A new poll indicates Bay Staters prefer natural gas over renewables as the feds aim to revive a pipeline project that would lower utility costs.
The Healey administration remains a staunch opponent of natural gas as a new poll indicates Bay Staters prefer the energy source over renewables, and as the feds aim to revive a pipeline project that could lower utility costs by $1 billion. [emphasis, links added]
The Department of Public Utilities approved rate hikes of upwards of 30% for the state’s primary gas companies, Eversource and Natural Grid, last fall.
As Bay Staters grapple with the sky-high bills, a new poll from nonpartisan watchdog Fiscal Alliance Foundation shows that likely voters view an expansion of natural gas pipelines more favorably than a full commitment to renewables.
Roughly 47% of the 800 likely voters who participated in the poll earlier this month supported the construction of new pipelines into the state, while 37% preferred a complete push to renewables.
Of the respondents, 48.2% were Independent, 40.6% Democrat and 11.1% Republican.
Healey critics have blamed the state Legislature’s mandate that the Bay State transition to renewable energy for the winter’s high utility costs, accusing the governor of “killing” two gas pipeline projects as attorney general within the past decade.
“Obviously, Gov. Healey as AG worked really hard to stop the pipelines — she bragged about it on the campaign trail,” Fiscal Alliance Executive Director Paul Diego Craney said in a briefing on Friday. “It seems like that’s kind of coming back to haunt her.”
EPA Chief Zeldin probes Biden’s $20B Green Fund, citing shady deals, political favoritism, and lack of oversight in rushed ‘climate’ spending.
When the Biden administration announced $27 billion in environmental grants last April, it set the clock ticking on a predicament: how to get the unprecedented sums for the President’s envisioned NetZero future out the door before the fiscal year ended on Sept. 30? [emphasis, links added]
The task was complicated by the fact most of the money – $20 billion – would go to just eight nonprofits that, like the Environmental Protection Agency itself, had never handled such gargantuan grants.
In hindsight, it’s easy to suspect that corners were cut, laws were broken, or, at the very least, extraordinary measures were taken.
Those possibilities are clearly on the mind of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin as he tries to unravel what happened to Inflation Reduction Act spending that the Biden White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the EPA decided to expedite before the November election – an effort that included moving the roughly $20 billion to a private institution, Citibank, away from the oversight of the Treasury Department.
On Wednesday, Zeldin moved to terminate the arrangements as the enriched nonprofits have filed lawsuits looking to protect their grants.
The battle has thrust into the spotlight what had been a rather quiet attempt by the Biden administration to spend the $20 billion.
The money was put into the GGRF, a new entity born in 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act, which Democrats pushed through Congress without any Republican support.
“This bold investment will not only deploy clean energy and combat the climate crisis but also improve health outcomes, lower energy costs, and create high-quality jobs for Americans,” Biden’s EPA declared when seeking applications for the grants, “all while strengthening our country’s economic competitiveness and ensuring energy security.”
So a political deal was struck between the White House’s OMB and EPA, current agency officials told RealClearInvestigations.
As a hedge against future administration attempts to curb the program, the deal classified the now-suspect $20 billion in a novel way making it hard to track.
“I think it will be an uphill battle to recover the money, but it’s impressive to see Trump and Zeldin running with it,” said Daren Bakst of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has labeled the Greenhouse Gas money “slush funds.”
“Even if you look past the entities that receive the money, or how they figured out how to get the money to them, this is a setup that is prone to corruption, abuse, and cronyism regardless of party,” Bakst said. “The whole thing looks questionable.”
The Biden EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: money to new nonprofits with few assets but political connections. epa.gov
The process began before the April 4 announcement.
In December 2022, Jahi Wise, an executive with the Coalition for Green Capital, joined EPA as a senior adviser. In July 2023, the EPA published a request for proposals from applicants to the GGRF.
The fund was broken into three parts. The two largest, the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) received huge sums, totaling $20 billion.
Notably, as RCI reported last October, grants went to nonprofits that had paltry assets, had been granted their nonprofit status only the month before, or had people associated with them who had previously served various federal or state Democratic administrations.
For example, the Coalition for Green Capital, Wise’s former outfit, was awarded $5.1 billion.
Three weeks later, an arrangement was made between OMB and EPA in which the money was designated “non-exchange” rather than “exchange” – a first for EPA funds, according to current officials.
That label allowed for the money to be moved to recipients in lump funds rather than parceled out over the length of the deals with the nonprofits, which in most cases were slated to run until 2029, 2030, or later, records show.
It also called for an outside financial institution to manage the money, in part because the agency had zero experience in handling grants of this size.
Although the language in the Inflation Reduction Act dealing with the Greenhouse Gas funds does not use “shall,” the word Congress usually employs to indicate that something is required, the law did impose a deadline of Sept. 30 – the end of the fiscal year – EPA officials and legal experts agree.
On June 27, as the EPA was making its deals with the nonprofits, Biden had his disastrous debate with Donald Trump, and on July 21 Biden ended his re-election campaign and threw his support to then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Greenhouse Gas fund money remained unobligated at that point, according to EPA officials.
The deals were finally completed and the National Clean Investment Fund and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator money was obligated to the nonprofits on Aug. 16, according to a timeline provided to RCI.
That left $7 billion, the portion that comprised the third component of the fund, Solar For All.
At that point, the $20 billion, though obligated, remained with the Treasury, officials said. A memorandum of understanding between the EPA and the Treasury Department on moving the mountain of cash was not signed until Sept. 6.
Two weeks later, the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee held a hearing to learn more about EPA funding oversight, calling the agency’s inspector general Sean O’Donnell to testify.
O’Donnell made clear he had never seen the maneuvers the EPA was making with the GGRF, and said neither he nor his staff would be able to stay on top of it.
“I can’t say enough about how complex this system will be,” O’Donnell testified. “It’s like they created an investment bank. It’s fantastically complex. I think it’s unusual.”
Yet it was not until Nov. 12, three working days after Trump beat Harris in the 2024 election, that the EPA began talks with Citibank about taking control of the $20 billion, Trump administration officials told RCI.
During those negotiations, on Dec. 5, Project Veritas released an undercover video of an EPA official laughing about what he considered an extraordinary process, likening it to “throwing gold bars off the deck of the Titanic.”
The Citibank arrangement effectively removing direct EPA oversight, and with interest on the $20 billion going to the grant recipients, was signed on Dec. 27, agency officials told RCI.
The deal thus represents a carve-out for the two aspects of the GGRF that accounted for the $20 billion; the $7 billion comprising Solar For All remains with the Treasury.
The Trump administration has frozen that money, although some of it has already been distributed, according to federal records.
Critics of the spending said the timeline smacks of shady politics.
Steve Milloy, a skeptic of apocalyptic global warming, said he has received a government grant and his experience was profoundly different than the one enjoyed by GGRF winners. His process was an uncomfortable one that lasted 10 months, he said.
“They crawled up my ass, and that was for a small grant,” he said.
The contrast is striking, in his opinion.
“I’ve never seen anything like this,” he said. “It is fishy … I think they thought they would win reelection and panicked when they lost. It seems like all of this is being done without due diligence or accountability.”
‘Tip of the Iceberg’
Picking up on the “gold bars off the deck of the Titanic” video, Zeldin cited the GGRF as a dubious operation during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 17, and he has been outspoken against it since becoming administrator.
“These examples are the tip of the iceberg and suggest a deeply entrenched pattern of political favoritism, lack of qualifications, and other possibly unlawful allocation of taxpayer funds,” he wrote. “Disturbingly, these cases likely represent only a fraction of broader issues.”
Beyond questions about the money, questions also remain about the work it is meant to pay for, according to Zeldin and other EPA officials.
None of the recipient nonprofits contacted by RCI, including the Climate United Fund, which got the biggest award of $7 billion, responded to requests for comment.
Germany’s Alpha Ventus offshore wind farm, in operation for 15 years, will be dismantled due to unprofitability after subsidies expired.
The Alpha Ventus offshore wind farm near the German North Sea island of Borkum is set to be dismantled after being in operation for only 15 years. [emphasis, links added]
It has become too unprofitable to operate without massive subsidies.
Alpha Ventus is noted as being Germany’s first offshore wind farm. Construction works commenced in August 2007 and the first turbine was installed in July 2009.
The pioneering wind farm was officially commissioned on April 27, 2010.
The subsidy meant that the Alpha Ventus wind farm got 15.4 cents per kilowatt hour after being put in operation.
Now that the subsidy has run out, the wind farm operators receive only the basic tariff of 3.9 cents per kilowatt hour, thus making the farm unprofitable.
Another factor: the older Alpha Venus wind farm is being eclipsed by more modern, more efficient turbines.
Offshore Wind Farms Have High Costs
Overall, offshore wind farms are significantly more expensive to operate than onshore wind farms due to increased maintenance costs, poor accessibility, harsh environments, and the specialized equipment and personnel needed to conduct operational work.
Offshore wind farms are significantly more expensive to operate than onshore wind farms due to a combination of factors stemming from their challenging marine environment and remote locations.
Offshore turbines are exposed to corrosive saltwater, strong winds, large waves, and potential storms, which act to accelerate wear and tear on components. This leads to more frequent failures and the need for more robust and expensive materials.
When turbines break down offshore, the time required to access, diagnose, and repair them is typically much longer than for onshore turbines due to weather limitations and logistical challenges.
The jury will deliberate after the closing arguments and jury instructions. Nine jurors and two alternates have heard the case.
North Dakota District Court Judge James Gion told the jury last month when the trial began, “You are the judges of all questions of fact in this case,” and to “base your verdict on the evidence.”
Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access alleged defamation, trespass, nuisance and other offenses by Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, its American branch Greenpeace USA, and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. The pipeline company is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
Trey Cox, an attorney for the pipeline company, previously said Greenpeace “planned, organized and funded a game plan to stop construction” of the pipeline, “whatever the cost.”
Cox also alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come into the area to protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, passed “critical intel” to the protesters and told untrue statements to stop the line from being built.
He said a letter signed by leaders of Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA and sent to Energy Transfer’s banks contained an allegedly defamatory statement that the company desecrated burial grounds and culturally important sites during construction.
Greenpeace’s “deceptive narrative scared off lenders” and the company lost half its banks, Cox said.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities denied the allegations, saying there is no evidence, they had little or no involvement with the protests and the letter was signed by hundreds of organizations from dozens of countries, with no financial institution to testify the organization received, read or was influenced by the letter.
Greenpeace representatives have said the lawsuit is an example of corporations abusing the legal system to go after critics and is a critical test of free speech and protest rights. An Energy Transfer spokesperson said the case is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech.
The EPA is reconsidering various regulations on power plants, oil and gas facilities, and coal plants to jumpstart growth and unleash American energy. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Wednesday that it is introducing 31 […]
The Trump administration declared a national energy emergency to accelerate fossil fuel development and imposed tariffs that increased costs for the renewable energy sector. Negotiations between the US and Ukraine regarding Ukraine’s mineral reserves ended […]
ENB Pub Note: The Fed is a private company that behaves like the Federal Government. In my opinion, it has lost the trust of the American people. President Trump’s actions have indicated that he is […]
Guyana’s oil production and exports are surging, with output exceeding 660,000 bpd and expected to reach 1.3 million bpd by 2030. Europe is the biggest buyer of Guyana’s crude, with 66% of its exports heading […]
ENB Pub Note: This is an excellent article from Bloomberg about the potential for low-cost Russian natural gas to return to the European market. There are several key points to note while reading this article. […]
ENB Pub Note: This is an excellent article from Bloomberg about the potential for low-cost Russian natural gas to return to the European market. There are several key points to note while reading this article. […]
The total number of active drilling rigs for oil and gas in the United States held steady this week, according to new data that Baker Hughes published on Friday, following a 1-rig decrease in the […]
Highlights of the Podcast
00:00 – Intro
01:16 – EPA Unleashes 31 Actions To Overturn Biden- and Obama-Era Regulations, Boost American Power
03:41 – Trump Energy Policies Reshape Renewables Sector
06:05 – Will Trump Use the Federal Reserve as Leverage, Too?
08:22 – Guyana’s Oil Exports Skyrocket—And Europe’s Refiners Love It
10:11 – Putin Wants to Sell More Russian Gas to Europe. Can He?
13:52 – Markets Update
15:25 – U.S. Rig Count Stalls as Oil Prices Keep Drillers in Check
Stuart Turley: [00:01:16] over there. EPA unleashes 31 actions to overturn Biden and Obama error regulations, boost American power. This is following up on President Trump’s commitment to cut consumer energy or the energy prices by half. Now, how he defines that is yet to be seen, but listen to this. We’re driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down the cost of living for American families and unleash American energy to bring auto jobs back to the US and more. This is really important because it’s going to go after, Michael, is reconsidering its risk management program, the RMP rule. RMP, yes, that is correct, rule claiming the press release that rule made America’s oil and natural gas refineries and chemical facilities less safe. That rule is about really the core mission and what they’re trying to say is that fossil fuels are bad because of CO2. That’s what it’s all coming down to is CO2 a pollution. Well, CO2 is actually plant food. Now, is it the particulate matter? And this is where I want everybody to really start really getting a grip on. And coal with clean technology is not as bad because it’s the particulate matter that’s the pollution, not the CO2. Plants love CO2. Let’s go after the particulate matter and get it cleaner. Does that make sense? [00:02:43][87.0]
Michael Tanner: [00:02:43] Yeah, no, I’m completely with you there. And I think, you know, as you always talked about regulation through legislation, this is a quick, easy way to remove that we’ve already seen with the Chevron, the overturning of Chevron deference that, you know, these, these deregulation aspects are going to be much more helpful from the EPA. I love this quote here, how the EPA touted, it will be the biggest deregulatory action in U S history, value to give the lower cost of living for Americans and quote, give power back to the to make their own decision. I can’t argue much with that. Love that. [00:03:15][32.0]
Stuart Turley: [00:03:16] No, in fact, it’s going to be we’re going to see that your vote matters in your states. And as the education departments come back to the states, as your energy policies go, you will see the states that succeed will be anybody other than New York, Delaware, New Jersey, California, because follow the energy policies and follow the money. Let’s go to the next story. Absolutely. A Trump energy policies reshape the renewable sector. This one was an interesting article. Trump administration declared a national emergency, which Chris Wright has stepped up. He’s hit it out of the park. Talk about a energy cheerleader. He’s out there just going, go energy. Yay. And the tensions rise in Oval Office talks because the negotiations took a bad turn. televised between President Zelensky and President Trump on the geopolitical problem with renewable energy is critical minerals. China has the supply chain and President Trump is trying to secure our critical mineral supply chain and that’s what this article is all about. [00:04:27][71.5]
Michael Tanner: [00:04:28] Yeah, I mean, you know, on top of what he’s trying to, like you said, do with Ukraine and bring those minerals home, you know, I watched this video where where Josh Hawley was was quizzing some people specifically on what was going on. And, you know, all of our minerals, you know, none of the minerals, none of the refining capacity, none of this stuff is actually done here at America. So the fact that we’re declaring a national emergency through this is, I think, critical because of the fact of, you know, if we end up in five years in a hot war with China, well, guess We have none of the manufacturing capacity, none of the minerals ourselves, and it makes it more. Now, with the interesting part. Now, this is where tariffs do come into play, in my opinion, in a good way, is that it forces companies to decide whether or not to manufacture things abroad or at home. If there’s a 25% tariff on things manufactured overseas, maybe it makes sense to go ahead and maybe it incentivizes them to build up here. The problem is a company’s not going to spend a billion dollars to build a manufacturing facility. If they know the tariffs are on, then they’re off. If they’re on, they’re off. There needs to be some stability. So I do think it’s interesting, but I do like the fact that they’re doing this national emergency. [00:05:40][72.0]
Stuart Turley: [00:05:40] Oh, absolutely. And so the pollution controls where this also comes into play is the critical minerals. President Zelensky was rumored to have given away the critical minerals in Ukraine to the UK as well as the EU. So I don’t know that there’s much money that is in that deal. So President Trump needs to be careful. Let’s go to the next one. He really does. Will Trump use the Federal Reserve as leverage, too? I thought this was an interesting article from normally a left-leaning publication from Christopher Smart, the Arbogat Roth Group. It is very interesting when you consider the only institution can create dollars is the Fed, which was established in 1913 as established swap lines for federal banks that have been critical in meeting sudden demand for dollars and calming global financial markets and time of panic. Here’s the problem, Michael. And as we go through this, there is a unwillingness of the Fed to be audited. They do not want to be audited. And I think that you’re seeing as President Trump sets up minerals, he sets up the gold. There has been more gold coming into the United States than in the history. Is it because they’re about to do the audit on Fort Knox? Is it because he’s looking at going back to a different standard and get rid of the Fed. All of President Trump’s actions are aligning to get rid of the Fed, a privately held company that is printing US dollars should go away in my opinion. And that’s what I think we’re seeing. That’s why this article is pretty important. And I thought it was pretty important from a left-leaning side of the fence. [00:07:28][107.4]
Michael Tanner: [00:07:28] Yeah. I mean, you know, when, when, when you, my only issue is that if you use the fed as a weapon that we’ve seen what happens in the financial crisis, when you try to use the fed to backstop bad policy, you end up in the situation where, I mean, the, the inflation that we saw from 2015 or really 2020 to now is solely due to what they did in, in retrospect in the financial So getting it, you know, having the executive branch too involved with the Fed defeats the purpose of the Fed, in my opinion. [00:08:03][34.6]
Stuart Turley: [00:08:03] But there are a lot of things that we can do on this and you can’t why tax us if you can print money. That’s why you sit back and kind of go, you don’t need my money if you’re just going to go print money. So you got to get back to how we before 1912, how we had so much wealth. Let’s go to the next story. Guyana’s oil exports skyrocket and the Europe refineries love it. I love this from the standpoint that Guyana’s oil production exports are without exceeding 660,000 barrels per day and are expecting to reach, excuse me, 1.3 million barrels by 2030. Europe is the biggest buyer of Guyana’s crew with 66% of exports heading there in 2024. ExxonMobil and partners are expanding operations and planning gas to shore operations. You’re seeing a lot of overseas, in fact, China is there drilling as well too. So when you sit back and take a look at who all’s there, this is a big bone for the local Guyana market. And I really applaud everything about it. [00:09:12][68.5]
Michael Tanner: [00:09:12] Well, we hope so. We hope this ends up filtering down to the, the, the, the Guyanese people. It should, it should, but we, you know, you know, [00:09:21][9.0]
Stuart Turley: [00:09:21] There’s a, there’s a lot around that. And, and, and talking with NJ Anuk, who’s the head of the African energy chamber. I’ll be talking to him again, fairly soon. And there are some great things going on in Africa for Africa first. And I’m, I’m all, all in on it. [00:09:39][18.1]
Michael Tanner: [00:09:40] Absolutely. Absolutely. Ghana is expected to also start talking with Surmine about creating some natural gas processing facilities. A lot of the oil’s coming out on the Guyana side, but a lot of the natural gas is actually coming out of the Surmine side. So together they could make a huge powerhouse. But no, I mean, it’s clear Guyana and it is seen as a growth engine. We know Exxon is trying to get on or, you know, Exxon’s in on that by having that huge stake in there. Chevron’s trying to get in on that by acquiring Hess. We’ll know more about that here in the next coming months. but I think it’s super fascinating. What do you got next? [00:10:11][31.3]
Stuart Turley: [00:10:11] Let’s go to Putin. Hey, that’s my, that’s my Fozzy Putin imitation there. Hey, you want more? Yeah. Putin wants to sell more Russian gas to Europe, can he? But the real question is, and is Europe critical to his plan is the real question. Michael, what has really happened when you take a look, this is a great article from Bloomberg and in here, Russian Putin seems to be confident that pipeline flows of natural gas could be stepped up if US brokered deal and Ukraine is, is agreed there. The EU is still buying Russian natural gas, although a lot lower president Putin has shifted all of his markets to Asia. His GDP growth in 2024 grew 4% Michael. There’s a lot of countries that would love to have a 4%. That’s what even all of the sanctions president Putin does not need Europe. All President Putin has to do is do nothing. Now take the EU. If they don’t get the German cheap Russian natural gas, they’re going to be even in more financial fiscal trouble. And I don’t think that they’re going to turn it back on because they’re too stupid, but that’s my opinion. [00:11:28][76.3]
Michael Tanner: [00:11:28] No, I completely well, you are Putin’s chief of staff, so I’m going to trust you. [00:11:33][5.1]
Stuart Turley: [00:11:33] Well, I don’t know if he’s a good guy or a bad guy, but I know that he has done more good things for Russia and Russia first. I would like to see that kind of leadership for U.S. and America first. The world would not be where we are now if we had an America first anyway. The one thing I do want to say is I’m going to be interviewing Jeff Kreml here real soon about a lot of the talk that you and I have been kind of talking about is, is the Permian dead yet? Or is this going to be a Monty Python skit going, I’m not quite dead yet with an arrow in its chest. I don’t know, but we’re going to do some research and we’re going to be putting that podcast out here in a bit. We got to get our numbers together. Thank you for watching! [00:12:18][44.3]
Michael Tanner: [00:12:18] No, absolutely. But no, that’ll be good. Let’s go ahead and jump over to finance guys. But before we do that, let’s quickly pay the bills as always. Thank you for checking us out here on the world’s greatest website, energynewsbeat.com, the best place for all your energy and oil and gas news. Stu and the team do a tremendous job making sure that website stays up to speed. Everything you need to know to be the tip of the spear when it comes to the energy and the oil and gas business. Go ahead and hit that description below for all links to the timestamps, links to the articles. Go ahead and also click on link to sign up for our substack, theenergynewsbeat.substack.com, the best way to support the show. If you do feel so inclined, go ahead and subscribe for a paid subscription. Stu is dropping a host of paid only articles, which are awesome. We’ve got a few research papers that we’ve both dropped and that we will begin to drop. And also thank you to a wonderful sponsor of the show, Reese Energy Consulting. Guys, for all your natural gas, LNG and marketing needs, check out Reese Energy Consulting. They do great work. They’ve got great training through Reese Energy training. So if you guys need training on all different markets, anything guys, go ahead and hit that link in the description below to go check them out. And as always guys, if you are interested in becoming Billy Bob Thornton from Landman, go ahead and fill out investinoilenergynewsbeat.com the best way to get a little bit of a head on your 2025 taxes. Everybody needs a little bit of a tax break, especially if you’ve got active income deductions that’s cooling about oil and gas, It’s tax deductible on active income side. Need a little bit of a monthly distribution. And of course, want to be Billy Bob Thornton from Landman investing in oil and gas is the best way. We’ll send you a bunch of resources on how we love to do it. [00:13:52][94.3]
Michael Tanner: [00:13:52] Let’s go ahead and jump over Stu and look at the markets here. I mean, the week was down, but Friday was actually really good. S&P 500 was up 2.1 percentage points. NASDAQ 2.5 percentage points. Two and 10 year yields were actually up 1.6 and 1.7 dollar index, flat Bitcoin down about a percent over the weekend as we record this mid morning here on Sunday, 83,000 crude oil was actually app a full percentage point 67 18 Brent oil was up about two eighths or two tenths of a percentage point. Natural gas was basically flat sitting at $4 and 11 cents. I mean, I mean a tough week, you know, you know, really the oil being up has a lot to do with the uncertainty surrounding the Ukraine ceasefire. It seemed to be, it was off the table. It was on the table. It’s kind of like tariffs. It was on the table. It was off the table. Now it’s back on the table. Who knows what’s going to happen? There was an agreed upon ceasefire and then there was a bunch of drone attacks in Moscow. So who knows what’s going to happen? Putin’s now back in Kiev. So, you know, he’s trying now to change it. We did see some EIA reports that came up that said supply is actually expected to exceed demand by somewhere around 600,000 barrels per day in 2025. Not, not the best bullish sign for oil and gas specific. I think that’s also impacting what’s going on specifically with oil. And that comes out of our favorite agency, the International Energy Agency or the IEA. And obviously what they’re saying is that supply is increasing as expected, but demand isn’t growing as expected. So that’s where they’re seeing that on that side. We also did see Baker Hughes come out with their rig count basically flat week over week. And I think the interesting part to think about is what does that mean for production growth? Everyone’s saying, you know, U.S. is still continuing to grow. You know, we’ve heard, you know, we hear Trump say drill baby drill. They want to bring prices down to 50. You know, Chris Wright says he wants to bring prices down to 50 and I do find that very interesting because Chris Wright is this former CEO of one of the largest oil field service companies ought to know that at $50 oil, his former employer is not going to be doing well. Can’t be doing well. There’s very little drilling that will happen at $50 oil, let alone $60 oil. So I think what we’re seeing in the rig count is people adjusting to a lower price environment where there’s not going to be much new drilling. Now there’s still 562 rigs out there, Stu, so let’s be clear. There’s still drilling happening, but the growth and as we know, declines happen on these new horizontal wells and adding one new rig or not adding rigs, but having declining profiles of these wells leads to overall declining production. So at some point we’ll roll over now. Will that be now? The counter to that argument is, well, we’re now drilling three mile lateral to the point where we need less rigs and we can drill more laterals and we get more oil per well. Okay, I think that remains to be seen from a cost standpoint, even at $50, $60 oil. So, I mean, what do you see it, Stu? [00:16:58][185.4]
Stuart Turley: [00:16:58] I think that it all comes down to the bottom line of supply and demand may come back once we get back past some of this stuff. The old rules of supply and demand may come back into more realistic review of pricing. Look at natural gas right now. It’s $4.08 right now. And so as the time we’re recording this on Sunday. And so when you sit back and take a look at supply and demand, you take a look at natural gas. Natural gas is what’s a pesky oversight in many ways, but it is now a major commodity. And when you sit back and take a look at normal decline curves, we need trillions of dollars globally in order to meet normal decline curves. Demand is not going away anytime soon. I’m a bull. Now, am I a huge $90 bull? No. Am I in the 80s? Yes. I still think it’s going to be $80 oil because of the global oil supply and the global… I mean, President Trump just bombed the crap out of the Houthis yesterday, and that’s going to free up some of the Red Sea traffic and everything else because I think they’re going to quit being terrorists. So you’ve got a geopolitical thing going on right now. [00:18:20][81.8]
Michael Tanner: [00:18:20] Yeah, I’m going to disagree with you on $80 oil. I think if we see $80 oil in 2025, it’ll be a miracle. And I think we’re more likely to see $60 to $70 oil than we are. I mean, $60 to $70 is still not terrible, especially for your more conventional oil and gas drillers. I think your shale and the Permian is going to be hurt at those numbers. And I don’t think you’ll see the growth, but I think it will be interesting. And you know, I mean, if you’re predicting a little war in 2025, then yeah, we’ll see $80 oil if you, you know, but, well, Stu’s always predictable. Stu’s doom and gloom. And speaking of that, what are you worried about this week, Stu? My favorite segment of the week. [00:18:56][35.7]
Stuart Turley: [00:18:56] Oh, what is my favorite segment of the week, or what am I really, I buckle up. I think God’s got this and we don’t need to worry about it. Just try to take care of your family, keep your head on a swivel, and make sure that men protect women. Absolutely, absolutely. [00:19:14][17.9]
Michael Tanner: [00:19:14] All right, guys. Well, with that, we’re going to go and let you get out of here. Get back to work and start your week. We appreciate you guys starting out your week with the Energy Newsbeat for all your needs. Again, check us out energynewsbeat.com. But for Stuart Turley, I’m Michael Tanner. We’ll see you tomorrow, folks. [00:19:14][0.0][1135.9]
You won’t want to miss this episode of the Energy Realities Podcast, where the panel discusses the Trump Tariff wars and their potential impact on energy, oil, and gas. A global reshaping of the financial trade system is underway. What impact will the tariffs have on oil and gas production or even gasoline prices?
Tammy Nemeth, Irina Slav, David Blackmon, and Stu Turley all pile into the podcast to discuss this HUGE issue. Live from Bulgaria, the United States, Canada, or the UK, you will be able to ask the panel questions live. Streamed on X, YouTube, and LinkedIn at 8:00 on March 17th.
Highlights of the Podcast
00:11 – Introduction
02:00 – Topic Introduction: How Will the Trump Tariff War Impact Oil and Gas?
04:51 – Media Sensationalism on Tariffs
06:49 – Understanding the Purpose of Tariffs
10:07 – Tariffs and the Great Depression Parallels
11:27 – Media Misunderstanding of Trump’s Trade Strategy
14:14 – Hypocrisy of EU Trade Policies
19:25 – Challenges of Competing with China
23:36 – Canada’s Role in the Tariff Dispute
29:14 – Unpredictability of Trump’s Tariffs
31:05 – Final Consensus on Tariffs’ Impact on Oil & Gas
35:00 – Smith proves Trudeau wrong with major Japan LNG deal
36:58 – Opinion: Canada must stop delaying resource projects
40:04 – BRUTAL: OPEC Slams IEA Head Faith Birol
42:16 – E&E News Comes Over to the Dark Side at Long Last
45:14 – Saudi Aramco and big oil is on ‘wrong side of history’, says John Kerry
47:59 – British steel industry calls for help with electricity prices
49:55- Wall Street Braces for Oil in $60s Range on Tariff, OPEC+ Risks
51:43 – Canada has identifies five offshore wind areas in Nova Scotia
53:50 – Russia-Ukraine War & Geopolitical Energy Impacts
55:05 – EU War Machine & Defense Industry Expansion
59:30 – Closing Remarks
Irina SlavInternational Author writing about energy, mining, and geopolitical issues. BulgariaDavid BlackmonPrincipal at DB Energy Advisors, energy author, and podcast host.Principal at DB Energy Advisors, energy author, and podcast host.Tammy NemethEnergy Consulting SpecialistStuart TurleyPresident, and CEO, Sandstone Group, Podcast Host
How Will the Trump Tariff War Impact Oil and Gas?
David Blackmon [00:00:11] Well, good morning, everyone. And welcome to the only podcast in existence today that actually begins on time, the energy reality podcast. Now it seems to be endorsed by E&E News of all things, and I will talk about that later in the show. With me today, I’m David Blackmon, and with me today is Dr. Tammy Nemeth from, you’re in the UK today, but you also have a residence in Canada. How are you today?
David Blackmon [00:00:47] I’m glad to hear it. You never know in this world. And with us also today is Irina Slav in Bulgaria. How are you?
Irina Slav [00:00:55] I’m good, David, thank you. I’m a bit worried because we’re expecting an Arctic blast later in the week.
David Blackmon [00:01:00] an arctic blast is it is it a is it an a what do they call them now a official winter storm
Irina Slav [00:01:09] Well, no, it won’t be a storm, but just a very sudden drop in temperature, which is what they’re saying. They have light before, so…
David Blackmon [00:01:17] So they might have to turn the weather maps from red to something more green or blue.
Tammy Nemeth [00:01:22] Orange! It’ll be orange!
David Blackmon [00:01:24] All right, got to keep the alarmism alive. And also with us today in the great state of, well, no, he’s in Oklahoma, is Stuart Turley, the CEO of the Sandstone Group. Stu, how you doing?
Stuart Turley [00:01:40] Oh, it’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood and I’m heading to Texas next week. So you gotta love that Um,.
David Blackmon [00:01:47] Oh what’s going on in texas?
Stuart Turley [00:01:49] Oh, i’m trying to get an appointment. I’ve got uh, Executives at ibm i’m interviewing and then executives over some nuclear folks News and road shows.
David Blackmon [00:02:00] Nuclear. Yes. Good topic. Okay. Today’s topic for our podcast is how will the Trump tariff war impact oil and gas? Uh, Donald Trump is, uh, is setting the world on fire with, uh, invoking tariffs and rescinding them and making deals and invoking more tariffs and rescinding them and making more deals and everything changes from week to week. and what I think. decided, made the decision for us to go to this topic was a piece at Reuters, which made it seem like, anyway, that the Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, which he invoked last week and might rescind today before this show is over, is going to raise costs for U.S. energy firms. and writers want you to believe it’s going to be a huge. cost increase for US energy firms. And I’m not sure it is, and neither is anyone else here, but I want to start the discussion with Tammy Nemeth who raised this for our topic this week.
Tammy Nemeth [00:03:11] I thought this was you who raised this issue.
Irina Slav [00:03:14] It was me. I wrote a story about it.
David Blackmon [00:03:18] Oh, it was Irina.
Tammy Nemeth [00:03:20] Okay, let’s start with Irina.
David Blackmon [00:03:23] Yes, let’s start with Irina.
Irina Slav [00:03:24] Well, I can only talk about this voice or so, which was really funny because they have this, you know, click-baity headline basically suggesting that US oil and gas drillers will be in very, very big trouble because of these tariffs, which will raise their costs. And indeed, they will by less than 10% or something. And it’s not nothing, but it’s not impossible to cope with. at all. So they admit the truth in the story, but the headline was aimed to scare. So yes, tariffs by their very definition make certain goods and commodities and services more expensive, but just how much more expensive and what do you get in return, which is what Trump wants to get in return, you know, better competitiveness for. U.S.-made products. And it’s getting really funny, just like last time he was in the in the White House when they started trading tariffs and now I hear they’re imposing tariffs on liquor and champagne and things like that.
David Blackmon [00:04:51] Oh sure, yeah. Yeah, it’s going to cost a lot more to buy Canadian club whiskey here in the United States for a while.
Irina Slav [00:04:56] Is that really dramatic? Is it a big problem?
David Blackmon [00:05:02] I don’t know. I don’t drink whiskey, so it doesn’t affect me.
Irina Slav [00:05:09] It’s not really essential though, it’s not essential.
David Blackmon [00:05:12] No, it’s not an essential good, hopefully. Well, for some people it is, but not up to…
Irina Slav [00:05:18] But yeah, oil and gas, I think they’ll survive, especially if oil prices rise.
David Blackmon [00:05:27] Yeah, to just let everyone know in the Reuters story, they interview CEO of Patterson UTI, drilling firm, Andrew Hendricks. Here’s what he says, about 14% of what we buy, it comes from, and he’s talking about steel aluminum, comes from countries that will be impacted by tariffs. If you layer on the tariffs, it could affect us in the low single digits in terms of our costs going up from what we do. So it’s not a major increase in price, but of course, everyone gets upset when prices for anything rise after the last four years of pretty significant inflation and not just in the United States, but all across the world, thanks to the world’s insane response to the COVID-19 pandemic, you know, and all the debt spending that all these governments ended up printing so much money and printing too much money always causes inflation. So people are worried about it. I wonder what you think about all this, Tammy, just in terms of whether it’s good or bad. I mean, I don’t know. I think the upset is kind of disturbing for everyone, just the unpredictability of what Trump’s gonna do tomorrow. But I wonder what your view is.
Tammy Nemeth [00:06:49] Tariffs are an interesting tool to use from the toolbox because it’s something in some ways that Europe has been using for a long time in order to protect domestic industries and Ukraine knows about that when they tried to sell their grain into the EU market and everyone was flipping out that oh my gosh it’s going to depress prices and this is bad and we don’t want that kind of competition. So… Maybe it’s useful to think about what is the point of protectionism. Protectionism is to protect your domestic industries so that in certain areas you will ensure that those industries will stay alive in your country otherwise they’ll get outcompeted by jurisdictions that have lower costs, lower income input costs whether that’s through wages or taxes, or lower regulatory burden, or whatever. Or maybe sometimes they’re just better. You know, they have economies of scale that allow them to produce in a cheaper way. I think back to like the 50s and 60s where there was a stockpiling program in the United States because there was always a concern that maybe the Cold War would turn to a hot war and you wanted to make sure that you were able to produce critical things. Like you wanted to make sure you had control over your food supply, that you had control over your steel, that you had control over your aluminum because these are all key things that you need to build military equipment or to defend yourself. And there was a time when they continued that. And I would say after 9-11, there was a renewed interest in this kind of attitude where you got to make sure that things are, key industries are still able to survive in your jurisdiction. And then it disappeared. And we saw this offshoring of like everything, you could argue. So now I understand why you would want to protect. your industries and like with Canada, it’s really difficult because being so close to such a large market like the United States to try and have domestic industries to compete with the American production, it’s really hard. And which is one of the reasons why we had the auto pact in the 1960s to try to rationalize the auto production. It’s why we negotiated the free trade agreement in 1988. and then moved on to NAFTA when Mexico was pulled in. But then that didn’t work out so well either because then production ended up shifting to Mexico or other places. And with respect to oil and gas, the problem with oil and gas now is that it’s a world market for prices. So when you increase the tariffs and because oil and gas, you’re a price taker, you’re not setting the price, you’re taking whatever the world price is. You have to do something with those increased costs. So are you absorbing them? You kind of have to because how else are you going to, you can’t really pass that on to consumers in the way and like factories can.
David Blackmon [00:10:07] No, that’s right. I think that’s all correct. And you know, one thing that worries me about it, of course, is the history of tariffs and trade wars globally is you look back on the Great Depression and how it all came about. The United States was in the process of recovering from the first, you know, the stock market crash at 29. And then I believe it was in 1931 or 32. Congress decided to enact the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and imposed pretty big tariffs on basically every imported good into the United States. And that set off a global trade war. And suddenly, the recovery that had just begun ended, and we went into an even deeper recession that turned into a decade-long depression. And so I get nervous every time Trump or anyone else starts talking about terrorists. Stu, isn’t part of the problem with the media and how it gets reported in the United States and everywhere else, is the simple fact that no one in the media has bothered to take the time to understand what Trump’s thought process is behind all this. Don’t you agree with that?
Stuart Turley [00:11:27] I couldn’t agree more, David, I think that the world is not ready for a Trump sizing or right sizing of how to do business with trade with the United States. And when you take a look at I thought Groke was fairly Groke 3.0 is doing a great job with helping me try to look up stuff and I have to fact check Grok and go through things. But President Trump is also taking a look at several key issues. President Trump has opened up the Commerce Division to say and take a look at any choke point, land or sea choke point. And if you are hindering US trade, your ships will no longer be allowed in the United States ports. Holy Smokes Batman, this is beyond. tariffs. This is now, if you, in fact, China is now being upset that they are being forced to sell the two ports in the Panama Canal and they’re now saying, well, we don’t know that we want to. And Trump says, I don’t care. So the, the cost of oil, of tariffs Thanks for watching! on oil to consumers is going to be 15 to 25 cents at the gasoline pump. That is not going to be significant. When you sit back and take a look at long-term, it’s going to be a right sizing and Tammy is a spot on on these things. And I put out a article about, I thought it was a great left wing article from the EU. But yet they prove Trump’s tariffs are actually good. So, you know, you, you, you gotta sit there and, and, and kind of laugh at this entire right sizing. Europe in the EU, you don’t see Dodge trucks. You don’t see Ford trucks. You don’t see all of our products in the EU because of trade barriers. This is not about tariffs. This is about trade barriers.
David Blackmon [00:13:51] But you do see Teslas, right? Tesla.
Irina Slav [00:13:54] Yes, lots of Teslas.
David Blackmon [00:13:56] Right, they got an exemption from those importers to establish a factory there. And I wonder if that’s going to last. Now the EU hates Elon Musk so much because he runs X. You’ve got to wonder if that’s going to start impacting Tesla sales over there.
Irina Slav [00:14:14] Well, as we know, the EU is really hypocritical about its policies because Ursula von der Leyen said that tariffs are like taxes, they’re bad for consumers, but she is the head of the commission that was perfectly fine with imposing import tariffs on Chinese goods to protect local manufacturers. So if you’re doing it, it’s fine, but if someone’s doing exactly the same thing to you, it’s not fine.
Tammy Nemeth [00:14:45] Exactly. But I would add with the price at the pump, I think it depends on where you are in America because, for example, the Midwest refiners are completely reliant on Canadian oil. And if there’s an export tariff that’s put on Canadian oil, then that will have an effect. Refiners can pass those costs on to consumers. But with respect to the steel and aluminum and whatnot, I mean. That’s different. But you’re right. I mean, the EU is is so hypocritical on everything.
Irina Slav [00:15:23] Openly so.
Tammy Nemeth [00:15:25] Openly so.
David Blackmon [00:15:27] Regarding the Canadian oil thing. I just an interesting anecdote last Monday. I did a Segment on Ntd news, which is uh Which is a uh a television news Operation affiliated with epic times.
Stuart Turley [00:15:44] MTV, David?
David Blackmon [00:15:44] NTD.
Stuart Turley [00:15:51] No way, David!
David Blackmon [00:15:55] Well, two o’clock, I go on and do this thing, right? And we talk through the issue, and I say, don’t worry about it. It’s not going to last long, blah, blah, blah. And one minute after I signed off from that interview, the announcement comes down that Trump has rescinded the tariffs, and it’s all over, right? That was the big kerfuffle with Doug Ford in Ontario. And so that, but that just exemplifies. He had put the tariff on on Friday, it was Monday and it’s gone. And, and that’s the thing about all this is people write these stories at Reuters or wherever else, as if these tariffs are going to last forever. And Trump’s just trying to negotiate a deal on something else. And he’s using them as leverage to get something else from the governments he’s, you know, supposedly invoking these tariffs on. That’s usually what’s happening, but I wonder what y’all’s view is about the terrorists with China, because I think it’s a little different with China. Um, and I think those terrorists that Trump is, has already invoked and will continue to involve are, are going to be more long-term, I think, because he views China, unlike Canada and Mexico and Europe as a real existential threat. to the United States. And so I think that’s a kind of a set aside from all of this. But these tariff wars that we’re having with Canada and Mexico are all about immigration. And with the EU, it’s just trying to more equalize the tariff situation. But I do think with Canada, it’s gonna become long-term. And I just wonder what you guys think about that. Nobody yeah, I just put it.
Tammy Nemeth [00:17:49] We’re just jumping
Irina Slav [00:17:51] No, I think that’s true. He has said so himself that he, well, not in so many words, but China is seen as dangerous to the US. But these tariffs will probably save longer. But I wonder if this wouldn’t just motivate the Chinese to bring their costs further down and remain competitive. because what we’ve seen in the past couple of decades, they’ve been working hard to get to where they are now. You know, with big import markets needing to introduce tariffs to protect their own higher cost manufacturers from cheap and good quality Chinese goods because 20 years ago, you know, made in China was a joke. No more. I mean, I just saw a story, I just saw the headline in Woodmark that Chinese wind turbine producers have come to the top place globally for the first time ever.
David Blackmon [00:19:04] And electric vehicle. I mean, the EVs they’re putting out are really nice.
Irina Slav [00:19:07] Oh yeah, obviously. So I think tariffs, I can understand tariffs being used to protect your industry as Tammy explained in detail, but you risk falling behind on actual innovation, on actual which is what you’re… has done because it’s stupid.
Tammy Nemeth [00:19:25] Well, instead of competing, they put up trade barriers, right? But the thing is, okay, so can you compete with a communist nation that has different rules with respect to how employees work, how they’re paid?
Irina Slav [00:19:44] Far on the road to totally.
Tammy Nemeth [00:19:46] I know I know I know I know.
Irina Slav [00:19:46] Sorry, I interrupted you.
Tammy Nemeth [00:19:53] No, that’s okay, I agree. The thing is, so instead of competing, it ends up becoming this, I don’t know, you put up all these trade barriers. But to go back to what David was saying, one of the disturbing things is that Trump, what he’s doing and with respect to Canada is that there’s a what’s been lost in the narrative. is what it’s for. And everybody is getting all fired up about, oh, well, we’re going to take American items off the shelf and da da da. It’s like, OK, but what are you actually doing about the border? What are you doing about foreign interference? Because we had a an inquiry that really said nothing. And every it’s this kind of open secret that there’s a great deal of foreign interference, particularly from China, amongst various and potential candidates running for federal parliament. And that’s really disturbing. So it’s kind of like, all of that is lost in the tariff discussion about what is it supposed to do? Is it supposed to shut Canadian factories down and everything just gets made in the US and we’re supposed to just buy from America? I mean, if it’s about the border, if it’s about foreign interference and that affects the whole fentanyl thing and all that, then they need to be saying that over and over again, but it’s not. All the focus that the air is out of the room, it’s all about the tariffs. And if I could speak to Gail’s comment there, where she mentions that this market is really important and that in Canada to maintain good relations with the US, it should have done the right thing and meet the 2% of GDP for NATO. Mark Carney, the new liberal leader who’s not He said that maybe they’ll reach the 2% by 2030. Today, they’re talking about canceling the Canadian contract for F-35s. We’ve already spent tens of millions of dollars on this contract. Now his first destination today is Paris, where he’s going to be talking to Macron. Macron has been pushing the EU to stop buying American military equipment by French. So what does that mean then for Canada? Is he going over there to say, because the article today was saying that Canada should get rid of the F35 contract and find a different supplier. We’ve already spent so much money. And I said to a friend, well, basically we will reach our 2% of GDP NATO commitment by canceling contracts all the time and we’ll get nothing for it at the end of the day. So it’s like spending money is one thing, but you actually have to get something useful in return. And just want to wrap up with the F-35 comment. This was a contract that they first started in 2010. We’re not expected to see an aircraft until next year. So it’s been 15 years and we’ve got nothing. And they keep changing the contract and changing all this stuff or whatever. And we’ve spent tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions of dollars and got nothing. So it has something to do with how Canada thinks about military spending, how we think about government procurement, and all of that needs to change and Mark Carney’s not really the guy to do it.
David Blackmon [00:23:36] By the way, I had an extreme oversight, a couple of housekeeping items here at the beginning of the show to all of our Irish friends. Happy St. Patrick’s day. I apologize for that oversight and Tammy’s wearing green. I’ve got a military green. There you go.
Tammy Nemeth [00:23:56] It’s green outside. Yeah,.
Irina Slav [00:23:58] Very green.
David Blackmon [00:24:05] thing through my end feed, uh, for whatever reason, the evil sensors at LinkedIn have clamped down on my account this morning. I don’t know why. So you would really have to go actively look for it. Uh, hopefully people can find it, uh, at other social media outlets. I don’t know what’s going on with LinkedIn today.
Stuart Turley [00:24:28] Just kidding. But let me add this to the stage here. President Trump is trying to take a look at balancing the federal deficit, the Treasury, the Fed, which is a privately held crime organization, I mean, company, and then you have the trade deficit by countries. And when you take a look at China. There’s a trade deficit in 2024 of China of $295.4 billion. The EU is $235 billion. Mexico is $171.8 billion. You take a look at this, there’s Germany at 84. All of this is also tied to what President Trump is saying is drill baby drill. but it’s not drill baby drill anymore. It’s drill baby win fiscally responsible, excuse me. And when you take a look at how much LNG, who wants to buy something from the United States? Who wants to buy an auto? Who wants to buy something? Everybody loves European technology. We just mentioned the great new technology from China, but the offsetting value of you look at that list, of how much of a trade deficit President Trump is trying to get back right-sized, his ace in the hole is U.S. energy. What is an export for U.S. LNG capacity? The average estimate load of 160 3.39 BCF from the U.S. in March, we averaged 30,000. loads of LNG per month. And it’s about 28 million per load. It’s 20 million. You start going through the numbers that I’m writing on all of this kind of stuff. It ain’t that much. You got a long way to go in order to say I’m going to drill baby drill and have LNG. But we’re seeing that with with Japan, Japan has already stood up and said, I’ll have a cup of that LNG, you know, and they’re so they’re looking at offsetting their trade balance by contracts. And I think this is what President Trump’s art of the deal is all about.
Tammy Nemeth [00:26:59] Well, you know, for oil and natural gas exports from Canada to the U.S., in 2023, it was 100 billion. So if you take, we have supposedly a 63 billion trade deficit with the, or the United States does with Canada. If you remove the oil and gas, it actually Canada is put into the reverse situation with the United States. So, Canada would actually have a 40. billion trade deficit with the United States. So it’s the oil and natural gas that allows this rationalization of the North American oil and gas market. And without that, there would be less for the United States to be exporting and facilitating changes in the world oil and gas prices. because it’s just more we can’t get it out we can’t get it out um east or west you know maybe a little bit west now once the coastal gas link is online which supposed is supposed to happen this year and the twinning of the trans mountain pipeline has helped um export more oil which California is taking a big chunk of um so which is hilarious given what they did to at the Keystone. And then what I’ll be talking about in one of my news stories is Japan signed an LNG an oil a uranium hydrogen contract with Alberta Nice last week at Ceraweek
David Blackmon [00:28:32] Say it again. I missed part of that. What was the contract?
Tammy Nemeth [00:28:38] They signed some broad agreement for LNG, oil, hydrogen, and there was something else. I can’t remember what the fourth one is. I’ll have to pull up the article.
David Blackmon [00:28:51] Who did, I mean, who was the, who was the contact?
Tammy Nemeth [00:28:52] Japan signed it with Alberta.
David Blackmon [00:28:54] Oh, Japan and Alberta. Okay, okay. I’m sorry, I just missed part of that.
Tammy Nemeth [00:29:00] But given that international trade is supposed to be a federal responsibility, I don’t know if federal officials were part of that arrangement or if Alberta just signed this separately. I don’t know. It was unclear.
David Blackmon [00:29:14] Well, and that was also kind of part of the problem with what Premier Ford was doing last week, trying to implement a tariff at his level of government, which he may or may not have had that authority to do, right?
Tammy Nemeth [00:29:31] Right because there was a Supreme Court case in Canada back in the 70s during the first oil crisis when the province of Saskatchewan tried to put a tariff on oil to recapture what the federal government was taking from them and they wanted to put it on their exports and the Supreme Court ruled they can’t because it violates section 91 of the Canadian constitution but the fact that Nobody talked about it that the federal government didn’t flip out that Doug Ford, Premier Ford of Ontario was basically taking a federal responsibility and pretending he was like Prime Minister or something. If Alberta had done that, I’m sure they’d be flipping out and saying this was a constitutional crisis, but Ontario does it and there’s nary a peak.
David Blackmon [00:30:26] Well, that’s kind of like it is in the United States. You know, it just depends on which party you’re in and how the media covers it. Yeah. Um, we are at eight 30. I think we have kind of had a really nice robust discussion about this issue. And our consensus is if I have it right, yes, there will be a cost impact to energy producers from these aluminum and steel tariffs, but it be much. And whatever they… the impact is for the producers is gonna get passed on to consumers anyway because that’s what happens with tariffs.
Stuart Turley [00:31:05] So I just want to do that. I want to go into a couple things that I’m working on and that is has peak WTI or peak Permian oil coming around the corner. I’m working on that with a few folks and having some interviews coming up. We have that question coming on. Is peak oil even here yet? And that plays into this discussion and I’ll have more information on that.
David Blackmon [00:31:32] That is the longest-running topic on the Permian Basin, right? I mean Mark Pappa, the former CEO of EOG, said in, I think, 2016 that it had peaked in the Permian Basin. So I, you know, it’s probably tripled since then, so we’ll see if this peak is a peak.
Stuart Turley [00:31:51] This is based off of the comments from Scott Sheffield last week and and so all of a sudden, you know, it’s now bringing that that in but what we’re also seeing is OPEC plus is made their cuts. I believe it was 2.2 million bucks or and so there is Tammy’s point that it is a global market is very critical. And I don’t mean to be nice this morning, Tammy. I am so sorry for being nice. Um, but when president Trump last week, uh, polled Chevron out of Venezuela, I want to stand up as an American and say, I want to buy Canadian oil sands before I buy Venezuelan oil. Please president Trump, if you’re listening. Let’s try to figure this bad dog out. Okay, I’m going to shut up. Thank you very much.
Tammy Nemeth [00:32:51] I’ve heard there’s issues with the Saudi oil fields, but that’s kind of been circulating for a long time.
David Blackmon [00:33:00] That goes back to Twilight in the desert.
Stuart Turley [00:33:06] Twilight. Really? With vampires and werewolves?
David Blackmon [00:33:07] Well, remember, oh my God, I’m going to forget the guy’s name, he was a famous oil trader and analyst, 22 years ago wrote Twilight in the Desert and his thesis was, and I’ll think of his name here in the back, I’m sorry, that the Saudi oil fields had peaked at that point, and that was 22 years ago. So peak oil is a tough thing to get right.
Tammy Nemeth [00:33:35] Matthew Simmons.
David Blackmon [00:33:37] Matt Simmons, yes. Oh my God, I can’t believe I couldn’t remember this. Anyway, we were working together on a project back then and had dinner one night and the whole dinner was him explaining to me why he was right about Saudi Arabia and everybody else was wrong and he wrote that book. It was about to come out then. That was in 2003.
Stuart Turley [00:33:56] Was Matt Simmons the guy that said you will have no oil and be happy?
David Blackmon [00:34:01] But he’s a really smart guy. And I’m not trying to demean him at all. What I’m saying is, and you know, the first guy, the first Peacaw guy, or you wouldn’t really- Hubbard? Hubbard, E. King Hubbard. Not E. King Hubbard, but something King Hubbard. You know, he’s a really smart guy too. Brilliant geologist, Shell, and you know, so I’m not demeaning the people who talk about Peacaw from time to time. It’s just that they’re never right about it. And one of these days they’re gonna be right though. So maybe. isolated on the Permian that Stu’s working on. Maybe it has to be. It’s certainly possible. So with that bit of stupidity from me, let’s move on to the articles of the week. Dr. Nemeth.
Tammy Nemeth [00:34:47] I’m first. Okay, so I’ll do the one on the right first and that it’s a headline from true north With uh and juno news which is in a new news organization in canada And the title is smith proves trudeau wrong with major japan lng deal And this is referencing I think two years ago when both japan and germany came to canada begging for lng And trudeau said there’s no business case and so don’t even think about it. We can never build a pipeline and you’re never gonna get it. We want you to say positive things about hydrogen. And so last week at CeraWeek by S&P Global, Daniel Smith, who’s the premier of Alberta, signed a memorandum of understanding with Japan. And it’s for oil, natural gas, hydrogen, and ammonia. So apparently, they had an agreement a few years ago. And this is basically a sort of. affirmation, reaffirmation of this agreement. And, you know, Japan is saying, we will buy what natural gas comes out of Coastal Gas Link when it’s operational, and so on. So, clearly there’s a business case for these things. And Japan, of course, like you mentioned before, David, that they’re looking to diversify. I think right now they, you know, they don’t and Russia and there’s so much competition for Qatari natural gas that it makes sense for them to want to diversify and it’s it makes sense for anybody do you want all your your natural gas from one basket you know um so yay that’s that’s something good proves uh Trudeau wrong of course and and we’ll see if Mark Carney doubles down on his climate thing and and puts more regulatory roadblocks for oil and natural gas development he he says he wants to the emissions cap. which basically is a production cap in Canada. So we’ll see. And then the other one, this is a really interesting article. It’s written by the chief of the Dene nation in Northern Saskatchewan, talking about how Canada must stop delaying resource projects. So there’s this massive uranium project that they want to develop in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has like the most best uranium in the world. I know a lot of people claim we have the best, we have the best, but it’s like when you mine it, it’s so there’s so much uranium active in the rock that people have to take precautions when they’re mining. It’s that good quality and so the native groups are in support, they’ve done the environmental assessments, they’ve gone through the whole I think they’re up to year seven, eight, nine now. and it’s been waiting for two years to get final approval and apparently nuclear Canada has been dragging its feet and he’s like you know we’ve done everything what is taking so long can we please have this project everybody agrees it will be great once it’s operational then Canada would be supplying a quarter of the world’s uranium really high quality from a a responsible producer with the cooperation and support of the Native people, which in Canada with Indigenous reconciliation is really important. So he’s like, can we just stop with the red tape and get the darn project going? So that was really good to see Indigenous people who want to have good jobs for their communities and to get out of the cycle of poverty. And it’s great to see him call the government out on this. That’s it.
Stuart Turley [00:38:46] and your Substack?.
Tammy Nemeth [00:38:49] So on my sub stack, I’ve had a couple of, I try to publish once a week, which, you know, as David know, he’s, you and Irina are amazing. You put so much stuff out. I’m so impressed. I wish I could do the same. So last week I did Mark Carney’s climate plan where I tried to break down what’s in it, what it means. And one of the elements there is the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which he’ll probably be talking. to Macron and Starmer and Ursula von der Leyen about today and tomorrow. So I think I might do one on what a carbon border adjustment mechanism is and why it’s not a good idea. And so I got Grok to make me a little picture there.
David Blackmon [00:39:35] I love Croc, use it a lot.
Tammy Nemeth [00:39:39] So please, yeah, check it out, TheNemethReport.substack.com and like and subscribe and it’ll come straight to your email box. Thanks
Stuart Turley [00:39:50] Oops, sorry, David, let me get back up here. I got a mouse problem this morning.
Tammy Nemeth [00:39:59] Do you want me to send my pad over?
David Blackmon [00:40:04] We’ll go to the second one first. So last week was the CeraWeek conference in Houston, Texas, the annual gathering of the world’s energy leaders in one big room in Houston. And we had the chief of OPEC speak, and then the head of the IEA spoke after him, Fatih Birol, our beloved leader of the International Energy Agency. who famously told us all and assured us in May of 2021 that we should stop all investments in the finding and development of new oil resources because that won’t be needed in the future. And we needed to stop it immediately to meet net zero by 2050. At the Ceraweek Conference, he told the audience that new investments in oil exploration will definitely be needed for the near future. complete turnaround. And of course, he had turned around within three months in 2021. But OPEC took a special notice of Mr. Birol’s comments at CeraWeek and just blasted it and went through the whole history of his ridiculous, stupid projections about all needs and all demand and peak all and all the nonsense, the IEA. has been putting out over the last three to four years since it in the lead up to, and since it changed its mission from being a respected, reliable disseminator of real information and analysis related to the global energy situation and change that into an advocate, a pusher of the energy transition that everybody now knows is completely off the rails and failing. And so Birol’s changing his talking points and OPEC just went off on him. And it was well-deserved and a real dressing down of this guy who is really kind of a clown. And I was glad to see it. Second one is even better. I mean, I think it’s even better than that because here at the Energy Realities podcast, we have been talking about the real reality of this energy transition for more than three years now. and with the constant theme that this energy transition is not possible and that zero is not attainable. It’s going to fail. It’s destiny and it’s because of physics and thermodynamics and a bunch of laws that aren’t just suggestions about energy. So E&E News is energy and environment news service that is affiliated, was bought out by Politico a few years ago. And it’s a very pro-transition operation, but good people, and they generally do a pretty decent job in their reporting. But I just had to laugh because on Friday, they published a report that’s about CeraWeek that says energy transition goals surrender to energy reality at CeraWeek, literally using our talking point in their headline. And that was gratifying and hilarious in a very unintentional way. And I just want to congratulate the editors and writers at E&E News for coming to the position where we’ve been for more than three years now here at the Energy Realities Podcast. It’s good to see you all coming over to the dark side at last.
Irina Slav [00:43:53] Yes, it takes guts to do this in this day and age. Well done,
David Blackmon [00:44:00] Because you know the editors at Politico didn’t want them to do that.
Tammy Nemeth [00:44:04] They’re trying to get money because they they lost all their USAID money. So now they need to get subscribers.
David Blackmon [00:44:11] they have a real problem with funding. So maybe they’re gonna just turn the whole operation into a fact-based operation like the IEA used to.
Tammy Nemeth [00:44:21] Oh my gosh.
Irina Slav [00:44:22] Imagine that.
Tammy Nemeth [00:44:23] Imagine that.
Stuart Turley [00:44:26] Oops, sorry. Speaking of mouse
David Blackmon [00:44:30] There there’s mine Substack, oh, the energy meaning of the day. Yeah, that’s you are the carbon they want to reduce. We all know that’s true. I’m at DavidBlackmon.substack for politics and Blackmon.substack for energy. Energy transition absurdities is the name of my sub stack and welcome readers there. As Tammy says, I’m prolific if nothing else.
Irina Slav [00:45:06] Okay, these are mine. My favorite story this week, probably my favorite story for the month, Saudi Aramco and Big oil is on the wrong side of history says John Kerry. Of course John Kerry says that. Basically his message is the same as the message of those authors of the Wall Street Journal story that the energy transition is unstoppable. So he’s basically saying the same Thanks. citing some mysterious fundamental forces and technologies that he never names because to my mind the most fundamental forces in any industry are supply and demand. But he probably means some other forces and he even claimed that the transition is failing because Trump obviously and big oil is intimidating everyone else into, you know, wanting more oil and gas. And this man just joined an investment company. a transition focused investment company so obviously you can’t trust anything that comes out of his mouth. But really he’s so public and open about it. I know I sound naive but I have a hard time, you know, wrapping my head around their sheer audacity. I mean they’re talking about this openly. He clearly has a vested interest in the transition succeeding, he stands to make money. from even more subsidies, from doing even more of what doesn’t work and he’s blaming the failure of this transition to the usual suspects. It’s big oil. And by the way, did you read the CeraWeeks speech of Amin Nasser from Morocco?
David Blackmon [00:47:00] It was fantastic.
Irina Slav [00:47:01] Yes, truly fantastic. He really put them in their place. I think this is going to change this rhetoric when they really start losing a lot of money because they already are, which is why these stories appear.
David Blackmon [00:47:19] Can I just poll the group though on this? Does it surprise anyone here that the Financial Times decided to amplify Mr. Carey’s message here?
Irina Slav [00:47:32] Yes, I’m shocked.
David Blackmon [00:47:33] I think it’s the most expected thing possible.
Irina Slav [00:47:37] But to do them justice, they do note some energy realities in their story. Yeah, pointing to the actual reasons for the failure of the transition at the moment. But yeah, they have given him a platform. The other story is equally adorable with British steel industry calling for help with electricity prices, as in literally. We need you, the government, to help us covering our costs because energy prices are too high and we cannot compete. This is the literal gist of the story. And what is the UK government doing? It wants to go to war. Yeah, that would help the steel industry, I expect in a way, but it would do nothing about their energy costs. So I don’t think that’s the kind of help they’re looking for. But they’re openly asking for help. And this is really important because, help me, Tammy, steel was one of the industries that the Stammer government focused on in their recent plan or plan for a plan to support local industries, as in essential industries. Can you hear me? I don’t think she can hear me. But I think the steelmaking was part of their industrial plan, you know, the plan to revitalize local industries. And they’re not really doing anything about it.
Stuart Turley [00:49:21] and you have a wonderful Substack.
Irina Slav [00:49:24] Yeah, it’s been fun recently, lots of good topics, and a chance to quote the IT crowd, which is always a bonus. It’s a Irina Slav on Energy. I try to post every day, three times a day, I send the newsletter out to inboxes, and the other two I just publish on Substack because I don’t want to overwhelm anyone.
Stuart Turley [00:49:50] And my stories, I totally messed up today. So I just, here you go. Wall Street braces for oil at $60 range on tariff, OPEC plus risks. This was an interesting article out of Bloomberg this morning. Oil’s retreat has been cheered by President Trump and offers relief for consumers. Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase have been predicting prices that would end the year in mid-low 60s for some time. We expect Brent, this is Goldman saying that we expect Brent to stay above $70 a barrel in coming months, but we no longer see 70 as the price floor. I thought that was very interesting as well too. I’m still more of a perma bull than I am a bear from the standpoint of that goes back to my earlier comment. We haven’t reached peak oil demand yet and we’ve talked about supply and demand and the artificial implications of some of the modifications of the pricing in the industry. I think that we will see. I’m still around the $80 range if we get the war to stop in Ukraine and we get demand coming back around the world. I think those are going to be positive things. President Trump is slated to talk to President Putin on Tuesday. I think that’s a great thing. And when you take a look at who these are just too stupid. They’re going to get bombed off the planet if they’re going to keep doing those kind of things. But Canada, you can’t buy this kind of entertainment. Canada has identified five more. Hello, Tammy, you’re back. We were just talking about Canada and Canada has now fired up off of Nova Scotia, five offshore wind areas in Nova Scotia. So you cannot buy this kind of entertainment. But what I’m seeing around the world is more and more LNG pipelines. Croatia just put in a LNG pipeline to help out the Slavic countries in that area. It was about several million dollars. And when you take a look at the import facilities for LNG, And then the ships that are being built and power LNG powered It’s very impressive to see the bunkering facilities around the world. LNG is not going away anytime soon I see Ellen. He in compressed natural gas is increasing share
David Blackmon [00:52:48] Oh, sure. Yeah. That situation with shipping fuels really interesting because, you know, they forced everyone to adopt a new cleaner diesel five years ago now, I think. And LNG was having a hard time competing with it initially, but now over time, you’re seeing more and more of these ships being built to be run on LNG. And it seems to be becoming more of a fuel of choice in that sector. So that’s really interesting.
Stuart Turley [00:53:19] I’m looking at the numbers every day on that, but I still think that we will see an end of the war and people still don’t like the idea. I have dear friends that are not liking anything I say positive about Putin.
Irina Slav [00:53:41] It’s a dangerous thing to do, you know. It has been put into demonizing the whole country and mostly its president, so, you know, the athlete has paid off.
Stuart Turley [00:53:50] You have to admit, President Putin, by increasing his GDP to 4% last year, countries would kill for 44% GDP growth. President Putin did not really, he had some, the last three times Russia has been invaded has been through Ukraine. That was a very important point. And then when you sit back and take a look at, I will be glad at the end of the war. But one of the funniest articles was Will that was out there was the cost of ignoring geopolitics got a real big up store off my sub stack. And I guarantee you that I think the EU is so far left that I don’t know that NATO or the EU will survive. They may not survive in their current form. In their current form, yeah.
Irina Slav [00:54:52] Well, they really, really need a war because otherwise all of their citizens will realize just how incompetent and destructive their policies have been. That’s what I think of
Tammy Nemeth [00:55:05] Well, not only that, so all those auto manufacturers that were being put out of business because of the high prices and the EVs coming in from China, they’re being retooled for defense production. Yeah. So that kills two birds with one stone. They make the employees happy in Germany and France or whatever. and they get to become a war machine.
David Blackmon [00:55:39] It’s 1940 all over again, right?
Stuart Turley [00:55:43] We have to sit back and wonder whether or not, is it a cat or is it a dog? Is it the left or is it the right? Who’s picking the fights on all these kinds of things? And I always, I got this great man tagged me on this one. So is it a dog? Is it a cat? Is it left? Is it right?
David Blackmon [00:56:27] We’re gonna get in some cats in a minute. Oh, I love that.
Stuart Turley [00:56:46] I am not getting a husband.
Tammy Nemeth [00:56:57] Oh, hey, no flaws. That was good.
Stuart Turley [00:57:06] That was an Adler’s dog. I got to turn this one down because they swear we don’t want to get anybody banned on YouTube. Okay, there we go. So now, is the left lining over the energy policies like a cat smacking that baby? I mean, is that or is it a dog that is when you’re looking at energy policies, smacking the owner in the glass of wine and then going, hey, I now can have a drink of wine. Well, that was the right approach. Yeah, that was You know, you gotta sit back and kind of go, hey guys, I think the world is gonna wake up that David Blackmon has been right for a very long time. Physics matters. What does it mean? Everybody here. Physics matter to the grid. Fiscal responsibility matters to the grid. And I think that the world. And so, and Irena has always been wonderful about her saying, saying that sanctions don’t work as intended and all of the sanctions that have been placed on all of the countries don’t work. The weaponization of the United States, U S dollar to become the biggest bully on the planet does not do the world any good. And I think president Trump is realizing that. I like President Trump’s style in that he is saying, if you want to do business with us, we want you here. Build your materials here. I like what he’s doing. And it is, now it is frustrating to go tariffs are on, tariffs are off, tariffs are on, tariffs are off. That’s him doing the art of the deal. He is still missing important critical geopolitical information for how to do business in the European Union. and that is frustrating to me to be over here kind of watching what’s going on. He needs some different people in there. Just started to say that.
Tammy Nemeth [00:59:27] Okay.
David Blackmon [00:59:30] Okay, with that, we’re gonna wrap this thing up. We’re 59 minutes and 35 seconds into it. We have 25 seconds for any final thoughts anyone wants to offer. Otherwise, we are gonna call it a day.
Stuart Turley [00:59:48] Outstanding job, David. Great job, Tammy.
Tammy Nemeth [00:59:50] Thank you for all the comments everybody and great show guys and we’ll see you next week.
David Blackmon [00:59:55] Sorry about the the problem on LinkedIn. All right everybody have a great week.
Tammy Nemeth [01:00:02] Bye.
Sponsorships are available or get your own corporate brand produced by Sandstone Media.
Cheniere said in a statement the completion was achieved on March 16, 2025.
Commissioning is complete and Cheniere’s EPC partner, Bechtel has turned over care, custody, and control of Train 1 and associated systems to Cheniere.
“With the achievement of substantial completion, financial results from liquefied natural gas (LNG) sales from Train 1 going forward will be reflected in the statement of operations of Cheniere and its applicable affiliates,” the firm said.
In December 2024, Cheniere started LNG production from Train 1 of the Corpus Christi Stage 3 project, and it produced the first cargo last month.
“The substantial completion of the first train of CCL Stage 3 – ahead of schedule and on budget – marks another important milestone for Cheniere and further builds upon the track record of excellence in execution consistently delivered by the Cheniere and Bechtel teams,” said Jack Fusco, Cheniere’s president and CEO.
“We remain focused on safely and efficiently bringing the remaining CCL Stage 3 trains online ahead of schedule, providing much-needed new LNG supply to the global market,” he said.
The project includes building seven midscale trains, each with an expected liquefaction capacity of about 1.49 mtpa.
This project adds to three operational trains, each with a capacity of about 5 mtpa.
Upon substantial completion of all seven trains of CCL Stage 3, the expected total production capacity of the Corpus Christi liquefaction facility will be over 25 mtpa of LNG.
In addition to this expansion, Cheniere just received approval from the US FERC to build two more midscale trains at its Corpus Christi LNG plant.
The proposed midscale trains 8 and 9 project or project includes adding two midscale
liquefaction trains, each with an expected liquefaction capacity of about 1.49 mtpa, and associated facilities, as well as increasing the authorized loading rate at the terminal’s existing marine berth.
Fusco recently confirmed that the company still expects to make a final investment decision to build two more midscale trains at its Corpus Christi LNG plant this year.
ENB Pub Note: While much of the markets are looking to the bearish side of the oil market, I am almost in the perma bull market looking to the $80 dollar, and Michael is leaning more to the lower side. We will be covering much of this in the next few weeks on the podcast.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. joined fellow banks Monday in cutting oil price forecasts as Wall Street increasingly sees a home for crude in the $60s.
Goldman initially stuck with previous price projections when OPEC+ confirmed plans to increase oil production earlier this month, but with US economic growth under mounting pressure, the bank lowered its outlook price in a note. Its expected range for Brent was reduced to $65-$80 a barrel from $70-$85.
“We expect Brent to stay above $70 a barrel in coming months,” but “we no longer see $70 as the price floor,” head of commodities research Daan Struyven wrote. Brent futures are currently hovering around $71.
Goldman’s revision follows downgrades in recent weeks by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Corp., which both see Brent in the high $60s during the second half.
Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. have been predicting prices would end the year in the mid-or-low $60s for some time. Beyond Wall Street, top oil trading houses such as Vitol Group and Gunvor Group — which have had a bullish stance on crude in recent years — also turned more pessimistic.
Oil’s retreat has been cheered by US President Donald Trump and offers relief for consumers and central banks following years of rampant inflation. But it poses financial risks for producers in the American shale oil industry and for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Saudi Arabia.
Citigroup has long been the most bearish of the pack, projecting that crude will average $60 a barrel in the second and third quarters before sinking further to $55 in the fourth.
Wall Street’s preliminary assessments for next year suggest little scope for upside, with JPMorgan anticipating that crude will average $61 a barrel — and may even touch $50 as Trump pushes to keep sanctioned Russian and Iranian barrels in the market.
President Donald Trump said he’ll speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday as the US presses for an end to fighting in Ukraine and European nations rush to bolster their support for Kyiv.
“We are doing pretty well I think with Russia,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday. “We’ll see if we have something to announce maybe by Tuesday,” he said, adding that there is “a very good chance” for a deal.
The Trump administration has pushed for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine amid a flurry of renewed engagement between Washington and Moscow, three years after Russia’s full-scale invasion. Yet that effort has sparked angst among European leaders who worry Trump may concede too much on Ukraine’s behalf in a direct exchange with Putin and leave Kyiv without any longer-term security guarantees.
Asked what concessions he’d seek from Putin, who has repeatedly brushed aside calls for a quick halt to the fighting, Trump said much of the discussion will be about territory.
“A lot of land is a lot different than it was before the war, as you know,” he told reporters. “We’ll be talking about land, we’ll be talking about power plants — that’s, you know, that’s a big question.”
“We’re already talking about that, dividing up certain assets,” he added.
Putin has deflected efforts to stop the fighting as his troops, backed by North Korean soldiers, make incremental battlefield gains, including pushing Ukrainian forces back from parts of Russia’s Kursk region they’d seized in an surprise offensive last year. US envoy Steven Witkoff met with Putin last week but failed to secure a deal to pause the conflict.
Putin has said he’s seeking a more durable agreement, while insisting on a raft of conditions that would be difficult for Kyiv to accept. Russia has previously demanded that Ukraine become a neutral nation, significantly reduce the size of its armed forces and cede territory, starting with the land Russia has already seized in the war.
The European Union’s top foreign policy official, Kaja Kallas, said the conditions that Moscow has presented show that “they don’t really want peace.”
“Because they are presenting as conditions all their ultimate goals that they want to achieve from the war,” she told reporters before a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday. “We really need to see that the ball is in Russia’s court.”
Maximum Pressure
Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said concessions need to be made by Russia, because “otherwise you will be compromising international law and the UN Charter, which would have global implications.”
“To be loud and clear, I think the genuine effort by President Trump to really achieve peace here should not be misused by Putin to further weaken Ukraine,” she told reporters on Monday.
A bloc of European nations agreed on Saturday to keep tightening restrictions on Russia’s economy, though it wasn’t clear how they would go forward with that more than three years after a slew of US and European sanctions over the war went into effect.
“It’s really important at this point that we put maximum pressure on Russia,” UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Saturday following a call with about two dozen other leaders, including the heads of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and several European nations.
European officials also thrashed out plans for a peacekeeping force of more than 10,000 troops for Ukraine, the Sunday Times reported, citing senior government sources. The bulk would likely come from the UK and France, according to the newspaper, which also said that about 35 countries have agreed to supply weapons, logistical and intelligence support to the mission.
But European leaders want to see any force on the ground in Ukraine backed up by US security guarantees in the form of air power, intelligence and border surveillance. It’s far from clear whether Trump would be willing to do that. While he’s said he could ramp up economic and political pressure on Russia if Putin doesn’t come to the table, he’s been generally far more critical of Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
Teekay Tankers is renewing its LR2 tonnage through deals that will see one of the ageing vessels replaced by a 12 years younger unit.
The New York-listed firm has agreed to offload the 2007-built Galway Spirit to an unnamed buyer for delivery in the first quarter of 2025.
No price was revealed for the Hyundai Heavy-built unit, but the company has also confirmed the previously reported sale of the 2009-built suezmax Tianlong Spirit, with both ships bringing in a total of $59m.
The suezmax sale relates to the four-ship package at $35m each with George Procopiou’s Dynacom Tankers, flagged by S&P sources earlier this year, with the company so far confirming three deals without naming the buyer.
Meanwhile, a filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission divulged an acquisition of an unnamed 2019-built aframax/LR2 for $63m.
Some brokers have identified the vessel as the Daehan-built 115,643 dwt Prostar, which had previously sailed for Teekey as part of its chartered-in fleet.
Teekay, which last month completed the sale of another ageing LR2, said it expects delivery of its latest purchase during the second quarter of this year.
The Kenneth Hvid-led company currently owns 23 suezmaxes, including those agreed for sale, and 15 aframax/LR2 tankers. The company also has five chartered-in ships, four of which aframax/LR2, and a 50% stake in the VLCC Hong Kong Spirit joint venture.
“Approximately 60% of our fleet is currently aged 15 years and older, and we may continue the process of fleet renewal in the coming years,” the company said.
