nevada. I’m trying to get the numbers of how much they import, but they do use coal as it’s imported from Nevada. Pretty interesting information there. So when we take a look at the takeaways of the new EPA, regulatory issues going on right now, we take a look at natural gas, coal and the whole mix. We need a balanced diet of power, and we need a we need it all wind, solar I don’t care, but you’re not going to regulate yourself into net zero. Cannot be done. What’s going to happen? People are going to, have serious feeling issues. [00:09:27][504.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:09:27] China calls for international investigation into Nord Stream attack. China’s deputy envoy to the UN has called for an international probe into the bombing of the Nord Stream, gas pipelines. This is a very interesting, especially since we had, Secretary Blinken meeting with president G. Yesterday, two days ago. This is actually very interesting because now China does not mince words. You can even go take a look at what plants they had in the meeting with Blinken. There’s a lot of hidden undertones in the backdrop and in the poisonous plants that were. On that table. They don’t like him. And that was very evident. If you take a look and you understand the Chinese methodology of subtle hints in meetings, and it is there. Now let’s take a look at Nord Stream one and Nord Stream two. Those were four pipelines. Three of the four were destroyed, allegedly by the US with help from Norway. Allegedly, I don’t know, but boy, Putin sure said why would I blow up my own pipeline? I don’t know EMEA. All I do is go flip a switch on the generators, on the turbines on them, one end of it, and he could shut it down so he doesn’t really need to turn it off. Now. Why are they calling? Why is China calling for this? Now, this is important because this has been going on since it was blown up, since, President Biden said there will be no Nord Stream, and then all of a sudden that happens. Was that, unbelievable? Funny story. I just had to just put it out here for you to take a look. [00:11:25][117.1]

Michael Tanner: [00:11:25] Tesla partners with BYoD for full self-driving rollout in China. I’m reading straight from the article here. First, bullet point. Tesla’s full Self-Driving, what they call FSD system, has been approved for use in China. They went ahead and partnered with the aforementioned Chinese tech giant, by Uber mapping and navigation software to support the full Self-Driving within China. This approval within China is seen as a major boost for the company, which has been facing multiple challenges due to the worsening EV price war and high interest rate. It’s actually caused Tesla shares to drop, jump in the pre-market trading after it was reported in Bloomberg that Beijing Beijing had went ahead and give that green light to roll out its full self-driving. You know, in a separate report by the Wall Street Journal, it a backtracked a little bit. You know, Beijing has tentatively approved the company’s plan to launch full Self-Driving. This does come, as I’m reading straight from the article here. Come one day after Elon Musk unexpectedly visited Beijing on Sunday and met with Premier Lin Cao, who was Communist Party chief in Shanghai when Tesla was setting up its automobile manufacturing plant. They all go on to say that, Musk also met with Robin Zhang, chairman of Tesla battery supplier contemporary Amperex technology, which is in Beijing. Analysts are out in full force, Wedbush Securities senior analyst told Bloomberg. Quote, this is a watershed moment. This could open up full self-driving in China. This is his quote, which I view as unlocking what could be a golden opportunity for them. And again, they read this earlier in the article, but I think it comes down to the inevitable price war again, as China does what they do, everything is going to be a race to the bottom on price. So Elon Musk and Tesla’s trying to figure out exactly how are they going to compete in China. If they’re going to be charging a premium price? Well, they means they probably got to have self-driving, because if you don’t have self-driving and you’re charging $80,000 per car, it’s going to hard to compete with another EV that’s got better battery life, longer range for a lot cheaper because it’s manufactured in Chinese. It’s exactly what you know why we buy Chinese products all the time? Because they are able to offer the lowest price. So I think this I agree with the analysis here in terms of this is a boon for Tesla. And then it’s clear and their stock ran a little bit today mainly off that back. So great. For right now. You have to remember there was a lot of security concerns that they had to I you know this is a I were reading straight from the article. Sources say Tesla will partner with the BI you to support the navigation and mapping. Here we go. Okay, here’s the real quote here, folks. Tesla also has multiple data security and privacy requirements that satisfy the country’s regulators. That’s a one sentence. It’s very ominous. I’d love to see the source code behind that Tesla. Hey, how do you know this? Are they sharing this data with the Chinese communist regime? Who knows? I think that’s an interesting question. Is anytime you’re in a Tesla, at least the United States, we don’t. They’re recording you in the test suite. If you’re driving around a Tesla, I don’t think they have cameras looking at you in the car. You’re an idiot. But that being said, what do they do with that information in China? Do they have to share that with the Chinese Communist Party? Interesting note that I love how they just one little sentence in there. Obviously, you know, they’re trying to make Tesla look good. Yeah. We you know, we they’re you I’m with you Tesla is great but could be interesting to see what their their data privacy stuff is on that. So we will make sure to follow up with that. I’d be interested to know what stu knows about that. [00:14:33][187.5]

Michael Tanner: [00:14:33] Let’s quickly close here with Kimmeridge. They released a presentation outlining urgent need for board change at Silver Bow. This is round four. You know, ding ding ding ding ding. We can get a little live. What’d you wanna call it? A little boxing ring going here. Kimmeridge is has, you know, holding about 12.9% of Silver Bow shares has basically fired back round for, you know, really the biggest you know, we’ve talked about this at like Silver Bow is trying to hold off a corporate takeover by Kimmeridge. They say they’re trying to basically launch a takeover proxy war with the company. So that Silver Bow would buy Texas Kimmeridge Gas, which is formerly Laredo, at a valuation that they don’t think is right. They think that, they’re over that, Kimmeridge is overvaluing ATG and wants to merge with Silver Bow and basically take over Silver Bow so that they can use silver bows balance sheet to buy Texas Kimmeridge Gas, which they believe is overvalued. They walk through for claims here quickly for Silver bow. This is Kimmeridge’s rebuttal to what? Came out to me. Do you ever follow the song, guys? I think we need to do a deal. Spotlight on this person gets a lot of crazy stuff going on with this. Here’s the first no claims that Kimmeridge locks a proxy fight to facilitate a path to change. This is silver bows. Claims Kimmeridge launched a proxy fight to facilitate a path to change control of the company without paying a premium to silver shareholders. Kimmeridge then kind of fires back and says they haven’t bought shares in over six 650 days. They were engaged with them for over two years and asked for a specific thing. Silver bow then says Kimmeridge directors that they nominated because remember, in this proxy battle, Kimmeridge is trying to nominate new board members. Silver bow claims these Cambridge directors are conflicted with and would not look out for shareholders in the best interest, Kimmeridge or Kimmeridge back, she said. They’re highly qualified, independent. And in the third quote, that, Silver Bow claims is that Super Bowl strategy has proven to be resilient through market cycles. This is where the fireworks Kimmeridge fires back says that quote specifically they go silver was generally negative for TSR since CEO Sean Wolverton tenure and 2.6 annualized TSR over a year and Warriors lengthy tenures. Ooh hit him with a cheap company, trades at the lowest valuation multiple out of its peers at on a five year basis. Espo has stock has underperformed the blended commodity group by 58% highlighting the lack of alpha generated from leadership. Ooh. So the rebuttal from Kimmeridge goes at the three key points that round three silver bow claimed in their, you know, the future of silver bow.com or whatever website they put out. So they’re going right at it. Where do I stand on this? We’ve talked about this much. I think there’s, you know, there’s there’s room in the middle. Is Kimmeridge overvalued? Kimmeridge is probably what does any company who owns something will do that? I’ve been part of numerous organizations who you ask what we you know, internally, they much more value their asset than what they do on the street. The reason why they do that is because they so own that. Because if somebody valued that more than you do, you would transact with them. So there’s there’s a reason for that. So too, I think they’re trying to force it. You also agree the fact that Silver Bow has underperformed relative. Absolutely. I mean that’s you know, common I mean everybody knows that it’s something that hounded Silver Bow for years Kimmeridge just trying to step on an opportunity. It’s interesting that there’s this claim that they that you know, six months ago they couldn’t get financing silver Bow fired back in one of their rounds. That hey, you had a we had an agreement, but you couldn’t find financing. And they were using that to say, oh, watch, because you was a bad investment. I don’t quite know if I know that for sure, but I do think, it it’s it’s it’s pretty obvious that silver bow management has underperformed relative to the market. So it’s going to be interesting to see where this thing goes. I’m sure they’ll be around five guys, but we’re gonna we’re gonna go and leave it there. [00:18:08][215.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:18:09] U.S. producers, produces the energy everyone is looking for. This is a 900 megawatt geothermal power plant. This is pretty cool. Geothermal. And, you know, the potential technology I am seeing a lot of people talking about. Geo power is almost 27 times expansion by, 2050, reaching approximately 100,000,000MW. According to the doe e g e a geothermal energy association, in the form of moderate expansion. But it anticipates broader scale of 21,000MW of geothermal capacity by 2050. The exciting thing about geothermal is geothermal can take advantage of the ENP oilfield service and everything else to try to help get that technology so that we can use some of the abandoned wells so we can use, take advantage of the ESG and get rid of orphan wells and turn them into, geothermal, energy. This one, the newest Geo, is undergoing 900MW in the LA area and the Imperial Valley in California. The only time I’m really, really proud of California, they’re doing something like this. This is pretty darn cool. So geo thermal. I am a huge fan, and I want to give a shout out to Doug Sandridge today. I’m wearing his shirt that he gave me. I signed the oil and gas executives for nuclear. I am a huge nuclear fan and, we have got to have, the low impact, environment and long, low cost, energy to all consumers.  [00:20:12][123.5]

Michael Tanner: [00:20:14] Let’s move to the next one here. When worlds collide U.S. Gulf Coast refiners faces challenges to assessing heavier crude. This is a little bit of in the weeds, but since I’ve got the solo show today, I’ve got the keys to the Kingdom. I wanted to bring this up. We’ve talked a lot on the show about refining margins, and I talk about that relative to when the EIA releases all their I, I, I, I like to look at the supply. We bring it up every once in a while in terms of what’s going in and out of the refineries from a utilization standpoint. But there also is something to refining these refineries, being able to handle a certain type of crude, specifically heavier crude. Obviously, you can have an idea. West Texas Intermediate, which is the standard oil price oil composition that people base everything off of. We’ve heard of that. You can imagine that is almost green looking. It’s a vial. It’s very easily pouring in. It’s definitely a little bit see through if you only have a little bit of to. That’s that light, sweet, crude. What comes up from Mexico, what comes up from Venezuela. What comes from Russia is really a heavy crude, which is almost could be considered more of a paste. Now heavier crude has a lot of impurities in it which cause it to. Trade at a, discount relative to the light sweet crew. But what it also requires is different retrofitting on the refineries. And because of some of the stuff that’s happened in Mexico, specifically over their future forecasted supply of oil, it’s it’s kind of thrown some of these refineries into into whack here. So I’m going to go ahead and read a few, a couple paragraphs out of here. The prospect of decreased crude oil supplies from Mexico, the top international supplier, to the US Gulf Coast, is creating uncertainty among heavy crude focused refineries, Mexico’s state owned country, Pemex or Petro. Pemex instructed its trainee use unit to cancel 436,000 barrels a day of crude exports for April and decided, and to supposedly focus on producing domestic oil at its new or processing the domestic oil at its new 340,000 barrels per day. Does Baucus refinery and or existing plants, while this refinery startup is not nearly as imminent as Pemex says, the cancellation of Mexican crude imports could be problematic for U.S. refiners with plants built to run heavy crude a necessary ingredient reading to optimize operations and yield. Adding to this complexity of the situation is the upcoming start of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and recent reinstatement of U.S. sanctions on Venezuelan crude. And this is from, you know, they go on to examine sort of the potential fallout from this decision from Pemex in terms of where those heavy crudes were going. Specifically, the heavy crude is going to be less and less available. So they the really great overview. I’d recommend going to energy Newsbeat and reading this. Andy, if you can go ahead here and pull up. Figure one the typical qualities of Pemex crude oil. You’re going to see the different grades there Olmec es mas, Maya and Altair. You’ll notice that Maya is their, flagship grade. Basically, it’s the majority of their, exports are specifically coming in that Maya flagship blend. The interesting part is that that Maya crude blend does definitely have a little bit of a smaller gravity. You see, the API gravity of the Altamira is a little bit lower sitting at 15.5, whereas the Maya is about 2021 to 20. With this restriction in Mexico now sending their a lot of their domestic heavy crude to within with all of this crude from Mexico now and Pemex staying within Mexico, it goes to wonder where are these U.S. Gulf Coast refineries going to find their heavy crude? We also know Venezuela is this. The sanctions are ramping back up. People of you know, we we drew a little bit of oil. There was a few loads coming out of Venezuela, but now the prospects per se of a lot more oil coming out of Venezuela is not going to happen. So a lot of what these Gulf Coast refineries are dealing with right now, what this analysis shows is it tries to plant out where exactly are these going to come from. And the big the big, big answer, specifically in this article, as I mentioned, was that Trans Mountain pipeline, which flows from Edmonton all the way down to British Columbia and the Puget Sound system, where there are a bunch of refineries. Canada also has a decent amount of heavy crude. So if we have to now shift ourselves and buying it from Canada, those differentials are a little bit different. You pay a little bit more of a premium for the Canadian heavy crude than you would the Mexican heavy crude. So all of a sudden now the spreads on what a refinery can make or not, it could go down. And specifically if you’re talking about, you know, the margin that makes up the refining basis, it could get very interesting here. I love this breakdown. You know, via RB, RB and energy. We do a lot of that stuff. You know, it’s a $25 billion investment that Trans Mountain pipeline. So whether or not that’s going to be able to completely take over or not it’s going to be interesting. You know, the this article goes on to say the extent to which an individual refinery can lighten up its crude slate by very, varies by, say, switching to lighter crudes would increase cost given that light crude is more expensive than heavy goods. However, the light heavy crude differential continues to narrow and may narrow further on the US. On the U.S Gulf Coast, as measured by West Texas Intermediate, spread to Houston. You know, these these narrower differentials are expected to incentivize some Gulf Coast refiners to shift towards lighter crude slates. Further, we expect the minimal impact of crude runs, an increase in Latin America imports. or they they see minimal impact to overall crude runs in some increases to Latin American imports, to the United States Gulf, excluding Venezuela. So it looks like they’re thinking a lot of this is going to come from, from, Latin America, Canada and be able to fill the gap. But very interesting what Mexico, has decided to do. And it kind of gives you a little bit of behind the scenes on a lot of what these, refineries are dealing with on the back end. [00:20:14][0.0][1194.5]

– Get in Contact With The Show –

The post Week Recap: Biden’s Rules, China’s Probe, Tesla, New Geothermal appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

New all-time highs: Construction, Professional & Business Services, Healthcare, Wholesale trade. Layoffs whack Information.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

Earlier today, we discussed the overall labor market. But each industry faces its own unique labor market. In some industries, employment has been trucking from all-time high to all-time high, while in other industries, the outlook is darker, usually due to structural changes. So we’ll look at a decade of employment trends in each major industry, based on today’s employment data by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The industry categories are by work location. The surveys are sent to employer facilities. The primary activity at that facility determines the industry category. For example, a worker at an Amazon fulfillment center would be under “transportation and warehousing.” It’s not the company that matters, but the work being done at that specific location.

And we use three-month moving averages (3MMA) to iron out the drama of the monthly squiggles.

Construction (all types, from single-family housing to highways).

Total employment: 8.22 million, new all-time high
3MMA growth: +24,000

Manufacturing: After a huge surge out of the pandemic, employment has plateaued for over a year but with a mild upward trend, interrupted by a dip during the auto industry strikes in October. The past five months have all been in a very narrow range around 12.96 million, the highest since before the Great Recession. Manufacturing has continued to automate, requiring fewer but higher-skilled workers, including engineers.

Total employment: 12.96 million
3MMA: -2,000

Professional and business services. One of the largest industries by employment, it includes facilities whose employees work primarily in Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; Management of Companies and Enterprises; Administrative and Support, and Waste Management and Remediation Services. It includes facilities of some tech and social media companies.

The helter-skelter employment growth coming out of the pandemic has definitely slowed, but continues at a subdued pace at nosebleed-high employment levels:

Total employment: 22.94 million (record)
3MMA growth: +4,000

Healthcare and social assistance:

Total employment: 22.32 million, new high
3MMA: +88,000

Leisure and hospitality – restaurants, lodging, resorts, etc.

Total employment: 16.9 million, back at the pre-pandemic high.
3MMA growth: +28,000

Retail trade counts workers at brick-and-mortar retail stores, such as malls, auto dealers, grocery stores, gas stations, etc., and other retail locations such as markets. It does not include the tech-related jobs of ecommerce operations, drivers, and warehouse employees.

A big portion of this sector has been under heavy pressure from ecommerce operations, and dozens of major retailers have been liquidated in bankruptcy court in recent years, with a total loss of employment, which we have documented in our Brick-and-Mortar Meltdown series. The retailers that are doing well are those that are selling groceries, auto dealers, gas stations, and others that are not under total pressure from ecommerce.

Total employment: 15.7 million
3MMA growth: +20,000

Wholesale Trade:

Total employment: 6.17 million, new all-time high
3MMA: +6,000

Financial activities (finance and insurance plus real estate renting, leasing, buying, selling, and management). Employment has plateaued at very high levels, as the mortgage industry got decimated after the refinance boom collapsed amid surging mortgage rates in 2021.

Total employment: 9.23 million
3-MMA growth: 1,000

Transportation and Warehousing: Employment surged with the pandemic boom in durable goods, and when that faded as consumers switched back to spending on services, employment began to decline. But in recent months, it began to tick up again:

Total employment: 6.58 million
3MMA growth: +20,000

“Information” includes facilities where people primarily work on web search portals, data processing, data transmission, information services, software publishing, motion picture and sound recording, broadcasting including over the Internet, and telecommunications. This includes some work sites by tech and social media companies. You can see the effects of the layoffs.

Total employment: 3.01 million
3MMA growth: -2,000

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation includes spectator sports, performing arts, amusement, gambling, recreation, museums, historical sites, and similar:

Total employment: 2.64 million
3MMA growth: +8,000

Mining, oil & gas extraction, logging: Major technological advances have impacted employment in this industry, from autonomous mining trucks to the equipment and technologies used in fracking and in logging.

And over these years, the US has become the world’s largest oil producer and largest natural gas producer.

Total employment: 641,000
3MMA growth: unchanged

Jobs at federal, state, and local governments. About 12.8% of all civilian government employees work for the federal government. About 87.2% work for state and local governments, many of them in public education, from grade schools to universities.

As the economy and the labor market has grown over the past 15 years, government employment has also grown, but at a slower pace than overall employment, and so the percentage of government workers to overall workers has dropped and reached a multidecade low of 14.5% at the end of 2022. Since then, the percentage has ticked up to 14.7%

So this is total civilian employment at all levels of government:

Total employment: 23.27 million
3MMA growth: +45,000.

And this is total government employment as a percent of total nonfarm employment. The big spikes are during the Census taken every 10 years, which in 2020 fell on the pandemic, when overall employment had plunged, and so the percentage of government employment to total nonfarm employment spiked more than normal:

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 Which Industries Lost Jobs, Which Gained Jobs: Longer-Term Employment Trends in Charts appeared first on Energy News Beat.