White House Talks Between Trump, Zelensky Collapse

Energy News Beat

The anticipated critical minerals deal appears off the table for now after the U.S. president berated the Ukrainian leader.


World Brief
FP’s flagship daily newsletter, catching you up on 24 hours of news in five minutes. Delivered weekdays.

White House Talks Between Trump, Zelensky Collapse

The anticipated critical minerals deal appears off the table for now after the U.S. president berated the Ukrainian leader.

An illustration of Alexandra Sharp, World Brief newsletter writer
An illustration of Alexandra Sharp, World Brief newsletter writer
Alexandra Sharp
By , the World Brief writer at Foreign Policy.
U.S. President Donald Trump (right) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky meet at the White House in Washington.
U.S. President Donald Trump (right) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky meet at the White House in Washington.
U.S. President Donald Trump (right) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky meet in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on Feb. 28. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Welcome back to World Brief, where we’re looking at U.S. President Donald Trump’s heated meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, incoming U.S. tariffs on China, and a future free trade deal between India and the European Union.


‘Downright Un-American’

A high-stakes White House showdown between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump collapsed on Friday after bilateral talks dissolved into a heated televised exchange.

Welcome back to World Brief, where we’re looking at U.S. President Donald Trump’s heated meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, incoming U.S. tariffs on China, and a future free trade deal between India and the European Union.


‘Downright Un-American’

A high-stakes White House showdown between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump collapsed on Friday after bilateral talks dissolved into a heated televised exchange.

After meeting with a bipartisan congressional delegation in Washington on Friday, Zelensky arrived at the White House to sign a critical minerals deal that Kyiv had hoped would come with U.S. security guarantees. Prior to the meeting, Trump had also touted the draft agreement as an important step for U.S. rare-earth investments.

But the possibility of such cooperation quickly evaporated, with Trump and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance berating the Ukrainian leader in front of the officials and journalists who were gathered in the Oval Office for what was supposed to be a brief press availability ahead of the substantive meeting.

Trump accused Zelensky of “gambling with the lives of millions of people.” “You’re gambling with World War III, and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country that’s backed you far more than a lot of people say they should have,” Trump said.

Vance joined in on Trump’s aggressive rhetoric, asking at one point, “Have you said ‘thank you’ once?” in regard to Ukraine receiving U.S. aid. Zelensky has repeatedly expressed his gratitude for U.S. military and humanitarian assistance.

The Ukrainian president met the Trump administration’s comments head-on. He reminded U.S. officials that Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously violated cease-fire deals, and he remarked that Trump’s comments parrot Kremlin propaganda, including the U.S. president’s claim that the war would have been over “in three days” if Ukraine didn’t have access to U.S. military equipment.

After roughly 50 minutes, Trump ended the public portion of the event, and reporters were ushered out of the room. Shortly after, Zelensky left the White House, reportedly at Trump’s request. The press conference scheduled for later that afternoon was canceled, and the minerals deal was left unsigned.

“I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations,” Trump wrote on Truth Social after the meeting concluded, adding, “He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”

Many of the U.S. president’s Republican allies praised how he handled the meeting. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has long been seen as a staunch Ukraine supporter, said he had “never been more proud of President Trump for showing the American people—and the world—you don’t trifle with this man.”

Russia also rallied around Trump’s bullying tone, with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev writing on X, “The insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office.”

But many in the U.S. political establishment were shocked and disgusted by the Trump administration’s behavior. Republican Rep. Don Bacon called it “A bad day for America’s foreign policy.” And Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: “This afternoon’s outrageous display from @POTUS & @VP was disgraceful & downright un-American. Once again, they’ve sided with a murderous thug, Putin, over our democratic ally, Ukraine.”

Current and former European leaders and officials expressed similar sentiments. “If only Republicans had a fraction of Zelensky’s courage,” former European parliamentarian Marietje Schaake wrote on X. “The US President meanwhile has removed any doubt that he is making the US an adversary to Europe,” she added. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock were also quick to back Ukraine.

For his part, Zelensky kept his response short and sweet, posting on X: “Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit. Thank you @POTUS, Congress, and the American people. Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.”


Today’s Most Read


What We’re Following

Tariff “blackmail.” China accused the United States on Friday of “tariff pressure and blackmail” over the Trump administration’s decision to impose additional 10 percent duties on Chinese imports beginning next Tuesday. Such tariffs have “created a serious impact, pressure, coercion, and threat to the dialogue and cooperation between the two sides in the field of drug control,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said.

The White House maintains that tariffs are necessary to combat the flow of fentanyl into the United States; Washington has accused Beijing of allowing key materials used to make the illicit drug into Mexico, where it is then manufactured and trafficked across the U.S. southern border. Beijing, however, has said that “remarkable results” have been made in recent bilateral anti-drug cooperation.

“If the U.S. insists on having its own way, China will counter with all necessary measures to defend its legitimate rights and interests,” according to a Chinese Commerce Ministry statement on Friday. It is unclear what such retaliatory measures might be.

Washington’s tariffs on China are due to go into effect just one day before Beijing kicks off its annual parliamentary meeting to discuss the year’s economic priorities. And they will be imposed on the same day that Trump issues 25 percent duties on Canadian and Mexican imports.

A free trade future. India and the European Union agreed on Friday to sign a free trade deal by the end of this year. “I am well aware it will not be easy,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said while meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi. “But I also know that timing and determination counts.”

The two sides hope to bolster trade and investment cooperation in emerging industries, such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and clean technology. Von der Leyen said the two leaders also discussed the possibility of implementing a “security and defense partnership” that may take a form similar to what India already has with South Korea and Japan.

Their announcement signals Brussels’ efforts to expand its influence in the Indo-Pacific as a way to counter what it calls Chinese aggression. A “free trade agreement between the EU and India would be the largest deal of this kind anywhere in the world,” von der Leyen said. India and the European Union will hold another round of free trade talks in March as well as a summit later this year.

Seeking accountability. Protesters violently clashed with police in Athens on Friday while marking the second anniversary of a deadly train crash that has become symbolic of institutional failures in Greece. On Feb. 28, 2023, a passenger train collided head-on with a freight car in the Thessaly region, killing 57 people. Victims’ families called for politicians to be held accountable, citing deficiencies in Greece’s transportation infrastructure. So far, only rail executives have been charged with any crimes.

Continuing those demands, unions called a 24-hour general strike on Friday and thousands of demonstrators amassed across the country. These included gatherings outside of the Greek Parliament, where protesters launched gasoline bombs and destroyed public property at local police, who responded with tear gas, stun grenades, and water cannons. At least 41 people have been arrested thus far, and around 20 others have received medical attention.


What in the World?

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid unveiled a plan on Tuesday for postwar governance in Gaza that would see which country temporarily assume control of the enclave?

A. Saudi Arabia
B. Lebanon
C. Jordan
D. Egypt


Odds and Ends

In the English village of Little Steeping, a local church is seeking the return of a stolen painting. The art in question was taken last week and depicts the Ten Commandments, which list “thou shalt not steal” as one of their moral principles.


And the Answer Is…

D. Egypt

Under his proposal, Cairo would take control of internal civilian and security affairs in the enclave while leading a peace force in partnership with Gulf states and the international community, FP’s John Haltiwanger reports.

To take the rest of FP’s weekly international news quiz, click here, or sign up to be alerted when a new one is published.

Alexandra Sharp is the World Brief writer at Foreign Policy. X: @AlexandraSSharp

More from Foreign Policy


  • People stand in front of NATO headquarters in Brussels.
    People stand in front of NATO headquarters in Brussels.

    It’s Time for Europe to Do the Unthinkable

    Brussels has slavishly followed Washington for too long—and forgotten how to advance its own geopolitical interests.


  • Samuel Huntington holds his hand to his chin while sitting in an office.
    Samuel Huntington holds his hand to his chin while sitting in an office.

    Samuel Huntington Is Getting His Revenge

    The idea of a global “clash of civilizations” wasn’t wrong—it was just premature.


  • German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visits weapons maker Rheinmetall in Unterluess, Germany on Feb. 12, 2024.
    German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visits weapons maker Rheinmetall in Unterluess, Germany on Feb. 12, 2024.

    How Europe Can Defend Itself

    Here are 10 steps European leaders can take now to bolster the continent’s defenses without U.S. help.


  • J.D. Vance gestures with both hands open as he speaks into a microphone during the Munich Security Conference. Vance wears a black suit with a blue tie.
    J.D. Vance gestures with both hands open as he speaks into a microphone during the Munich Security Conference. Vance wears a black suit with a blue tie.

    The New Meaning of ‘Munich’

    After J.D. Vance’s bizarre speech, a word synonymous with appeasement may now signal the voluntary surrender of global hegemony.

OTHER SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS

Academic Rates

Specialty rates for students and faculty.

Multi-year

Lock in your rates for longer.

Groups

Unlock powerful intelligence for your team.

 

The post White House Talks Between Trump, Zelensky Collapse appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Week Recap: US LNG Dominance, Critical Minerals, and Global Energy Challenges

Energy News Beat

Weekly Daily Standup Top Stories

Trump’s Energy Czar Has Plan to ‘Map, Baby, Map’ US Oil Bounty

Burgum suggests stronger USGS role to analyze the potential Says US public lands hold natural resources worth trillions Interior Secretary Doug Burgum touted a plan for mapping deposits of oil, gas and critical minerals on US federal […]

U.S. LNG Exports Surge But Long-Term Growth Uncertain

The United States leads in LNG exports, but Qatar’s plans to double its output capacity by 2030 pose a major competitive threat. Investors are becoming hesitant to commit to long-term LNG deals due to concerns […]

Natural Gas Prices Surged 160%—And They’re Not Coming Down Soon

Natural gas prices have jumped in recent weeks in all major consuming markets, including in the United States, where prices have soared by more than 160% from this time last year. Colder winters in North […]

AGDC: market interest in Alaska LNG continues to rise

AGDC stated this via its social media after Philippine Ambassador to the US Jose Manuel Romualdez said that the Philippines plans to procure LNG from Alaska to meet its growing needs to develop the country’s […]

NY’s Net Zero Dream Unravels As Utopian Climate Plans Face Lawsuit Woes

Everything about New York’s vision for a net zero economy is unraveling, and its utopian climate plans have only gotten worse. ​Back at the beginning of the year, I had a post titled “New York […]

Restarting Germany’s Nuclear Reactors

ENB Pub Note: This article is from the Energy Reminations Substack and was written by Doug Sandridge, who is a friend of the ENB Podcast. He has extensive international energy knowledge, and I interviewed Doug […]

Highlights of the Podcast

00:00 – Intro

01:12 – Trump’s Energy Czar Has Plan to ‘Map, Baby, Map’ US Oil Bounty

03:49 – U.S. LNG Exports Surge But Long-Term Growth Uncertain

06:22 – Natural Gas Prices Surged 160%—And They’re Not Coming Down Soon

08:04 – AGDC: market interest in Alaska LNG continues to rise

10:08 – NY’s Net Zero Dream Unravels As Utopian Climate Plans Face Lawsuit Woes

12:04 – Civitas Resources, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2024 Results

13:29 – Restarting Germany’s Nuclear Reactors

15:40 – Outro


FollowStuart On LinkedIn and Twitter

Follow Michael On LinkedIn and Twitter

ENB Top News

Energy Dashboard

ENB Podcast

ENB Substack

ENB Trading Desk

Oil & Gas Investing In 2024


– Get in Contact With The Show –


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


Stuart Turley: [00:00:09] Hello everybody, this is Saturday the first, March 1st. It’s already March. Boy, it just seems like yesterday we had an election. But buckle up, the staff has got an absolutely fantastic episode for you. They took the best and most read stories of this week and they’re going to just absolutely line them up for you. But I want to give a shout out to Steve Reese and his staff for supporting and sponsoring The Daily Show. They sponsor the Energy Newsbeat. They are an outstanding resource for anybody in the natural gas space in the United States. If you’re buying or selling oil or LNG, they absolutely understand cradle to grave the entire process from a oil rig all the way out to selling LNG and having an import facility in Germany. they have the entire food chain all the way down. Thanks and have an absolutely wonderful day and we’ll talk to you soon. [00:01:11][62.6]

Stuart Turley: [00:01:12] Let’s go to Mr. Trump’s energy czar has a plan to map baby map. I got tickled at this story with Doug Burgum at CPAC. Burgum suggests stronger USGS role to analyze the potential. And when you take a look at it, the US has $36 .5 trillion in debt, but unlimited knowledge about the value of America’s assets, Burgum says. But in the Trump administration, And we’re going to build that balance sheet as we have trillions and trillions of dollars of worth of natural resources, and we’re going to make sure we understand that those are our assets to be out exceed the debt that we have. I like the way that they’re thinking, Michael. And I think that they’re setting this up for long term a profits for the government profits for the US citizens and opportunities for oil and gas operators to work on federal lands. I think this is phenomenal. [00:02:10][57.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:02:11] Yeah, now I think what they’re talking more about is a reference to critical minerals and things of that nature. I think it’s pretty done well and cooked where the oil is to use a phrase. Like I think we know where all the oil is. Do we know where all the uranium is? Do we know where all the critical minerals are that we could be using that can be advanced in to build up our own semiconductor business, to build up all of these other businesses that we’re live on? I think that’s really the main focus. [00:02:37][26.4]

Stuart Turley: [00:02:36] I think that’s really the main focus of this. Oh yeah, I agree. But in Alaska, on federal lands, there is still a ton that has yet to be explored out. So there is still a lot. It depends on where you’re saying. There is no – [00:02:46][10.1]

Michael Tanner: [00:02:49] explored versus no, there’s oil. There are two, there’s a distinction there because if the price of oil ever shot up, we would go start exploring for places we think there’s oil. I’m absolutely going to take you so far. The only way to figure out if there’s oil somewhere is drill a hole or go build a mine somewhere. So a map will only take you so far and exploration becomes more likely as prices rise. It’s one of the reasons why when prices rise, people go find and oil, and it drives then the price down and we see that balance. Again, I think this has a lot to do with criticalness, but I think this is pun intended, a critical thing for us to be doing because all that stuff on federal land does belong to the federal taxpayer. And if we’re not exploiting it and if it can be used to benefit us, it’s a great thing. So I’m all for this specifically because if you do want to build up your own semiconductor industry in the United States. Critical minerals are pun intended critical. [00:03:47][57.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:03:48] Exactly. The US LNG export surge, but is long -term growth uncertain. The United States leads LNG export, but Cutter’s plans to double output and capacity by 2030 is a major competitive threat. Yeah, they can approve things a little faster in that one. The King goes, yes, the Europe’s LNG imports have declined. So maybe King Trump can go, yes. That was a by the way, Europe’s LNG exports have declined within an increased effort. Now, when we take a look at, I think LNG is going to be President Trump’s ace in the hole for offsetting the tariffs, you know, and I think that that’s going to be a major part of his thing, just like he did with Japan last week. [00:04:34][46.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:04:34] Absolutely. And you’re going to have to figure out a way to get all of this LNG economically over to all of these individual countries that want it. I mean, we know the first is building the infrastructure, but then setting up the economic incentives for a lot of this stuff to get sent. I do agree with the sentiment in this article that eventually our LNG capacity is going to plateau because it’s an infrastructure problem. Qatar, all of these Middle Eastern countries are thinking in 30, 50 year increments. We don’t necessarily do that. The largest we tend to think is sometime about 20 years. So from the standpoint of where our infrastructure needs to be relative to where it needs to go for us to continue to dominate the LNG space, I think it’ll be interesting. But I do think what you’re going to see is the demand for natural gas at home is going to continue to rise as AI continues to be big. I mean, three weeks ago, DeepSeek basically said power was useless for their models. It’s not the case, but that was the sentiment around that, oh, we don’t need all these data centers now. It only costs $5 million to train these models. Then Grok3 just came out and that was trained on Colossus, which was the largest data center in Memphis. And that has surpassed all of the benchmarks between OpenAI and what Meta are doing and even DeepSeek. So now everyone’s like, oh, we need bigger data centers again. So it’s a constant give and take with all this stuff. So I think LNG exports may flatline, but we will continue to use natural gas in the United States heavily. At the standpoint of where our impersonal [00:05:07][32.7]

Stuart Turley: [00:05:57] I think as more people get used to LNG and LNG to energy plants come online, you’re going to see that that still is going to help that infrastructure out. I think LNG to power plants in Africa would be extremely cool. [00:06:14][16.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:06:14] It wouldn’t, it definitely would. But that’s it, now that’s a grid problem. Exactly, which came first. Yeah, exactly, exactly. [00:06:21][6.5]

Stuart Turley: [00:06:22] Natural gas prices surged 160 % and they’re not coming down anytime soon. They’ve jumped in recently to all major consuming markets, including the United States, where prices have soared more than 160 % from the colder weather. In Europe, the end of the Russian gas transit flows via Ukraine stopped on January 1, prompting the continent to buy more LNG and prepare for a more intense refills season between April and October. Going forward, prices both in the U .S. and Europe are set to remain high even at the end of the heating season in northern hemisphere as Europe will need to stock up on much larger volumes ahead of the next winter. Here’s where I don’t have it in my crystal ball. And I think that there is such a great forward progress that there is hopes that we may end the Russian -Ukraine war. And if you go to energynewsbeat .co and take a look at the resources, go to check out our articles from George McMillan. George McMillan has got a series out there on why the Kellogg Plan is DOA. And he has been, I’m really impressed with his information. Once he and I talked about it, the change to the Ukraine negotiations happened. Coincidence or cost? Not sure, but I’ll tell you what, he has got some great information out there and I see an end to the war. How soon? It just depends on the administration and how fast they can get it done. It’ll be good for no wars in the world. It would be a great goal. [00:08:03][100.8]

[00:08:05] AGDC market interest in Alaska LNG continues to rise. This is really, really pretty cool because they stated AGDC stated that this via social media after the Philippine ambassador to the U .S. Jose Manuel Romandas said that the Philippines plans to procure LNG from Alaska to meet its growing needs to develop the country sector. As I talked a little bit about that in the energy Reality’s podcast with Irina Slav, David Blackmon, and the Tammy Nemeth this morning, the LNG export is a Trump’s ace in his back pocket when you start to try to take a look at trade imbalances. People are going to pay a little bit more for LNG to buy it from the United States. It’s a pretty cool thing, especially when you consider that that may wipe out a trade tariff from the United States. I think people are going to go me, but on X today, I don’t know if this is true or not. I saw president Putin saying, uh, president Trump, I would even enter into a negotiation with you for critical minerals. So president Trump is onto some, if this is true, and president Putin is going, Hey, I don’t mind trading with you for critical minerals. It’s about business. And I think it’s pretty funny that we’re going to get into this kind of thing that president Trump’s deal making is going to have a very significant wide range. [00:10:07][122.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:10:08] New York’s net zero dream unravels as utopian climate plans face lawsuit woes. New York was really relying on theoretically wind and solar to save its electrical woes. And they had multiple, multiple contracts to build very large wind farms to replace some of their fossil fuel generation. But all of them or most of them have already been completely canceled or rebuilt at a much higher and uneconomic prices, which is the minority. Basically, the reason why this situation has got worse is because since President Trump has taken place, he began dismantling the federal support and subsidies for these, which goes to show that these projects can’t stand up without any subsidies. According to this, this executive order, which temporarily withdrew all outer continental shelf from leasing wind power, most, if not all, of New York’s offshore wind is actually on these leases. So they really can’t actually build anything. But you know, basically what this goes to show is that New York was relying on many billions of dollars to prop up wind, solar and green. It’s pretty unbelievable to see what’s happened. To give you guys an idea, the New York state climates leadership and community protection app of 2019 actually remains on the books. The statute commands the complete restructuring of New York’s energy economy. I’m reading straight from the article now to reach quote net zero greenhouse gasses by 2050 with an immediate first deadline of 20, 70 % of electrical generation renewables by 2030, though they actually never had a plan to achieve that that was supposed to be on the book. So it goes to show you that all this green stuff is, is, is, was being propped up by subsidies. If one, if, if, if by a stroke of a pen, a president by just pulling away subsidies can absolutely decimate an industry, it goes to show you really how much they do rely on subsidies and how it really can’t hold its weight under scrutiny relative to other sources. So wind farms, they’re falling left and right. [00:12:04][116.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:12:05] Let’s quickly look over at Civitas. They go ahead and release their earnings today. Pretty fascinating to see. Basically, I think the thing to see here is that their earnings were okay. I mean, you saw about 1 .3 billion of free cashflow net income at $151 million, adjusted net income at $171 million, operating cashflow at about $858 million, sales volumes of about 352 BOE a day, oil volumes of about 164 BOE a day, capex of about $279 million and adjusted pre -cashflow at about $519 million. Stock got absolutely hammered though, down 18 percentage points, shed about $9 all the way down to 40 .35, really due to the fact that they out of a whim terminated their COO without cause. And basically, T. Hodge Walker, the COO was officially terminated without cause, effective immediately, the company said. He was originally their VP of their Chevron, of the Chevron’s Rockies divisions prior to becoming Civitas COO in April, 2020. He can’t even last two years. Not great there. They also did say they’re eyeing a 10 % workforce reduction, which means all doesn’t quite go well. Yay, cashflow numbers look great, but they’re still eyeing a little bit of it up. So the street didn’t like any of those numbers. [00:13:28][83.6]

Stuart Turley: [00:13:29] Restarting Germany’s nuclear reactors. Germany is a failed state from the standpoint, let me rephrase that, the Green New Deal won. So they have totally de -industrialized Germany into a fiscal major issue. Germany shut down its last three nuclear reactors, April 15th of 2023 and Doug Sandridge wrote this article. It is absolutely a fantastic article going through the whole process of what they’ve done to become green energy, which is an oxymoron when you shut down your nuclear, which is the ultimate green energy of not having any net zero output. When you take a look at its energy crisis manifested after that, and then the wind felled out, 20 years of poor energy policy finally manifested itself into full blown crisis upon Russia’s unexpected invasion, and I’m glad to see that that invasion may be stopping here pretty soon. As a nuclear influencer, Mark Nelson has long advocated to restart some of the German nuclear power plants. As the founder of Radiant Energy Group and a nuclear energy professional, Nelson has to provide a feasible study on how to make it feasible again. By 2028, three reactors could be restarting, adding four gigawatts of capacity. If decommissioning stops now and rehiring begins, Brokaw could resume operations as early as the end of 2025 with swift legislation of action. This is really huge. Restarting any number of Germany’s nuclear power plants would be impactful within a short period of time at relatively low cost. You cannot beat this kind of energy that to have sitting there and you’re in the process of decommissioning is just plain dumb. Hats off to Doug Zandridge and well done on the article. [00:13:29][0.0][739.7]

The post Week Recap: US LNG Dominance, Critical Minerals, and Global Energy Challenges appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

No, Consumer Spending Didn’t Plunge in January and Auto Sales Didn’t Collapse, or Whatever, But the Huge Seasonal Adjustments Might Have Gone Awry

Energy News BeatPrice

Year-over-year, consumer spending jumped by 5.6% and retail sales by 4.8% in January. So there’s that.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

The financial media was thrown into a tizzy this morning when the Bureau of Economic Analysis released its Personal Consumption Expenditures report, which said that the seasonally adjusted annual rate of consumer spending dropped by 0.2% or by $30.7 billion, in January from December, driven by a $77-billion plunge in spending on goods, including a $69-billion plunge in spending on durable goods, which included a $41-billion plunge in spending on motor vehicles and parts.

Upon which the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow – which takes in the data as it’s released to adjust its forecast of the BEA’s first estimate of Q1 GDP – experienced a crypto-style rug-pull from +2.3% two days ago, in a straight line to heck, to -1.5% today, which went viral:

This 0.2% decline in January came after the massive upwardly revised 0.8% jump in December, the biggest jump in two years. Actual consumer spending trends don’t turn around on a dime like this.

A similar plunge of seasonally adjusted retail sales in January had already thrown the media into a tizzy on February 14, upon which we took A Romp through the Massive Seasonal Adjustments this Time of the Year.

Januarys always suck when it comes to spending on goods. The question is: Did it suck more or less than prior Januarys?

December is by far the best month of the year for spending on goods due to the holiday binge. Then in January, spending on goods, as per retail sales, plunges by 15% to 22% from December (range of the past 20 years).

This January, retail sales plunged by 16.5% from December. There were only two Januarys with smaller plunges: in 2023 (-14.8%) and in 2021 (-15.4%). The rest of the Januarys experienced bigger plunges.

Huge seasonal adjustments try to iron out the differences between December and January, by reducing December’s spending figures and increasing January’s spending figures. And since these adjustment factors are so huge, if they’re even slightly off and the error gets multiplied when it’s translated into an annual rate, the month-to-month change of that annual rate would be off by enough (see today’s -0.2%) to send the financial media into a tizzy.

January and February consumer spending data and retail sales data are always squirrely because a big part of what we’re looking at are just seasonal adjustments.

Retail sales are also released as actual retail sales, not seasonally adjusted, and not annual rate, and they looked OK in January, down by less month-to-month than in most Januarys, and up by 4.8% year-over-year.

The BEA’s consumer spending data isn’t available (as far as I know) on a not-seasonally-adjusted and not-annual-rate basis, unlike retail sales. It’s only available as seasonally adjusted annual rates (SAAR).

Large year-over-year increases in January indicate that something is askew in these seasonally adjusted month-to-month changes in January:

  • Retail sales, not seasonally adjusted: +4.8% yoy.
  • Consumer spending, Total, SAAR: +5.6% yoy
  • Consumer spending, Durable Goods, SAAR: +4.0% yoy.
  • Inflation-adjusted consumer spending, Total, SAAR: +2.1% yoy.
  • Inflation-adjusted consumer spending Durable Goods, SAAR: +5.3% yoy (deflation in durable goods increases inflation-adjusted spending on them)

Spending on motor vehicles and parts, according to today’s consumer spending data, plunged by a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $41 billion. But…

Best January for actual sales of new vehicles since 2020. The BEA reported that actual new-vehicle deliveries in January to end-users, such as consumers and fleets, rose year-over-year to 1.11 million new vehicles, the least bad January since January 2020, by a hair less bad than January 2022. Januarys always suck. But this January sucked a little less than the prior four Januarys?

Best January for actual sales of used vehicles since at least 2021. Used-vehicle retail sales by franchised and independent dealers in January rose 8% year-over-year to 1.41 million units, beating the Januarys of 2024, 2023, and 2022, which is as far back as the monthly data from Cox Automotive goes (the plunge in June 2024 was caused by the hack of CDK’s cloud-based dealership software in mid-June).

Over time, seasonal adjustment zero each other out. Seasonal adjustment factors subtract from the months that are seasonally strong and add to the months that are seasonally weak, but over the period of a year, they cancel each other out, and thereby any errors cancel each other out. What seasonal adjustments do essentially is shift activity around within the year.

This is why year-over-year comparisons can provide additional information, especially in December through February consumer spending and retail sales when huge seasonal adjustments become a big part of the month-to-month changes.

To me it looks like seasonal adjustments gone-awry were at least in part responsible for the huge 0.8% jump in December’s seasonally adjusted annual rate and January’s 0.2% dip, likely overstating December’s spending and understating January spending.

The three-month average increase in January was 0.4%, and that sounds about right. The year-over-year increase of 5.6% was in line with the big year-over-year increases in prior months.

Other influences might have happened as well. The weather is always wintery in January, and so seasonal adjustments try to make up for that. But maybe the winter weather had a bigger impact than normally in January. The fires in Los Angeles may have turned either way: Lots of people had to buy all sorts of stuff after they fled their homes, but the nightmare might have kept other some people in the area from buying stuff they would have bought otherwise.

The BEA also reported a huge 0.9% jump in personal income in January from December, the biggest jump since July 2022, based on the seasonally adjusted annual rate, and here it seems to me that seasonal adjustments whacked it the other way, understating December’s income and overstating January’s income.

Consumer spending trends don’t turn around on a dime like this. So for now, I think consumers overall keep doing what they’ve been doing: making money and spending money at a solid clip.

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

The post No, Consumer Spending Didn’t Plunge in January and Auto Sales Didn’t Collapse, or Whatever, But the Huge Seasonal Adjustments Might Have Gone Awry appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

PCE Inflation Hits 4.0% Month-to-Month Annualized, Worst since March. 3-Month PCE Hits 2.9%, Worst since April. But Massive “Base Effect” in Services Cools YoY Increases

Energy News BeatPrice

December, prior months revised higher. Goods prices jump month-to-month by most since August 2023, turn positive for first time in a year.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

The inflation measure released today – the PCE price index favored by the Fed as yardstick for its inflation target – jumped by 0.33% in January from December, or by 4.0% annualized, the worst month-to-month increase since March 2024. And this was on top of the upwardly revised December increase.

So, the 3-month PCE price index accelerated to +2.94% annualized, the worst increase since April 2024. The low point of the three-month index was in July (+1.6% annualized), and it has been accelerating ever since. The chart shows the month-to-month changes (blue) and the three-month changes (red), all annualized.

The 6-month PCE price index accelerated to +2.6% annualized, the worst increase since June 2024.

The core PCE price index, which excludes food and energy items, accelerated to +0.28% in January from December, or 3.5% annualized, the worst increase since October, and before then since March 2024.

The 6-month core PCE price index accelerated to +2.6%, the biggest increase since July 2024.

The core services PCE Price Index, which excludes energy services, decelerated in January, pushed down by three sub-indices that had month-to-month declines (negative readings).

On a month-to-month basis, this is very volatile data, except for the housing index. And these individual month-to-month changes tend to spike and plunge. So these are the changes in January from December, annualized:

Three subindices of services had negative readings:

  • Healthcare services (-1.5% annualized)
  • Transportation services (-4.9% annualized)
  • Insurance (-5.1% annualized)

Four subindices of services accelerated:

  • Housing index (+3.9% annualized).
  • Food services index (+4.8% annualized)
  • Non-energy utilities (+8.0% annualized)
  • Recreation services (+14.6%)

Two subindices decelerated:

  • Financial Services (+7.3% annualized).
  • Other services (+1.9% annualized)

The PCE price index for housing, which is part of core services, rose by 3.9% in January from December, the second month of acceleration. The six-month index decelerated to 4.2%

The base effect, as always, but this time it was big.

The year-over-year change in January was the sum of the 12 month-to-month changes of February 2024 through January 2025. The December year-over-year increase was the sum of changes from January 2024 through December 2024.

In January 2024, the services PCE price index had spiked month-to-month by 0.68% (the off-the-chart 8.5% annualized). This high reading of 0.68% fell out of the 12-month time frame of the year-over-year change in January 2025, and was replaced by the January 2025 reading of 0.24%. And this caused the year-over-year change to decelerate to 3.4%.

This is the infamous “base effect.” It happens with all year-over-year measures every month. And it’s usually not big. But this time in services, it was big and deserves this special mention (yellow in the chart below).

Because the services index weighs so heavily, it caused the year-over-year readings of the core PCE price index (blue) and of the overall PCE price index (red) to decelerate as well. Details below the chart:

The PCE price index decelerated a tad to 2.51% in January, from 2.60% in December, after three months of acceleration. The Fed’s target for this measure is 2%.

The “core” PCE price index decelerated to 2.65% in January from 2.86% in December, which was rounded to 2.6% in January from the upwardly revised 2.9% in December (originally reported as 2.8%).

The “core services” PCE price index decelerated to 3.42% (see the base effect above), from the upwardly revised 3.87% in December.

The durable goods PCE price index became less negative, declining by 1.16% year-over-year in January, the smallest decline since July 2023.

The durable goods category is dominated by new and used vehicles, and includes appliances, furniture, computers, cellphones, other consumer electronics, sporting goods, such as bicycles, etc.

The all-goods price index.

The PCE Price index for all goods, including durable goods, apparel and shoes, food, energy products, household supplies, etc. jumped by 0.5% in January from December (6.2% annualized), the biggest month-to-month increase since August 2023.

Year-over-year, the goods index accelerated from negative readings to +0.6% in January, thereby becoming positive for the first time in a year. It was the biggest year-over-year increase since September 2023.

Year-over-year changes of major goods categories:

  • Durable goods: -1.2%
  • Food: +1.6%
  • Energy products (dominated by gasoline): +0.4%
  • Apparel & footwear: +1.1%

The gold box marked the period of Trump’s first round of tariffs. As we can see, companies overall were largely not able to pass them on to consumers, though they tried – creating wild and wooly headlines in the media – but consumers refused to buy those products with higher prices, and companies ended up rolling them back [we discussed this here: What Trump’s Tariffs Did Last Time (2018-2019): No Impact on Inflation, Doubled Receipts from Customs Duties, and Hit Stocks].

Note that the tariffs Trump is now talking about, and even those that were announced in January, have not hit the goods that consumers bought in January. Those goods, if imported, came into the US before January, before any new tariffs were implemented.

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

The post PCE Inflation Hits 4.0% Month-to-Month Annualized, Worst since March. 3-Month PCE Hits 2.9%, Worst since April. But Massive “Base Effect” in Services Cools YoY Increases appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Atlantic LNG shipping rates climb to $20,000 per day

Energy News BeatAtlantic LNG

Spark’s data lead, Qasim Afghan, told LNG Prime on Friday that Spark30S (Atlantic) freight rates “have more than tripled this week, increasing by $13,500 to $19,750 per day, driven by the front month US arb to NE-Asia narrowing significantly over the past two weeks.”

“February 2025 is closing out as the lowest priced month on record for 174 2-stroke vessel freight rates, but this week’s rally has resulted in Spark30S rates now being at approximately similar levels to pre-2022 rates for this time of year,” he said.

In the Pacific, Spark25S (Pacific) rates increased by $3,500 to $14,250 per day, Afghan said.

In Europe, the SparkNWE DES LNG dropped compared to $13.96/MMBtu last week.

“The SparkNWE DES LNG front month price for March dropped by $0.833 to $13.127/MMBtu as the TTF continues to drop,” Afghan said.

He said the discount to the TTF “narrowed for the first time in nine weeks, increasing by $0.035 to -$0.585/MMBtu, indicating that demand for LNG delivery slots in NW-Europe is steadying.”

“The US arb to NE-Asia (via the Cape of Good Hope) for February narrowed for a fifth consecutive week, rising by $0.205 to -$0.297/MMBtu,” Afghan said.

“This is the narrowest front month US arb since December 2024, meaning that the incentive for US cargoes to deliver to NWE instead of Asia has become much more marginal as compared to arb signals seen in the last two months,” he said.

Image: Spark

Data by Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE) shows that volumes in gas storages in the EU declined from last week and were 39.54 percent full on February 26.

Gas storages were 41.93 percent full on February 19, and 63.28 percent full on February 26, 2024.

In Asia, JKM, the price for LNG cargoes delivered to Northeast Asia in April 2025 settled at $13.490/MMBtu on Thursday.

Last week, JKM for April settled at 14.175/MMBtu on Friday, February 21.

Front-month JKM rose to 14.335/MMBtu on Monday, and it dropped to 13.855/MMBtu on Tuesday and 13.490/MMBtu on Wednesday.

State-run Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security (JOGMEC) said in a report earlier this week that JKM for last week “fell to mid-$14s on February 21 (April delivery) from high-$14s the previous weekend.

“JKM was on a downtrend, falling below $14 on February 20 due to falling European gas prices and weak demand in Northeast Asia. Then, the price rebounded to mid-$14s, mainly due to buying orders from Taiwan and Thailand,” JOGMEC said.

Source: Lngprime.com

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

Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Atlantic LNG shipping rates climb to $20,000 per day appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Balancing Energy Affordability and Sustainability

Energy News Beat

In this episode of Energy News Beat Live from NAPE – Conversation in Energy, host Stuart Turley sits down with Jeff Krimmel, an energy analyst and consultant, who shares insights into the oil and gas industry, including Oxy’s high production costs and the challenges faced by high-cost producers. They discuss the impact of carbon capture technologies, deregulation, and how regulatory changes could benefit smaller operators. Krimmel emphasizes the importance of balancing energy affordability, sustainability, and security while recognizing the need for pragmatic approaches to global energy systems. He also talks about his consulting work, helping executives make data-driven decisions, and the evolving energy landscape, including the growing role of natural gas and AI in shaping the future.

This was an absolute blast with Jeff, and we will be talking once a month for a check into his analysis of great insights into the energy, oil, and gas markets.

Thank you, Jeff, for stopping by the NAPE booth, and I am looking forward to visiting more often!

I recommend following Jeff on his LinkedIn HERE: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffkrimmel/

And sign up for his newsletter HERE: https://jeffkrimmel.carrd.co/

Highlights of the Podcast

00:00 – Intro

01:10 – Discussion on Oxy’s Business Model and Costs

04:11 – Impact of Carbon Capture on Oxy

04:44 – Investing in High-Cost Producers

06:04 – Regulatory Environment and Its Impact on Small and Mid-Tier Operators

06:34 – Regulatory Changes and Their Potential Benefits for Smaller Operators

08:39 – The Role of Major Oil Companies and ESG Considerations

10:17 – Energy Analysis and Consulting Services

15:45 – Energy Market Trends and Future Outlook

18:48 – The Future of Energy Systems and Sustainability

22:25 – Closing and Contact Information

 

We are also putting the video from X here: YouTube has a tendency to block, or pull videos down when speaking the truth.

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:00:08] Hello, everybody. Welcome to the Energy Newsbeat Podcast. My name’s Stu Turley, President CEO of the Sansone Group. Today is NAEP and you’re probably tired of listening to us, but we are having so much fun. My next guest is Jeff Kreml and he is an energy extraordinaire, I think is a freak. I’m his favorite stalker on LinkedIn. You have got to follow him there. Welcome, Jeff. Well, thank you so much for having me. I’ll tell you what, I love your work. Your analytical mind on what you’re writing out there is very cool.

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:00:41] Well, I appreciate you saying that. It’s an area that I make sure, you know, it’s deliberate that I steer in that direction. There’s a lot of conversation around energy and frankly, a lot of it’s very good. And I feel like one area that I can contribute is by using data and communicating from that data, kind of telling my own story around that data, but sharing the data so that other folks can decide whether they agree with the narrative I happen to have constructed or whether they want to challenge it or come up with their own. And I feel like it creates a pretty fun dialog. You know what’s fun is when you take a look at

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:01:10] some of your analytics, let’s go through the one on Oxy, because I was, you sit back and kind of wonder why does Warren Buffett own so much, there’s got to be a reason. Yes,

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:01:20] the most recent analysis that I had done on Oxy was, and you see it in two different ways, but they are one of the higher cost of producers amongst US independent E &Ps. And you see it in terms of, I performed some estimated breakeven oil price calculations, they have a breakeven oil prices north of $55 a barrel. But you also see the post I wrote about most recently was in their finding and development costs, it costs them more to find and develop a barrel of reserves than almost anyone else that I had attracted, the big players of the big US independent E &Ps. And that’s worth paying attention to, because we’re in an environment where long term global oil demand, there’s real uncertainty about what happens there. And there’s real hesitation in getting aggressive around capex, as we’ve seen, this is the era of capital discipline. And so knowing that the whole industry is trying to be very selective about how they deploy capex, and that the hurdle rates to justify making these investments have gone up over time, that finding those operators that have the least margin for error is worth understanding, because it’ll tell us a little bit more about how we might expect the future to unfold. Do you think their carbon capture side of it is going to make a difference? So there’s a yes and a no answer to that. The no answer is probably simpler in the sense that, yeah, well, in the sense that if you strip out what their spend around their capture investments, they still would be the highest finding development costs amongst this cohort of independent E &Ps. But yes, in the sense that this is the challenge, I think there’s a lot of merit for any oil and gas company to chart their own path into the future and decide what role are they going to play in the context of carbon. And I know that Occidental describes themselves, at least in part, as a carbon management company. And so there’s, say that element, there’s another element where there’s many more oil and gas companies that are committed to driving down the emissions intensity of their own operations. Try to get that down as small as possible. That’s separate from capturing carbon that’s already been emitted in the atmosphere. Then there’s some cohort of the industry that doesn’t pay a whole lot of attention to carbon emissions at all. And so there’s merit. And I can see a management team justifying to, if you’re a publicly traded company, justifying to their shareholder base, or if you’re privately held, just fine to your ownership group, why we’re going to chart any of these three paths. Okay. Now the challenge becomes whatever path you choose, there’s going to be some advantages and some disadvantages that go along with it. And the wider the portfolio of opportunities that you make available for how you might deploy your capex introduces the possibility of confusion, of uncertainty, of suboptimal deployment of capital, right? Now it also opens up there’s, there’s real possibilities to play like Oxycode and be a meaningful contributor in carbon management, carbon retrieval directly from the atmosphere. So there are wins to be had there, but I do think it makes charting a path through your capital expenditure programs more fraught than

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:04:11] it otherwise would be. Wow. I’m sitting here kind of thinking, now if I’m an investor looking at Oxy and they’ve got the most expensive in the top tier for looking for new oil and gas in their bank, how do they continue on in their capex? But it’s going to be, they’re going to have to stick with tier one Atlanta, because if you’ve got low costs, you can go to the tier two levels and be okay. But if you’re at the high end of that cost margin, you’re going to have to stay in tier one, that’s going to limit on getting

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:04:44] good deals on. Yes. So it is a fair statement. The assumption that becomes really interesting, and I’m sure this is what the pro Oxy argument looks like, is costs are higher today than we would like them to be, but that means that there’s an enormous opportunity to drive those costs down. Right now I’ve not heard the details around that story about where some of these cost inefficiencies might be that they’re working presumably every day to pull out of organization. So it’s possible. There’s clearly an opportunity to improve and that in itself is exciting. And you can build an investment thesis around that if you believe that, okay, the company has identified these sources of cost inefficiency and really are targeting with the corrective actions to go capture those dollars. But if you think that, no, structurally, this is just a high cost business relative to other business for a number of reasons. It’s the results of subsurface realities or how we execute our programs. Then like you said, you’re restricted two ways. One, you’re restricted geographically. You need as favorable of subsurface environment as you could find. Two, you’re even more levered against attractive oil prices, right? If oil prices start retreating, you’re the one that’s going to be hurt first. And so then you start getting into, okay, do we start hedging more aggressively than our peers do? There are subsequent conversations you have if you believe to just structurally, we’re a higher cost organization. That’s right. I mean, if we’ll

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:06:04] take a look at Lee Zeldin, I mean, who would guess, Jeff, I did not have this on my card that Lee Zeldin would be told by President Trump for every one new regulation over at the EPA, you have to get rid of 10. Now, how cool is that? And so as an EMB operator out there, we’re all taking a look at regulatory issues and saving the cost of getting rid of 10 regulatory issues is huge. That’s going to help everybody. Yes. There’s something that’s very

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:06:34] interesting about this dynamic. And it is that when you look at, say, the world of big tech, there’s a lot of complaints about, you know, is big tech under regulated and in certain areas might be overregulated. And some of the biggest tech companies, right, rather strangely, have lobbied for increased regulation of the tech sector. Well, why would that be the case in almost all situations? If you increase the regulatory burden in any economic sector, that disproportionately targets the smaller players, right? The bigger players have all the resources they need to manage almost any regulatory environment that’s conceivable. But when you start peeling back regulations, what that does is unlock this tier of the market that otherwise might not even exist, right? So there’s small to mid -tier operators for whom, if you eliminate enough of these regulations, that’s the difference between them being in business or not, or expanding their business or not expanding their business. And that’s where I’m very curious, as we march forward in time, if there really is a push, if this deregulatory momentum picks up and there’s real deregulation happens on the back end. What I am most curious to see, what I would expect to see is that the largest players don’t actually change a whole lot. Maybe the extra profit dollars they generate, they funnel back to shareholders in terms of dividends and share repurchase. But I think there’s this segment of the operating community, mid -tier and below, that really might see a meaningful difference in how they can execute their businesses. And I’m curious to see how

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:07:56] that segment of the market responds. That is really pretty interesting because is it around 50 % of our oil is made over the privates? That’s a good question. I don’t know offhand. I hear the number sometimes I hear it’s between that range or something. So is it the majors, are they going to benefit most from this? I like the way that you did say that and say, if they do benefit, they’re going to be able to afford their share buybacks. Because I think that the ESG mode did do a good thing for the oil and gas in one respect or that is responsibility has really cut in the hole. It is not going to be drill baby drill. It’s going to be drill baby with this kind of responsible is really what that’s going to be.

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:08:39] That’s right. And you are exactly right to comment that say circa over the past 10 years, there has been a real change in the way that these largest oil and gas enterprises are governed. And I agree that it’s a change for the better. It’s leading to cascades down and to more responsible and responsive management. And it leads to more predictability in the market that allows all stakeholders in that market to thrive. So it is a healthier spot today while there’s all the turmoil that exists and that we’re aware of structurally. And it’s a message because I do speak in front of a lot of industry groups. And I try to make it clear that like any economic subsector, you could pick out elements of what’s happening and choose to be pessimistic about it, choose to be the woe is me. There are a lot of reasons to believe that now within the US oilfield say specifically is the most exciting time to have participated here. And one thing that I keep saying is the returns to best in class performance today are higher than they’ve ever been because there are some of these constraints like all these world rates have risen. So if you believe that you can play the game at the highest levels, you will see a greater return today than you ever have. I will argue in the history of the US oilfield. And that’s an incredibly exciting

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:09:50] thing to think about. Now, I’m, I’m thrilled out of my mind with my investments in the long gas right now, because I’m getting about 32 flow one for all my returns. I like my returns and that’s not even including attached deduction. So if you pick your return on your investments, you’re very good. But Jeff, as the head of your consulting gig, who are you looking for or who are your clients and what kind of services do you provide? Yes, I work with

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:10:17] energy executives, industrial executives to use market intelligence to create better business plans and to make better business decisions. Right. So one example of a project that I’ve worked on in the past is a senior vice president and one of the largest engineering procurement construction management firms pulled me in to help his group. They were going through what they call their annual growth and investment planning exercise. So they’re an EPCM company. They work their clients, right? Are there are the big operators they’re trying to build massive facilities all over the world. This particular group looked over five different industry subsectors, looked over a couple of big geographic regions, and they wanted to know where is capital flowing in this space? We need to invest and meet our customers where they’re going to be. Where do we see capital flowing across these different spaces? And so I used a bunch of market intelligence data, capital spend data, macroeconomics, yes, all that kind of stuff and create a narrative around this is how I think CapEx is going to be deployed going forward. And so this is how I would position this business to respond. And then they have five different DPs in their group. They each came up with their own business plans. I came in with a narrative informed by what the market data was saying. And then we worked together to triangulate around, okay, what is sort of the most robust business plan that acknowledges the realities of the market, the data that I found, but also acknowledges the reality of the business as each of these people know, because they run it every day. They talk with their customers every single day. And so that’s where I specialize is helping bring this market intelligence bit into a line. Exclusively on market, tell us,

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:11:44] and we didn’t marry that in being from an outsider, looking in at your analyst and how you can articulate that or a gas executive. If I’m in the, whatever it is, I want you to be a contractor for me. Cause I’m telling you, I love what I see when you’re out your story and everything else. I like the way you think you could see that as an executive saying, okay, I’m not sure about this and what you’ve got out there as far as I’m going to be honest, those may not be what you have inside. What the guys on your bench may be absolutely wonderful and just need a little bit of extra expertise.

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:12:26] Well, I appreciate you saying that. The idea of being an outside perspective is, part of the value proposition that I have is that I don’t know the internal law. I come up with something separate from that and bounce it off. And then we can try to meet the metal or, or even if the internal line is exactly the right line, it builds some confidence by

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:12:43] seeing, okay, this is the first case is it’s also a good chance to see your guys outside of Trump on the last election. He thought outside the box went to podcasts. And I mean, he knocked it out of the park by going on some of the strangest podcasts and not one podcast, the other at Kamala went on the who, whatever that one was the podcast looking at the box is how the executives really need to look at things. It’s not the same old

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:13:13] status quo here. That’s right. It’s, it’s in that vein. One thing that I try to make clear through the analysis that I do is I am not an industry cheerleader, right? So I am not here caring water for oil and gas. I do a lot of analysis around oil and gas. Some of it is very positive uplifting. And some of it is, I do try to expose these are real challenges.

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:13:32] Who would prefer to have that kind of an issue as opposed to, oh, here’s everything you want to hear. That’s not, oh, if I’m a CEO and I want to make a decision, I want truth.

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:13:44] Yes, it’s the truth. That’s exactly right. And it’s why in addition to oil and gas, which I’ll be clear is, is the bulk of the analysis that I do. It’s my personal background through oil and gas. I also analyze the renewables spaces, nuclear, coal, you know, everything that touches the broader energy market. I try to make sure that I’m analyzing, I’m finding data sets that tell us that from which we can pull observations of consequence, because I believe that in order to make great decisions inside of oil and gas or inside of renewables or inside of nuclear, where you need some fluency in what’s happening in

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:14:17] parts of the year. You’re almost describing Chris Wright and the way you’re describing Chris Wright is he that you there’s very few folks like you that are looking at the entire energy perspective. Chris Wright understands nuclear. He understands the world. He understands all of this kind of stuff. And so, you know, over here, I’m probably the Chris’s biggest fan out there. And when you take a look at that as a secretary of energy, that’s what we need is somebody that looks at the all of the above approach.

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:14:47] Yes. And when you do that, you get a lot more information about why energy systems look the way they do, why they have the inertia that they have, why they do or don’t respond to capital the way that they do. There’s just a lot of, so that’s a great dynamic. Yeah, it’s totally smokes. It’s and you don’t have to kind of lose your mind to going down every nook and cranny of every energy subsector, right? If you take time and kind of broaden out and use a wide enough lens, but do it with some rigor so you’re making sure that you’re using real data to understand what’s happening and why it’s happening. I have found need to tell very powerful stories about why each of these energy subsectors is evolving the way it is, or how it comes to executives trying to make business plans or trying to pursue the mergers and acquisitions or any kind of element of your capital allocation framework, having that sort of narrative coming that’s being informed by the market to bounce off your internal points if you only make the results stronger. Oh, absolutely. So I’ll tell you, what do you

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:15:45] see coming around the corner? Because we have AI, when you have Bill Gates up there saying, oh, by the way, we need more natural gas, did not have that on my bingo card for what two weeks. You have Larry Fink saying that as well. And you look at the US map, Texas is really the only grid that’s on target to meet its growth path for new natural gas plants coming online. I’ve looked at the other grids, what they have online and what the budget is. I’m not seeing the real

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:16:17] good pattern here. Yes, I agree completely in the sense that there is a sort of an awakening understanding that we really will need basically as much energy as we can pull together. And the one of the many beauties of it, we’re going to talk to US markets specifically, is that people are more or less free to deploy capital as their conviction allows. Right. So there are some segments of capital holders that believe very deeply in renewables wants to deploy toward there. There’s some that believe very deeply in nuclear and are working hard to overcome obstacles there. There are other folks that understand the promise of what natural gas can bring going forward, given the maturity of the infrastructure that exists in natural gas domain, and they want to deploy their capital there. Texas in particular is the kind of state where anyone that has enough capital and enough conviction can come to play it in almost any kind of direction. Exactly. To the extent that I have a personal rooting interest, I would hope that more of the country, more of the world comes to this realization that if you set up markets in a way where people that have capital, that have conviction can deploy against that and see what happens, we will wind up with more effective energy systems. They might not. It will look like a hodgepodge. It will look like kind of a czar Frankenstein’s monster type collection, but it works because we’re crowing it in a way that meets the demands coming online. And the market helps us test these different technologies. And so we do settle. I like the way you think it’s kind

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:17:43] of kind of I’ve seen you’re going, you know, if the whole world could be more like Texas as I’m sitting here at NAEP with a cowboy hat on, that’s not a bad thing.

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:17:52] I think a lot of people would agree. A lot of people look and I listen to all sorts of podcasts and read analysts reports. And there are a lot of commentators that point to the power specifically that will point to the Texas power grid and say, look at how low the prices are. Look at how diversified the NICS is becoming. There’s a place for almost every energy technology that exists there. And there are a lot of places in the world in principle that could look like that. There are a lot of embedded resources that would allow us to around the world. And half the story seems to be can we get out of our own way to do that, but also do that in a responsible way, right? No holds barred, right? We do need to protect ourselves. We need to protect the environment. We need to make sure everyone’s fighting by fair rules. Like there’s expectations that we need to make clear about what the rules are. But, and don’t unduly impede the ability of capital to flow towards areas of need. And I think we will find it remarkable what kinds of energy outcomes we can generate.

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:18:48] You know, we have got to, like Chris Wright has basically said, why we can’t hit net zero by 2050. We can’t hit net zero by 2030. Not going to happen. But what we should strive for is net energy poverty zero. That to me is where we need to do that with the least amount of impact. So the best thing that we can do is guide people to having delivering the lowest kilowatt per hour to everyone on the planet with the least amount of impact on the environment. And if it’s sustainable and fiscally responsible,

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:19:23] boom, we’re in energy divide. Yes, there’s a lot of reasons to believe that if you set it up the right way, you can get to an era of energy abundance that is also even more sustainable than what we’re doing today. Right. And, and that’s why, you know, in terms of my energy analysis game, I try hard by design and not to evangelize, like I say, not to cheerleader. And I don’t really evangelize for specific technologies. What I feel like the value that I bring is studying the data around why the market looks the way that it does today. Right. And knowing what’s happening, what should we expect the market to look like going forward? What do we want it to be? But what should we expect given the dynamics that actually exist on the ground? And yet, if you were to ask me, what am I rooting for? There are a lot of ways and I wrote a post just the other day on LinkedIn about China and China right is launching, putting a bunch of capital toward solar wind farms. They’re also building new coal fire plants. They’re also building new nuclear plants. Right. And you can tell that there is not a strictly low carbon agenda. There’s not a strictly green energy agenda here. What this is, is China finding a way to simultaneously drive the cost of energy down while making sure that energy is available and is secure, given their domestic resource base. Right. And so I think that you’re right that in the past, say, circa 2020 to 2022, there was an abundance of conversation where we are going to have, we’re going to talk about energy strictly through the lens of climate. And it’s not that climate is unimportant, that the environmental implications of our energy systems matter. You bet. Yes. There are other things that also matter. Energy affordability and energy access are two things that matter. Right. And so we are now at a point, and this is what I am hoping, that no one lens of those three can you rely on exclusively to give you the right answer. There is some blend across all of them. And it’s why I say, even in the oil and gas space, there is a big push to finding how can we drive the methane intensity of our own operations down as low as we can see if we can. And in some cases, how do you, you can make negative emissions for the operations or the day -to -day operations of that oil and gas company. And so you can have these relatively small scale, but important conversations kind of firm by firm across the energy sector. Right. And then we were having the broader conversations, what happens across the state of Texas, what happens across the country, the United States. And if we use all three lenses and do it in a way where we’re respectful of the fact that there is meaningful energy poverty in the world, there’s a lot of quality of life improvement that’s available to unlock. And there’s a lot of improvement around environmental sustainability, around the access to energy, all of these things. And if we don’t unduly create conflict amongst those, we can create an energy system that helps us achieve all the goals that we have, not in these unrealistic timeframes that we get to. We’re not getting into net zero by 2050. Like I said, there’s just really no, there’s not enough capital on the planet that would allow you to get there in a way, particularly when you think about the cost to quality of life that would occur in such a rapid transition if you tried to push it globally all at the same time. But there are more nuanced, more pragmatic conversations that we can be having. My hope is that, you know, as a global energy community, we start introducing even more of that pragmatism in our conversation. And I’m

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:22:25] Well, I’ll tell you what, how do people find you?

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:22:27] The easiest way is to find me on LinkedIn. Every day, pretty much, I post a data driven energy post. And then I make, so I have a sub stack newsletter called Foundations of Energy. I make sure that I post about that on LinkedIn and people can send me direct messages, communicate with me there. It’s the easiest place to get in touch.

Stuart Turley – President and CEO of Sandstone Group [00:22:42] Sounds great. Thank you, Jeff, for stopping by the podcast.

Jeff Krimmel – Owner of KSG – Krimmel Strategy Group [00:22:45] Thank you, Stu. Now I appreciate it.

The post Balancing Energy Affordability and Sustainability appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Can Trump Force Ukraine to Accept a Peace Deal?

Energy News BeatUkraine

ENB Pub Note: While President Trump and his team wanted to end the Ukraine war on day one of his administration, they did not have the critical information they needed. The Biden Administration has removed information from the essential think tanks in the war colleges and critical parts of the government. This became evident to those who understand energy and geopolitics and how land vs. sea power is manipulated to control trade and governments. We are now on a path for negotiations, but the Trump administration still needs guidance on how we got here to understand the best way forward. Check out the articles and interviews from George McMillan on his page on Energy News Beat HERE:


 

In my opinion, President Trump stood up for America, and he needs to investigate every penny sent to Ukraine and how much money came back in the form of payoffs.

Can Trump Force Ukraine to Accept a Peace Deal?

During his presidential campaign, U.S. President Donald Trump pledged to end the Russia-Ukraine war within “24 hours” of taking office. That clearly didn’t happen, but Trump—who considers himself a master at dealmaking—has still been pushing for a rapid end to the conflict in his first 100 days.

Trump has taken an unorthodox approach to this process, launching talks with Russia without involving Ukraine. When seeking to end a war between two countries, it’s generally helpful to include both warring parties in negotiations.

“I don’t think [Trump] understands just how complex this war is and just how far apart the sides are,” Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said. We spoke to Pifer, a veteran U.S. diplomat with years of experience focusing on Ukraine and Russia, to get his views on Trump’s rapid push for an end to the war and whether he’ll be successful.

In recent days, Trump has been decidedly more antagonistic toward Kyiv than Moscow, including labeling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator” (a label he conveniently seemed to have forgotten about). Trump has refused to characterize Russian President Vladimir Putin, widely regarded as among the most repressive leaders in the world, as such. Trump also falsely claimed that Ukraine, not Russia, started the war.

The Trump administration’s position on Ukraine has placed Washington at odds with key allies. On Feb. 24, the United States sided with Russia and other traditional adversaries on United Nations resolutions regarding the war.

Meanwhile, the administration has been accused of making major concessions to Russia, including ruling out the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO and leaving the door open for territorial concessions. It also opened up the possibility of sanctions relief and even economic deals with Russia.

“If you’re going to be an honest broker, you don’t start off as they did two weeks ago by conceding to the Russian position on the two biggest issues, territory and security guarantees,” Pifer said. “I can’t see a single concession that we got from Russia, and I can’t even see if we asked Russia for any concessions.”

Trump should have spent this time “finding ways to pressure the Russians,” Pifer said, such as asking Congress to sign off on more military assets for Ukraine, which would have sent “a real signal to Putin.”

Does Ukraine have a choice? It seems as though Trump is trying to bully Ukraine, which has been heavily reliant on U.S. aid throughout the war, into accepting a peace deal—regardless of whether the terms are favorable to Kyiv.

Trump is “putting pressure on the party that he has leverage with, because Ukraine ideally would like to be able to receive more American military assistance,” Pifer said, but he’s “not putting pressure on the recalcitrant party.”

Despite the challenges Ukraine would face without U.S. support and the troubling battlefield realities with Russia making incremental gains in the eastern part of the country, Pifer also said that Zelensky is not going to sign off on a bad deal for his country.

“Zelensky has a domestic constituency, which is going to be watching him to make sure that he does not sign a bad agreement. Though polls show that a majority of Ukrainians now favor negotiations, they also show a significant number of Ukrainians still oppose any territorial concessions,” Pifer said, adding that the Ukrainians “are prepared to keep fighting rather than sign a bad deal, even though they know it’s going to be hard.”

“A chance for course correction.” As the Trump administration continues outreach with Russia, it’s also pushed for a minerals deal with Ukraine in what Trump and his officials have framed as a way for the United States to get back some of the money it has given to Kyiv over the past three years.

After Zelensky initially rebuffed the Trump administration’s demands on minerals, Washington and Kyiv reportedly reached an agreement this week on a framework that would give the United States access to Ukraine’s deposits of rare-earth minerals.

Zelensky is set to meet with Trump in Washington on Feb. 28 to finalize the minerals deal, and the Ukrainian leader is hoping the agreement will incentivize the Trump administration to continue U.S. assistance for Kyiv.

“There’s a chance for a course correction when Zelensky comes to town on Friday,” Pifer said.

When asked what Ukraine gets in return for the minerals deal, Trump said a lot of “military equipment and the right to fight on.” It was unclear if he was referring to the military equipment the United States has already given Ukraine since the war began or to future aid.

But Zelensky wants something more concrete. “I wanted to have a sentence on security guarantees for Ukraine, and it’s important that it’s there,” Zelensky said on Feb. 26.

Trump and his team have said the minerals deal itself is a form of security guarantee because having U.S. workers in Ukraine digging out the minerals will deter Russia from “playing around,” as Trump put it during an Oval Office meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer today. Yet Trump has refused to include military security guarantees as part of the deal so far.

Can Europe fill America’s shoes? Regardless of what happens in the near future, the Trump administration has made the case that Europe should assume responsibility for Ukraine’s security in the long term. The European Union is now considering how to approach a possible future in which the United States abandons Europe, NATO, and Ukraine—and is taking steps to secure more military aid for Kyiv.

But it’s an open question whether Europe is prepared to fill the gap, particularly given that the United States has contributed close to half of all assistance Ukraine has received since the war began. And the answer to that question could determine whether Ukraine is able to withstand U.S. pressure to accept an unfavorable deal.

“Europe is signaling that it will continue to support Ukraine even if the United States fails. The problem that Europe has is they probably do not have the defense industrial capacity now to make up for what the United States could provide,” Pifer said.

Pifer said he hopes people who know how to talk to Trump will be able to persuade him that if he comes up with a “shoddy” peace deal for Ukraine, he will be compared to Neville Chamberlain in 1938 and viewed as “weak” and as a president who “sold out an American partner.”

Trump has given a “textbook class on how not to negotiate with Moscow,” Pifer said, adding that Putin is likely sitting back and waiting for him to offer up even more concessions.


On the Button

What should be high on your radar, if it isn’t already.

An end to the Turkey-PKK conflict? On Feb. 27, the jailed head of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Abdullah Ocalan, called for his followers to disarm and dissolve the separatist group—opening the door for the cessation of a decades-old conflict between the group and Turkey that has claimed over 40,000 lives.

“I am making a call for the laying down of arms, and I take on the historical responsibility of this call,” Ocalan said.

The PKK, which was founded on the goal of establishing an independent Kurdish state, is considered a terrorist group by Ankara and Washington.

Efkan Ala, deputy chairman of the country’s ruling AK Party, said Turkey would be “free of its shackles” if Ocalan’s plea for the PKK to lay down its arms is heeded.

Packing up. United States Agency for International Development  (USAID) workers cleared out their desks at the agency’s now-shuttered headquarters in Washington today. The Trump administration has moved to gut USAID as part of a broader effort spearheaded by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to drastically shrink the federal government and slash spending. Musk has groundlessly characterized USAID as a “criminal” organization, calling it corrupt and wasteful.

The chaos surrounding USAID has had rippling consequences around the world. The Trump administration said it’s cutting more than 90 percent of USAID’s foreign aid contracts. Critics have said that Trump is halting lifesaving programs and doing immeasurable damage to the United States’ global reputation.

On Feb. 26, the Supreme Court temporarily halted an order from a federal judge for the Trump administration to release billions in frozen foreign aid.

More tariff talk. Trump said his 25 percent tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, which were paused for one month in early February, will go into effect on March 4. Trump has tied these tariffs to the issue of border security and drug trafficking. In a post on Truth Social, he said that drugs “are still pouring into our Country from Mexico and Canada at very high and unacceptable levels,” though he didn’t offer any evidence to back this up.

Leading experts and economists have warned that imposing harsh tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, key allies and top trading partners of the United States, could have a detrimental effect on U.S. consumers and boost inflation.

Trump also said that imports from China will face an “additional 10% Tariff” on March 4. That would raise duties on Chinese imports to the United States to 20 percent.


Snapshot

Elon Musk speaks during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first cabinet meeting of the new administration at the White House in Washington on Feb. 26.Elon Musk speaks during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first cabinet meeting of the new administration at the White House in Washington on Feb. 26.

Elon Musk speaks during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first cabinet meeting of the new administration at the White House in Washington on Feb. 26.Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images


Hot Mic

The cease-fires in Gaza and Lebanon remain on shaky ground. SitRep spoke with Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid in Washington about the prospect of the Gaza truce continuing, and FP’s Rishi Iyengar caught up with Ziad Makary, former information minister for Lebanon, on the sidelines of the Web Summit Qatar conference in Doha about the Israel-Hezbollah cease-fire.

“I am not,” Lapid said, when asked whether he was confident that the Gaza cease-fire, currently still in phase one, would last and make it all the way to phase three. Lapid, who this week unveiled his own proposal for postwar Gaza that calls for Egypt to temporarily take control of the enclave and oversee its reconstruction, said taking a phased approach to the truce was a “mistake to begin with.”

“We should have had one deal for all the hostages,” Lapid said, even if that meant “for now, ending the war, because there’s nothing more important for the people of Israel than the return of all the hostages.”

Meanwhile, Makary said that the durability of the cease-fire in Lebanon depends on how much “pressure” the new Lebanese government that recently took office can continue to keep on Israel, whose troops maintain a presence in parts of Lebanon’s south—past an extended deadline for their withdrawal under the truce’s terms. The new Lebanese government’s focus will be on implementing a 2006 U.N. resolution that stipulates the Lebanese army will be the country’s sole military force and, in Makary’s words, “clean all the country” of Hezbollah weapons.

Trump’s deputy special envoy for the Middle East, Morgan Ortagus, visited Lebanon earlier this month and said Hezbollah’s representation in any Lebanese government was a “red line” for Washington. “Of course, this is the opinion of Americans,” Makary said, though he conceded that the militant group—which Washington deems a terrorist organization—will have to “transform its military branch into a political branch.” (Makary also described Trump’s controversial proposed U.S. takeover of Gaza as “unacceptable.”)

“We are very confident that Lebanon will rise again because Lebanese people are fed up with all those wars that are not Lebanese wars,” he said. “This is the main goal of the government—to withdraw Lebanon from the regional conflict and start working to build a sovereign and independent Lebanon.”


Source: Foreignpolicy.com

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

Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Can Trump Force Ukraine to Accept a Peace Deal? appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Payback: Top Execs Of Green Org Receiving Biden’s Billions Are Huge Dem Donors

Energy News Beat

Top executives of a green organization that received billions of dollars in EPA funding are also major Democratic donors.

​Top executives of a green organization that the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected to receive billions in public funds have collectively made hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal political donations to Democratic candidates and organizations in recent years, a Daily Caller News Foundation review of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data found. [emphasis, links added]

The Biden EPA chose the Coalition for Green Capital (CGC) as an awardee of $5 billion in taxpayer funds through the administration’s massive Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) program in April 2024.

Reed Hundt, the CGC’s former CEO and chairman, has personally donated nearly $60,000 to Democratic candidates and aligned political organizations going back to 2013, while Richard Kauffman — the group’s CEO who replaced Hundt in January — has personally donated more than $600,000 to help Democrats since 2020, according to FEC data.

Hundt made donations of $10,000 to the Harris Victory Fund and Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2024, and he also cut a $10,000 check to the Democratic State Central Committee of Maryland in 2016, FEC records show.

Kauffman, meanwhile, gave $150,000 to the DNC in 2020 before giving another $20,900 to the DNC in 2024, the same year in which he made a $50,000 contribution to the Harris Victory Fund, government records show.

Kaufmann also donated to numerous state-level Democrat Party organizations and to boost Democrat Senate candidates like former Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey in the 2024 race, FEC records show.

Notably, the CGC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, meaning that it may not directly or indirectly engage in politics, at least as far as the Internal Revenue Service is currently concerned.

“Between 2009 and 2023, CGC and its network mobilized more than $25 billion in public and private capital across America to deliver more affordable electricity, clean air and water, as well as the power to help ensure America’s AI leadership,” a CGC spokesperson said in a statement to the DCNF.

The CGC spokesperson declined to address specific questions about how it squares the political spending of Hundt and Kauffman, as well as the political connections of other boardmembers, with the organization’s official status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

Hundt formerly worked in the Clinton administration as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and was a close ally of Vice President Al Gore, while Kauffman was a senior advisor to former Energy Secretary Steven Chu during the Obama administration, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Notably, Hundt’s personal account on X featured numerous anti-Trump posts — including ones endorsing efforts to remove Trump from the ballot — before it was deleted. Hundt did not respond to a request for comment.

The CGC has received funding in the past from left-of-center and environmentalist nonprofits including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the ClimateWorks Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

The CGC features a number of other Democrat insiders in its ranks, the DCNF reported in 2023 when the group was rumored to be on the shortlist for a major EPA payday.

For example, its board of directors includes David Hayes, who served as a climate advisor to former President Joe Biden; Cecilia Martinez, a former official in the Biden White House Council on Environmental Quality; Julie Greene Collier, chief of staff for the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), a major organized labor federation that endorsed Biden and, subsequently, former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race.

The union donated cash to help Democrats in the 2024 cycle, according to FEC records.

“Coalition for Green Capital, like so many organizations funded by the Biden Administration, has no business receiving a dollar of funding from the federal government, much less billions of dollars,” Parker Thayer, an investigative researcher for the Capital Research Center, told the DCNF.

“It is plain to see that the organization is intended to be a slush fund for bailing out the floundering green energy investments of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors.”


Top image via Wikipedia Commons

Read rest at Daily Caller

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

Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Payback: Top Execs Of Green Org Receiving Biden’s Billions Are Huge Dem Donors appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Trump’s EPA To Roll Back CO2 Endangerment Finding

Energy News Beat

EPA head Lee Zeldin is reconsidering the CO2 Endangerment Finding, a key climate regulation used to restrict and suppress the use of hydrocarbons.

​As discussed in a couple of recent posts here and here, the so-called CO2 Endangerment Finding (EF) was an EPA regulatory action early in the Obama Administration (December 2009) that now provides the foundation for all government efforts to restrict and suppress the use of hydrocarbons in our economy. [emphasis, links added]

In one of his first-day Executive Orders (“Unleashing American Energy”), President Trump directed the incoming EPA Administrator to submit, within 30 days, recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings.”

Lee Zeldin was then confirmed and sworn in as EPA Administrator on January 29; but the 30th day after the EO, February 19, passed without any public news about a recommendation on the EF.

Today there is news.

Apparently, The Washington Post was the first outlet to break the story; but that piece is behind their paywall, so I won’t link to it. [Archived version here]

Fortunately, multiple outlets not behind the paywall promptly posted slightly rewritten versions of the WaPo story. Here is a version from Politico, and here is a version from the Associated Press as it appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

To no one’s surprise, the news is that Zeldin has recommended reconsideration of the EF. Apparently, the recommendation was made a few days ago in a private memorandum.

Here is the AP/AJC version:

In a potential landmark action, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency has privately urged the Trump administration to reconsider a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action against climate change. In a report to the White House, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called for a rewrite of the agency’s finding that determined planet-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

If this was a private memorandum, how did the story turn up in The Washington Post and other outlets? The answer is, of course, anonymous leaks.

The AP/AJC article says there were “four people who were briefed on the matter but spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.”

No surprise there — I would expect that 90% or more of the holdover staff at EPA are hostile to the new administration and happy to do whatever they can to undermine it.

But note this from a little further down in the same story:

Trump, at a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, said Zeldin told him he is moving to eliminate about 65% of the EPA’s workforce. “A lot of people that weren’t doing their job, they were just obstructionist,” Trump said.

Trump’s EPA Administrators should have done that in his first four-year term. But it’s never too late.

Perhaps most notable about the news stories is the haughty and dismissive reaction of the usual suspects on the left.

For example, Politico gets quotes from David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):

“This decision ignores science and the law,” David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “Abdicating EPA’s clear legal duty to curb climate-changing pollution only makes sense if you consider who would benefit: the oil, coal, and gas magnates who handed the president millions of dollars in campaign contributions.” …

Vickie Patton, the Environmental Defense Fund’s general counsel, said any move to undo the finding “would be reckless, unlawful, and ignore EPA’s fundamental responsibility to protect Americans from destructive climate pollution. We will vigorously oppose it.”

Environmental groups and Democrat-led states will do everything they can to oppose the roll-back of the EF, and they have essentially infinite funds to litigate. So will the rescission be a difficult thing to do, and/or likely to fail in court?

Much of the discussion in the two linked pieces and in others I have read, dwells on the heavy lift necessary to undo a regulation that has gone through the “notice and comment” rulemaking process.

For example, a Bloomberg piece here (behind paywall) presents the rescission of the EF as an enormous challenge:

It could take years for the EPA to go through a required rulemaking process to unwind the endangerment finding, and even then, it might not survive inevitable legal challenges.

They’re trying to scare the administration off, but I don’t think they are right, or that it will work. First, the idea that the rulemaking process will “take years” is ridiculous. Yes, it is a cumbersome process.

But the Obama people took office on January 20, 2009, went through the full rulemaking process, and published the EF in final form on December 15, 2009 — less than 11 months later. I don’t know any reason why the Trump people can’t meet the same schedule, or even improve on it by a few months.

Second, the scientific papers to use to support the rescission are all easily at hand. A couple of junior people with access to the internet and Google can easily come up with several hundred papers published since 2009 supporting the no-danger position.

As I laid out in my January 26 post, the most important are papers showing no increasing trends in severe weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc.). There are very many of these.

Lacking any convincing evidence of increases in severe weather, the enviros are left with only a claim that gradual warming over the next century will be some kind of big problem.

But EPA can respond that the costs and risks of a forced energy transition to an untested system pose far, far greater dangers to human health and welfare: blackouts in the dead of winter when all heat is mandated to be electric; massive fires at huge grid-scale battery installations used to back up wind and solar electricity; toxic gases from such fires imperiling large urban populations; leaks and explosions impacting hydrogen infrastructure; electric cars and buses running out of charge on freezing-cold days and stranding the occupants; and so on and on.

How about the risk of large numbers of people losing access to electricity or home heat or automobile transportation because they can’t afford the cost?

The point of all these things is that they are not a question of the “science” of global warming. They are a question of making a judgment call trading off one set of dangers and risks against another.

No amount of appeals to the authority of “scientists” preaching global warming alarm can even address the question of the risks from the forced adoption of unproven new energy technologies.

So get to work, EPA! I want to see the EF gone by Thanksgiving. Then we’ll have something to be thankful for.

Read more at Manhattan Contrarian

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

Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Trump’s EPA To Roll Back CO2 Endangerment Finding appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Republicans Work To End Taxpayer-Funded Green Energy Boondoggles On Farmland

Energy News BeatGreen Energy Boondoggles

A Treasury Department report says renewable subsidies for clean energy projects could cost taxpayers $425B over next decade.

​House Republicans are seeking to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars to incentivize what they describe as “green energy boondoggles” on agricultural lands, citing subsidies that could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. [emphasis, links added]

Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., is introducing legislation on Thursday, shared first with Fox News Digital, to end federal funding of renewable subsidies for wind and solar development on agricultural lands.

The bill, titled the Future Agriculture Retention and Management (FARM) Act, would not prevent developers from building wind turbines or solar panels but rather end the use of federal funds to encourage such projects.

“Taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to sacrifice farmland for green energy boondoggles,” Tiffany told Fox News Digital in a statement. “The FARM Act ends corporate welfare for unreliable energy sources and ensures agricultural land is protected for future generations.”

Renewable subsidies for clean energy projects, such as wind and solar, could cost taxpayers $424.6 billion over the next decade, according to an analysis by the Treasury Department for 2024-2033, cited by the Republican congressman in a press release.

The congressman said he introduced the FARM Act after hearing concerns from his constituents who “fear too much farmland is being taken away” amid the push for more green energy projects.

If the bill is passed, Tiffany hopes that it will “protect family farms for generations to come, save American farmland, and safeguard long-term food security,” citing a report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) revealing that in 2022, U.S. farmland was down 6.9% from 2017, suffering a total decline of 20.1 million acres.

Lawmakers cosponsoring the legislation include Reps. Ben Cline, R-Va., Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, and Roger Williams, R-Texas.

The bill comes after the Biden administration pushed the use of federal funds to incentivize green energy projects, such as the USDA’s Rural Energy for America Program, which provided grant funding to agricultural producers for small and large wind and solar generation.


Top photo by Karsten Würth on Unsplash

Read more at Fox News

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

Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Republicans Work To End Taxpayer-Funded Green Energy Boondoggles On Farmland appeared first on Energy News Beat.