Energy News Beat

“In Texas, ex-oil and gas workers champion geothermal energy as a replacement for fossil-fueled power plants” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

STARR COUNTY — In 2009, on a plot of shrub-covered cattle land about 45 miles northwest of McAllen, Shell buried and abandoned a well it drilled to look for gas. The well turned out to be a dry hole. Vegetation grew back over the site.

In 2021, a Houston-based energy company run by former Shell employees came looking for it.

This company wasn’t drilling for oil or gas, though. Its engineers were looking for a place to experiment with their technology for producing geothermal energy, created by Earth’s underground heat.

A startup called Sage Geosystems leased the site. The company installed a wellhead and brought in a diesel-powered pump. They used fluid to create cracks in the rock deep below the surface, a technique similar to fracking for oil and gas.

One day last March, the crew pumped 20,000 barrels of water into the 2-mile-deep well. Hours later, an operator opened the well from a control room. Pipes above ground shook as the pressurized water gushed back up. The water spun small turbines, generating electricity.

The pressurized water, which was pumped underground and later released to the surface through the well on the right, at the Starr County demonstration on March 22, 2023. Credit: Verónica Gabriela Cárdenas for The Texas Tribune
The turbine demonstration, which shows that they can convert pressure energy into mechanical and generate energy, on March 22, 2023. Credit: Veronica G. Cardenas for the Texas Tribune
Pump operator Cory Davis, 31, monitors the flow-back of the well that generates electricity. Credit: Veronica G. Cardenas for the Texas Tribune

Left: Water spins a turbine at the Starr County demonstration site. Right: An operator controls the flow in and out of the well. Credit: Verónica Gabriela Cárdenas for The Texas Tribune

Sage and other companies believe geothermal power is key to replacing polluting coal- and gas-fired power plants. Even though solar and wind are proven clean energy sources, they only produce electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows. Geothermal power could provide continuous, emissions-free energy.

“Geothermal heat doesn’t have those variable conditions,” University of Texas at Austin clean energy expert Michael Webber said. “If you hit a hot spot below ground — might be thousands of feet down — the heat won’t matter based on whether it’s cloudy or whether it’s summer.”

Texas has become an early hot spot for geothermal energy exploration. At least three companies are based in Houston, and scores of former oil industry workers and executives are taking their knowledge of geology, drilling and extraction to a new energy source.

“We’ve punched over a million holes in the ground in Texas since Spindletop,” said former Texas oil and gas regulator Barry Smitherman, who has become a geothermal advocate. “So we have a lot of knowledge, and we have a lot of history and skill set.”

Heat constantly radiates out from the center of Earth as radioactive elements break down. That energy warms water that bubbles up to or escapes as steam at the surface. Humans have taken advantage of that phenomenon — an early form of geothermal power — for heating, bathing and cooking since ancient times.

For more than 100 years, engineers have used that underground hot water or steam to generate electricity. Geothermal power in 2015 fueled 27% of the electricity in Iceland, which sits on one of the world’s most active volcanic zones. In 2022, it generated about 5% of the electricity in California. The United States is the top geothermal electricity producer in the world.

Still, the total amount of geothermal electricity produced in America is tiny compared with other sources. It accounted for about 4 gigawatts last year, according to a federal analysis, or enough to power about 800,000 Texas homes.

Businesses such as Sage and government researchers say there’s a lot more geothermal power to be had by pumping fluid through hot rock where there is no natural water. With technological advances, a government analysis predicts geothermal power in the U.S. could grow to 90 gigawatts by 2050. That would have been enough to power the entire Texas grid during last summer’s highest-demand day.

Companies are racing to develop their technology and techniques to harness this energy source. They vary in how deep they want to drill (from around 7,000 feet, which oil and gas equipment can handle, to 66,000 feet, which it cannot), how they heat the water (in the well or in the rock) and how they bring the heated water back up (in the same well that sent it down or with a second one).

Like oil wildcatters, the geothermal industry must figure out the best places to drill. They’ll face the same concerns about triggering earthquakes that have dogged oil and gas fracking operations and previous geothermal efforts. In 2006, a pilot geothermal plant in Switzerland caused a magnitude 3.4 earthquake that damaged buildings and led to the plant’s closure. In 2017, a magnitude 5.5 earthquake linked to a pilot geothermal project in South Korea injured dozens.

Companies should follow existing best practices informed by research to monitor seismicity and adjust or pause operations as needed, said William Ellsworth, an emeritus professor at Stanford University. States could also mandate these protocols. “You have to pay attention to what you’re doing,” Ellsworth said.

And perhaps most importantly, the geothermal businesses will have to show they can compete with the cost of other power sources, with help from the federal government in the form of Inflation Reduction Act tax credits.

The more the technology is deployed, the more the costs might come down, Rice University Associate Professor Daniel Cohan said. Getting the price where the federal government hopes for it to be cost-competitive is “feasible,” Cohan said, “but there’s no guarantee that the industry will get there.”

The federal Department of Energy said this month that $20 billion to $25 billion needed to be invested by 2030 to move toward widespread use.

“We’re all doing something a little bit different,” Sage CEO Cindy Taff said. “One of us is going to have a breakthrough that really commercializes this stuff.”

The daughter of a geophysicist who worked for Mobil, Taff studied mechanical engineering and built a 36-year career at Shell. She worked her way up from production engineer to vice president, managing a team with an annual budget of around $1 billion.

Taff explains how Sage Geosystems uses its Starr County well to store energy. Credit: Verónica Gabriela Cárdenas for The Texas Tribune

With freckles and curly hair that falls past her shoulders, Taff said she knew the world wanted to pivot to new energy sources. Her daughter, concerned about climate change, urged her mother to get away from the “dark side” of oil and gas.

When former colleagues from Shell told Taff they were co-founding Sage and invited her to join them, she got excited.

Taff saw that Sage was a nimble company with people she considered some of the smartest in the industry. The geothermal business had a lot of growing to do, like the early days of wind or solar. Her work could have a large impact.

“It was exciting to be working with people that I knew had a sense of urgency and made a difference,” Taff said. “And then, it was exciting to be working for yourself in a way that you can push the agenda.”

So, in 2020, Taff took the leap. Her daughter joined the company too.

Building interest in geothermal

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spilled 11 million gallons of oil off the coast of Alaska, killing some 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters and 300 harbor seals. In Augusta, Georgia, 10-year-old Jamie Beard was riveted by the news coverage.

“I understood things enough to know that that was not something we wanted,” Beard said.

That experience pushed Beard into environmental activism, starting the next day, when she took a Kleenex box decorated like the ocean to raise money for coral reefs. She painted murals about environmental rights. In college, at Appalachian State University, she organized an Earth Day festival and tied herself to trees on a West Virginia mountaintop to protest workers scraping them away to mine for coal.

Years before Jamie Beard helped launch Sage Geosystems, she was a student at Appalachian State University teaching others how to use solar ovens. Credit: Courtesy of Jamie Beard

Beard went on to study environmental law at Boston University. She represented corporations, telling herself she could make change best from the inside. That proved incorrect. She joined a startup working on technology that could be applied to geothermal drilling.

That’s when her life changed.

Beard read an interview about the huge potential for geothermal power to provide electricity around the world. The interview was with Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jefferson Tester, who led a team that published a 372-page assessment of the resource for the federal government in 2006.

“The technology needed to advance … but it wasn’t like it had to invent a whole new area because it’s so compatible with what we do with hydrocarbon extraction,” Tester said in an interview with the Texas Tribune. “They drill holes in the ground and they pull fluids out of the ground, whether they’re gas or liquids, and they sell it. Well, that’s what you do for geothermal too.”

Beard read the report over and over.

This is my career, Beard thought.

The history of modern geothermal power went back a century: The world’s first full-scale geothermal power plant started operating in 1913 in Italy. In 1960, Pacific Gas and Electric built the first commercial geothermal power plant in the United States at a spot in Northern California known as “The Geysers.”

In the 1970s, the federal Department of Energy started researching pulling power from what was referred to as hot, dry rock. The country that decade suffered through Arab countries’ embargo on exporting oil to America, causing oil prices to skyrocket. Still, the technology didn’t get far enough for the concept to take off.

The Larderello geothermal power plant, which is the world’s oldest, was built in Tuscany, Italy. Credit: Enel Green Power

Engineers built geothermal power plants where they could find existing water resources relatively easily, maybe marked by hot springs or fumaroles, which are holes where hot gases and vapors escape from underground, said Lauren Boyd, director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s geothermal technologies office. But building new plants got riskier as prime locations got harder to find.

Beard saw opportunity. She knew the oil and gas industry could develop technology quickly. The U.S. ushered in the “shale revolution” as companies drilled horizontally and cracked open rock with hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, to extract giant amounts of oil and gas. That technology could be used for geothermal.

Beard, 45, is the type of person who speaks with an energy that rubs off on you. Her hair is cut into an angular bob; she wears artsy glasses. She made giving a TED talk look easy.

Armed with a $1 million Department of Energy grant, Beard moved to the University of Texas at Austin around 2019 to convince people that now was the time to start a geothermal company. She argued that oil and gas experts did not have to be only the villains in the climate change story; they could also be the people who help alleviate it.

Jamie Beard speaks at a SXSW panel titled “Geothermal and the Promise of Clean Energy Abundance” on March 9 in Austin. Credit: Courtesy of Jamie Beard

“Oil and gas people are a gigantic brain trust,” Beard said. “They are a huge asset.”

Beard had a young son. She learned he inherited a rare genetic condition that gave him a life expectancy of 10 or so years. A journalist from Wired who profiled Beard described a woman facing an existential choice: She could let the doom of his fate swallow her, or focus on changing the world.

Beard started by reaching out to industry veterans whom she suspected were retired, golfing and bored. Maybe their grandchildren were after them for being part of the fossil fuel industry that contributes to climate change.

Beard said she spent months talking with people like Lance Cook, who retired from Shell as a vice president. Beard said the reaction she usually got was “it’ll never work,” followed by a phone call a few weeks later that the person was still thinking about it. But Cook decided to jump in, and he became the chief technology officer for a new company named for Beard’s son, Sage.

Chris Anderson, the leader of TED, known for its conferences with TED talks by experts on various topics, invested $16 million through his climate investment fund. Drilling firm Nabors invested $9 million more.

Early successes

Beard wasn’t the only person who saw the potential of leveraging expertise from the oil and gas industry to develop geothermal in Texas.

Tim Latimer grew up in a city of about 1,000 residents in Central Texas, where he remembers being fascinated by the Discovery Channel show “Build It Bigger” about constructing large projects that impact many lives, such as bridges, tunnels and dams.

Latimer studied mechanical engineering at the University of Tulsa. He wanted a job back in Texas to be near family and friends, so when he graduated in 2012 he went to work on drilling sites while the shale revolution was taking off.

Latimer considered whether he should be working in fossil fuels in a world confronting climate change. But working on rapidly developing technology alongside smart people excited him. Moving into wind or solar didn’t feel right after years studying drilling.

Fervo CEO Tim Latimer at the Fervo Energy office in Houston on March 22. Credit: Mark Felix for the The Texas Tribune

Then came the lightbulb moment. He found the same 2006 geothermal report that inspired Beard. He realized that what he was doing, which included drilling into high-temperature rock in South Texas, presented what he called a “huge opportunity for tech transfer” into geothermal.

Latimer thought the idea was so obvious he could join a geothermal company already doing it. He found none. What if this could change how the world gets energy and no one tried it? he wondered. Like other startup founders, he’s articulate and dreams big. At a conference where some wore suits, he wore sneakers, a button-down and jeans.

Latimer went to Stanford University Graduate School of Business and met a classmate getting a PhD in geothermal research. Together they started Fervo Energy. They headquartered the business in Houston. Their first Houston-based hire had 15 years of experience working for oil and gas companies Hess and BP. Fervo now employs 80 people, about 60% of whom came from oil and gas work.

Fervo’s approach is basically to drill vertically, then use fracking technology to create horizontal cracks in the earth. That way, operators can send water down the well, where it can flow through the small cracks in the rock to heat before coming back up another nearby well.

Two California energy providers have signed contracts to buy power from Fervo. Google also has a financial agreement with them. Oil and gas company Devon Energy Corporation invested $10 million.

Last summer, Fervo ran a 30-day test in 375-degree rock in Nevada. They deemed it a success, and now the company is building a project nearby in Utah, next to where the Department of Energy has sponsored a geothermal field lab. They expect the project will put power mostly onto the California grid in 2026.

Drilling deeper

Back in Houston, in a beige set of warehouses on the south side of town, another company led by former oil and gas experts is taking a third approach.

Henry Phan left a 19-year career in product development at Schlumberger, where his work included designing drilling equipment that could steer sideways, to join a former colleague who launched Quaise Energy. The company focuses on using millimeter waves — which are higher frequency microwaves like the ones used to heat food — to create wells by vaporizing rock.

Henry Phan, vice president of engineering for Quaise Energy, stands with a wave guide that the company uses to direct waves from the surface into the hole they are creating, in Houston on Feb. 15, 2024. Credit: Joseph Bui for The Texas Tribune
Employees of Quaise Energy stand next to a repurposed drilling rig that will hold a wave guide. Credit: Contributor
Vaporized basalt rock from testing at Quaise Energy in Houston. Credit: Contributor

First: Employees of Quaise Energy stand next to a repurposed drilling rig that will hold a wave guide. Last: Vaporized basalt rock from testing at Quaise Energy in Houston. Credit: Joseph Bui for The Texas Tribune

Oil and gas equipment begins to fail when temperatures below ground reach around 400 degrees. Drill bits wear down quickly against harder rock and electronics are pushed past their limits. Using millimeter waves would allow operators to “drill” deeper than oil and gas equipment can go — which means reaching hotter rock that could produce more power.

The idea interested Phan, and he thought the physics made sense. Plus, he would work on cutting-edge technology that he thought could be a “big step change for humanity.” Quaise had a lot less bureaucracy than at the giant Schlumberger, where money going into product development seemed to be diminishing. In 2020, he signed on as Quaise’s vice president of engineering. He brought more former colleagues with him.

Quaise aims to be able to drill into 300 to 500 degree rock by 2026, produce steam that can generate electricity by 2028 and go commercial after that. Their investors include Nabors, climate investors Prelude Ventures and billionaire Vinod Khosla.

In early experiments with the technology, they used millimeter waves to “drill” through an eight-foot cylinder of basalt rock, plus samples of 1- to 2-inch-thick basalt. The examples sit on display in their office.

“It’s cool to work on a new product,” Phan said, “but the fact that it can make an impact to … our life and our children’s life and their generation and their kids is monumental. So it’s rewarding from the point of view that we’re working on something that is so impactful if we can make this thing work.”

Source: Gilmermirror.com

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

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

 

The post In Texas, ex-oil and gas workers champion geothermal energy as a replacement for fossil-fueled power plants first appeared on Energy News Beat.

The post In Texas, ex-oil and gas workers champion geothermal energy as a replacement for fossil-fueled power plants appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

The Tennessee State Senate has taken a definitive stance against the controversial topic of “chemtrails” by passing SB 2691/HB 2063.

The bill, which aims to ban the intentional release of chemicals into the atmosphere for geoengineering purposes, was sponsored by Representative Monty Fritts (R-Kingston) and Senator Steve Southerland (R-Morristown) and won approval in the Senate on Monday, The Tennessean reported.

The legislation is predicated on the claim that “it is documented the federal government or other entities acting on the federal government’s behalf or at the federal government’s request may conduct geoengineering experiments by intentionally dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere, and those activities may occur within the State of Tennessee.”

This new bill seeks to outlaw any such activities, stating that, “The intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight is prohibited.”

The passage of this bill marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over geoengineering and environmental manipulation. Proponents of the bill believe that it is a necessary step to safeguard the environment and public health from unregulated geoengineering practices.

The legislation is set to be enforced beginning July 1, 2024, indicating the urgency that the Tennessee Senate places on this issue for the “public welfare.”

Attention now turns to the House, where the bill is scheduled to be reviewed by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday.

If the House passes the bill, Tennessee would become one of the first states to establish a legal framework explicitly prohibiting the spraying of chemicals for geoengineering purposes, potentially setting a precedent for other states to follow in addressing concerns around environmental and atmospheric manipulation.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that a company called Make Sunsets has successfully launched weather balloons from Mexico that may have released sulfur particles into the atmosphere. Luke Iseman, the co-founder and CEO, claims that because climate change presents such an imminent threat, bizarre interventions like theirs are necessary:

“It’s morally wrong, in my opinion, for us not to be doing this,” said Iseman. “What’s important is to do this as quickly and safely as we can.”

Disturbingly, Make Sunsets made this attempt at solar geoengineering without informing the public or even attempting to engage scientists. Experts who spoke to MIT Technology Review uniformly condemned the move.

Despite these potential unintended consequences and repercussions to the scientific field, Make Sunsets is determined to cash in. They are already selling $10 “cooling credits” for releasing just one gram of carbon into the stratosphere. But don’t worry, Iseman says, the company will act as responsibly as possible:

“What I want to do is create as much cooling as quickly as I responsibly can, over the rest of my life, frankly,” said Iseman. He added later that they will deploy as much sulfur in 2023 as “we can get customers to pay us” for.”

TGP also reported that scientists have proposed an audacious novel geoengineering technique: intentionally dehydrating the stratosphere.

A study published in Science Advances involves the ambitious and contentious idea of seeding the upper atmosphere with particles to prevent water vapor from entering the stratosphere.

Water vapor is important because it’s the most abundant greenhouse gas on Earth. The greenhouse effect occurs when gases in the atmosphere trap heat from the sun, keeping the planet livable. Water vapor is made up of complex molecules that absorb heat radiated from the Earth’s surface and re-radiate it back to the planet.

Also, George Soros wants humans to take control of Earth’s atmosphere to halt “climate change.”

This idea could create a global calamity resulting in the deaths of millions of humans and animals.

According to Fox News, Soros spoke to the Munich Security Conference in 2023 and boasted that he had discovered a process where white clouds are created to reflect sunlight away from warming areas to prevent ice sheets from melting. Ice sheets melting in Greenland in particular, he claimed, could doom human civilization.

The “plan” Soros and King are advocating for is called solar geoengineering. This idea will not save civilization but does have the potential to destroy it.

Klaus Schwab and his band of globalists are also toying with the idea of turning off the sun.

In a new dystopian video that was released by the WEF this month, the organization touted the use of futuristic “space bubbles” that could be used to effectively block out the sun, and thus, help reduce climate change. The “geoengineering” project would theoretically reflect a portion of solar radiation back into space in order to cool the planet, the video explains while highlighting a recent study about the project from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Source: Vigilantnews.com

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

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

 

The post Tennessee Senate Passes Bill Banning “Chemtrail” Spraying in Their Skies first appeared on Energy News Beat.

The post Tennessee Senate Passes Bill Banning “Chemtrail” Spraying in Their Skies appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Wind farm operators face an investigation into claims that they overcharged by £100million last year alone when asked to switch off turbines to cut excess power to the grid.

The cost – which is likely to have been added to consumer bills – has been highlighted by the Renewable Energy Foundation and is now under investigation by industry regulator Ofgem.

Wind farm operators are accused of ‘inflating’ the prices they charge, with the cost ultimately passed on to the consumer.

REF director John Constable said: ‘Our evidence suggests that multiple wind farm operators have been charging over the odds to reduce their output on windy days, generating no energy but costing consumers a fortune.’

National Grid’s system operating wing (ESO) pays energy generators to increase or decrease supply in real time to balance it with demand.

These costs are then ultimately footed by the consumer through bills.

REF said that the income wind farm operators are meant to take is based on the prices set for their electricity output and the volume of electricity that the wind farm predicts would have been generated during the time it is turned off.

In a statement the REF said it ‘estimates that elevated prices charged for constraints cost the consumer in excess of £100 million in 2023 alone.’

It added: ‘The complex and opaque UK subsidy regime obscures the impact of constraint bid prices on the costs to the consumer, but Ofgem has the authority to check this behaviour and apply retrospective fines to recover these excess profits if it determines that there has been an abuse of market power.’

An Ofgem spokesman said: ‘Ofgem works with the Electricity System Operator (ESO) to look into alleged improper behaviour of wind farms and other generators.

‘We’ll consider all the facts and if evidence of a breach of market rules is found we will not hesitate to act. We are also currently consulting on whether any changes are required to the licensing rules in this area.’

The post Wind farm firms face investigation over claims they overcharged consumers by £100 million last year alone first appeared on Energy News Beat.

The post Wind farm firms face investigation over claims they overcharged consumers by £100 million last year alone appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

The electric transmission grid is the limiting factor for economic development in many communities across America. Energy communities looking to build generation and export power are discovering that the cost of grid upgrades stops that development. New manufacturing facilities face the same delays, costing jobs.

Since my time at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, leaders have been working on solutions to ensure that the American transmission grid supports a growing and competitive economy, at a fair cost to customers. But these changes aren’t coming fast enough, and supply chains for transmission equipment are getting tighter in a global race for the future of energy.

Poles and wires aren’t the only way to add transmission capacity. Grid Enhancing Technologies, or GETs, are sensors, controls and software that maximize the value of the existing grid. They usually find 20%-40% more capacity, which would return billions of dollars in benefits to consumers every year. Separate studies by leading engineering firms Quanta Technologies and the Brattle Group found that using GETs in generator interconnection could reduce wholesale energy costs nationwide by over $5 billion per year. GETs can also reduce grid congestion — when transmission infrastructure limits the delivery of lowest-cost power — which came to over $20 billion in 2022. GETs could have saved $2 billion-$8 billion in grid congestion every year for the past decade. GETs also mitigate the impacts of grid outages and find or create system flexibility that improves reliability.

These tools are more widely adopted outside the U.S. Countries that have modified the traditional cost-of-service business model to reflect changing grid needs are reaping the rewards. Domestically, low-cost operational technologies are not part of the utility business model — they are only compensated for building new infrastructure (known as “capital expenditures.”)

The U.K. now combines operational and capital spending by the utility and has performance incentives for cost-saving solutions. The incentives work: the U.K. has groundbreaking deployments of two types of GETs: Advanced Power Flow Control and Dynamic Line Ratings.

Belgium started deploying Dynamic Line Ratings, or DLR, in 2008. Their technology measures the real-time capacity of transmission lines, which are otherwise used far below their potential. DLR has allowed massive expansion of Belgian wind generation by unlocking grid capacity, saving 500,000 euros in a single day by increasing line capacity to deliver low-cost power.

The clock is ticking. The U.S. is 16 years behind Belgium and FERC has had explicit direction from Congress to address this since the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The commission is directed to create incentives to “encourage deployment of transmission technologies and other measures to increase the capacity and efficiency of existing transmission facilities and improve the operation of the facilities.”

While I chaired the FERC, we held the first workshop on Grid Enhancing Technologies in 2019, followed by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2020 that included proposed incentives for transmission technologies. My colleagues continued with a workshop on a shared savings incentive model for GETs, similar to the U.K. policy but more limited in scale. This month, Senators Peter Welch, D-Vt., and Angus King, I-Maine, and Representatives Kathy Castor, D-Fla., Paul Tonko, D-N.Y. and Scott Peters, D-Calif., introduced the Advancing GETs Act, which would require FERC to move forward with the proposal to allow utilities to propose GETs projects with significant consumer benefits and be compensated for unlocking value quickly and at very low cost.

But incentives aren’t FERC’s only tool for transmission grid modernization.

In January, the largest electricity market in the United States, the PJM Interconnection, reaffirmed a proposal it shared two years ago with FERC — that regions could require deployment of Dynamic Line Ratings on power lines that create over $2 million in congestion costs every year. PPL Electric Utilities added their own comments, noting that the DLR systems have performed without interruption for two years, saving tens of millions in congestion costs and supporting reliability in extreme weather.

Incentives and requirements are both essential tools to change utility practices. The PJM threshold would put Dynamic Line Ratings on the lines where they will undoubtedly pay for themselves. The shared savings incentive could encourage utilities to find high-value applications — potentially by combining multiple GETs.

FERC’s proposed transmission planning rule requires regional plans to study Dynamic Line Ratings and Advanced Power Flow Control. This would be a leap forward for America’s grid, but FERC can’t stop there. Further, specific requirements will be needed, and incentive reform will drive utilities toward an optimized transmission grid. As more generation and storage plug in at the distribution level, we’ll also have to apply these tools on the lower voltage grid. This is another reason utilities must put GETs in their toolboxes today.

Source: Utilitydive.com

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

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

 

The post Grid technology could save billions but for a policy vacuum first appeared on Energy News Beat.

The post Grid technology could save billions but for a policy vacuum appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

HOUSTON, Texas — Australia’s Woodside Energy Group plans to significantly step up liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchases from North America, as rising costs and other issues make procurement in its home market more challenging.

The company currently procures LNG from a project in Texas, and plans to start buying from Louisiana in around 2028 and Mexico’s west coast in around 2029. It expects to source 4.7 million tonnes of LNG annually from North America at that point, five times current levels and equivalent to almost half the capacity of the production rights it holds in Australia.

“We are interested in North American LNG. We do continue to look at opportunities in the U.S.,” Woodside CEO Meg O’Neill told Nikkei in an interview.

“We have taken steps to increase our trading portfolio,” not just production, she said.

Woodside plans to resell the 1.3 million tonnes of LNG it will receive annually from the Mexico project in Asia. This will allow it to supply energy-hungry East Asian markets without passing through the Panama Canal, which is prone to congestion.

The company is seeking opportunities in western Canada as well. “To produce LNG in the west coast of Canada, that’s about as close as you can get to Japan,” O’Neill said.

The U.S. became the world’s top LNG exporter last year, after rapid growth powered by the shale revolution of the late 2000s enabled the country to pump out cheap gas in huge quantities. European oil companies and commodity trading houses have also been buying more American LNG.

Woodside is shifting more toward North America in light of the difficulty of further expansion in Australia, where the cost of building plants has soared and existing gas fields are running dry. Tighter environmental regulations are also making it more difficult for Woodside to ramp up output in its home market as it has in the past.

Australia was the world’s top LNG exporter between 2019 and 2022, but its exports have peaked, according to research firm Rystad Energy.

The U.S. may end up posing its own challenges. President Joe Biden’s administration in January announced a freeze on approvals for new LNG exports to reassess their climate impact.

U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm indicated last week that the pause is expected to end within a year, but O’Neill noted that “uncertainty remains.”

“Whenever the government says ‘we’re calling timeout,’ it’s fully in their control to call time back in,” she said. “And they might go back to as it was, [or] they might put new rules in place.”

Some in the LNG industry speculate that applicants may be required to take measures to prevent methane leaks or install systems to capture carbon dioxide emissions. A big increase in costs could dampen energy companies’ appetite for investment.

“The U.S. has been extremely fortunate to have a tremendous amount of accessible natural gas” that could be used not only “to fuel domestic industry but also exported to support Europe, to support Asian countries, not just in meeting baseline energy needs but helping with decarbonization,” O’Neill said.

“If the world is serious about tackling climate change, we need to be serious about displacing the coal fired power generation that’s currently in use,” she said. “Natural gas has half the life cycle emissions intensity.”

The LNG industry is undergoing a sea change amid the growing global push for decarbonization, and a realignment may be on the cards as companies compete for supply. Woodside had been in talks with compatriot Santos on a merger that would have created one of the world’s biggest LNG players, but said last month that the negotiations had been scrapped.

Source: Asia.nikkei.com

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

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

 

The post Australia’s Woodside to boost North America LNG purchases 5-fold first appeared on Energy News Beat.

The post Australia’s Woodside to boost North America LNG purchases 5-fold appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

The post Eni, Fincantieri and RINA join forces to aid shipping’s path towards net zero first appeared on Energy News Beat.

The post Eni, Fincantieri and RINA join forces to aid shipping’s path towards net zero appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Daily Standup Top Stories

Oil Demand Outpaces Expectations, Testing Calculus on Peak Crude

Don’t let California politicians gaslight you. Higher gas prices are driven by deliberate policy choices.

Highlights of the Podcast

00:00 – Intro

01:36 – Oil Demand Outpaces Expectations, Testing Calculus on Peak Crude

04:44 – Don’t let California politicians gaslight you. Higher gas prices are driven by deliberate policy choices.

07:18 – Exxon Mobil Ahead of Schedule in Doubling LNG Portfolio, Executive Says

10:41 – PetroChina Books Record Profit as Natural Gas and Fuel Demand Soar

13:58 – Oil settles higher as Russia orders output cuts, geopolitical tensions persist

16:26 – Shell sells interest in U.S. offshore wind joint venture as company refocuses on oil and gas

18:42 – Outro

Follow Stuart On LinkedIn and Twitter

Follow Michael On LinkedIn and Twitter

ENB Top News

Energy Dashboard

ENB Podcast

ENB Substack

– Get in Contact With The Show –

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

Michael Tanner: [00:00:14] What’s going on, everybody? Welcome in to the Tuesday, March 26th, 2024 edition of the Daily Energy News Beat stand up. Here are today’s top headlines. First up oil demand outpaces expectations. Testing calculus on peak crude oil. Great. I’m back in. I’m back in college now. We’re doing calculus to kill me. Next up, our favorite state. Don’t let California politicians gaslight you. Higher gas prices are driven by deliberate policy choices. A nice little op ed out of the, out of the state of California. Next up, Exxon Mobil, ahead of schedule in doubling its LNG portfolio, according to executives. We’ll finalize the news segment with Petro China booking record profits as natural gas and fuel demand absolutely soar. Stool. Then toss it over to me. I will quickly cover what’s going on in the oil and gas markets and touch on Shell’s and touch on Shell’s selling its interest in U.S offshore wind joint venture as company refocuses on oil and gas. You can’t make this stuff up, folks. We’ll cover all of that in a bag of chips, guys. As always, I’m Michael Tanner, joined by Stuart Turley, the, editor and purveyor of energy news beat.com. Where do you want to begin? [00:01:35][80.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:01:36] Hey, let’s get rolling over here at Peak oil. Oil demand outpaces expectation testing calculus on peak crude. You know we keep doing peak crude. And everybody’s saying, have we reached peak crude in the Permian. And I think we’re not even close. Here’s what you know, we talked about this last week a little bit. Amir Nassir is CEO of Saudi Aramco. We should abandon this fantasy of phasing out oil and gas. This is one we didn’t talk about. Was Russell Hardy, the CEO of v toll, the global oil trader? He had said the same kind of thing. Peak oil and consumption to oil 2030s because of downgraded expectations and the adoption of electric vehicles. Michael, this is just an absolute trend. And then there’s also, oil governor, governor Group expects an increase of 1.4 million barrels per day this year. To refer to figure to figure. Would you you like, says the consensus is, expectation about 1.5 million in demand, but argues there’s considerable upside to risks. What are your thoughts on demand? [00:03:02][85.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:03:03] Well, I mean, it’s clear that we’re probably going to see demand slightly higher than supply. I think that’s the current sentiment right now, considering where oil prices are. You’ve got all of these different, you know, oil traders, Trafigura, Gunvor, they’re all in the same in, down the same gun barrel is that, you know, really the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas? Is it coming? And we need to make sure that we have enough demand. I see, you know, demand somewhere in that 1.3 to 1.5 million range. That’s not going to shock anybody. I’m always going to be a little bit higher than what the IEA says. I mean, they still the IEA in their defense still has demand rising by 1.3 million barrels a day, which was clearly less than, last year’s 2.2 million. Right. Where’s that extra growth going to come from this year? You know, we talked a lot last week about AI and some of that stuff. So I don’t know how much crude oil demand you’re going to see from the increase today. You’re going to see probably a lot more than that gas and LNG demand. But there is something to be said about where is that energy going to come from? You know, I think all eyes are going to be on India as they continue to grow, grow, grow, buy cheap Russian oil, continue to, to increase. I think, you know, you know, Helen Curry, she’s the chief economist over ConocoPhillips pointed out, you know, really what you need to do is look at where the emerging market growth is going to come from. It’s probably going to be India. The other thing is, what are EVs going to do depending on that route. So I think there’s a lot of different stuff. I’m going to take the over on the IEA number though. Trust me, I. [00:04:35][92.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:04:36] Loved her comment there. Her quote we’re looking for another record high in world demand. I like your comment. All right. Let’s roll to the next one here. Let’s go to our favorite third world country, California. Don’t let California politicians gaslight you. Higher gas prices are driven by deliberate policy choices. There’s some couple good things in here, and I want to just give a shout out. This came from the OC Register. So, I mean, this is not some kind. Yeah. Publication. That’s just kind of going out there a little bit. Right wing type thing. So, the bottom line is that California’s policy changes are driving the high cost at the pump, and they’re continuing to do so. It might be easier to play the blame game with the facts or the facts. The state of California makes a lot of money off of a gallon of gas, more than the oil companies do. So, you know, you sit back and take a look. There’s there’s taxes on the EMV, there’s taxes on it being imported in. There’s taxes when it’s being drilled out of the rainforest. And guess who gets it in the drives through my home. It’s just unbelievable. [00:05:55][79.4]

Michael Tanner: [00:05:56] The consumer gets it through. You know it’s it’s it’s. [00:05:59][3.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:06:00] It’s a. [00:06:00][0.3]

Michael Tanner: [00:06:01] La times would gaslight their own readers. I would have never guessed that. [00:06:04][3.4]

Stuart Turley: [00:06:05] And and this one is just amazing. $1.83 a gallon in taxes. [00:06:11][6.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:06:13] That’s almost that’s almost what we were paying in Covid here in Texas. [00:06:17][3.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:06:19] Trump was $1.80 something that I just did a thing on it. And I took another picture, over the weekend, and it was in, Bruce Willis, death, or, what was the one where he was in, Nagasaki Tower. There was a picture of gasoline at $0.74. Die hard, the first Die Hard seven. Oh, yeah. [00:06:47][28.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:06:48] Since I was like, what are we talking about here? But yes, we lost. Oh. [00:06:53][5.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:06:53] Yeah. Oh, yeah. Here it is. Carb expects cost could increase another $0.47. So it’s almost going to even go up from Die Hard. [00:07:02][8.8]

Michael Tanner: [00:07:02] It was going to be $2. I do love, the O.C. Register. They’re they’re one of the few papers down in, southern California county that will actually read. Oh, yeah. It’s redneck part of California. Don’t don’t get me wrong. What’s next? [00:07:17][14.5]

Stuart Turley: [00:07:18] Hey, let’s go to our buddies over there to Exxon Mobil ahead of schedule and doubling LNG portfolio. Holy smokes. Not only is oil and gas not at peak, LNG is really taking off here. Exxon is revamping its LNG strategy amid growing production of the fuel as a wider corporate reorganization that began in 2022. Michael, I do want to share with you that in the news feeds that I get, you know, I get about two hours worth of reading in every day. You know, the number of bunkering LNG ships is going through the roof. Disney has just taken another cruise. Ship you. I would never want to go on a, cruise period. But no, you know, you can’t go on one because people would think that you’re Mickey is as they walk up and go, Mickey. So yeah, that was supposed to be funny, by the way. Yeah. You’re a great Mickey Mouse. It was. [00:08:23][65.1]

Michael Tanner: [00:08:23] Okay. It was okay. [00:08:24][0.8]

Stuart Turley: [00:08:25] So but LNG is becoming a fuel of choice and it meets the stringent, shipping. And there’s more shipping container coming around. Bunker is the infrastructure’s there. This is pretty cool. Here’s a quote. Our portfolio is never going to look like shells. It’s not going to look like totals. We’re targeting different aspects of the value chain, he told Reuters. [00:08:54][28.8]

Michael Tanner: [00:08:55] Well who and what does that specifically mean? It’s they’re going to be trading their own LNG, not necessarily other people’s LNG, as an intermediary and getting into the vital game in the Trafigura game, the gun ball game, they’re going to say, we’ve got enough LNG capacity ourselves to go ahead and pump it all through. So that’s the little bit of a difference that they’re going to have. I think they they could have a larger trading portfolio. But that Paul Clark I think is his name. Is it Paul? Peter Clark, Exxon senior vice president for global LNG, was basically saying that the margin in that business are basically small relative to what it can make of selling its own natural gas, which I think is actually interesting thing. You know, there’s more value in producing, liquefying and selling it, where those long term contracts still account for about 80% of the global trade. I love this quote, Stuart. He goes, the biggest component in the LNG space is obviously the commercialization of LNG yourself. It’s like what Elon said, anyone could build one rocket to go to Mars one time. It’s how do you manufacture thousands of those to keep going? And it’s in the manufacturing or the commercialization. Of an industry which allows you to scale from zero to. Large amounts. [00:10:14][79.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:10:15] I love to quote down in here from Clark and he spells his name Clark. The market is expanding and by 2050, 75% of global energy demand will be in Asia Pacific. So we are really focused in that area. I applaud them on their market strategies as well as long term growth. [00:10:38][23.4]

Michael Tanner: [00:10:39] Yeah, absolutely. What’s next? [00:10:40][1.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:10:41] Okay. Let’s go to our buddies over there at Petro China books. President XI new redundancy record profit as natural gas and fuel demand soar. You know, I think you can recognize this red net. Total revenues for Petro China slumped by 7% in 2023. And they’re up this year. The volumes processed by a crude jumped 15.3% year over year. Jet fuel soared by 77%. Production rose 14.4 and diesel output 8.9. Michael, here’s where I talked about this a few about a month ago. And that is that the, downstream capabilities of, China are, increasing downstream is increasing. And, Californian chatter heads are looking to import from China refined goods. [00:11:51][70.0]

Michael Tanner: [00:11:52] Yeah. It’s it’s, it’s it’s pretty crazy. I mean, everybody wants to go get their, their oil and gas from somewhere other than the United States. You know, I mean, this just goes to show that, you know, China’s going to continue, to dominate the market from a buying perspective. You know, they’re the the, the world’s top importer. You know, it is interesting to know that that the total revenues did slumped by 7%. But that’s mainly due to international oil and gas prices, which affects their upstream unit volumes up. We also saw the same thing happened with with the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company, which saw its net profit in 2023, slipped by 12.5% again due to those international prices. So, I mean, they’re going to be taking a long over there, but as long as they keep buying, it’s it’s not really going to matter now. [00:12:39][46.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:12:40] They’re still buying everything they possibly can. Now what do you think that Russia’s, the Ukraine attack in Russia on their refined products, is going to do because that drove oil up, if I remember right, today, there was some things going on. [00:12:59][19.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:13:00] Well, yeah. No, we we did see oil prices, Bob. We’ll go ahead and and roll over to finance then. But before we do that we’ll quickly pay the bills here. Guys. As always, the news and analysis you just heard, brought to you by the world’s greatest website, www.energynewsbeat.com. The best place for all your energy and oil and gas news doing the team do a tremendous job keeping that website up to speed. Everything you need to know to be the tip of the spear when it comes to the energy business. Check out dashboard.EnergyNewsBeat.com The best place for all your data and energy news. Com we’ll go ahead and hit the description below. Links to the articles, all of the different timestamps so you can jump back here. Hear what we just talked about ExxonMobil. Or jump ahead and hear what’s going on with shell and the wind business. Or just go ahead and skip the end of the show because you like your honest sign off. Whatever floats your boat. Again, as always, guys, check us out. Energynewsbeat.com. [00:13:54][53.8]

Michael Tanner: [00:13:56] Go ahead and moving over to the finance section guys. Oil closing settles higher mainly off Russia ordering output cuts and geopolitical tensions persisting. We saw US markets from an S&P 500 standpoint down three quarters. down 3/10 of a percentage point. Nasdaq also down about 3/10 of a percentage point. Big news today is Boeing CEO and entire management team just absolutely gets waxed. And so they’ll. [00:14:21][25.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:14:21] as well they should. [00:14:22][0.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:14:23] As well. They should. I’m not you know I’m flying Airbus as much as I can. We also saw ten year year, or two year and ten year yield stay fairly flat, about 0.04 percentage points and 0.05 percentage points. We saw Bitcoin up four percentage points. As I mentioned, crude oil on the WTI side actually up about 1.64 percentage points 8195. Brant oil actually stays fairly flat 8687 again mainly due to the fact that that Russia ordering those output cuts really ironically only affects the WTI price relative to Brant, which is absolutely, hilarious. So more of a regression to mean to give you guys an idea. Brant up about 11% this year, WTI up about 12.5 percentage points a little bit of. A spread trade there. Moscow came out today and ordered companies to reduce oil output in the second quarter to meet production targets of 9 million barrels per day by the end of June, in line with its pledges, via OPEC plus Hill Flynn out of rice futures group. Russia’s committed to the OPEC cut. They’re looking beyond the current supply demand fundamentals and looking for unity with OPEC. Plus you know we saw some crazy stuff happening in in Russia over the weekend. in terms of of the attacks they had locally. So it’s going to be interesting to see from a geopolitical standpoint how they respond that we have seen some more Russian oil refineries have some of their capacity knocked offline due to continued drone strikes over the weekend. You know, they’ve got about I mean, you know, this is out a Reuters to about 7% of their total refining capacity has been cut off line. So you know we’re we’re dancing on a razor’s edge here. You know, we also are hoping to adopt a resolution demanding the cease fire, there in Palestine with Israel and Hamas. Who knows where that goes? You know, the oil prices are sort of teetering on that, but, you know, good strength. Early on this Monday, we love to see a good $81 in. And and nobody’s going to complain about that. Especially shell great day to announce that they go ahead and sell their interest in U.S offshore wind joint venture as company refocuses on oil and gas. To give you guys an idea shell New Energies ventures, which is, you know, is a subsidiary, Shell New Energies USA, LLC. They’ve sold their 50% equity share in the South Coast wind energy project to the joint venture partner that they had, Ocean Wind North America. And this was ironically, this is one of those Nimby stew not in my backyard. They’re trying to build this power player. They’re trying to build this proposed offshore wind farm in the US federal, waters, about 30 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard and 33 miles south of Nantucket, Massachusetts. Apparently, they’re going to have a, the goal was to have a capacity of about 20 400MW, covering around, 127,000 acres, which, I mean, is Guy, when you just think about that, guys, the amount of energy you can you the amount of oil that can produce 20 400MW does not take up 12, 120,000 acres specifically sitting offshore. So it’s it’s pretty unbelievable. [00:17:37][193.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:17:39] And then carbon does not ever make it to net zero. By the time these things fail out on mean time between failure doesn’t happen. [00:17:52][13.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:17:54] Yeah, absolutely. Well, I also think that, I was going to say I, I also think that, you know, it’s good for the bird population. They’re trying to keep the bird population down out there. So, we. Absolutely. [00:18:06][12.6]

Stuart Turley: [00:18:07] And I know you don’t mind killing the whales, but I do. Glenn Wright, senior vice president of Shell Energy, says we’re grateful to Ocean Winds for their years of partnership with this venture and continue to seek opportunities for more energy with fewer emissions. [00:18:22][15.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:18:25] It’s absolutely unbelievable. As the door. [00:18:28][3.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:18:29] Closes. [00:18:29][0.0]

Michael Tanner: [00:18:30] There’s the door closes. Hey, shell taking it seriously, their CEO said we’re shifting back to oil and gas. Here’s another, you know, believe him when he says it. Trust me. [00:18:38][7.8]

Stuart Turley: [00:18:38] Oh, yeah. They gotta make money somehow. [00:18:40][1.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:18:41] Absolutely. What else you need? [00:18:43][1.7]

Stuart Turley: [00:18:43] Well, I tell you, I our hearts go out for the folks in affected and in Russia. I’m, nobody should be putting up with terrorism. Nobody. And it’s just the, Russian people that are hit by. I believe ISIS has been claiming it. Now. Terrorism sucks in all forms. [00:19:04][20.3]

Michael Tanner: [00:19:05] Consumer always takes it in the shorts, whether it’s here in the U.S, whether it’s in Russia, whether it’s abroad, you know, and we stand with the people. Yeah. So with that guys, we’ll let you get out of here, get back to work, start your Tuesday. Appreciate everybody checking us out. World’s greatest, energy news website, energy news beat.com. We’ll see you tomorrow, folks. [00:19:05][0.0][1097.6]

– Get in Contact With The Show –

The post Daily Energy Standup Episode #337 – Oil Demand Surpasses Expectations, California Gas Prices, Exxon’s LNG Expansion, PetroChina’s Record Profits, and Shell’s Strategic Shift first appeared on Energy News Beat.

The post Daily Energy Standup Episode #337 – Oil Demand Surpasses Expectations, California Gas Prices, Exxon’s LNG Expansion, PetroChina’s Record Profits, and Shell’s Strategic Shift appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

The Monday Morning gang is at it again. Irina, Tammy, David, and Stu have a special guest: Tom Nelson! We are talking about his new movie, Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) – Tom Nelson. We have a preview and will take LIVE questions on X, LinkedIn and YouTube. Buckle up, bring your popcorn, and ask questions. – See you Monday.

Critical Links:

https://irinaslav.substack.com/

https://theenergynewsbeat.substack.com/

 

Highlights of the Podcast

01:59 – About Tom Nelson’s movie
07:39 – The co-founder of Greenpeace
09:59 – The climate alarmisms are being manipulated in the Antarctic
14:39 – The Copernicus satellite data
17:15 – The data manipulation
20:01 – The climate alarmist
21:54 – The warmest year ever in the whole history of the world
22:27 – Wind and solar are the least intermittent of energy sources
24:17 – The IPCC report
26:36 – The UN with the world economic
28:15 – Climate change is going to cause food inflation
33:41 – Canada, the EU and the UK are going full net zero
35:42 – New climate reality’ stretches global freshwater supply
39:20 – The communist system in China
40:45 – Oil demand keeps rising
48:54 – The carbo
52:28 – Fury after Exxon chief says the public to blame for climate futures

 

 

 

The Podcast Hosts for The Energy Realities

International Author writing about energy, mining, and geopolitical issues. Bulgaria
Principal at DB Energy Advisors, energy author, and podcast host.Principal at DB Energy Advisors, energy author, and podcast host.

Energy Consulting Specialist
Stuart Turley
President, and CEO, Sandstone Group, Podcast Host

Blubrry Podcast:

 

 

 

March 18th: Energy Realities – Resurgence of Natural Gas Plants – A Live talk

 

Energy Realities – Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) – Tom Nelson LIVE: 8:00 AM Monday

 

Stuart Turley [00:00:02] We are live.

Irina Slav [00:00:03] Everyone we live. At the Energy Realities podcast with David Blackmon, Tammy Nemeth, Stuart Turley and a very special guest today. That’s Tom Nelson. He is a climate and energy podcast and the producer of a new documentary, Climate The Movie, which released last week and has made a splash already. Welcome, Tom.

Tom Nelson [00:00:28] Thanks for having me on here. I’m looking Forward.

David Blackmon [00:00:31] Yes, Tom, you already have people trying to ban you.

Irina Slav [00:00:34] Exactly. I’ve done something right. Yeah, it’s it’s a really excellent movie. And I suggest that we see a clip of it now Stu, if you please.

Video Narrator [00:00:46] Both in the name of climate change and Covid, have sparked protests in Britain, Canada and other Western countries, anti-establishment politicians and movements are gaining support.

Video Female [00:01:01] What they. What they underestimated was the fury that this would beat with ordinary people. They just say, you can’t do this. You suddenly got this new movement.

Video Narrator [00:01:12] Many working people are not merely skeptical, but positively angry about the climate alarm and all that flows from it. There was a suspicion or perhaps realization that climate change isn’t invented.

Stuart Turley [00:01:25] I love the truck.

Video Narrator [00:01:26] Self-interest and snobbery cynically promoted by a parasitic, publicly funded establishment hungry for ever more money and power. An assault on the freedom and prosperity of the rest of us. Punitive and restrictive policies carried out both in the name of climate change and the.

Stuart Turley [00:01:50] There you go.

David Blackmon [00:01:51] Okay. That’s it.

Irina Slav [00:01:52] That’s it. This doesn’t really do it justice. You really need to watch the whole movie, everyone. Tom, tell me how. How hard was it to make this movie?

Tom Nelson [00:02:04] It was really easy for me to make this movie because Martin freakin did all the work. He really did. Yeah, he’s really good at this. I watched him do it, but, yeah, he gets all the credit for figuring out, who to interview. He did the interviews, he wrote the script, he did the narration. All. All the important editing. So, yeah, he just did a great job. And the whole reason I got connected with him is because he did, 2007, The Great Global Warming Swindle. And I think that holds up really well. I was a big fan of that. So then I had him on my podcast in October of 22, and just out of the blue, he said, you know, I would like to remake that. Knowing what I know now, I would like to do another one. And that really perked up my ears and started working with him. It took him about one year from when he started to well, when he finished. Yeah, I give him all the praise in the world because I think he’s the right guy to make this movie at the right time.

Irina Slav [00:02:51] He really has done an excellent job. And, I’ve been meaning to ask this if, you know. Of course. Were there any scientists who refused to talk to to you or to him?

Tom Nelson [00:03:08] I don’t know. Yeah.Yeah. I don’t know the answer. I don’t know for sure who was invited and who didn’t agree. But enormous amounts of people. Did I agree to be on the on the show? And I think it’s great. Will soon. I mean, there’s the whole long list of a dozen plus people. We had, Nobel Prize winner John Clauser. He just won the Nobel in physics in 2022. I think it’s so great that he took the time to be part of this movie. So, yeah. Yeah, I’m very happy that, so many people volunteered their time. And that’s one thing that kept the cost of the movie down as people volunteered to be part of it.

Irina Slav [00:03:41] So do you think they need to speak out more than before?

Tom Nelson [00:03:45] Yeah, yeah. I think people are realizing it’s just so important to speak out, because this thing has gotten so crazy, just so far off the rails. They want to control everything we eat and everything we do. And yeah, they want the central bank digital currency, to put us in digital prisons or whatever. It’s just completely crazy. So I think even way more than 2007, people realize that now is the time to push back because we let them, put these systems in place, then it’s going to be hard to get rid of them. So I think this is the right time. And I’m happy that so many people are waking up to the danger of all these ridiculous, alleged solutions because of course, none of that stuff is going to affect. It’s not going to make the weather or climate better at all. It’s all pain and no gain. So yeah, now, at the time.

Tammy Nemeth [00:04:28] I heard that there was, I think it was maybe al Gore or somebody was on the other day saying that this is a long term thing. It’s generations. And so we shouldn’t be paying so much attention to, the little things we’re doing now because we’re not going to see the results until much further down the line, which, I mean, that’s cold comfort.

David Blackmon [00:04:50] Never. Yes.

Irina Slav [00:04:53] Oh, that’s clever, that’s clever. Because you never going to see any results. You’ll never see it. Right. Yeah. Yeah, it’s going to be results.

Tom Nelson [00:05:01] Okay. I need a volunteer I missed, like, there’s just silence for the last 30s. I don’t know what happened.

Tom Nelson [00:05:08] I don’t know if I need to come back in, but, yeah, I couldn’t tell if you knew.

David Blackmon [00:05:11] Right from now, can you hear?

Tom Nelson [00:05:12] I can hear people speaking. But yeah. When you played that clip earlier at the intro, I heard nothing. I couldn’t tell what was happening there.

Stuart Turley [00:05:19] It played great.

Tom Nelson [00:05:21] Okay. All right. So if you maybe describe what happened or let me know because I’m in the dark. What just happened here?

Stuart Turley [00:05:26] Well, that means you’re married.

Tom Nelson [00:05:28] Okay, I am okay.

Stuart Turley [00:05:31] Men are in the dark.

David Blackmon [00:05:34] Tom. What? One criticism I saw on Twitter, that I think responded to my post. Would I put it up and link to it and praised it? One response I got back was from a lady who said, well, it’s you know, it’s just a bunch of old white guys sitting around talking. Yeah. I mean, and you talked about a little of this. We have a Nobel Prize winner, right? We have Doctor Linson, who is a professor at both Harvard and MIT. During his career, I, you know, this isn’t just a bunch of old hacks, is it?

Tom Nelson [00:06:08] No, I mean, it’s just a way, I think, to avoid talking about the real issue is if you’re going to throw Clouser out because he’s old and white and forget the fact that the reason he got the Nobel is because he proved Einstein wrong about this whole thing about quantum entanglement. Einstein thought it was, spooky action at a distance in the 30s. And so Clauser went in there to improve by experimentation, maybe to prove that Einstein was right. But through experimentation, he proved that Einstein was wrong. And he won the Nobel for that. But now we’re just going to throw this guy out because he’s old and white, because of how old his age and the color of his skin. We’re not going to listen to anything else he’s saying. That’s just completely crazy. I’m not, not taking that as an argument.

Stuart Turley [00:06:47] You know, Tom.

Tammy Nemeth [00:06:48] Really soon is really soon. An old white guy. What about Claire Fox?

David Blackmon [00:06:55] Yeah.

Irina Slav [00:06:56] Yeah, there are not enough of them in the movie, I’m sure. Yeah,.

Tammy Nemeth [00:07:00] Well, James Hansen, who they cite all the time, isn’t here. The old white guy.

Tom Nelson [00:07:06] Again, I’m not hearing anything here, but.

David Blackmon [00:07:08] Oh, no. What’s going on?.

Tom Nelson [00:07:10] I don’t know, maybe it’s when Tammy speaking, I don’t know.

Tammy Nemeth [00:07:14] I think it is.

Stuart Turley [00:07:16] Well, you know, the. Tom, can you. If you can hear me now, I.

Tom Nelson [00:07:20] Can hear you.

Stuart Turley [00:07:21] Okay. One of the cool things, is that your interview with, doctor, Patrick Moore. I’ve had the pleasure of visiting with him. He is one cool cat. I’ve had two, two hour, podcasts with him. He is a true warrior. As a co-founder of Greenpeace, for the first 15 years, he was trying to end nuclear proliferation. Wow. I even said that. Right, Tammy? Don’t laugh. And so, then he was out in front of a zodiac trying to stop things. But yet when Greenpeace went nutty, he bailed. Then he wrote his books. He is a class act I. Loved what he said on your movie. Fantastic.

Tom Nelson [00:08:09] Yeah. He’s incredibly smart. And there’s this whole thing where he was co-founder of Greenpeace. And then. I don’t know if you know this, that Greenpeace went and tried to airbrush him off the internet. They went back in there so that you can’t find it anymore. But Marc Morano went back with the Wayback Machine. If you look with the Wayback Machine, there’s all sorts of websites that say, hey, here’s Patrick Moore, he is the co-founder of Greenpeace. But it was so inconvenient that he was that they I tried to again, they go back in history and try to try to get rid of stuff that they don’t like. Pretty amazing. Another great point about him is that he wrote this book, Fake Invisible Catastrophes, about all this stuff that’s supposed to be happening on the other side of the world that we can check on. He wrote this great book, and there’s a guy named Jasper Montagu who’s featured heavily in the movie at the end. He was kind of on the Greenpeace side. He was buying into this narrative. Then he read Patrick Moore’s book, and then his eyes were opened. And he’s a smart guy. He quickly flipped to the side of reason, and now he’s a great voice for reality and Africa and a great voice for climate reality. Reality and energy reality both. So that’s just the real plus of Patrick writing this great book and influencing other people. So it makes me happy. That story makes me happy.

David Blackmon [00:09:20] Hey, Tammy, you might want to try logging out and then logging back in. Maybe something just got messed up in that process, because I’m sure Tom can hear you.

Tom Nelson [00:09:32] Maybe I should do that.

David Blackmon [00:09:34] No No no.

Irina Slav [00:09:36] We can all hear you.

Tom Nelson [00:09:37] Okay

Stuart Turley [00:09:38] Meanwhile, Tammy’s, logging out and logging in. I interviewed Fritz, Manning. He is now a on the, Energy coalition. CO2 coalition with Gregory right now. And I’ve interviewed, Gregory. But Fritz brought up some great points that the hunter, all of the climate alarmisms are being manipulated in the Antarctic. There’s like 20 or 30 sensors that he found, and the data is showing, Tom, that it is nuts that data manipulation is going on, and he’s got the data to show just because it’s some 70 degrees in one area doesn’t mean that it’s the hottest summer in the world, because they’re manipulating the data. And he found it.

Tom Nelson [00:10:34] That makes me happy that you mentioned him, because I didn’t know who he was till last week. And then I met him in person. I talked to him in person at the Premier over in the DC area for now. Okay. Yeah. Now we’re connected. I mean, I always suspected there was something going on funny with the Antarctic data, but I hadn’t looked into it. But now we have him, pointing out again that this is data is manipulated. And I just love the fact that there’s so many people that are digging into different parts of this scam, so it’s fantastic. I’d love to have him on my podcast, too, to talk about that.

Stuart Turley [00:11:01] Hey, I want to extend the invitation for both of you to come on mine as well too. So let’s spread the word. He’s. He is an absolute jewel.

Tom Nelson [00:11:10] Sounds good. Yeah, I really enjoyed as I traveled around, I was on the road for like 11 days. I went to London, then I went to Netherlands and to DC for these premiers. And I met so many people who, like Fritz that have dug into different parts of it. There’s one guy who spent a lot of time looking in a sea level changes, and he’s telling me all this interesting stuff about how sea level is not just a monotonic thing, where it goes up a little bit every year, that there’s cycles in sea level, all sorts of cycles that I was not aware of. And you can’t just, take a low point in a cycle and another high point and say, look, we’re going to it’s going to keep going like this for 2000 years because it’s moving up. It’s moving down, and it’s very complicated. It’s not a simple CO2 related thing, you know.

Irina Slav [00:11:50] How’s the reception of the movie being like these premieres?

Tom Nelson [00:11:54] Yeah, it’s been really good. We had especially in the Netherlands, we have 571 people there. And, the Q&A was really good. So many people were very well informed about what’s happening. And, and, one thing that made me happy is as I went through all these premieres, I had a chance to talk to a lot of people afterwards. For hours, we would talk to people, and there were people there that would attend. They were just there with their spouse or something, and they were not into the climate debate. So I like talking to those people. And a lot of them said, you know, I haven’t really looked into these arguments, but, watching this movie for 80 minutes made me really think about it. And now I kind of understand why my spouses, feel so strongly about this. So, yeah, very, very positive. And the criticisms, some of them say the movie is too long, and then some say the movie is too short. I mean, the whole thing is that’s the thing. We had 80 minutes and all sorts of people would come up and say to me, oh boy, here’s my one pet thing. I wish the movie would have spent a bunch of time on this, but that’s just the way it goes. You know, the climate debate is so complex we can’t we could not cover the whole thing, and it’s more of a jumping off point. I keep telling people that if you’re interested in just what will happen, sad or any little thing, then, you can just use this movie as a jumping off point and then you have to dig into it for yourself. And a lot of people in the movie, I’ve interviewed them at great length, even on my podcast. So you can go here. Well, happy hour talk for a couple of hours and on a couple of different podcast if you want to really dig into what he says.

Irina Slav [00:13:15] Well, maybe you should just do a part two at some point.

Tom Nelson [00:13:18] Maybe. Yeah. Martin has said this is his last movie, but already I think it’s not so. Maybe it will be. Yeah. Yeah.

Irina Slav [00:13:27] Tom Can you hear me? Tom, can you hear me? I don’t think he can hear.

David Blackmon [00:13:32] He still can’t hear you. Tammy. I don’t know what’s what’s going on.

Stuart Turley [00:13:37] You look nice Tammy, Tammy look very nice.

Tom Nelson [00:13:38] I can’t hear or see her.

David Blackmon [00:13:41] Oh, you can’t see her either?

Tom Nelson [00:13:42] Nope. I just see her name. That’s it.

Irina Slav [00:13:44] Oh, that’s really weird.

David Blackmon [00:13:46] Oh, this is so strange.

Stuart Turley [00:13:47] Okay, it’s. The UK does not like Tammy or Tom.

Irina Slav [00:13:52] Or maybe in the movie. Well, maybe you could, you know, ask you a question that David could relate to Tom or something.

David Blackmon [00:14:00] There you go.

Tammy Nemeth [00:14:02] Okay, so, David, can you ask this for me? I’m wondering, since some people are looking at the Antarctic data, who’s looking at all the satellite data? Because I know that there’s issues in calibration. And Copernicus, which is the EU, satellite data sets. The numbers are crazy, and I don’t see how these are reliable. But Roy Spencer, for example, talked about we have all this satellite data and this is so great. I’m not so sure going forward it will be as reliable as maybe it has been in the past.

David Blackmon [00:14:36] Tammy wants to know if anyone is taking a look at the reliability of the Copernicus satellite data. Like they are, the Antarctica data because, she’s seen some, some, wild things coming out of that data and just wonders, if there is any kind of similar process happening there.

Tom Nelson [00:14:56] Okay.

David Blackmon [00:14:57] Doctor Spencer talked about it in the movie.

Tom Nelson [00:14:59] But yeah, I don’t know the answer to that. That is something I need to dig into. I don’t know what’s happening there at all, actually.

Irina Slav [00:15:05] But if if there’s a suggestion that data is being manipulated in one place, I mean, it’s really easy to speculate that there is a possibility that data is being manipulated elsewhere as well. I’m not sure how possible it is to manipulate satellite data. I know nothing about technology whatsoever, but if the research possibility that’s that’s not good.

Tom Nelson [00:15:30] Yeah, I definitely think that we have to check out all the data. I don’t trust the yeah, the Arctic sea ice data. I don’t trust any of it. I think all of it needs to be looked at. And, Willy soon had this interesting as thing he was talking about. I, he knows this guy who was downloading the temperature records kind of every day he was downloading. He had many, many copies of the same what was supposed to be the same temperature data, but it was constantly changing on a daily basis, like certain temperatures from the 1930s. At certain stations, they were changing over and over, just in unexplained ways, just completely wacko that, here we are, whatever. Many, many decades later, that’s, raw temperatures from the past. You’re just changing and willy nilly, it’s, really makes me wonder about what’s happening. Yeah. What’s going on here?

David Blackmon [00:16:13] That all started in the Obama administration. We had a congressman here from San Antonio whose name I’m going to forget now, who was the chairman of the House Science Committee, held a series of hearings about. No, going back in and revising, quote, revising, the the global temperature records kept there, during the Obama years. And, every revision they made seemed to make it appear that, the past was cooler than it really was. And, and it was obviously a pretty organized effort to create a case for global warming now happening in more recent years. Lamar Smith, was the chairman of that committee whose name I was trying to remember. And, of course, he was, completely demonized and smeared in the media and ended up, eventually just retiring from Congress because he didn’t want to put up. With it anymore. Yeah.

Tom Nelson [00:17:11] I do think that Tony Heller may be the single best person online to really dig into the data manipulation and look at how the past just gets cooled everywhere. He does a wonderful job at that.

David Blackmon [00:17:22] Yep, yep. I was glad you had Willie soon on too. He’s so entertaining. It’s good. I think, to have someone like him as a spokesperson for reality, because he is very entertaining and he makes people chuckle when they’re listening to him. And I think that’s an important thing to hold people’s attention to this very dry subject matter. Right? I mean, it is a difficult subject matter. You can’t. One of the big problems I thank is you can’t communicate the truth about all this in 50 words or less, like the other side can with its talking points, right? I mean, so much of it is about effective messaging.

Tom Nelson [00:18:02] One thing that makes me really happy about this movie, about the 80 minutes, is that there are so many clips. Are there so many one minute clips, like just, maybe a little more than a minute on the, urban heat island showing the map of Paris and how it can be five degrees centigrade warmer in the middle than versus the outskirts, all sorts of different clips. And I’m already pulling out some of those and putting them, online so that people can download a clip that they like. Maybe there’s some sort of discussion happening somewhere. They can download the just the one minute thing and then upload that. And I want to see those clips I get to put online in lots of different places. I think that’s going to help a lot.

Stuart Turley [00:18:34] Yeah. Irina, here’s a question for Tom from a LinkedIn user.

David Blackmon [00:18:43] Tom. Can you see that?

Tom Nelson [00:18:44] I can see it. I can read it. Yeah.

Stuart Turley [00:18:46] That for our podcast listeners. Because this does go out onto all channels. Tom, I’d love to hear your thoughts on these weather forecasting models and simulators that are mainstream media meteorologists seem to put so much faith in. Do you see meteorologists getting displaced by climatologists up and down our vertically? Integrated? I lost my place.

David Blackmon [00:19:13] Years. Case in point, NBC has a climate team now reporting on hurricanes and blizzards impacting the United States. Yeah, so that’s every other major media outlet

Tom Nelson [00:19:25] Yeah. I mean, I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know why you’d have a climate team that’s looking at weather that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. I do think that, experienced meteorologists like Joe Bastani is one who really has looked at the history of weather and dug into it. And, of course, he doesn’t use, CO2 levels at all to try to figure out what’s going to happen in two days from now in a certain area. So, yeah, it seems totally bonkers. They even use the word climate anywhere in there. That’s all I know.

David Blackmon [00:19:51] Hey, even better, the Washington Post has a fella on staff they’re paying big money to whose job title is climate advice columnist. He’s the Dear Abby of the climate alarmist.

Irina Slav [00:20:02] I was the climate advisor. Like.

David Blackmon [00:20:05] I it’s just amazing. He’s. He tells people how they need to be living their lives to be responsible.

Irina Slav [00:20:14] Like, recycle and use less water and stuff.

David Blackmon [00:20:18] Travis. Lynn. Travis. I think Travis Lynn was the person who was.

Irina Slav [00:20:23] One asking.

David Blackmon [00:20:24] Those that. Question. Yeah.

Irina Slav [00:20:26] But speaking of meteorologists, the the United Nations World Meteorological Organization just came out with a new report saying that 2023 was the hottest year on records. And records were not just broken, but smashed in some cases. So, what’s your comments on this?

Tom Nelson [00:20:44] Yeah, I, I’ve been heavily reading about the climate debates, kind of every day for hours, most days since 2007 or so. And I hear this all the time that whatever, it’s the hottest month ever. Hottest year ever. They’ve been saying that regardless, I don’t remember a year that they didn’t say was the hottest year ever. And I constantly I’m putting that up on Twitter as a sarcastic thing. Hottest year ever as a hashtag. Because no matter what, they keep saying that. So I don’t put any faith into it. This last year actually was a little warmer, I think maybe because of that volcanic eruption putting more water vapor into the higher reaches of the atmosphere. So but anyway, every single warm, warm cycle we’ve had has been followed by a cool cycle. And the whole idea, it’s going to just keep getting warmer and warmer forever, or if they’re going to become uninhabitable, blah, blah, blah. Of course, it’s a total crock. It’s not happening.

David Blackmon [00:21:32] A great, great example of how it gets erroneously reported. Susan Page is a reporter for NPR. She used to work at the Washington Post. Very senior DC based political reporter was on the Fox News panel last Friday night on their nightly newscast. And she said that last year was reported to be the warmest year ever in the whole history of the world.

Irina Slav [00:22:00] Okay. Oh my gosh.

David Blackmon [00:22:01] Well, we only have records going back to, what, 19 or 1860 something, right? So obviously there was a little history before then that we don’t know about. I mean, it’s just that this the way it gets thrown out at us is so misleading and really depraved. And a lot. Of it, they just.

Irina Slav [00:22:21] They no longer care if it’s plausible at all. I mean, we had the, the, the, the head of Irina saying that wind and solar are the least intermittent of energy sources. Said that’s all seriousness at an event, at a public event. And I don’t think anyone challenged him.

David Blackmon [00:22:39] You’re right. No one. Challenges.

Irina Slav [00:22:41] Right? That’s the that’s the biggest problem. Nobody. Okay.

David Blackmon [00:22:44] Tammy’s back. Let’s see if you can hear now.

Irina Slav [00:22:48] Can you hear me now, Tom? Now I know you still can. Can’t you see this is the time?

Tammy Nemeth [00:22:55] Discrimination. What?

David Blackmon [00:22:56] I hate technology.

Stuart Turley [00:22:58] But at least you still look nice to me.

Irina Slav [00:23:02] But you can’t see it either.

David Blackmon [00:23:06] Can’t see it either.

Tammy Nemeth [00:23:08] Okay, but can I. Okay. Can you. You can make this point to him then. But the World Meteorological Organization is a U.N. body. And so you have all of these U.N. bodies who are singing from the same song sheet. And so can you take anything they say with any credibility whatsoever?

David Blackmon [00:23:27] So the World Meteorological, organization organization is part of the U.N., and you have all these U.N. agency singing in unison, Tom, can can we take anything anyone at the U.N. says about any of this seriously?

Tom Nelson [00:23:44] No.

Tammy Nemeth [00:23:49] Good answer.

Tom Nelson [00:23:50] No. That’s kind of the end of my answer. Of course not. I mean, we have to investigate every single thing that they say because I do not trust them as far as I can throw them. I mean, of course, they’ve proven that recently, over and over, that there’s no reason anybody should trust them about anything.

David Blackmon [00:24:03] Is it? Is it so much of it? I read Stephen Keenan’s book unsettled. Fantastic book about all this, and and so much of it, you know, he goes through the IPCC reports and how they get rolled out. And when you actually read the IPCC report, you know, they’re not alarmist at all about any of this. They the IPCC reports themselves, don’t support anything that’s happening in our governments in terms of policy. But but so much of it is just the way it gets rolled out of those reports and the way al Gore and and John Kerry and all these alarmist spokespeople talk about all this stuff. Right? I mean, isn’t that really a big, big part of the problem?

Tom Nelson [00:24:47] Yeah, there’s the UN chief. He’ll talk about the IPCC and they’ll say, oh, this is a red alert for humanity or something about that. And we got to worry about global boiling and stuff. And of course, this underlying science doesn’t say anything about that. But then it gets reported as, oh yeah, IPCC thinks we’re experiencing global boiling or something. It’s just completely crazy again. I just can’t believe how crazy this thing has gotten. But, the truth is going to win out. I think the whole thing’s going to crumble, and it’s not going to take ten years. I think it’s going to crumble pretty, pretty fast.

David Blackmon [00:25:15]  I do. Too. Actually. I beginning to believe.

Irina Slav [00:25:18] I hope you’re right, because it is getting crazier by the day.

David Blackmon [00:25:23] It is. Yes.

Tom Nelson [00:25:24] It is. But, as I talk to all sorts of people online around the world, everywhere now, it’s just people are saying that, you know, I believe what the TV said four years ago, but now I’ve seen so many lies and I’m checking into the lies for myself. I’m hearing that story over and over, and that makes me so happy. A lot of people are coming. Yeah, they’re coming at the climate realism from a medical realism, standpoint, that there are a lot of doctors. I hear they have their own podcast and stuff, and they’re saying, hey, I believed in everything that they told us, you know, four years ago about the shots or whatever. And I checked into that, and now I’m looking around at other stuff, and I, I looked at climate and that doesn’t. So I’m not believing that either. So that’s very, I’m optimistic when I hear stuff like that.

Stuart Turley [00:26:07] Tom. When we take a look at the World Economic Forum and I think, quite honestly, that chatter had Schwab me to really get an examination. We’ll leave that alone. But when we sit back and take a look at if they feel that they’re losing, a grip on their, their reality, and it’s closely related to the UN with the world economic. It is closely related. In fact, Irina Slav and I had a podcast together about a year ago, and we were banned by the UN. We had a not only just a little flag on there. Do you remember that, Irina?

Irina Slav [00:26:52] Yeah.

Stuart Turley [00:26:53] It was like the I the you in you bad. I’m like, yeah, I’m a bad guy. If Schwab and the rest of the UN and the World Economic Forum form the world, the whole group is they feel they’re losing power. Do you see? It’s going to get even weirder.

Tom Nelson [00:27:21] Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think we’re already seeing that. I think that there’s desperation and that’s how we’re getting to this global boiling point. All this crazy stuff. I think that’s just pure desperation that they didn’t leave anything else that, you know, they just keep turning the knob up to 11 and 12 and 13 and, eventually they’re going to just stop trying. I think that’s I think so many people are scoffing. It makes me happy when I listen to, like, Joe Rogan. He used to believe in this stuff five years ago. And now when it comes up, he’s talking to Aaron Rodgers, he’s talking to Alex Berenson, and they’re not talking about climate. But then it comes up on the side. And when it does come up they’re scoffing at it. I’m hearing a lot of scoffing coming from these big time podcasters. And again, that makes me happy that, we’re making we’re, making headway here.

Irina Slav [00:28:04] This is really great to hear because I’ve been thinking and arguing the same thing. They’re getting increasingly desperate. The blaming not. Well, yeah. The latest I saw is that, climate change is going to cause food inflation.

Stuart Turley [00:28:19] Yeah, of course.

Irina Slav [00:28:20] I mean the transition, it will be climate change.

Tom Nelson [00:28:25] Yeah. No. Who’s buying that? If you look at the data and all the data that the course, the crop yields are going way up, they have up and to the right the whole idea that CO2 is slightly longer growing seasons and a little more food is going to cause our wheat to not grow as well. People are not that dumb. They’re not going to buy that.

Irina Slav [00:28:41] Yeah, because of droughts and floods and hurricanes and whatever. .

Tammy Nemeth [00:28:46] Decisions are diminishing. The, you know, crop outcomes.

David Blackmon [00:28:50] Exactly. .

Tammy Nemeth [00:28:52] They’re not Reducing. Yeah.

David Blackmon [00:28:55] Yeah, Tell me just pointed out that they are on policy decisions. Are are causing that to happen actually.

Tom Nelson [00:29:01] Right?

Tammy Nemeth [00:29:02] Yeah. Then they blame climate change.

David Blackmon [00:29:04] Yeah. Yeah. And then they.

Irina Slav [00:29:05] Global warming, climate change, everything.

David Blackmon [00:29:09] Right. Yeah.But that goes to the point I think, Spencer was making about or maybe his lens and, about in the movie about the fact that you have this whole cottage industry where government is wanting to get studies from academia, with a predetermined outcome, and all the money’s going into that. And so you get academic all these academics at the research universities, you know, going after all this, this government money, all this funding to further their careers and, and feather their nest and create the outcomes, you know, the government wants. So every literally every study, if you just make a, a reference about, you know, the mating habits of tree frogs in China and how that’s impacted by climate change, that’s how you get the money. I mean, climate change has literally nothing to do with it, but it’s all about a big money grab. And that’s, I think that’s a great point. Yeah, that.

Irina Slav [00:30:05] Was one of the most enlightening parts of a very enlightening movie as a whole. Yeah, this this detailing of how inserting climate change into every study, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or any natural sciences. Is basically creating a whole. The industry is supporting this narrative because nobody would willingly be out of a job just because they’re telling the truth, so they’re not telling the truth.

Tom Nelson [00:30:34] So I think the pendulum has swung as far as it’s going to in an absolute crazy direction on you have to mention climates and then you’re going to get money. I think it’s going to start swinging the other way as everybody wakes up. And now, if you mentioned climate change later on, I don’t know when that’s exactly. But if you mention climate change, people are going to be less likely to give you money because they already know it’s a scam. I think that’s going to happen.

Irina Slav [00:30:54] Yeah, but the people giving the money right now are really rich, and they will keep giving the money to to buy themselves indulgences or whatever. They think they’re doing good. They are feeling important in supporting this sorry transition narrative transition push. But you’re right. I think people will start to get fed up with all this and they will somehow start reacting, hopefully.

Tom Nelson [00:31:21] That’s a good point. The people that are all in on this, they’re going to go to their graves and they’re not they’re not ever going to say, oh, we were wrong. And, I dedicated 50 years of my life. And it was all baloney, like the Bill gates of the world and, Michael Mann’s whatever. We’re not trying to reach those people, but there’s all sorts of other people that are more in the middle. Tons of people that I know, even I personally believed in this stuff. I wasn’t climate marching or anything, but there was a time when I actually believed in some of this stuff. Tony Heller was like that. He kind of believed that Anthony Watts, a lot of us used to believe in it. So that makes me, think that people can be shifted. Believers or casual believers for sure can come over to the side of reality. And I think we’re going to see a lot of that.

Irina Slav [00:32:01] I hope we are.

Tammy Nemeth [00:32:02] We have a conscience, Steve Koonin said. It was a career killer. I believe it still is a career killer in academic institutions. And so unless you get rid of that layer of people who are controlling the purse strings, who are the advisors who are pushing their students in that direction. I don’t see a fundamental change happening for unfortunately, a bit of a time lag there.

David Blackmon [00:32:31] Yeah. Tammy just said that it’s it’s been a career killer. It still is a career killer. And until you change the people controlling the purse strings, you can’t have a sea change in this, right? Because as long as the money’s there to to push things in one direction, you’re not ever going to really be able to start rolling this stuff back.

Tom Nelson [00:32:52] Yeah. I do

Irina Slav [00:32:54] Think people Like Clooney, who teaches his students actual facts. He’s not teaching them, but.

David Blackmon [00:32:59] How long can he keep his job doing That?

Irina Slav [00:33:02] I don’t know. That’s very good question.

Tom Nelson [00:33:05] It’s interesting that Koonin is able to keep his job doing that. And there’s a guy that’s been on my podcast a couple of times, Dave column. He’s a, I think, a chemistry prof at Cornell. It’s amazing. Cornell. He’s able to to be at Cornell. And he just gave, an optional class for an hour where he just ripped apart the climate scam in front of his class. It was an optional thing, but he still has his job. It makes me happy that he is allowed to speak out at a place like Cornell.

David Blackmon [00:33:30] Well, I bet he and Robert Howarth are not good buddies. We had a question from a from a viewer Canada, the EU and the UK are going full net zero. I don’t see it faltering in those jurisdictions. The premises on which decisions are being made are not being challenged, and the policies for net zero keep coming, even though small delays are introduced. And that that was, I think, right in line with Jeremy’s comment as well. I think that will taken yeah. That was maybe that was that was damning. Okay.

Tom Nelson [00:34:09] But I do see I think even in those countries as the real the terrible pain hits the real people in those countries. I mean, it’s hitting the farmers in the, in Europe and they’re, they’re protesting big time. Is this these crazy policies are causing them just terrible pain and they’re not taking it. I think the more pain there is, the more likely that people are going to rise up and throw the people out that are imposing this crazy climate cult pain on them.

Irina Slav [00:34:33] Yeah, that’s my hope. That’s all I hope.

Stuart Turley [00:34:36] And I guess this is more of just a real question. I have my opinion, but which is wrong 99% of the time. I did go to Oklahoma State University, but do you think that the climate movement is just a wealth transfer?

Tom Nelson [00:34:51] Yeah, I think there’s a ton of that. I mean, I do think a lot of people who are pushing this heavily totally believe in it, and they’ve convinced themselves that I’m getting up every morning and I’m saving the children of the world from a horrible CO2 induced danger. I think a lot of people have totally bought into it. So I think groupthink is a big part of it. But I do think there’s people at the top that know this is all B.S. and they’re just they want power and money. But I think there’s a lot of delusional people out there that believe it’s still well.

Irina Slav [00:35:20] And. Maybe. Here’s an example. If you could, Stu, if you could pull the the, the slide with the headlines.

Stuart Turley [00:35:34] You bet. Here we go. Is this you?

David Blackmon [00:35:35] It’s. That’s me.

Irina Slav [00:35:38] No. Yeah, that’s. That’s mine. Okay. The one I had in mind is the new climate reality stretches global freshwater supply. In keeping with the, point that they’re blaming everything on climate change. Now it’s freshwater supply shortage that is being blamed on climate change and on a growing population where demand for water is growing fast. Then, you know, everything else. It’s like this place is warming twice as fast as it was. Well, you know that, but, there was a point made in this story that drew my attention. That point was that agriculture consumes humongous amounts of freshwater, with the implication that this is a bad thing. How do you see. So, this attack on agriculture. Oh. Seriously.

Tom Nelson [00:36:36] Yeah. I mean, I was with this guy Marcel Kroc, who’s the great climate realist in the Netherlands, and he was driving me around and we were driving past all these wonderful farms in the Netherlands, and he was talking about how crazy it is that people are far away from there, and there are trying to shut down farming to try to prevent bad weather. I mean, the whole idea that we should shut down our food supply and to try to prevent hurricanes in the year 2060. People are not that stupid still, but, bureaucrats or somehow some people in power are that stupid. But this this is way too stupid to last for too long. I think the whole idea that, every time it doesn’t rain enough, every single time it doesn’t rain enough someplace. CO2 is the reason CO2 suppresses rain. And then right away, even in that same spot next day, if it rains too much o CO2 cause too much rain. These are kind of completely contradictory arguments. Again, people aren’t that stupid that this is not going to fly.

David Blackmon [00:37:33] Great question from Tami. At the end of the movie it was said this is a very much a political movement. To what end, in your opinion? The first question asked is usually, do you believe in climate change? That is a politically loaded question, is it not? And that’s that’s for you, Tom.

Tom Nelson [00:37:49] Yeah, I do think I don’t know if it’s really a blue versus red thing, but it’s definitely, insanity versus sanity and it’s, big government control versus freedom. I think it’s those two definitely that, people who want the government to control every aspect of our lives. Then they’re all in on this whole climate thing, because every single thing that we do, you can tie it into the climate. And yeah, the government can get bigger and bigger with more control over absolutely everything. We have to eat the bugs and we can’t eat the meat and all this other stuff, all this ridiculous stuff. So it is about all about control and freedom. And I think Martin makes a good point at the end where I think he’s showing the truckers and the talking about freedom and the whole idea of letting people restrict our freedom, to prevent bad weather. Then, it’s this is so crazy. It’s.

Stuart Turley [00:38:37] I love the trucker in your video. I’m sorry. With a big finger to Trudeau. That’s just way too cool. I love that truck. I’d like to buy him some coffee.

David Blackmon [00:38:49] Oh, effort to restrict freedom to fight climate change goes to a great piece I found at time magazine this morning, written by a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden. He’s a professor at the Institute of Housing and Urban Research. Okay. Which, of course has nothing to do with climate change, but I’m sure he’s done a government funded study relating it to climate change. Anyway, his his whole thesis, Tom, is that the communist system in China is the best system for, achieving the energy transition. And my whole response to that was, well, yeah, that’s what I’ve been saying for years now. And that’s why isn’t that why every solution we see in America, Europe or anywhere else advances the clause cause of, brutal socialism, right? It’s all command and control regulation posed as the solutions to every climate issue. So what what the net effect is, is it not? We’re moving Western governments further and further into a Chinese communist style of system to fight climate change. Isn’t that right?

Tom Nelson [00:40:04] Yeah. That’s it. You said it very well. I wouldn’t improve on what you said there that that is what’s happening. That’s, the. Yeah, we’re trying to prevent bad weather. And the solution is communism. You see all sorts of memes that say things like that. And yeah, that hits the nail right on the head. That’s what it is.

David Blackmon [00:40:19] Yeah. So he’s right. I mean, he’s absolutely right about that for all the wrong reasons.

Irina Slav [00:40:28] But meanwhile, oil demand needs to rise.

David Blackmon [00:40:32] Right. Exactly. For everything.

Irina Slav [00:40:34] Oh, explain this, Tom. After all these efforts being put into moving away from hydrocarbons, and because they’re dirty and bad and CO2, oil demand keeps rising even with all these people buying into the transition narrative.

Tom Nelson [00:40:52] Yeah, that’s a huge point. And it shows that they they’re not really buying into it. They say they’re buying into it, but almost nobody. Even people who are rabid. Warmoth even they can’t be bothered to actually behave as if they believe in it. There’s a guy named Matthew Poochie. He’s on he’s on Twitter. And if you’ve seen this guy, he’s a young Warmoth and he’s just constantly talking about balls. That CO2 is going to kind of kill us all. And about how fun it is to jump on a plane and go on a long haul flight on the weekends. He’s doing both of those things all the time. So all these people, as I travel around to Europe and, you know, all the airports are packed and all the planes are packed. People are just, they’re using hydrocarbon energy because it’s so great. They can’t be inconvenience themselves. It’s all about inconveniencing other people. And maybe the elites are. Don’t want the little people cluttering up the airports and all that stuff. It’s all about forcing a pain on everyone else and, leaving the, leaving the pleasure or the, the wealth to yourself. It’s all about that. Yeah.

David Blackmon [00:41:52] So we have a question from SRB. Tom, have you investigated the involvement of state funding of climate NGOs? Russia? Qatar? China? Oh, from Russia, Qatar? In China? Well, yeah. Yeah. Have you done that, Tom?

Tom Nelson [00:42:08] I’ve just heard the same rumors, probably as everybody else, but I have not investigated it. I don’t know the answer to that. I would not be surprised at all, but I don’t know any details.

David Blackmon [00:42:19] Putin has admitted, in public statements, to partially funding the whole anti-fracking movement beginning in 2008, to try to kill off the US shale industry in which he endorses counter to Russian interests. So, I mean, we know some of that is happening.

Tom Nelson [00:42:36] I have heard people saying that, like the people who are throwing soup on paintings and gluing themselves with stuff and blocking traffic, that some of them are just paid by the day to do that stuff. I don’t know if that’s true, but that again, would not surprise me.

David Blackmon [00:42:49] I think we’re seeing, a loss of patience with those people, aren’t we?

Tom Nelson [00:42:54] I think we are. I mean, there’s a good sequence in the movie where it happened maybe a couple of years ago, where there’s somebody on top of a tube or a train, and the working people just want to get their jobs, so they’re just drag the guy off so that they can get to their jobs. I love that. And also people like, just Stop Oil or whatever, they’re blocking the road so people can’t get to work. I think it is. It’s a war on the working class, and I like to see the working class fight back. And when those scenes were shown in some of the premieres, people in the audience were clapping because people like to see this fight back. We gotta fight back. And we can’t let these people, keep us from doing our jobs. And yeah, we got to make a living. Still, we can’t let that crap that was stop us.

Tammy Nemeth [00:43:31] On top of the train. That was just Stop Oil in the UK.

David Blackmon [00:43:35] Yeah. Tammy says that was the Just Stop Oil people in the.

Irina Slav [00:43:39] Oh, when they put one guy off the road off the train. Oh, yeah. That was great. That was brilliant.

David Blackmon [00:43:46]  Tammy. Tammy, I’m so sorry this is happening. Sorry. It’s difficult to trace the funds that get moved around a lot. From one group to another to another. Yeah. Money loses its characters. Like the Biden family. Strategy as well. Money loses its character. Was the conclusion from a forensic audit audit audit of NGOs in Canada. Yeah. Hide the money. Money laundering I think

Irina Slav [00:44:10] We have all the Billionaires pretty openly financing, just so Boyle and similar groups and probably problem themselves.

Tammy Nemeth [00:44:17] They are. Yeah.

Tom Nelson [00:44:18] Yeah, I seen some stuff about, Hollywood types. The guy that did maybe don’t look up. He is behind a group that’s funding climate defiance and climate defiance. Those are the people in the US that when, like Senator maybe mansions trying to talk their run, get it right in his face and swearing right into his face and stuff like that. They’re just doing all this stuff and getting away with it. But they are financed by Hollywood that I saw articles that said, yeah, we’re financing these people. So, yeah, I don’t know why we’re letting these people get away with it when they when they barge into places and stop speakers from speaking, I think we cannot allow them to do that.

David Blackmon [00:44:53] Yeah. Yeah.

Tammy Nemeth [00:44:55] They do it all the time. And they have been for the since, like, Occupy Wall Street.

David Blackmon [00:45:00] Yeah, Tammy makes the point that they do it all the time, and they’ve been doing that since the Occupy Wall Street movement started up in the early Obama years. 2008, 2009, which is absolutely right. I think that’s true.

Tom Nelson [00:45:17] I think a lot of these movements are kind of supported by the police, or at least the police kind of stand by and let them do stuff, let them do illegal stuff because.

David Blackmon [00:45:24] Yeah. And the people at the museums where they’re defacing the art, the only way they can do that, they’re bringing cans of soup in or cans of spray paint into a museum that has X-ray machines and all sorts of security to enter. They have to be getting the willing cooperation of the people who manage those art galleries and museums to be able to do that.

Stuart Turley [00:45:49] Are you saying there’s conspiracy theories?

David Blackmon [00:45:52] It’s no longer. It’s not a it’s not a conspiracy. It’s not a theory. If it’s standing in front of you slapping your stupid face.

Stuart Turley [00:45:59] And you know what? The difference between a conspiracy and a theory is now.

David Blackmon [00:46:05] 3 to 6 months.

Stuart Turley [00:46:05] Yeah. About a week. It’s about a week. Don’t you agree? Tom

Tom Nelson [00:46:13] I 100% agree. Yeah, yeah.

David Blackmon [00:46:18] All right. Where do we go next? Okay. Want to do some more news clips?

Stuart Turley [00:46:21] Here we go.

Irina Slav [00:46:22] Yeah, if I did mine, you do yours.

David Blackmon [00:46:26] These are Tammy’s. Tammy.

Tammy Nemeth [00:46:29] Okay, so since Tom can’t hear me.

Stuart Turley [00:46:32] Sorry. You can’t.

Tammy Nemeth [00:46:35] So I don’t know if you can see that headline. Can Tom see it?

David Blackmon [00:46:39] Can you see the headlines that are up on the screen?

Tom Nelson [00:46:41] I can see that. Yep, I can. Yeah.

Irina Slav [00:46:43] Okay, so the first one is probably the most important one because all the Tom has said basically in Canada can’t happen now because of what the banks are going to do. So the banks will now be asking for all kinds of climate information, because they will need to reduce the absolute emissions of their portfolios, which, based on the Esrb standards will mean that, for example, oil and gas companies will have to take, their reserves, they have to calculate the potential emissions in their reserves, and that will be counted as part of their absolute emissions. They also have to let.

David Blackmon [00:47:24] Me, let me, let me. Tom. So the one on the left, the headline on the left, makes it pretty hard for any of this to get rolled back because it is requirements for banks to detail all of their own emission profiles. And that’s going to radically discourage their investing in any future fossil fuel kinds of development. Did I summarize that right, Tammy?

Tammy Nemeth [00:47:49] Yeah. That’s that. That’s right. So scope three emissions. They have to account for the emissions of people using their product and the emissions in their reserves, which is.

David Blackmon [00:47:59] They have, you know.

Tammy Nemeth [00:48:00] It’s like that’s a killer.

David Blackmon [00:48:01] They’re they’re forcing oil companies, for example, to account for scope three emissions, which the SEC in the United States is trying to do as well, to some extent, a lesser extent. And, that that’s going to make it, you know, which, of course, is impossible to do, but but don’t you think, Tom, that’s going to make it really these kinds of things are going to make it really difficult to roll any of this stuff bank back unless you can repeal requirements like this.

Tom Nelson [00:48:29] Yeah, it is definitely a concern that there’s all this, a complete cultism in the banking industry, in the financial industry. That reminds me of, clauser. I mentioned him before about the Nobel Prize winner and everything. He was supposed to speak in front of the IMF, and then they found out he didn’t believe in the climate scam, and they wouldn’t let him speak. I mean, yeah, yeah. Incredibly crazy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then, they’re concerned about there on the right. I know if you talk about the carbon tax. Right. But the whole idea that people willingly want to pay a carbon tax. I’ve seen different, polls where they’re asking people, do you want to pay maybe $1 or $10 a month to try to prevent bad weather in the future? And hardly anybody wants to pull money out of their pocket for that reason. So yeah, it’s going to be hard once people realize how much pain again is being pushed on them, they’re not going to take it.

Stuart Turley [00:49:16] Hey, Tom.

Irina Slav [00:49:17] I’m just. Oh, sorry. I just wrap up on the carbon tax issue. So Canada has one. It increases every April 1st, like some bad, April Fools joke. And it’s set to increase on April 1st. Again, every party except for the conservatives voted to support it. So the people don’t want it. They’re sick of it. And the government is doubling down, and they have support of all the left wing parties in parliament, which is everybody but the conservatives. Yeah. And what’s interesting is that the Trudeau government is the sponsor of a global initiative to roll out a global carbon tax. So there’s no way they can repeal this and still keep face, you know, because here they are. Yeah.

David Blackmon [00:50:02] Yeah. Tom. So the point is that every every Canadian party in Parliament, except for the Conservative Party, which is a minority, a fairly small minority voted in favor of this carbon tax, even though the people hate it. And further, the Trudeau government is sponsoring a push to implement a global carbon tax, which would make it impossible for governments who have adopted these things to repeal them in the future. Did I get that right, Tammy?

Tammy Nemeth [00:50:30] Yeah. That’s right.

David Blackmon [00:50:33] So I’m you know again it just it it they’re they’re these are smart people. They’re highly organized and smart people who are trying to put these things in place and make it impossible or virtually impossible to repeal them without a total revolution, basically.

Tom Nelson [00:50:51] Yeah. I mean.

Irina Slav [00:50:51] You work on when people have enough.

David Blackmon [00:50:54] Yeah

Irina Slav [00:50:55] And they all have enough at some point.

Tom Nelson [00:50:56] I think it well, somebody was saying, and I agree that what happened in the last few years is that the elites, they were going for a great reset. But what they got is a great awakening. I think that’s what’s happening.

Irina Slav [00:51:08] Yes, yes, I saw this one too. It’s very well put.

David Blackmon [00:51:14] So that that to me sets up a situation where unless the. Warmest relent. You end up in a situation where it’s almost it gets become, becomes increasingly difficult to imagine getting to a completely peaceful resolution to any of this.

Irina Slav [00:51:38] They’re not going.

David Blackmon [00:51:39] Carefully, as I can say that, and they’re not. Going to relent.

Stuart Turley [00:51:44] But yes. Hey, Tom, I’ll tell you what. This morning, I got to give a shout out to Steve Reese over at Reese Consulting, and they do a lot of fantastic things over there. And the energy bad boys, are absolutely a hoot. Tom, you need to get them on your podcast. And, David, you need them on on yours as well, too. They wrote a great story about the energy transition in retreat. We’re seeing this across a lot of places where people are saying we can’t afford it anymore. And in this one this morning, there was a group in LinkedIn. This morning, Steve Reece made a comment on this one. Fury after Exxon chief says the public to blame for climate futures. He is right.  People are not wanting to cut back on their electricity. They’re not wanting to to go on this. So what’s wrong with what Darren Woods said? And then there’s one climate, group out there on LinkedIn is being pushed and getting extra push is out. There is not I can’t believe that. And then the last one that I have is Glencore abandons coal production. Cap as another climate pledge falls. This is coking coal. This is one of the world’s largest. Miners and producers out there of of coal. And we need coal. And it is people are realizing in the in energy. We need energy. We need low cost energy. But anyway, I want to bring those, up there on that. So yeah. Shout out.

David Blackmon [00:53:30] Well, more to that point, there was a recent, a charter member, I think a Quinnipiac poll that asked, a couple of thousand registered voters in the United States if they would be willing to sacrifice $10 a month to help pay for climate to fight climate change. And like 80% said no. I mean, literally, the public is not willing to invest in this anyway.

Stuart Turley [00:53:56] David, I and Irina.

David Blackmon [00:53:57] What do you see on that, in that regard?

Stuart Turley [00:54:01] Yeah.

Tom Nelson [00:54:02] I totally see that, that people don’t they don’t want to fork over real money for any of this stuff. Not their own money, just other people’s money. Of course, you don’t think I wanted to mention is we’re seeing so many cases where bureaucrats are saying, hey, we’re going to get rid of internal combustion cars by a certain date and, go net zero and all this other stuff. But already we’re seeing, people saying are just kidding. We didn’t really mean it. Let’s push it back another 5 or 10 years, and we’re going to see enormous amounts of that because they’re not going to actually do it. They’re going to just push it off and not.

David Blackmon [00:54:30] Change is always just around the corner. Yes. The miracle solution is always coming.

Tom Nelson [00:54:36] Yeah. That was in okay. That was in Tom Friedman’s book. I thought that was interesting. I read his what was that? He had wrote a book about the energy transition, transition a long time ago, and he had a quote in there about how, there was a quote from over maybe 120 years ago about electric cars, about, that the magical battery for cars is only ten years away or something. But we’ve been hearing that for a long time, and this was at the start of the last century. They were saying that. So this is a very old story, that magical batteries are coming and they’re still not here.

Irina Slav [00:55:04] Yeah, they’re still coming.

Tom Nelson [00:55:05] Yeah, they’re still here. Well.

Stuart Turley [00:55:08] Yes, I do want to ask this. I want to kick this out to the team because Irene and I have really laughed about hydrogen and, the hydrogen corridor corridor going on in the, the, EU and Germany really pushing on hydrogen. But this morning, I was looking at Toyota has really come up with a new internal combustion engine, for hydrogen. And, you know, Toyota is looking at, solving their problems with a, hybrid rather than a true electric. Do you see that? There is any hope? I think it’s a long time before hydrogen. If we can’t get $10 billion in two charging stations put in from the inflation reduction bill. Do you think that hydrogen is got a chance?

Tom Nelson [00:56:00] I’ll believe it when I see it, but I think I was reading in business magazines in the 1980s that when we get ready for hydrogen, it’s coming. I don’t know.

David Blackmon [00:56:10] I mean, the, the big in the hub hydrogen hub concepts will last as long as the subsidies last, you know, and as long as the willing, the government is willing to invoke favorable regulation. But what you see in the United States already is that the Treasury Department’s interpretation of section 45, the of the I.R.A., is is destroying the willingness of companies like Exxon Mobil and other big companies to invest in these things because they can’t be profitable without favorable regulation.

Tom Nelson [00:56:41] Yeah. This whole idea that they’re going to push us to some other type of car, a worse car to prevent bad weather. People are not going to buy into that. The cars that they push us, do they have to be at least as good as what we already have or we’re not going to switch? That’s pretty simple.

Irina Slav [00:56:53] Well, there..

David Blackmon [00:56:54] Go to Tammy’s. It goes to Tammy’s latest comment from Tammy. Reliable, affordable, secure energy is what makes economies and societies strong. And I think that may be a good way to wrap this one up because that’s perfect.

Stuart Turley [00:57:10] Oh, I don’t know. Tom and, David, I hear her typing again with her angry typing on her. Board .

David Blackmon [00:57:19] Everything with a smile on her face again. I’d be mad as hell if I if it was. Oh.

Stuart Turley [00:57:26] This would be a lot of fun.

David Blackmon [00:57:30] But yeah, we’re pushing up on an hour here, so maybe we should get my headlines.

Irina Slav [00:57:35] Thank you. Tom, thanks for coming.

Tom Nelson [00:57:37] Oh. Thank you. I really enjoyed it. It’s a very fun.

David Blackmon [00:57:39] And everyone needs to to download and watch the movie. It’s fantastic.

Irina Slav [00:57:43] That we can find.

David Blackmon [00:57:44] Products. Yes, yes.

Stuart Turley [00:57:46] Tell us how to find it. Yeah. Oh thank you.

Tom Nelson [00:57:48] You can go to climate the movie dot net. Just go there and, and you’ll find it.

David Blackmon [00:57:52] That’s the climate the movie dot net and put that in show notes.

Irina Slav [00:57:55] Yeah, I myself googled it, googled the name because I wanted to include a link to the movie in today’s post on Substack, and I found it on YouTube.

David Blackmon [00:58:03] Google. Let it come up. Wow.

Tom Nelson [00:58:04] Not bad. Glad to hear.

Stuart Turley [00:58:06] And and Tom, tell us about your podcast.

Tom Nelson [00:58:10] Oh, it’s just a podcast about climate and energy. I do 2 or 3 on the average week and, it’s been going I did over 200 total. I’ve had a couple of you out of the three of you, I guess, on there. Yeah. And, it’s it’s really fun. They’re normally like 45 to, hour long and, come and see what you like. There’s a lot of different choices out there. You can watch, some of the old ones if you want.

Stuart Turley [00:58:30] Well, yeah, you’ve had the three good looking ones on there.

Tom Nelson [00:58:33] I was going to say that, but I didn’t want to say that out loud.

Stuart Turley [00:58:39] All right. Well, thank you everybody.

Tom Nelson [00:58:44] Thanks. See you later. Next time.

Irina Slav [00:58:46] All right. Bye.

Tammy Nemeth [00:58:47] Bye.

Stuart Turley [00:58:50] We are going off.

 

 

 

Sponsorships are available or get your own corporate brand produced by Sandstone Media.

David Blackmon LinkedIn

DB Energy Questions 

The Crude Truth with Rey Trevino

Rey Trevino LinkedIn

Energy Transition Weekly Conversation

David Blackmon LinkedIn

Irina Slav LinkedIn

Armando Cavanha LinkedIn

 

ENB Top News

ENB

Energy Dashboard

ENB Podcast

ENB Substack

 

Our Podcast Sponsor

The Sandstone Group.

The post Energy Realities – Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) – Tom Nelson LIVE: 8:00 AM Monday first appeared on Energy News Beat.

The post Energy Realities – Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) – Tom Nelson LIVE: 8:00 AM Monday appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Prices of New Houses v. Existing Houses: Price cuts and mortgage-rate buydowns make new houses more attractive.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

The median price of new single-family houses that were sold in February fell to $400,500, the lowest since June 2021, down by 7.6% from February 2023 and down by 6.3% from February 2022, according to data from the Census Bureau today (blue in the chart). Compared to the peak in October 2022, the median price has dropped by 19.4%.

The three-month moving average, which irons out some of the monthly ups and downs, fell to $411,700, the lowest since September 2021 (red).

The prices here do not include the substantial costs of mortgage-rate buydowns that homebuilders use to stimulate sales in this market where sales of existing homes have plunged. Mortgage-rate buydowns lower the monthly payment but do not lower the contract price of the house. Prices here also don’t include other incentives, such as free upgrades. These contract prices show that homebuilders are building smaller homes with less expensive amenities at lower price points, and then they’re throwing mortgage-rate buydowns and other incentives on top of it to make deals.

Lower the price and they will come.

Homebuilders sold 60,000 new houses in February, not seasonally adjusted, up a tad from January, and up by 7.1% from a year ago.

Compared to February 2019, sales were down only 4.8%, despite the 7% mortgage rates, while sales of existing (resale) homes plunged by 19% compared to February 2019.

The fact that sales of new houses are hanging in there despite 7% mortgage rates shows that homebuilders have figured out this market, and they’re running circles around homeowners trying to sell. Homebuilders are competing directly with resale homes. They’re in the business of building homes, and they cannot try to outwait this market, as many potential home sellers are trying to do.

Additional competition from the multifamily construction boom.

Over the past few years, multifamily building construction – condos and apartments, mostly at the higher end – has started to put a large number of units on the market. In 2022 and even in 2023, multifamily construction starts were at the highest since the 1980s.

This plays into the trend of population growth. As cities get larger, they get denser as some people choose to live in larger buildings at the core of the city with shorter commutes. Time is money. And money is money too, because people can save money on a monthly basis. People are doing this calculus, and they’re making choices.

This is the competition for single-family houses, both new and resale, and people are arbitraging the cost differences:

Price difference between new and resale houses.

Homebuilders are aggressively taking sales away from homeowners, as the largest homebuilders have explained in their earnings calls. And the price difference between new and resale single-family houses has narrowed in a historic manner.

The national median price of new single-family houses (Census Bureau) has fallen faster and further than the national median price of resale single-family houses (National Association of Realtors).

We’re going to use 6-month moving averages in our comparison to smoothen out the strong seasonality of the median price of resale houses (seasonal high in June, seasonal low in January) and the volatile but not seasonal prices of new houses.

Red denotes the median price of new houses, green the median price of resale houses. We’re going to look at the percentage differences in a moment, which are even more illuminating.

In percentage terms, the median price (6-month moving average) of new houses is now only 6.6% higher than the median price of resale houses. The difference has been in the same range for the past nine months.

If you figure in the effects of mortgage-rate buydowns, the payments on a new house can be less than the payments on an equivalent resale house.

The unusual narrowing price difference – as homebuilders lower their prices more quickly than homeowners – also happened in the leadup to the Housing Bust and lasted well into the Housing Bust. Prices of resale homes eventually fell so much they became competitive with new houses again toward the end of the Housing Bust in 2012.

Inventory for sale is very ample.

In February, there were 456,000 new houses for sale at all stages of construction (not seasonally adjusted). Inventory has been in this very high range for months. In February, this inventory translated into 7.8 months of supply, which is more than ample, and a reminder that builders are very motivated to make deals:

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

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

The post Prices of New Houses -19% from Peak, Lowest since June 2021. Why Sales of New Houses Held Up, while Sales of Existing Houses Plunged first appeared on Energy News Beat.

The post Prices of New Houses -19% from Peak, Lowest since June 2021. Why Sales of New Houses Held Up, while Sales of Existing Houses Plunged appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

The post Oil settles higher as Russia orders output cuts, geopolitical tensions persist first appeared on Energy News Beat.

The post Oil settles higher as Russia orders output cuts, geopolitical tensions persist appeared first on Energy News Beat.