Energy News Beat

The post US LNG export pause leaves EU, industry at odds over energy security appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

Are you wondering how we got to this global catastrophic cesspool? There are Seven Ps that have been attacked in the United States. Understanding energy and the Seven Ps will help get us through this upcoming disaster.

The US is heading to a 4th world status.

George McMillian is a geopolitical resource that people need to pay attention to. I have spent hours talking with George, only to listen repeatedly while picking up new things each time. He has real-world, boots-on-the-ground experiences that go from the world of academic geopolitical theories to a total understanding of why countries have taken geopolitical actions. The world is in a geopolitical nightmare, and only through understanding how we got here, will we be able to achieve peace and prosperity.

Thank you, George, for your continued efforts to bring the geopolitical implications of the 7 Ps.

Check out his research site HERE: https://g3insights.com/,

Check out his articles and interviews with me at https://energynewsbeat.co/george-mcmillian/

Mass Migration, Strategic Modeling and the “Seven P Plan” of the Left

George McMillan, January 19, 2024/ January 23, 2024

Preface—the overarching fact pattern

The overarching fact pattern of technology and population growth through history was presented by 1992 economics Nobel laureate Robert F. Fogel. The two primary trends of technology and population growth over time are part of the fundamental atmospheric conditions that all countries are operating in. Furthermore, these two primary trends beget the two post-1950s secondary trends of First World manufacturing jobs migrating to the Developing World and the mass migration of people from the developing World to the Developed World. Two things are significant here: First, that population growth is drastically outpacing economic growth as the global wages labor equilibrium rate plummets as income disparity is climbing. Secondly, the migration levels are likely to be a tsunami in North America and Europe this decade as people continue to migrate from developing countries to developed countries.

The two variables of technology and population growth over time allows for the correlation of Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government, as they relate to the per capita GNP ratio, signifying economic growth and population growth rates of change, with the Four Category Geopolitical Form outcome measure based on the reality that: (1) First and Second World developed countries are characterized by higher economic growth and low population growth, and tighter wage-labor rate proportions with stable monetary systems; in direct contrast with (2) Third and Fourth World failed states which are characterized by lower economic growth and higher population growth proportions associated with catastrophically loose wage labor rate levels, catastrophically high levels of income disparity, and higher levels of crime and instability. Of course, monetary instability is also strongly associated with Fourth World failed states.

This series of correlations between the three macro behavioral frameworks of Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government, the per capita gross national product ratio depicting economic growth rates of change and population growth rates of change as they relate to the gradations of First, Second, Third, and Fourth World Countries, whose gradations are based on a tight-versus-catastrophically-loose wage-labor continuum. This is increasingly important as the US surpasses $34 trillion in national debt with no way to pay the unfunded social security pension fund liabilities for its seniors. The US is likely to experience runaway inflation as the country nears the $40 trillion debt level and as more countries exit the petrodollar exchanges due to the sanctions on Russia, Iran and China. (For more on this topic, see the “Energy and Geopolitical Realignment” series of articles by George McMillan that were published late 2023 through early 2024—now available on G3Insights.)

Introduction

This paper begins with an explanation of the origins of rational choice models as the basis of strategic planning. Next, it explains the strategic plans of the Left to incrementally transform America into a Fabian Socialist welfare state, as, ultimately, the Left wants to replace the Puritanical Christian institutions with an atheistic curriculum based on the ideas of Rousseau and Marx.

The seven major institutions that need to be “transformed” are represented in terms of the “Seven Ps” which are (1) the Professors, referring to all of the educators at all levels; (2) the Priests, referring to all the religious institutions and theological schools; (3) the Prosecutors, referring all of the government attorneys, judges and justices; (4) the Press, referring to all mass media institutions and personalities; (5) the Politicians, or those individuals running for office whether for or against the sought-after single party; (6) the Police, referring to all government-sanctioned gun carriers, namely the single-party state-directed military and police, as well as all private firearms owners; and (7) the Parent, referring to public educators with capacity to undermine allegiances to family, clan, or nationality.

Classical Marxism focused on taking over the means of production, but Gramsci and Lukács targeted these seven areas to replace traditional Christian cultural institutions with Marxist teachings to further Socialism via the proverbial long-march through the institutions. Many refer to this as “cultural Marxism.”

The Origin of the Rational Choice and Rational Actor Modeling in Game Theory and the Social Sciences

John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern advanced the use of rational actor modeling in their magnum opus work Theory of Games and Economic Behavior in 1944. This text began the sub-discipline of Game Theory by arguing that the Rational Actor Model was the basis for developing a logical plan to achieve goals and objectives for individuals, groups, or nation-states.

Nobel Laureate John Harsanyi advanced both game theory and the use of the rational choice model in his 1969 article “Rational Choice Models of Political Behavior versus Functionalist and Conformist Theories.” Specifically, Harsanyi argued that rational choice models should be used more widely in the social sciences at large rather than being confined to economics and game theory.

Decades later, Herbert Gintis reiterated both the need for a laterally integrated series of micro and macro behavioral theories by advocating for the wider use of Rational Actor-Belief, Preference, Constraint (RABPC) modeling in the social sciences in his 2006 article titled “Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences,” as well as his 2009 book The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences. Gintis highlighted that even after decades of use in the discipline of economics, the RABPC format is still not widely used in the social sciences, and that they are much “poorer without it”.

Rational Actor Belief Preference Constraint Models (RABPC)

The reason that the RABPC model is so necessary for strategic planning is that it is one’s “beliefs” that define their goals and objectives, which therefore guides their “preferences”, while their resources—or lack thereof—define their “constraints.” By the sum of people’s beliefs, preferences, and constraints, an actor will select a logical means of achieving his goals and objectives, which can be direct or indirect (overt or covert), or symmetrical or asymmetrical courses of action. For example, in the legal use-of-force model of tactical training, one assesses a threat in terms of his “opportunity, intent, and capability” which is conceptually similar to a RABPC model.

In this comparison, one assesses the threat and risk level of an adversary to then select a proportional response relative to one’s abilities, which is typically expressed in the “opportunity, intent, and capability” protocol in a reactive self-defense situation. However, for a proactive course of action process, such as the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP), this format is best expressed in terms of an RABPC model.

To Von Neumann, Harsanyi and Gintis, Rational Actor modeling is essential to understand the decisions of two or more adversaries in “strategic interaction” (Gintis, 2009). This form of modeling is employed here to explain the strategic plan of the post-Gramsci (Prison Notebooks, 1930s) and post-Marcuse “New Left” who believe in the efficacy of Socialism and continually develop ways to incrementally “transform America” in the terms of the original Left-leaning French philosophers. For instance, the goal of Fabian Socialism has always been to bring about Socialism by incrementally expanding executive branch bureaucracies and social services over time while steadily increasing taxes to further “equality” at the expense of all other variables.

In contrast, Harsanyi in his 1969 article advocated for the wider use of Rational Actor Models in the context of Pareto-style models to reflect trades-off and opportunity costs so variables become minimized when another variable becomes maximized, which politicians purposely ignore but theorists must accurately depict.

Fabian Socialists

The Fabian Socialists believed that “democratic” processes were the correct path to achieve incremental socialism, as opposed to Marx who believed the only way towards complete socialism and non-market Communism was through violent class revolution to avoid being stuck in market capitalist socialism in perpetuity. With the failure of non-market Communism in the 1990s, the New Left and neo-Liberals doubled down on their incrementalist approach to achieving Socialism via democratic processes.

The Left has always focused on the political organization of the masses in direct contrast to the Christian conservative Right which focused on religious and economic organization reflecting the difference of eternal and temporal beliefs that lead to the idea of the separation of church and state. The problem that the Left faced in the United States and much of Europe is that the labor unions never fully accepted “the atheistic Leftism” of the Rousseau-Marx-Engels thought lineage, which Professor Danusha Goska discussed in detail in her 2014 article titled “The Top Ten Reasons I Am No Longer Leftist.”

In the article, she explains how the white working class in the US never abandoned its Christian ideological roots, as opposed to post-Rousseau Leftism which is based on removing property rights, marital rites, and religion from society. To Rousseau, the evolution of property rights led to the subjugation of men over other men leading to class inequalities, and the evolution of marital rites led to the subjugation of women, forming the basis of gender inequality.

Since “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” are in the Ten Commandments of the Christian Bible (as if reflects generally on the Abrahamic religions), Rousseau attributed income and gender inequalities to religion and proposed that a “transformation” to atheism without property rights or marital rites was the cure. Rousseau and the Leftist movement has always believed that this “transformation” would lead to a utopian egalitarian society; that the distinctions between men and women are learned rather than innate; and that social norms are reinforced by religion.

The problem from the standpoint of evolutionary theory (e.g. Steven Pinker, 2002) is that all Leftist thought is based on the false premises of the domain-general infinitely malleable hypotheses, as: (1) Leftism ignores the difference of male and female forms of competition for resources and mates as explained in Lional Tiger’s landmark work Men in Groups (1968); (2) Leftism ignores the family unit as an evolutionarily stable strategy in terms of John Maynard Smith’s 1978 book The Evolution of Sex, and his 1982 book Evolution and the Theory of Games; and (3) Leftist thought ignores Donald Symons’ differences in male and female forms of jealousy associated with their strategies to attract resources and mates for self-survival and survival of the species as expressed in his landmark work Evolution of Human Sexuality (1979).

While union workers may not be well read on the academic origins of Leftism in evolutionary psychology in the context of differences between the hardwired domain-specific premise (two genders) and the infinitely malleable domain-general premise (infinity genders), or on the use of Rational Actor modeling in classical and evolutionary game theory, they were nevertheless satisfied with the advances in capitalist living standards and the efficacy of collective bargaining in a capitalist system.

In a first world country, collective bargaining processes generally produced a satisfactory Nash equilibrium outcome in a society in which economic growth was keeping pace with population growth. The blue-collar union workers rejected the 1960s radical Leftist positions of the Vietnam War Era activists that came to define the Democratic Party in the United States, as indicated by their voting trends towards Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.,  and now Trump. As Professor Goska explained in her aforementioned article, the more this trend of blue-collar workers voting Republican persisted, the more the Left switched its strategy from wooing the blue-collar workers to “importing a proletariat” that would vote for the expansion of the welfare state.

All one has to do is to look at Harvard Professor Robert Reich’s 1984 book New Deals which advocated for an industrial policy in the United States during the mid-1980s and contrast it to his more recent advocacy for open borders and denouncement of Trump’s reindustrialization policies. In other words, Reich’s outlook changed in accordance with the Left’s strategy to take power rather than remaining pro-Union on principle.

Mass migration became the means of the Left to incrementally move towards a bureaucratically controlled Socialist state that has nothing to do with building a tighter wage-labor scenario to boost blue collar salaries and a middle class. This scenario necessitates high economic growth and stable population growth proportions that would dictate a closed border policy rather than an open border policy. Thus, Professor Goska’s premise is correct: The Left is importing a proletariat to vote in socialism so they can rule over the huddled masses as their ‘beneficent’ masters.

Rational Choice Modeling and the “7 P Plan”

Since the objective of the Left is to achieve an egalitarian Socialist utopia by transforming a Christian Capitalist country that is based on devotion to the nuclear family as the micro-level foundation of the meso- and macro-level hierarchies of community and nation, the counter strategy is simply to transform it into an atheistic society with no property rights or marital rites with the hope that all peoples can be indoctrinated into a unified global citizenry. Once one understands the fundamental goals of Leftism, he is prepared to understand how and why Leftism rebrands itself after each failed Marxist experiment in hope that “socialism will work next time.”

Originally, Marxism was based on controlling the means of production so the bureaucracies could dole out resources equally. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Leftist thought began to shift in terms of how to take over all cultural institutions and raise secular atheist Marxists devoid of any religious vestiges, e.g. “the new Soviet man.” In the history of Leftist political philosophy and psychology, the contemporary Left is following the “Beliefs, Preferences, and Constraints” strategy of seizing the 7 Ps adapted from the Gramsci-Lucac-Marcuse-Horkheimer-Alinsky thought lineage. The 7 Ps refer to the seven major pillars of society that need to be taken-over to realize a Socialist state (Daniel Pipes discussed this topic in terms of a “5 P Plan” in his Middle East Forum circa 2015).

The First “P”—the Professors

The First “P” refers to the “Professors,” or educators at every level, who are targeted to initiate a mass indoctrination of society towards Cultural Marxism; the elimination of organized religion; and a skepticism of classical Greek thoughts on governments, which says that all Government Forms trend towards the perverted Forms of Oligarchy and Tyranny, as opposed to the Proper Forms of idealistic Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Constitutional Democracy.

Marxist belief implies that (a) Marxist Communism or Socialism was the end state of man, and (b) that it would be indefinitely sustainable. The reality is that bureaucrats act nothing like what Marx and Engels predicted, and Communism is merely a permutation of the Tyrannical and Despotic forms of government already explained by Aristotle. In the sense of the Ancient Greek Government Forms theorists, Marxism was in no way the “new form” of government about which Marx and his followers fantasized. Leo Strauss was correct to assert that Bolshevik Marxism was merely a new form of Eastern steppe despotism.

In an aim to remove any skepticism of the efficacy of Marxism, pos-Bolshevik Leftism has steadily removed both comparative analysis of government forms and comparative ideological systems analysis in the University system. In other words, the Left “jettisoned” the scientific project in the social sciences, as explained in Tooby and Cosmides’ “The Psychological Foundations of Culture” as featured in Barkow, Tooby and Cosmides; The Adapted Mind (1992). The purpose of propaganda is not only to purport a biased point of view but to also prevent people from acquiring conflicting information and making up their own minds.

Second “P”—the Priests

The Second “P” is the “Priests”. This refers to the taking over theological schools and replacing their curriculums with the cultural Marxism of Gramsci and Lukács, and subsequently the work of the Frankfurt School and the “deconstructionism” of Derrida and Foucault. The core idea is to replace the self-responsibility of Judeo-Christianity with the hollowness of “do-goodism” patterned after the passiveness of the beatitudes of Mark Chapter 4 in the Christian Bible.

The purpose of taking over the priesthood in this sense is to make the masses passive to the imposition of Marxism on society, making it “un-Christian” to berate socialistic projects. In terms of Erich Fromm’s magnum opus The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1972), the sadists want to turn society into a sea of passive masochists who accept individual suffering in the name of collective ‘welfare’.

The Third “P”—the Press

The Third “P” refers to the “Press”, namely schools of journalism and communications and media entities. Again the idea is to dominate the information space and eliminate alternative sources of “truth” to shape belief and relegate people into the limited choices to “make socialism work this time” and obey the bureaucrats for “the greater good”.

The problem with obeying the bureaucrats is that once a state is bureaucratically controlled, it becomes easy to: (a) “Make everything easier for the people behind the counter instead of in front of the counter” (Bhagwati, “In Defense of Globalism” 2002); and (b) spot the up-and-comers and get rid of them before their merits make a mockery of the of the elites, resulting in a plummeting of economic production for a government which “pretends to pay people and the people pretend to work”. In terms of Fromm’s Productive-versus-Sadomasochistic character orientation dichotomy, the society at large becomes masochistically passive-aggressive en masse. Significantly, Fromm’s character orientation dichotomy correlates directly to The Proper and Perverted Forms of government expressed in Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government.

Three things are of note here: First, that socialism always ends up being tyrannical; second, that there is a direct correlation of Fromm’s character orientation dichotomy and Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government, with the two frameworks leading to a coordinated micro-macro behavioral model; and third, when correlated to the per capita-gross national product ratio and the Four Category Geopolitical Model, all of Tooby and Cosmides’ objectives to coordinate the social sciences can be achieved.

Why No Autopsies on Failed Marxist Experiments?

Every time Socialism was tried, the consequences have been catastrophically bad: mass famines, concentration camps, and massive loss of human life, as discussed in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1973 book The Gulag Archipelago. Although the aversion to performing autopsies on the failed Marxist experiments were not discussed by Tooby and Cosmides in “Psychological Foundations of Culture,” they did explain how the “1960s liberals took over the department chairs” and immediately “abandoned the scientific project” in the social sciences.

The scientific method entails three major phases: (1) a priori hypotheses and the formulation of a research design, (2) testing and careful observation, and (3) ex-post analysis and theoretical reformulation.

The ideological experiments of the Twentieth Century was the biggest live scientific experiment in history that essentially pitted the Montesquieu-Hume-Smith-Kant thought lineage against the Rousseau-Marx-Engels thought lineage. The end result was that the Bolshevik bureaucrats used the Communist system to punish age-old ethnic and religious rivals more than promote equality and steadily got rid of the up-and-comers by sending them to the Gulags, all while people had to wait in long lines to get food rations. In the end, the economy did not produce enough goods to actually pay people and raise living standards, so the system collapsed in on itself.

In this brief explanation, one can see that performing autopsies on failed non-market Communist and market Socialist experiments at a macro level is rather simple (the more complicated micro analysis of technological innovation and economic development aspects of this topic are discussed in other papers). Had the University system followed the scientific procedures, the university system would have compared the key free market theories of human nature against the Rousseau-Marx-Engels thought lineage and discarded the latter on both the abstract philosophical level (pertaining to ultimate cause) and the empirical social scientific level (pertaining to proximate cause). But did the Left advance the scientific method or did they choose to change electoral power strategies?

As Allan Bloom wrote in The Closing of the American Mind (1988), the Left moved into the soft philosophical and social sciences with “no objective measures and standards” to reduce what little objective measures and standards were developing in favor of subjectivity and theoretical interpretations. Bloom’s book in 1988 was consistent with Tooby and Cosmides 1992 article, which explained how the Liberals in the philosophical and social sciences abandoned the scientific method altogether—alongside objectivity—and discarded Cartesian methods used to test and measure competing hypotheses.

The Socialist Utopian Left resisted performing autopsies on the failed Marxist experiments to avoid subjecting the Rousseau-Marx-Engels thought lineage to rigorous examination because they do not want people to understand why bureaucracies routinely produce increasingly psychopathic power-hungry leaders. This produced a sociopathic group of followers beneath them consistent with Fromm’s Productive-versus-Sadomasochistic character orientation framework, where Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government and Fromm’s character orientation frameworks covary.

Moreover, the routine failure of centrally planned systems affirms the metaphysics that man is not the supreme power. With the erosion of scientific methods, the Western University system no longer has a  testable method of course-correcting to arrive at accurate theories of human nature.

As this paper has indicated, Tooby and Cosmides’ Integrated Causal Model of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology merge directly with Fromm’s character orientation dichotomy, Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government, and the per capita-gross national product ratio depicting economic rates of change and population growth rates and the Four Geopolitical Form Categories. Ergo, the methodology needed to reorient the University system is actually not difficult to construct if the goal of the system was to produce objectively testable theories and models.

However, the Left is seeking power, not trying to create accurate theories and models of human behavior. Their goal is to import a new proletariat to turn “red states” into “blue states.” Using the Baconian scientific method to elucidate the nomos-physis distinction of discerning the “ideals of man” in contrast to “the laws of human nature” is not their goal.

The Fourth “P”—the Prosecutors

The “Fourth P” is the “Prosecutors”. This refers to the push for all law school professors, government attorneys, judges and justices. Returning to the ideals of Rousseau in his “Essay on Inequality” mentioned earlier, he attributed property rights as the means where men subjugate other men and marital rites as the means where men subjugate women, creating class and gender inequalities.

Since “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not commit adultery” are in the Ten Commandments. according to Rousseau, it is the Abrahamic religions that promote inequality and should therefore be replaced with an atheistic state with no property rights or marital rites.

From a Rousseauian perspective, the goal of the law school professors and government attorneys, judges and justices is to ameliorate all property rights, martial rites, and demonize all religions equally over time to achieve the utopia of Rousseau and Marx. In reality they wish to ameliorate the Judeo-Christian morality that is closely associated with First World cultures in order to turn them into Marxist utopias.

Currently the Soros-affiliated city attorneys in San Francisco, Philadelphia, and New York are moving to release offenders without bail, and not charging protestors, looters, or shoplifters, making the big cities in the US unlivable for many. Stores continuously go out of business and many people are moving out as foreign migrants are routinely flown and bussed in, contributing to overcrowding and degrading access to, and quality of, public services.

The Fifth “P”—The Politicians

The “Fifth P” is the “Politicians”. This is most pertinent to the current mass immigration and the border issues, about which Leftists continually gaslight citizens that there is no mass migration at the US-Mexican border. Danusha Goska’s explanation is that the Left is importing a Proletariat to turn the Red States into Blue States, and thereby achieve the single-party socialist state to ensure their power in perpetuity, regardless of the consequences. As Victor Davis Hanson has explained in several interviews, the Left has already used mass immigration to turn California from a Red State into a dark Blue State in just three decades—so, it is a strategy with a proven track-record of success.

It is that success they wish to replicate across all 50 states to achieve their Socialist utopia. They merely need to turn Texas and Florida into Blue States to achieve this “Fifth P”, since they already have the first Four accomplished.

The Sixth “P”—the Police

The Sixth “P” is the “Police,” or all gun carriers including law enforcement, military, private security, citizen watch groups, and private gun owners. Since the Left does not believe in private property, the God-given “natural right” of self-defense—or even that there is a God— it does not accept separation of church and state, where there is no valid Church, but only the State.

Instead of religion, the Left begets compliance via importing the masochistic ideology that: (a) people do not need to defend themselves, because (b) the government will protect them and provide for them; and that (c) they should be totally passive with no instincts for self-preservation, or that of their family, their clan, or ethnicity.

In other words, since the Left follows the infinitely malleable premise of human behavior, it does not understand how the two primary human evolutionary drives in the pursuit of resources and mates translate into the pursuit of “economic gain” (Downs, 1957) and “social status” (Veblen, 1899); nor that these are hardwired innate drives that work best in free market capitalist systems based on “perfect competition.” In contrast, both Plutocracies and Socialism are based on the concentration and centralization of wealth and power, consistent with Aristotle’s Perverted forms of Tyranny and Oligarchy, as opposed to an idealistic “utopia.” While the Seven P Plan may be a rational choice to attain a Socialist State and a global ‘utopia’ in terms of post-Rousseau and Marxist Leftism, the reality is that it will lead to another Socialist catastrophe no matter how many times the Left rebrands Marxism.

The coming problem is that Marx believed that Communist revolution can only be achieved through violent uprising; so it is predicated on dominance instincts for survival, rather than on forms of cooperative, constructive competition for resources and mates. In sum, the world is witnessing Spengler’s “decline of the West.”

The Seventh “P”—the Parents

The Seventh “P” is the Parents. The primary goal of Rousseau was to get rid of property rights, marital rites, and religion to foster a society where “spouses and children are held in common,” and cared for and raised in state-run education systems. The objective is to shift the natural loyalties of children away from their parents to the state. The goal of Leftism is to achieve a one world government by getting rid of the nuclear family en route to ending all clan, ethnic, and national identity hierarchies, the accomplishment of which they believe will allow the masses to “imprint” to the state, as if people were Konrad Lorenz’s geese which follow the first moving object they see (Journal für Ornithologie, 1935). Ideally, citizens would identify the state itself as the ultimate mother and father of the people.

It is the obliteration of the nuclear family based on male and female complementary traits that is behind the current diversity, equity, and inclusion trend prevalent in schools. The Left wants to replace property rights, marital rites, religion, and the concept of the family unit, with open marriage and atheism aimed to destroy all intimate relationships which come between an individual and his devotion to the state.

This is inapposite to Luther’s idea of the necessity of faith in God based on a direct personal relationship, and with any conception of Jesus or a personal savior that is not the state. Marxism, and Tyrants in general, always demand a direct allegiance to state power, and never want to compete with any higher power that could challenge their dominion over their subjects.

The ”Transformation of America”

In closing, the Left has essentially accomplished four of the Seven Ps, and all they have to do is to flood a few Red States and turn them Blue to seize the last 3 Ps by bureaucratic force. Hence, the push for LGBT inclusion in the military in conjunction with the astounding stand-down orders for law enforcement during the Antifa BLM George Floyd riots. Furthermore, sophisticated forms of mass operant conditioning are being put into practice to render people passive to both mass immigration policies and to Leftist mobs, which turn the current Republic, a “Constitutional Democracy” (the Proper Form), into a mob-rule Democracy (the Perverted Form).

The current situation is drawing the Left ever closer to a cascade event: All it takes is to turn enough Red States into Blue States to control the US presidency; allow for the nomination of Soros-affiliated attorneys to the Supreme Court; facilitate the gutting of the military; and continue driving of the US towards insolvency and higher taxes to usher in Socialism. That is why the border patrol has been turned into a regiment of social workers who assist illegal immigration as opposed to a proper law enforcement agency which actually secures the border. The left wants the last Ps of the Politicians, the Police, and the Parents to achieve their current iteration of the French Revolution—and they believe they are close to achieving it with this strategy.

The Left has been pursuing the Cloward-Piven Plan as expressed in “The Weight of the Poor” (The Nation, 1968), which argues that the path to Socialism was to establish more state and federal welfare bureaucracies, and to expand the welfare rolls in order to push the United States toward bankruptcy and compel a radical increase in taxes to achieve to Utopian Socialist state. The Cloward-Piven Plan has occurred concurrently to the 7 P Plan and the US is now at $34 trillion in debt with higher levels of inflation coming in the near future.

The Left thinks they are on the verge of victory in regards to transforming America, meanwhile the neoconservatives who now vote Democrat are actively pursuing an Operation Cyclone-style regime change-destabilization policy in all of Eurasia. In one sense, the Neocon goal is to keep the United States as the sole superpower, but in another sense, it is to advance the EU and NATO Eastward to block all of Russia’s ports and petroleum pipelines. The purpose of the Eastward expansion is two-fold: It is an attempt to break apart Russia so the US can maintain geostrategic dominance, but also to stop the Orthodox revival that has been occurring since the fall of the Soviet Union.In other words, the Left is trying to end Christianity in North America and usher in the Socialist state, while also conjuring a war between the Catholic Ukrainians and Orthodox Russian speaking Ukrainians, all with the end goal of thwarting the Orthodox revival inside Russia itself and securing US hegemony in Europe and Eurasia.

While these global aspects are covered more in-depth in the articles series “Energy and Geopolitical Realignment” also published by G3Insights, the focus here on the “Seven P Plan” is intended to guide readers through the 2024 election cycle in the US. The goal of the ruling coalition of neoconservatives, neoliberals, and the Left in the United States is to “transform America,” as well as Europe and the Russian Federation, in one fell swoop this year; but it is also a perfect storm of schizophrenic domestic and foreign policies that is highly unlikely to leave the US a global power for much longer.

Figure 8. World population
Source: 2004. United Nations, World Population Prospects.

https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:LabXchange:42ae015d:html:1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Annual_World_Population_Since_10,000_BC.png

The post ENB #180 The Seven P’s Unveiled: Navigating Marxist Influences, University Reforms, and Global Geopolitical Dynamics – Do you think we are heading to a 4th world status? appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

#podcast @thecrudetruth9585

@davidblackmon6807 #energytransition #oilandgas #geopolitics

David Blackmon – https://davidblackmon.substack.com/

Rey Trevino – https://thecrudetruth.com/

Stu Turley, – https://energynewsbeat.co/

Highlights of the Podcast:

02:14 – The Washington Post

05:18 – Inflation started to rise

07:41 – the OPEC+ and the OPEC quotas are no longer capable of being tracked

09:17 – The LNG ban on exports

13:35 – China is looking like they’re getting ready to start building up their reserves

14:22 – The motivations for China refilling its petroleum reserve

20:18 – The warmongers that are running our country are putting our people in harm’s way

With 3 unique personalities, backgrounds, and one horrible team sense of humor, it makes for fun talks around the energy markets.

David Blackmon is a Forbes author and currently writes Energy Absurdities of the Day. He has several active podcasts with ….. His industry leadership is evident, but a dry, calm way of expressing himself adds a different twist.

R.T. Trevillon is the podcast host of The Crude Truth filmed in Fort Worth Texas and runs an oil and gas E&P company. Pecos Country Operating has been in business for ….years and has a constant commitment to all of their stakeholders and is actively working in this oil and gas market.

Stu Turley is the co-podcast host of the Energy News Beat Podcast. While Stu is a legend in his own mind, [email protected]

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

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

Follow Stuart On LinkedIn and Twitter

If you have any questions, please reach out to us. We want to answer all questions, and if you have what it takes to be a podcast host and you want your show reach out.

Also, sponsor slots are available. There is excellent reach with the four podcasts.

DB Energy Questions 

David Blackmon LinkedIn

The Crude Truth with Rey Trevino

Rey Trevino LinkedIn

The Energy News Beat Podcast

Stu Turley LinkedIn

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

3 Podcasters Walk in a Bar EP46 – OPEC+ and the OPEC quotas are no longer capable of being tracked

Stuart Turley [00:00:14] Hello Everybody. Do you ever heard that Goofy old uncle like Eddie and a Christmas vacation comes up to the party and he says, hey, there’s these three guys walking into a bar. Everybody digs for the behind the carpet. I mean, they go under the carpet. It’s so bad. I have to know those other two guys. I got two of the other three podcasters walking into the bar. I got RT Treviño. He is the big dog over there at Pecos Operating. I mean, this man is a legend in my mind as well. To RT. Welcome in the Crude Truth is going nuts.

Rey Treviño [00:00:55] Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Stuart Turley [00:00:58] Boy, that’s the first time.

David Blackmon [00:00:59] That was quick.

Stuart Turley [00:01:03] What?

David Blackmon [00:01:04] He’s a man of few words.

Rey Treviño [00:01:05] A man of few. Yes.

Stuart Turley [00:01:07] At least he’s a man. And he identifies as an oil man. So. All right. And then we’re going to go over here to really David Blackmon. I mean, David Blackmon is an a man about town. He’s an author is an author. Excuse me.

David Blackmon [00:01:22]  Authoress. Yes.

Stuart Turley [00:01:24] Any people steal his material all the time. We’re going to cover some of that stealing of his material today. And he is Forbes. He’s Telegraph, he’s the Daily Caller. He’s got the energy question and he’s on the energy. It is now called the, energy debacle. No, it’s the energy

David Blackmon [00:01:45] Transition. Absurdities. Yeah. Oh, the Energy realities podcast. Yes, yes. And I’m a real man. And my preferred pronouns are bubba and tax.

Rey Treviño [00:01:54] Bubba and tax. Okay. So

David Blackmon [00:01:55]  Write them down.

Rey Treviño [00:01:56] Well I am I know that Bubba and tax will tax. Great to great to see you again today sir.

David Blackmon [00:02:03] Happy to be here.

Stuart Turley [00:02:03]  All right. Well David you were having a you had a heck of a thing. You were just pointing out over here as we were chatting before the show. Wednesdays energy absurdity. The Washington Post channels my points about Biden’s LNG permitting delay. What’s all this about?

David Blackmon [00:02:22] It is about the supreme irony of the year, folks. I don’t recall ever agreeing with the Washington Post editorial board about anything related to energy, ever. And today, the Washington Post, this is we’re recording this on January 31st. You can go look it up. The Washington Post, not the Washington Times, not any other conservative publication, but the Democrat operatives on the Washington Post editorial board. Published a and up in an editorial, slamming Biden’s delay of LNG permitting until after the election. Calling it and I quote and obviously political decision. And echoing several other arguments I’ve made about it, and the Keystone XL pipeline cancellation, too. It is just I mean, I saw that editorial I’m reading through and I’m thinking. Man, I could have written this. I think I did write this, I wrote some of it. You know, it’s like they’re they’re reading my Substack and plagiarizing my material. Almost.

Stuart Turley [00:03:33] Hey, you know, I do.

Rey Treviño [00:03:37] I know I definitely like to use it when I can just.

David Blackmon [00:03:40] Anyway, I just thought that was the supreme irony. I’ve never seen anything quite so amazing in my life, frankly. And I urge everyone to go read that editorial and, gape in wonder at the Washington Post editorial board actually making common sense on energy.

Stuart Turley [00:04:00] Well, aren’t. And, David, there’s got to be a second order of impact or magnitude or something going on for them to make that, left leaning publication. Do you think that this is systemic of the, diaper? Dan? I mean, Biden, being run out that he may be stepping away, that they’re tired of mean.

David Blackmon [00:04:26] Well, I have a direct quote from Joe Biden in response to the editorial board that was just published. Standing in front of his helicopter out on the white House lawn. Joe Biden was quoted as saying, I object to the celebrity brother to.

Rey Treviño [00:04:43] Geez.

Stuart Turley [00:04:46] Wow. Wow. I got nothing.

David Blackmon [00:04:52] I got Nothing.

Rey Treviño [00:04:53] I got yeah. No, I got nothing. I mean. So you mean other than this all being just a political stunt, which we knew from the beginning that that this LNG thing, which. I found it very. I found it very shocking that it was done because here we are, beginning of his, administration. It was kill oil, kill gas, fossil fuel ban. Inflation started to rise like there’s no tomorrow. And next thing you know, he just shut his mouth on oil and gas back. And I would like to say. And I would do the economic research if asked to, to prove how oil and gas helped bring down inflation. But now with it being a political year, he now has to pander to that 2%, 1% people that are still anti fossil fuels. And this is just going to do nothing more. But just add to the chaos and on on Wall Street and at the markets. And I mean that even though the prices haven’t changed very much. But I think that’s where the chaos is now on people like operators and more importantly, the traders out there. Is oil going to go up with natural gas going to go down? What’s going to happen? And nothing is even happened, you know? Yeah. As a lot of people out there know, I’m working on my master’s degree and I’m in a energy macroeconomics class right now, and, they’re in a Texas, Christian university. And they asked us to give us what we thought the price of oil would be basically Tuesday of next week. And so I gave an answer and but my answer also was, you know what? This is such an upside down world. You know, be it you don’t know anymore. I mean, with with condolences to to the to the servicemen and women that have died in Jordan and across, you know, the Middle East here lately, that that would have skyrocketed the prices. But prices are not. And I do think part of it has to do with the fact that we are still producing so much oil here in America, which is a good thing at the end of the day.

Stuart Turley [00:07:03] You know, I’ve I’ve said this a long time, RT. Great points. And, I’ve said this all along, pricing matrices are changed and they’re no longer relevant. The old supply and demand, you’d have 500 to 600 tankers, that are in the ghost fleet. You have, Iraq this morning. India has now I rac is going to be selling more oil to India and is, going in. Those are going to be going through the Dark Fleet, which is outside of the OPEC, plus, quotas. So the, the OPEC+ and the OPEC quotas are no longer capable of being tracked. How can you price it. Yeah. How can you why is there you RT your point was phenomenal. I mean if we have a the Red sea ought to be we ought to be seeing $120 oil today. I mean, you got hoodies in the blowfish, like we’ve, you know, kind of talked about blowing crap up over there and you’re not seeing it. And so it is because the elasticity is totally gone. And then you have the IEA, I believe that they are, again, falsifying our numbers in the storage numbers. That also helps that, because if you look at the Biden administration from the standpoint they falsified the, jobs numbers, we also know there was an allegation that they falsified the EIA numbers. How is the pricing matrix even gonna get handled anymore? Anyway, that’s my two and a half cents. I finally ran. I felt the need to rant and make David feel like he wasn’t the Old guy, and.

Rey Treviño [00:08:52]  Well. Well. And and if I may, let’s just go back to the whole thing here that we were talking about how this LNG deal is nothing more about a political stunt, and it’s not affecting the price of oil. So our natural gas. Excuse me. So getting back full circle to start it off, how crazy is it? I mean.

Stuart Turley [00:09:10] Let me ask this because this one’s about the LNG permitting, David. But I’m also wanting to know, what you guys think about the LNG ban on exports, because that’s just I mean, that’s a big one to.

David Blackmon [00:09:24] Well, he hasn’t done it.

Stuart Turley [00:09:26] Yeah, well, he’s thinking about doing it.

David Blackmon [00:09:29] Well, I mean, yeah, I mean, they the same activists and, fake college professors who created that study, that, that that’s based on want him to stop exports to under the false rationale that that will somehow reduce emissions. Well, it wrong it won’t because countries that need the LNG and are getting it right now from the United States are going to get it from somewhere else if they can’t get it from us, and somewhere else means cutter, where Hamas is headquartered, and Algeria, a hostile country to the United States and Russia. Okay. I mean, that’s that’s who’s going to benefit from all this. And and so I honestly, I, you know, I know that the Democrats would do pretty much anything to win this election. But I’m just not sure they’re crazy enough to do that quite yet. Maybe they are.

Rey Treviño [00:10:26] I don’t know. So. Okay, so. So this same group that, President Biden met with that said, hey, we’re going to, lower our output. Exports of LNG now want to ban it completely from exporting it. Is that what they want to do?

David Blackmon [00:10:42] Yeah. I mean, they’ve been putting pressure on the white House to take that move for a couple of years now. And, you know, they haven’t succeeded. But we have to remember that even though it’s a small minority of the US population, they provide a huge percentage of the funding for Democratic Party primary. I mean, election campaigns all over the country. And those organizations like the Sierra Club, like the Rocky Mountain Institute, are funded by the same billionaires, left wing billionaires like George Soros and Mike Bloomberg that, you know, that fund a lot of other stuff in the anti fossil fuel business. And so they’re pouring millions and millions of dollars into the Democratic Party’s campaigns. And, and the party is very beholden to them. And so and by the way, the vast majority that is dark money that doesn’t really get properly accounted for in the political system.

Stuart Turley [00:11:39] It’s Kent. Dark money, dark fleet, dark. This dark web.

David Blackmon [00:11:43] Everything’s going dark.

Rey Treviño [00:11:45] So let me ask you this. As we you know, I’m going to get a semi off. I’m going to recognize before I do it, get a semi off topic. So you don’t think that there was any inclination then when when he lowered the output export on LNG that it was I’m going to stick it to Texas.

David Blackmon [00:12:04] Well, I’m sure that played a role in it, too. I mean, most of the export facilities we have today are located along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast, both red states. Louisiana just, got rid of their doofy Democrat governor and replaced him with another Republican. So, yeah, I’m sure that played a role in it. If those facilities, you know, were benefiting states like Massachusetts or Michigan or, you know, Democratic states or swing states, it’d be different. They would, because this is entirely everything this administration does is 100% a political calculation. There’s no no regard for what’s best for the country or best for the energy sector or best for the economy. It’s all strictly politics. And, you know, the politics wouldn’t play well if you had LNG export facilities being planned to be built in Portland and Seattle, obviously.

Rey Treviño [00:13:01] Yeah. Maybe that’s where we need to go. Start one.

David Blackmon [00:13:03] Yeah I.

Rey Treviño [00:13:04]  Maybe need to go build one there in Portland somewhere. I’m sure the.

David Blackmon [00:13:09]  that would go over well.

Rey Treviño [00:13:11] Yeah, I’m sure the salmon run there, you know. They’re probably some new species of salmon found there along the Gulf Coast of Oregon and just shut it down.

David Blackmon [00:13:20] Yep

Rey Treviño [00:13:22] You know, with us here talking about everything that we’re doing to lower our, fossil fuel output, whether it’s oil or gas, even though, you know, I do want to recognize that we are producing more oil than we ever have. China is looking like they’re getting ready to start building up their reserves, which kind of is kind of very interesting to me because, you know, here we always hear that China is, you know, doing good or doing this. So, why do they need to be building up the reserve? Did they use everything up? And if they did. What are they preparing for? You know, the my Substack article from yesterday, came from the oil price.com, and there’s a little x where it says, as readers are well aware of China’s oil consumption and estimates of how much its holding in reserves are crucial to subdirectory of world prices. So, you know, do you think this will help raise the price of oil at all, guys?

David Blackmon [00:14:21] But you think so? What are the motivations for China refilling its petroleum reserve?

Stuart Turley [00:14:27] Absolutely. War. I mean, there’s more is on the horizon. Why shouldn’t they take Taiwan? There is absolutely no reason for them not to do it now.

David Blackmon [00:14:40] Yeah. I mean, you seem to see the Biden administration fearful of responding to the Houthis out of Yemen. What would make anyone in China think the Biden administration would be willing to take on Jinping and China?

Stuart Turley [00:14:56] Here’s here’s my $0.02. China is not stupid. Unlike our politicians. And if you saw that there was a gigantic upwelling of people waking up around the United States. Whether you like Trump, whether you hate Trump, he is gaining momentum. If you’re president Xi and you wanted to invade Taiwan, you have to do it before November.

David Blackmon [00:15:29] Guy’s got ten months.

Stuart Turley [00:15:31] You got ten months. So that means today you also, if you’re going if you’re Joe Biden and you’re the Democrats and you need another mail in ballot, campaign going on, you have to start something now. March 1st, it will be a deadline for something to have happen so they can declare an emergency and print the ballots. So I can guarantee you, if you go look at the follow the money, the ballots are being printed, and then you’re going to see something bad happened. And what that bad happened is, is it that guy that came across the border that was the head about, Azerbaijan? He was the head of the,

David Blackmon [00:16:28] Al-Qaida.

Stuart Turley [00:16:29] Al-Qaida there. Thank you. And he says you’re too stupid to know who I am. Within 12 hours, everybody in the United States knows who he is. Who’s the really dumb one? Well, he’s here illegally and wandering around and says, you will know who I am. You have General Flynn letting us know that we are about to have the worst, nine, nine, attacks on U.S. soil. Remember, guys, we had 12 guys take down the two towers. We’ve got more. We’ve got more illegal migrants in this country now than 14 or 15 states. The hoodies and the blowfish of our ready are now here. If we’re going to go blow them up, you think they’re going to retaliate? And you have, quite honestly. Seriously, you have Lindsay warmonger Graham going bomb Iran. That man is a chatter hit. He is a Republican warmonger chowder head that needs to be run out of town. And I think he needs to become an illegal migrant to Mexico now. Sorry. I just find it despicable that we’re becoming warmongers, not we. I am not a war monger. And that war. If we go to war and we bomb Iran. I guarantee you I ran the houthis. It, Hamas have people here, and it’s going to be really easy for them to go through. We know the grid is already been compromised. Already been done trying to can remotely shut down those 30 main areas. Period. Make an R-rated movie. There was one other video that came out today about Chinese people, had just come in from the border illegally doing prac target practice every chance they can. I’m not kidding, guys.

Rey Treviño [00:18:46] You know, both of you all got pretty somber when I asked, why do you all think China is, now picking the time to pick up, you know, pick up, add to the reserves. That’s a little, a little worrisome there, you know, for you to to get somber like that, as y’all both said, preparing for war. That’s, you know, I, I do believe in the Marines motto that, you know, you want peace, prepare for war. However, I don’t advocate for it for any form or fashion. But obviously, what happened in Afghanistan’s 18th, almost two years ago now was just an abomination to the power that is the United States of America. And now everybody across the world sees how weak we are. Because you are right, as you call them. The Hootie and the Blowfish are just out there right now having fun, taking shots off wherever they can. They remind me of the little guy that just kind of comes in and hits and runs away all the time.

Stuart Turley [00:19:42] In fact, Michael Yon is a war correspondent and he has a he put out a graph and there’s another meme that went out this morning as well. And it was, the US rangers or sheep and they say, join the Army and become targets for missiles. And Michael Yon, then who is the war correspondent? He was an Army Ranger. If you take a look at the path from, India all the way through all of the world conflicts, it’s like we’re putting our troops, so we start a war. The warmongers that are running our country are putting our people in harm’s way. That’s his comment. I’m kind of scratching my head going, he may be right.

Rey Treviño [00:20:32] Well, you know, and here’s the other part that kind of bothers me. You know, China had, imports of an annual record of record of 2023. So why are they adding more to it? You know, it’s just very interesting. Very, very interesting.

Stuart Turley [00:20:47] Well, yeah. Why is Iraq the beefing up? It so when you take a look at when I ran had, 400 barrels, 400,000 barrels per day under Trump and the sanctions worked, and now you have them. I think you have to fact check me. I believe it’s 3.4 million barrels per day on Iran. It was almost 80 million.

David Blackmon [00:21:11] 80 billion.

Stuart Turley [00:21:12] 80 billion that they have made off of oil thanks to the Biden sanctions not being put in place correctly or being enforced. And I’m sure that, and I’m going to make this allegation right now is that they’ve been probably paid into their funds. They’re Democrat. Lee. That wouldn’t surprise me.

David Blackmon [00:21:37] Doesn’t much surprise me. Meanwhile, where is our strategic petroleum reserve? Thanks to Joe Biden’s policies.

Rey Treviño [00:21:44] Where is it?

David Blackmon [00:21:46] Well, I mean, we’re sitting at about 50% of capacity.

Rey Treviño [00:21:49] 50.

David Blackmon [00:21:49] Lowest, lowest level since 1981.

Stuart Turley [00:21:53] And.

Rey Treviño [00:21:53] Five zero, 50% capacity right now.

David Blackmon [00:21:56] 50%. Really less than 50% of what it’s capable of holding.

Stuart Turley [00:22:00] And, the, storage facilities are failing because they’re not designed to be left empty.

David Blackmon [00:22:08] Right.

Stuart Turley [00:22:09] And then also, who was a major buyer of all of that oil?

David Blackmon [00:22:15] A lot of it went to China.

Stuart Turley [00:22:17] Thing.

Rey Treviño [00:22:18] Oh, I’m gonna have to. I got to put that out.

Stuart Turley [00:22:21] And then began to guess what company bought it.

David Blackmon [00:22:28] I don’t know, Xena.

Stuart Turley [00:22:29] Hunter is still on the board.

David Blackmon [00:22:32] Oh, Burisma. I thought Burisma was a natural gas

Stuart Turley [00:22:35] Sunoco or whatever it was. It was a Chinese company.

David Blackmon [00:22:40] I’ve seen it. CNOOC, the Chinese national oil company.

Rey Treviño [00:22:44] Wow. You’ll see that.

Stuart Turley [00:22:48] What was it?

Rey Treviño [00:22:49] What? In your butt.

David Blackmon [00:22:51] They’re picking up.

Stuart Turley [00:22:53] Yeah. Oh, no.

Rey Treviño [00:22:56] Don’t worry about it. Don’t worry about it.

David Blackmon [00:22:59] All right. Keep the camera on and stay.

Rey Treviño [00:23:02] Yeah. Oh, that was my Hunter Biden impersonation. There you go.

David Blackmon [00:23:11] Oh, okay. Well, yeah.

Stuart Turley [00:23:13]  Yeah. Just keep your clothes on, please.

Rey Treviño [00:23:16] I like I will I’ll do everybody a favor and do.

David Blackmon [00:23:18] Yeah, I need a spoon and a lighter to do mine.

Rey Treviño [00:23:21] Hahahahaha!

Stuart Turley [00:23:23] Let’s go to Nape next week, guys.

Rey Treviño [00:23:25] That sounds like a blast. I’m excited. We got excited to hang out with you guys. oh.

Stuart Turley [00:23:31] We got us an all star lineup, man.

Rey Treviño [00:23:34] We do?

Stuart Turley [00:23:36] We got guests rolling in.

Rey Treviño [00:23:38] Yes. So it’s. We’re going to start off by doing a live. I think we’re going to start probably advertising, doing a live three podcasters walk into a bar, hopefully there.

Stuart Turley [00:23:51] You bet.

Rey Treviño [00:23:52] We got Karr Ingham coming in for that. He’s an old, and a David Blackmon. We used to run around back in the oil patch way back in the day.

David Blackmon [00:24:00] We used to run around Austin occasionally.

Stuart Turley [00:24:02] He and I have the same hair. Have the same barber?

Rey Treviño [00:24:05] Yes. And. So I’m excited about that. And then.

Stuart Turley [00:24:10]  more stopping by the booth.

Rey Treviño [00:24:13] who?.

Stuart Turley [00:24:14] Doomberg.

Rey Treviño [00:24:15] No way.

David Blackmon [00:24:16] We got doomberg

Rey Treviño [00:24:18] We got doomberg.

Stuart Turley [00:24:19] Yeah.

David Blackmon [00:24:21] You guys don’t have, but I do.

Rey Treviño [00:24:22] Oh, hey, now, how is he going to do that?

Stuart Turley [00:24:25] Hey, doomberg my.

Rey Treviño [00:24:27] Okay.

David Blackmon [00:24:27] He’s not coming by.

Rey Treviño [00:24:29] Well, no. No, but it’s going to be zoom, though, right?

David Blackmon [00:24:32] Oh, yeah, it’s going to be zoom.

Rey Treviño [00:24:33] But, you know, I was talking with Doctor Ed Ireland about him the other day. I go, do you know who he is? And he goes, I have an idea RT, but I’m gonna leave it alone. I said, okay. And, that is awesome. That’ll be a fun one. We’ll have to, we’ll have to get people there for that.

Stuart Turley [00:24:49] Oh, yeah.

Rey Treviño [00:24:51] We’re going to be on Wednesday or Thursday.

David Blackmon [00:24:53] Thursday. We’re working on Thursday at either 9 or 10 a.m..

Stuart Turley [00:24:57] And then we’ll have speakers there so people can come by. And then we will have, we got Steve Reese, we got Jay Young will be in the booth as well.

David Blackmon [00:25:09] Got Andrew Dittmar from Enverus coming by.

Stuart Turley [00:25:11] And also two others from Enverus coming by as well too. Awesome. And then we have Sharon. March. She’s the, emcee in technology AI she’s coming by. We also have, Brant, Bennett from Black Oil Mountain. And.

David Blackmon [00:25:35] Black Mountain.

Stuart Turley [00:25:36] Mark Manning is a cool cat. Lots of people coming by

Rey Treviño [00:25:42] Yeah. And then on Wednesday, you know, not only are we going to have car there on Wednesday, we’ve also got, Texas Alliance, Texas Star Alliance, Chris Hosa coming in for an interview.

David Blackmon [00:25:52] Oh, how’s it going? All right.

Rey Treviño [00:25:55] I’m getting ready. Yeah. Oh, yeah, I hope so, David. And then, after that, we’re just going to keep the, the political lobbyist style going. We got George P Bush coming on after that.

David Blackmon [00:26:07] Very cool.

Rey Treviño [00:26:08] And then. And then after that is when Governor Greg Abbott is speaking to to the exhibitors to to the, to everybody else. So we should have a, a really a great time. And, you know, we definitely have a lot of players that are going to be, that definitely know the ins and outs of the oil and gas industry. And so, I mean, we just got like so many more. And then on Thursday, I know additional people that will have or Jim Holmes of l of chemistry, Brian Stubbs of Air Compressor Solutions. And then I think hopefully oh. And then JP Warren, with his awesome good energy, for everyone, he’ll be there talking about, all the things that he’s been up to. He’s just, he is a networking guru. King. Amazing guy. And then I think, we’re going to close it out with, the, LinkedIn famous, all the who want me, having her do an amazing interview, with Kristy Kerns about just how we can get America back. America needs some coaching. There’s no in this about about that. We need, we need we need a stiff, stern talking to in a in a weird way, if that makes any sense.

Stuart Turley [00:27:15] Yeah.

Rey Treviño [00:27:17] And that’s all. Well. I think, well, data or. Well data is going to be doing, evaluations of deals while we’re there. So we’ve just got so much going on. I cannot wait really to, to get these interviews going. I mean, David with you there and Stu, I mean, these, you know, some of these may be the crude truth, but I hope to have both of you all there to be, co-hosting. You know, I think it’s going to be awesome. And, so I definitely want to get it out there because people follow Bloomberg. So I could see people already sitting watching, you know, with the TV, with him and you, they’re just asking the questions.

David Blackmon [00:27:55] Just don’t get no better than that.

Stuart Turley [00:27:57] No, no, I was I was, too much man love on Doomberg because it was too weird. It talking to a green chicken was pretty darn cool.

Rey Treviño [00:28:10] Maybe one of these days I can interview him.

Stuart Turley [00:28:16] No, but we got a lot. And, we’re going to be getting all that out there. So RT how do people find you?

Rey Treviño [00:28:22] Oh, yeah. So they, definitely on LinkedIn. You know, you can contact me there. You can also go to, Pecos operating.com or the Crude Truth show.com. And, please write me an email. Let me know. If you have any questions. Also, I want to say thank you. I quoted my Substack article today from oil price.com. And thank you to everybody that writes questions. And, I, you know, do my best to, to answer those here with us. So thank you very, very much. And, you know, the I want to say thank you to the Wall Street people for, listening to David Blackmon a little bit. Oh, yeah. Well, I want to say that kudos to them. They’re not all that bad.

David Blackmon [00:29:04] It’s still up in the air.

Stuart Turley [00:29:06] Yeah. David had a people find you.

David Blackmon [00:29:10] You know, I don’t put out my home address. I’m sorry, but you can find me on Substack at, Blackmon b l a c k m o n.substack.com. Everything I publish is, link there. So it’s a very convenient way to follow what I’m doing.

Stuart Turley [00:29:29] Sounds great. And, you can always find my trouble, going on at energy newsbeat.co. This morning, we already had 37,000 people on the site from all over the world this morning, so it’s kind of crazy. So, okay with that? We’re off and running.

The post 3 Podcasters Walk in a Bar EP46 – OPEC+ and the OPEC quotas are no longer capable of being tracked appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

(Bloomberg) — When the US borrows money, it needs to pay its loans back with interest—just like any other borrower. But America’s national debt is currently $34 trillion and rising. Soon, the US will need to spend more each year paying interest than what it spends on national defense.

In the last few weeks, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin told Bloomberg TV that the US economy is “in a terrible place,” and Black Swan author Nassim Nicholas Taleb warned that “a debt spiral is like a death spiral.”

“It’s a slow spiral, but it’s still a spiral—of rising debt and rising payments on the debt,” Phillip Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office, tells the Big Take DC podcast. “ The situation is unsustainable.”

Swagel and Bloomberg reporter Liz McCormick join the Big Take DC to discuss the US government’s debt crisis, and what it would take to rein it in.Transcript:

Saleha Mohsin: The US government has a serious spending problem. It’s thrown money at military needs, roads, digging out of the pandemic—mostly using cash it doesn’t have in the bank. Just like the rest of us paying off a loan, the government has to pay interest on what it borrows. Over the past decade, those interest payments have crept up.They’ve become a bigger and bigger slice of federal spending—and soon, America will need to spend more each year paying off that debt interest than it spends on national defense. I’ve asked my sources at Treasury, in Congress, and even some historians – no one can think of us ever being here before. Everyone agrees we have a problem – but what no one can agree on is where the buck stops to fix it.

America’s debt is spiraling out of control – it’s over $34 trillion right now. And if it feels like every other month, Congress is narrowly avoiding a government shutdown over spending… that’s because it kind of is.

This week, we’ll look at how we got here, and what it will take for Washington to fix it. From Bloomberg’s Washington bureau, this is the Big Take DC podcast. I’m your host, Saleha Mohsin.

Mohsin: Borrowing money is not always a bad thing. In 1790, Alexander Hamilton wrote that debt was the price of liberty.

In Lin Manuel Miranda’s musical about Hamilton’s life, you can hear the young Treasury secretary pleading with the other founding fathers:

Hamilton: If we assume the debts, the union gets new line of credit, a financial diuretic. How do you not get it…

Mohsin: Without debt, he rap-argues, the US couldn’t fund the fight to become an independent nation.

Hamilton: We needed money and guns and half a chance, uhh who provided those funds?

Mohsin: So the US has really leaned into debt—so much so that the last time the country had zero debt was in 1835.

That’s because each year, the US creates a massive budget. It’s money that keeps the economy moving, even when faced with challenges like a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.But when the federal government wants to spend more than it’s bringing in through taxes and other revenue, it has to borrow—from other countries and the private sector. That gap between our money in and our money out is called a deficit.

Liz McCormick: You could think about it for your household. If everything I owe is bigger than the assets I have, I’m in a deficit.

Mohsin: My colleague Liz McCormick and I have spent a lot of time talking about the deficit. She’s a chief correspondent at Bloomberg, covering debt and currency markets.

McCormick: So for the US, all the net revenues they’re taking in after they pay out all their expenses, they’re in the red.

Mohsin: Unlike a household spending more than it’s bringing in, it’s ok for the US government to live its life in the red.

McCormick: We have the global, what they call reserve currency, meaning many things are priced in US dollars. It gives us this kind of special status. No one quite thinks the US is going to kind of really default on their debt. (laughs)

Mohsin: In other words, people trust that the US will pay back its loans eventually—and they trust so deeply that it’s good for its dollar that they rely on it as the backbone of the global economy. That’s one reason why America can run up such a high bill. But lenders still want something in exchange for buying US debt.

McCormick: There’s no free lunch. So they’re saying, ‘yeah, here, US Treasury, take our money. We like you, take it. But give me something every month because I’m kind of putting my money to you and I can’t use it, right? So, at least give me some, what we call, interest.’

Mohsin: So when the government wants to fund a program—say, a new part for Medicare, building a bridge, or helping allies like Israel or Ukraine—even if we don’t have that money set aside, we can borrow it at a very low cost to taxpayers.

That’s helped us get out of some really sticky situations. You may recall what newscasters and headlines sounded like during the financial crisis…

CBS Archival: Three of the five biggest independent firms on Wall Street have now disappeared.

AP Archival: Wary investors now wonder how the markets will recover from billions of dollars of bad mortgage debts, frozen credit markets, banks afraid to lend…

George W. Bush Archival: We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis…

Mohsin: That last clip was President George W. Bush speaking in 2008, when the government used spending to prop up a flailing economy. But that came with a price tag of hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal deficit nearly tripled from what it had been before the crisis.

Barack Obama Archival: Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable.

Mohsin: That’s President Barack Obama, speaking in 2011.

Barack Obama Archival: But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money… [fade]

Mohsin: In 2013, US debt surpassed the country’s GDP.

When President Donald Trump took office, he worked with Congress to cut taxes as a way to help grow the economy. Those tax cuts will add an estimated two and a half trillion dollars to the nation’s deficit in the next decade or so.

And then… Covid hit. And lawmakers were desperate to keep the economy afloat.

CNN Archival: First: those stimulus checks. Up to $1,400 for about 90% of households—

C-SPAN Archival: We’re making sure that small businesses have access to loans for their fixed costs—

C-SPAN Archival: And expanded unemployment insurance.

McCormick: During the pandemic, even as our borrowing shot up, as it kind of should in a crisis, we, we didn’t want, you know, companies and people to personally fail and not be able to fund their life. So there was a lot of fiscal support. Uh, but the Fed was cutting rates down to zero.

Mohsin: Let’s recap: to keep the economy from cratering, the government spent and then the Federal Reserve said: let’s make it really easy for people to borrow even more so that they keep spending. So the Fed slashed interest rates – making it cheaper to take on debt.

McCormick: But that’s all been turned on its head now because, because of inflation, the Fed has had to lift rates to like a 22 year high.

Mohsin: That 22-year high is a shock to the economy right now. People and companies have gotten so used to low interest rates, that now, everyone’s adjusting to how much more they have to pay—for everything from car loans to mortgages.

And higher rates are hurting the government’s wallet, too.

McCormick: And that’s made the Treasury, every time they pay interest semi-annually, pay a lot higher interest. I mean, our interest expense is almost the amount of what we’re paying for big other categories like defense.

Mohsin: In 2023, the cost of just paying off the interest on US debt… reached $1 trillion. Coming up… as the US debt continues to climb, what is the growing cost to taxpayers?

Mohsin: The US debt has been climbing for decades. But to understand why experts think now is different, I wanted to talk to someone who’s seen how the budget is handled – from the inside.

So I sat down with Phillip Swagel. He’s the director of the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. It’s a non-partisan agency, funded by Congress.

Phillip Swagel: We provide the Congress with budget analysis and economic analysis. We would never say to a member of Congress, your bill is the, the right thing or the wrong thing, we just provide analysis.

Mohsin: If you’re following news coverage of a proposed law, you’ve probably heard CBO’s estimate for how much that legislation will affect the national debt.

American Farm Bureau Archival: The Congressional Budget Office released their ten-year baseline for farm bill spending…

PBS Archival: The Congressional Budget Office estimates these changes could cost more than $90 billion over the next two years.

Mohsin: Swagel told me that there are two main reasons we should care that the government can’t get its debt under control.

First, it means that we have to spend money paying off interest – as in, managing the debt load – instead of using that money for programs that actually help people. And second, it’s only going to get worse.

Swagel: When we have higher interest rates, more debt. We pay more in interest. And then that builds back into the debt which leads to yet, higher debt and higher interest payments.

Mohsin: So, it’s a spiral.

Swagel: We are in a spiral now. It’s a slow spiral, but it’s still a spiral of rising debt and rising payments on the debt. The situation is unsustainable.

Mohsin: Just this week, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a former options trader who wrote a book about unpredictable events called The Black Swan, told a hedge fund he advises that “a debt spiral is like a death spiral.”He’s not the only one with eyes on the economy who’s been raising alarm bells. A few weeks ago, Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary, put it bluntly on Bloomberg TV:

BTV-Wall Street Week Archival: No, I think we’re in a terrible place.

Mohsin: And this is all while the US has some of the cheapest interest rates of any country in the world. That’s because America has a solid record of paying back its loans, other countries cut a sweet deal when they loan money. But that could all change.

If the US keeps borrowing from other countries, and racking up a high bill—and continues to squabble over paying its debt… the country, and the US dollar, could lose its favored status.

It’s not enough to avoid a default—just the fighting is hurting the country. It’s like when parents fight and threaten to divorce, but don’t. Just because they stay together, doesn’t mean the fights don’t cause damage.

Our only hope for a way out of this debt spiral is for Congress to balance the budget. But that requires some hard decisions about where to cut spending. And Congress… is famously deadlocked.

McCormick: I don’t want to be too pessimistic, but I just don’t see the political will down in Washington right now to, to change their tune. We can’t seem to work across the aisle and get these agreements that would work to put us at least on a trajectory where the deficit should be getting better, right?

Mohsin: Even passing a basic spending bill has turned into a high-wire act, haunted by regular government shutdown threats. So getting through any serious cuts is gonna be hard.

Swagel: The challenge is that at any moment, we don’t have to take action, right?

Mohsin: So it’s hard to imagine folks in government suddenly getting inspired to take action. But there is at least one example of a time when it got its act together. Swagel says, back in the ‘90s, people thought the US might fully pay off its debt— and they were worried about that!

Swagel: And that’s because of the privileged place of Treasury securities. The Treasury debt has an important role in the global economy. A Treasury bond is an asset for the private sector that is seen as safe, and seen as liquid. And so if investors want an asset with those characteristics, the ability to buy and sell treasury bonds is important to financial markets.

Mohsin: That fiscal responsibility didn’t happen by accident. It essentially took investors bullying President Bill Clinton’s administration. Here’s how that went:

Investors were against the government’s unsustainable spending. So they revolted. They started dumping their Treasury bonds, and when those bonds flooded the market, they appeared a whole lot riskier. It was your basic laws of supply and demand at play.

When Treasuries are seen as even a tiny bit riskier, buyers demand a higher return on their investment. Kinda like how your home insurance costs more if you live in a flood zone.

So to recap: investors sold off Treasuries, which drove prices lower. But that drove up the amount buyers demanded in exchange for each bond. That made it more expensive for the government to borrow.

And Treasuries guide the interest rate for all sorts of debt—like home mortgages and other consumer obligations. So all of a sudden, you’ve got the makings of an economic slowdown, which is every elected leader’s nightmare.

McCormick: Back in the Clinton days, you know, James Carville, his advisor always joked like, ‘I thought I’d wanna come back as,’ what did he say? ‘Like a great baseball player or the Pope or something.’ And then he is like, ‘I wanna come back as the bond market,’ because Clinton wanted to do all the spending and bond yields just went crazy.

Mohsin: Clinton was forced to change his whole economic agenda just to keep investors happy – and prevent an economic crisis.

Back in the ‘90s, debt interest wasn’t skyrocketing like it is today, so it’s a bit of an apples to walnuts comparison. But it’s possible that the same kind of pressure from markets could help now.

McCormick: Maybe if bond yields just keep going and going and this situation gets worse and worse, maybe somebody gets religion and says we need to do something, but I think it’s going to take a lot.

Mohsin: Thanks for listening to the Big Take DC podcast from Bloomberg News.

I’m Saleha Mohsin. This episode was produced by Julia Press and Naomi Shavin. It was fact-checked by Stacey René. Alex Sugiura and Blake Maples are our mix engineers. Our story editors are Caitlin Kenney, Wendy Benjaminson, and Michael Shepard. Nicole Beemsterboer is our Executive Producer. Sage Bauman is our Head of Podcasts.

If you liked what you heard, please be sure to subscribe, rate, and review the show—it’ll help other listeners find us! Thanks for tuning in. I’ll be back next week.

On each episode of the Big Take DC, host Saleha Mohsin explores one story about how money, politics and power shape Washington—and the consequences for Americans and people all over the world. Download and subscribe to the Big Take DC podcast on iHeart, Apple, Spotify, Bloomberg Carplay or wherever you listen.

Source: News.yahoo.com

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post America’s ‘Debt Spiral’ Is Nearing a Critical Threshold appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

The Finance Committee in the Iraqi parliament made a statement on 31 January calling for the sale of oil in currencies other than the US dollar, aiming to counter US sanctions on the Iraqi banking system. 

“The US Treasury still uses the pretext of money laundering to impose sanctions on Iraqi banks. This requires a national stance to put an end to these arbitrary decisions,” the statement said.

“Imposing sanctions on Iraqi banks undermines and obstructs Central Bank efforts to stabilize the dollar exchange rate and reduce the selling gap between official and parallel rates,” it added.

The Finance Committee affirmed its “rejection of these practices, due to their repercussions on the livelihoods of citizens,” and reiterated its “call on the government and the Central Bank of Iraq to take quick measures against the dominance of the dollar, by diversifying cash reserves from foreign currencies.”

Washington imposed sanctions on Iraqi Al-Huda Bank this week, under claims of laundering money for Iran. Several other banks have been hit with similar sanctions over the past year.

The statement came the same day a senior US Treasury official said Washington expects Baghdad to help identify and disrupt the funds of Iran-backed resistance factions in Iraq.

“These are, as a whole, groups that are actively using and abusing Iraq and its financial systems and structure in order to perpetuate these acts and we have to address that directly. Frankly, I think it is clearly our expectation from Treasury perspective that there is more we can do together to share information and identify exactly how these militias groups are operating here in Iraq,” the official stated. 

Three US soldiers were killed in an Iraqi resistance attack near the Syrian–Jordanian border on 28 January. Near daily Iraqi attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria have now been halted after the killing of the US soldiers, following Iraqi government pressure on resistance groups, primarily the Kataib Hezbollah faction.

The government in Baghdad has faced pushback from Washington for its attempts to diplomatically facilitate a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, and a transition of US presence in Iraq to an “advisory role.” 

The US exercises significant control over the Iraqi financial system. Due to US sanctions, Baghdad has struggled to pay hefty energy debts owed to Iran. 

Additionally, Iraqi oil revenues are transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Baghdad requires US permission to access these funds.

The Iraqi government recently expressed hope in moving towards de-dollarization. 

Iraq is set to implement several new economic measures to further strengthen the national currency against the US dollar, a government source told the Iraqi News Agency (INA) on 14 November. 

Last May, the Iraqi government announced a ban on the US dollar for both personal and business transactions. 

“It is clear that Iraq is economically dominated by the US, and our government does not truly control or have access to its own money … We believe that it is crucial to move away from the hegemony of the dollar, especially as it has become a tool to impose sanctions on countries. It is time for Iraq to rely on its local currency,” Iraqi MP and member of the Finance Committee, Hussein Mouanes, told The Cradle in an exclusive interview last year. 

Source: Thecradle.co

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Iraqi parliament calling to ditch US dollar for oil trade appeared first on Energy News Beat.

Energy News Beat

Norway’s district court in Oslo recently made a decision on fossil fuels that deserves the attention of every person concerned about climate change.

This ruling, which compels energy firms to account for the industry’s entire carbon footprint, could change the way oil and gas licenses are awarded in Norway—and inspire similar legal challenges to fossil fuel production in other countries.

The district court judge Lena Skjold Rafoss ruled that three petroleum production licenses, held by energy companies including Equinor and Aker BP, were invalid largely due to the lack of consideration that had been given to so-called “downstream emissions.” That is, emissions from burning the petroleum that these firms would extract from the North Sea (also called scope 3 emissions).

This case is a big win for environmental campaigners who have tried to make oil and gas companies account for the emissions that come from burning their products. Similar efforts have been defeated in legal challenges elsewhere over the last few years.

As a researcher of climate and energy law, I have noted in my work how rules on oil and gas licenses are not aligned with national climate targets. I have called for changing these rules so that the downstream emissions the oil and gas from a new field will produce are considered when deciding whether it should go ahead.

Although the judgment only applies to Norway and its implication should not be overstated, it could seed similar arguments in climate litigation elsewhere. This could force governments to consider how drilling for and burning new oil and gas will really affect climate change.

Oil and gas companies applying for exploration and production licenses in new fields are, in most countries, obliged to produce an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for each proposed project. Firms submit these EIAs to the government and they are usually made public. The idea is that public scrutiny and participation will ensure the government’s final decision is informed and transparent.

In many countries, EIAs must now account for a project’s impact on the climate. But this obligation is typically interpreted as encompassing the emissions from exploration and production only—not from burning the oil and gas extracted.

Despite previous legal challenges and until this recent decision, regulators and courts in oil-producing countries like Norway and the UK have been reluctant to make firms account for the emissions that come from burning the fuels they produce. This is despite the fact these scope 3 or downstream emissions constitute 67%–95% of overall emissions for oil production.

Why consider downstream emissions?

Regulators and companies argue that these emissions are not relevant as they do not form a part of the project under consideration. But regulating demand for oil and gas, through higher emission standards for vehicles for example, is not enough to tackle climate change.

Research confirms that keeping global heating below 2°C will require a third of the world’s oil and half of its gas reserves to remain underground by 2050. More recent assessments based on limiting warming to 1.5°C are even stricter.

Plainly, we cannot keep producing fossil fuels while keeping climate targets alive.

The legal requirements on EIAs in Norway allow room for interpretation, carving a role for courts to clarify if downstream emissions ought to be included. In a 2020 ruling by the Norwegian Supreme Court, in a case dubbed People v Arctic Oil, the court decided that downstream emissions were a relevant consideration for environmental assessment.

However, the case concerned opening new areas for firms to bid for licenses and the court ruled that such an assessment was not required at that stage. This new decision concerns the government awarding production licenses for specific fields.

At this stage, firms should have a much better understanding of the geology of the field they intend to drill in, how much oil or gas is there and the quantity of downstream emissions it should yield. The court argued that the government’s interpretation of the law to exclude downstream emissions at this stage is too restrictive and downstream emissions must be considered before granting permits.

Will the decision inspire further legal challenges?

Despite the clear victory for environmental groups, the practical value of the judgment must be carefully considered.

The judgment will most likely result in an appeal from the Norwegian Ministry of Energy and take months or years to make its way to the country’s Supreme Court for a final decision. While this might delay the drilling, if the government complies with the judgment and requires oil and gas firms to make the necessary downstream emissions assessment it might still proceed with approving new oil production permits—even if the assessment shows considerable downstream emissions.

Will courts in other countries follow suit? Not every country has a written constitution with environmental rights provisions like Norway (the UK doesn’t, for example). But while foreign judgments do not usually serve as precedent, courts often mention applicable decisions in consideration of the relevant facts.

In the UK, a few outstanding cases deal with downstream emissions. For example, environmental campaign groups Greenpeace and Uplift are challenging the government’s approval of the Rosebank oil and gas field west of Shetland, in part due to its lack of consideration of downstream emissions.

The UK Supreme Court is also expected to hand down judgment in the Finch case. This will decide whether it was lawful for Surrey County Council to approve an oil development without requiring an assessment of downstream emissions.

This builds on similar legal challenges in response to new fossil fuel production in Australia and the US. The outcomes of these cases could change the assessment process for all fossil fuel projects.

Source: Phys.org

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Oil firms forced to consider full climate effects of new drilling, following landmark Norwegian court ruling appeared first on Energy News Beat.