As the Chinese New Year has concluded, some deals have emerged in the cape segment. Chinese owners are once again purchasing, despite a prolonged period of depression in the market, while famous Israeli shipowners reportedly have sold three ships in the 20-year-old age bracket.
The Moshe Mano-founded company Mano Maritime, a subsidiary of the Mano Holdings Group, involved in cargo, cruise, and car carriers, has decided it’s time to sell, offloading half of its capesize division. Brokers inform Splash that the Haifa-born owner is parting with the 20-year-old, 186,000 dwt Cape Friendship, which has reportedly secured a buyer in China for just over $16m, leaving the company with a six-year-younger Korean-built cape named Cape Legacy.
Eyal Ofer is another prominent figure in shipping from Haifa. Sales chatter surrounds two ageing capes owned by his London-based shipping firm, Zodiac Maritime. Brokers note that the 20-year-old, 178,000 dwt Cape Heron, built at Mitsui Shipbuilding, and the one-year-younger similarly sized Cape Hawk, constructed at Namura Shipbuilding, are selling for a total of $30m.
Crude has six times more water than industry standard
Pemex was hit with complaints and demands for discounts
US oil refiners along the Gulf Coast are snubbing shipments from Mexico and instead turning to Colombia and Canada amid complaints that Petroleos Mexicanos is increasingly delivering crude that’s unfit to make gasoline and diesel.
Refiners in Texas and Louisiana are demanding discounts and repeatedly complaining about the high water content in crude currently coming from Mexico, according to people with knowledge of the situation who asked not to be named citing private discussions. That’s upending flows of crude that the processors have relied on for the past half century.
US fuelmakers are in a state of alarm as Mexico is the largest supplier of crude to the country after Canada. The situation comes as Mexico’s state oil company, known as Pemex, struggles to make good on payments of $20 billion owed to suppliers of chemicals and equipments used to make its oil fit for refinery consumption.
Pemex didn’t immediately provide comment.
Flagship Maya crude is being delivered with as much as 6% of water content, or six times more than the industry standard, the people said. That means when a refiner buys a standard cargo of half a million barrels, around 30,000 barrels are water, or the equivalent to almost $2 million, according to Bloomberg calculations.
Flagship Maya crude is being delivered with as much as 6% of water content, or six times more than the industry standard, the people said. That means when a refiner buys a standard cargo of half a million barrels, around 30,000 barrels are water, or the equivalent to almost $2 million, according to Bloomberg calculations.
Poor-quality crude supplies are adding to a slew of concerns for US oil refiners as they also contend with the impact from tariffs and plunging flows from Mexico that last month slumped to a 35-year low. US refiners are scouring for alternative sources and tapping shipments from Canada and Colombia instead, sending prices higher. Too much water slows down refining because fuelmakers need to pre-treat it and make extra arrangements to dispose of the water that wasn’t supposed to be in the oil.
Quality issues are also affecting Pemex’s own refineries in Mexico.
The country’s largest refinery, Dos Bocas, was shut down in mid-December and remains offline as it awaits refinery-ready crude to restart, according to a person with knowledge of the matter who asked not to be named because the information is private.
The current supply is so salty that it could damage the refinery that was inaugurated less than three years ago, eliciting a rare admission of problems by President Claudia Sheinbaum. She indicated that “bad weather” was at the core of the problems with quality and that Pemex was working to solve the issue as “there are different chemicals that help with this,” she said last week.
22 states are suing New York over its Climate Superfund law, calling it unconstitutional and a threat to energy producers, jobs, and the power grid.
On February 6, 2025, a coalition of twenty-two states issued a lawsuit against the state of New York due to its “Climate Superfund” law, which would require a small group of energy companies to pay retroactively for the costs of alleged damage due to climate change. [emphasis, links added]
The defendants named in this lawsuit are New York Attorney General Letitia James and two other New York state officials. The suit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of New York, Albany Division.
Led by West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, the lawsuit contends that the Climate Change Superfund Act is unconstitutional.
Joining McCuskey in the lawsuit are attorneys general from nearly two dozen states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are three coal trade groups and Alpha Metallurgical Resources, a large coal mining company.
The Climate Change Superfund Act would charge fossil fuel companies seventy-five billion dollars for “climate change damage”.
Mr. McCuskey explained that the suit was filed to ensure that “these misguided policies, being forced from one state onto the entire nation, will not lead America into the doldrums of an energy crisis, allowing China, India, and Russia to overtake our energy independence.”
The attorneys general of these states believe that the Climate Change Superfund Act is politically motivated “overreach”.
The State of New York believes it can seize control over the makeup of America’s energy industry…
“If we allow New York to get away with this, it will only be a matter of time before other states follow suit – wrecking our nation’s power grid.”
They argued that these energy producers fully complied with federal law and “could not have reasonably expected that they would be punished for their lawful behavior.”
Further, these attorneys general contend that these energy companies had acted under the federal Clean Air Act. Forcing them to now pay the billions of dollars specified in this law could offer them no choice but to go out of business, and that would also result in massive job losses.
“The State of New York believes it can seize control over the makeup of America’s energy industry,” the lawsuit states.
“In an unprecedented effort, New York has set out to impose tens of billions of dollars of liability on traditional energy producers disfavored by certain New York politicians.”
They contend that this could also lead to an energy crisis.
The lawsuit states that fossil fuels “helped keep the lights on in Albany, manufacture the steel that supported New York City’s iconic skyscrapers, and fuel the industry that keeps New York ports humming.”
On the other side of the coin, the state of New York claims that it will likely have to spend “several hundred billion dollars” through 2050 on climate adaptation investments.
Experts describe New York City’s current sewage system as “archaic” and not fit to cope with increasing climate-related storm surges and extreme rainfall.
Last September, state highways and one of the subway lines flooded when the remnants of storm Ophelia descended on New York City.
“Based on decades of research it is now possible to determine with great accuracy the share of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by specific fossil fuel companies over the last 70 years or more, making it possible to assign liability to and require compensation from companies commensurate with their emissions during a given time period.”
A spokesperson for New York Governor Hochul told Reuters that the governor “believes corporate polluters should pay for the wreckage caused by the climate crisis—not everyday New Yorkers. … We look forward to defending this landmark legislation in court,” the spokesperson added.
This issue will undoubtedly end up in the US Supreme Court because it was alleged to be unconstitutional. Further, it has never been proved that hydrocarbon emissions have caused the Earth’s temperature to rise.
This needs to be discussed in any future litigation. Perhaps that matter should be settled before any other such laws are passed.
Hundreds of fascinating facts about the climate change scam can be found in Lynne Balzer’s richly illustrated book, Exposing the Great Climate Change Lie, available on Amazon.
Europe’s soaring gas prices are making it more cost-effective to burn oil for industrial use, potentially boosting the region’s demand for barrels.
Natural gas surpassed the equivalent of $100 a barrel on Monday, a two-year high. The price jump raises the prospect of more switching from gas to petroleum products such as diesel — also known as gasoil — wherever that flexibility is available.
“We have already seen increased gas-to-fuel oil switching and gas-to-gasoil is next,” said Eugene Lindell, head of refined products at consultancy FGE. “This is one of the pillars of gasoil strength right now.”
Back in 2022, a surge in the price of gas encouraged switching in Europe and beyond. Expensive gas can also impact refinery operations, potentially adding to the cost of diesel production.
This time around, the price gaps are — so far — much smaller: gas has only just nudged ahead of benchmark diesel futures in Europe on a barrel-equivalent basis, which hadn’t happened since early 2023.
FGE expects that switching in Europe will only increase demand for diesel-type fuel by less than 100,000 barrels a day — a tiny fraction of the region’s overall consumption.
But the switch to other fuels will probably also be seen in Asia, which competes with Europe for costly imports of liquefied natural gas.
“Europe and Asia will all lean towards consuming more oil and more coal if they in any way can do so,” SEB AB said in a note.
— With assistance from Alex Longley, Priscila Azevedo Rocha, and Anna Shiryaevskaya – Bloomberg
There is a lot of moving parts behind “Drill Baby Drill.” While President Trump’s ambitious goal of cutting consumer energy prices is fantastic, he does not have total control of the global oil markets. How much can his policies impact prices, and what does the rest of the world oil market think of his plans? You won’t want to miss the team from the Energy Realities Podcast as we talk about this vast issue live on X, YouTube, and LinkedIn at 8:00 AM Central US, the UK, and Bulgaria. When Tammy Nemeth, Irina Slav, David Blackmon, and Stu Turley start talking about energy, you know you will have fun! Ask the team your questions and give us feedback!
Highlights of the Podcast
00:09 – Introduction
01:15 – Trump’s “Drill Baby Drill” & Its Challenges
04:19 – “Build Baby Build” – A Better Strategy?
07:51 – Oil Prices & Market Dynamics
10:09 – Shale Well Decline Rates & Refracking
13:10 – Global Energy Politics & the Paris Agreement
19:52 – The Role of Natural Gas & LNG Deals
23:52 – Green Energy Economics & EV Struggles
31:59 – Africa’s Energy Potential & China’s Influence
37:57 – Panama Canal & China’s Strategic Moves
41:37 – LILLEY: Trump gives Japan LNG deal Trudeau denied in 2023
42:21 – Ford projects mounting EV looses for 2025, Q4 profit up
43:41 – DAVID BLACKMON: Billionaire-Funded Lawfare Takes Another Big Hit In New Jersey
45:54 – Louisiana Lawsuits Work At Odds With Trump’s Energy Dominance Goals
49:30 – Clean energy costs to continue to fall this year, reports says
51:53 – German Coal Generation Jumps to One-Year High as Wind Plunges
54:36 – Liberal NGOs in crisis: The fallout of Trump’s USAID freeze
56:53 – Trumps threatens sweeping tariffs on key metal imports
Irina SlavInternational Author writing about energy, mining, and geopolitical issues. BulgariaDavid BlackmonPrincipal at DB Energy Advisors, energy author, and podcast host.Principal at DB Energy Advisors, energy author, and podcast host.Tammy NemethEnergy Consulting SpecialistStuart TurleyPresident, and CEO, Sandstone Group, Podcast Host
“Drill Baby Drill is a Double-Edged Sword
Irina Slav [00:00:09] And we live with the Energy Realities podcast with Tammy Nemeth. Hello, Tammy. How are you today?
Tammy Nemeth [00:00:18] Hi Irina, I’m great. How are you?
Irina Slav [00:00:21] So. So I’ve been busy, but I will be fine. We have David Blackmon. How are you today, David?
David Blackmon [00:00:29] Well, I’m doing better than Taylor Swift is doing this morning. Got that going for me?
Irina Slav [00:00:34] Cool girl.
Stuart Turley [00:00:36] You look. You look better than Taylor Swift.
Irina Slav [00:00:39] But like I said, she’s very famous for some reason. And Stu Turley, Stu are you also better than Taylor Swift.
Stuart Turley [00:00:48] I look better than Taylor Swift. So you’re right. Thank you. It’s going to be a great day. I don’t know who dressed her boyfriend, but I think she’s going to dump him after that horrible loss. She’s going to write a song about it. She’s going to dump him. And that poor man is just going to go live like a bomb.
David Blackmon [00:01:12] It happened.
Irina Slav [00:01:15] So even though all the guys are talking about music right now and sports, I assume we’re actually going to talk about Trump’s drill, baby, drill desires that are not meeting the willingness of the oil industry in the United States and not just the United States, which is why we’re going this episode. “Drill baby drill” is a double-edged sword. David, Why?
David Blackmon [00:01:42] Man, you start over there.
Irina Slav [00:01:45] All right.
David Blackmon [00:01:47] So, you know, drill, baby, drill, of course, is Trump’s mantra for restoring the country to energy dominance through a big drilling boom, which isn’t going to happen because the shale plays have all matured and all the big shale operators are in them in a development drilling mode, which is dramatically scaled back from the boom days ten years ago. And, you know, it just they don’t don’t really have any incentive to embark on a big increase in active drilling rigs. These companies like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Oxy and independent producers like Diamondback Energy and others have been in this corporate sweet spot where they’re maximizing profits. They’re they’re doing stock buyback programs. They’re returning a lot more capital to it, back to investors. They’ve been setting record profits. Exxon had record profits in 2023 and big profits in 2024 again. And so they just they they they got a decade ahead of them. Now, in this development phase of these big shale plays where they can continue in this mode, growing by acquisitions and buyouts without having to bear the cost and the societal cost and the PR cost of, you know, increasing all the truck traffic and getting into another drilling boom. So the other problem, of course, is prices aren’t high enough to justify it. In fact, oil prices have actually dropped a little bit since Trump came into office, which is the other side of his goal. Right. He wants lower prices, but a big drilling boom. Well, you have to have the opposite to incentivize more drilling, You have to have higher oil prices. And there doesn’t seem to be much prospect for that to happen here. At least this year. The market is well-supplied. It may be a little oversupplied and OPEC plus is still itching to put more oil back onto the market. And they can’t justify doing that because the market’s already fully supplied. So I just think this drill, baby, drill thing is not likely to come about. And what we do need is a bill baby build kind of period of time where we add a lot of new natural gas pipeline capacity and export capacity. And I suspect that’s really where the big companies in this country are going to focus their
Stuart Turley [00:04:19] Chris Wright. Say that, David, or you like sneaking in a Chris Wright quote, you sneaky dog.
David Blackmon [00:04:25] I think you got.
Irina Slav [00:04:26] Okay. Cool build baby build from Chris Wright He had that in his.
David Blackmon [00:04:33] Did he say that really?
Stuart Turley [00:04:34] Yes so I do he he is Chris.
David Blackmon [00:04:40] In November so maybe he got it from me.
Stuart Turley [00:04:43] well see look at you.
Irina Slav [00:04:45] lines and all that.
Stuart Turley [00:04:46] Bloomberg actually had to have watched my interview with Chris Wright. Because Bloomberg put out an article and says he even drinks frack fluid. And I’m like, yes, they watch my podcast. Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:05:03] My.
Tammy Nemeth [00:05:03] Gosh
Irina Slav [00:05:05] I think to me, the biggest paradox with. Trump’s drill, baby, drill is not. He wants to drill Russia into the ground by adding supply and tanking prices. But he doesn’t seem to realize or he does realize I don’t know that low oil prices are not good for you as Israelis. In fact, they’re much worse for you as drillers in shell pads than they are for Russian conventional well operated. But dammit, do you think that Trump’s pull out from the Paris Agreement and his general and net zero stance could somehow at some point motivate oil producers to produce more?
Tammy Nemeth [00:05:50] That’s a good question. But I think it kind of goes back to the piece you wrote the other day, or maybe it was today where you said it’s always about the price. It really is about the price. And and as you know, what David said also that, you know, there’s a there’s little interest when the prices are low. And so there’s a the motivation comes in when the prices are high, because otherwise what’s the point of drilling and everything if you’re not going to make a reasonable return out of it? And as we know, the Middle East is an easier access. They have a better return on investment. There’s less inputs that they have to to put in there in order to generate a fair amount of revenue. And so, you know, on the one hand, he’s saying to this to Saudi Arabia, please, please drill more, you know, produce more so we can bring the price down. But to bring the price down is not in the vested interests of Saudi Arabia. You know, they could because they want to keep a moderately high price. It’s like, how high can we have that price and have people still wanting to purchase it without putting it into recession? And, you know, the there was a time probably during, I would say, the golden age of American production, which was the 50s and 60s, when prices were relatively stable. You know, it was the prices were set basically by the seven sisters. It wasn’t on the world market based on the concessions that were agreed upon with the Middle Eastern countries and and the domestic suppliers in the United States. And then when it switched to the world price in the in the 80s, I would say 70s and 80s, then that all changes and it becomes much more fluctuating based on how people feel, you know, the confidence of a of the traders or whatever, or predictions of where they think things are going in the next, you know, two weeks to six months or whatever. And so prices fluctuate based on things. Maybe it’s an algorithm, who knows? Right?
Irina Slav [00:07:51] Algorithm do have a very, very big role to play.
David Blackmon [00:07:56] Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:07:57] Exactly. And and so what variables are put into those algorithms that are helping generate whatever the price forecasts are, whatever. But I think the other issue in here is the refilling of the SPR, because it’s down so far that this could have an effect on prices. But you want to fill it when prices are lower. But if you start filling it, then that’s taking oil over the market, which then could increase prices. And so there’s a dynamic there. And it’s unclear exactly how this is going to work out. And I think it’s great what Joanna pointed out there, that her nephew working in the Permian, they’re drilling new wells for new wells there for. But so, I mean, the potential is there, but it’s uncertain. You can send these signals, but what are companies going to do with those signals?
David Blackmon [00:08:50] And and to be clear, the Permian is is the most active drilling basin on the face of the earth. I mean, they’re still well, I think last week there were 336 active rigs in the Permian out of something over 500 nationwide in the United States, according to Embarrass. So over half the active rigs in the country are in the Permian Basin. So I’m not saying companies aren’t drilling. They’re drilling a substantial number of wells. But it’s it’s the development phase. You’re you’re not going out and discovering new resource. Right now all the major shale formations are being exploited and it’s just a matter of drilling all the wells to satisfy your drilling obligations. Now, among your lease agreements on all the acreage you hold and you have companies like Oxy, Exxon, Chevron and Diamondback are all drilling a good number of wells.
Irina Slav [00:09:45] Yeah, but there’s something we don’t often talk about. But some some observers and analysts talk about that shale drilling is a lot more intensive, as in the wells don’t last for years and years and years and years. They get depleted much, much more quickly, which necessitates more drilling just to maintain production.
David Blackmon [00:10:09] Yeah, but but also, you’re going to have a lot now because so many thousands of wells have now been drilled out there. You only get 10 to 15% of the producible product out of the first frack job in these these long lateral shale wells. And so you’re going to see a lot of refracts already happening in the Permian, the Eagle Ford Shale and other basins. And so, I mean, it’s going to extend the lifetime of these formations. It’s going to be decades and decades. I mean, 100 years from now, they’re probably going to be going back into some of these shale wells and doing another frack job to with better technology.
Irina Slav [00:10:48] And they’ll be finding new ways to to improve efficiency and then recovery, because this is what the industry does.
Tammy Nemeth [00:10:56] Right.
Irina Slav [00:10:58] What’s your state drill baby drill. And whether it’s a double is well, it’s obviously a double edged sword.
Stuart Turley [00:11:03] I loved.
Irina Slav [00:11:05] It because.
Stuart Turley [00:11:06] I loved everybody’s comment so far. In fact, when you take a look at Saudi Arabia, they’ve done as best as they possibly can to keep OPEC and OPEC plus in line, but they don’t have a control over it. And the algorithms do play a gigantic role on this anymore. And so we need an estimated $4 trillion of investment in new wells just to meet normal decline curves if demand remain constant. So if you sit back and take a look. Where are all those new rigs? The other piece of this discussion on drill, baby, drill is we need a mix with our refineries. And there is a gigantic we can’t use the light Permian crude just straight up. We got to mix it with heavy, heavy oil sands out of Canada or Venezuela or somewhere else to mix it to get it into the refinery. That all happens in Cushing as we pump it into the pipelines and then they mix the crude, all that kind of stuff. Now, that being said, will drill, baby, drill. When you have light Permian crude. No, we’re still going to be importing in a very big chunk. Saudi Arabia really needs it around that $880 mark. When you consider how much they’re paying in their sovereign wealth fund and several years ago, they had the flexibility to try to just take the United States shale down. They just dropped the price back then. They don’t have that flexibility now because they’re now funding billions of dollars worth of green hydrogen projects. They’re now funding all these other kinds of things out of their sovereign wealth fund. Saudi aramco’s doing. So when you take a look at the moving pieces in the oil markets now, it’s really changing up.
Tammy Nemeth [00:13:10] Yeah. That’s your take, Irina.
Irina Slav [00:13:14] I already said it. I don’t think it’s going to work because he basically wants to do two mutually exclusive things. He wants American energy dominance for which he needs more production. But this will push prices much lower, which is against the interests of the industry. Plain and simple. But I was thinking, you know, today I talked to a correspondent with someone who’s in the energy field in Europe, and he told me he expects the Paris agreement to be a bad memory buys this summer. These more countries will pull out of it and just forget about net zero because, you know, energy affordability and security and reliability are all much more important. And more countries are waking up to this. I’m not sure it will happen this quickly, but it may we may get some momentum from from Trump, which is a good thing. I believe
David Blackmon [00:14:16] One of the things you notice, though, is that these societal trends tend to happen much more rapidly than any of us think they’re going to. Right. I mean, it’s like it begins as a trickle and turns into a flood just the next day sometimes. And so it could I mean, I think possibly it could happen by summer. But you wouldn’t certainly you wouldn’t expect it to all happening.
Irina Slav [00:14:41] I don’t think it would happen officially. You know, I don’t think countries will come out okay. We made a mistake. That’s what a lot of companies may indeed, indeed pull out of it. You know that Indonesia already
Stuart Turley [00:14:59] I think this this brings up a bigger issue, and that is that getting out of the Paris Accord, getting out of the Who, getting out of, you know, the other ones, all of a sudden they’re having to redo their budgets. And then wonder the E.U. lady now just put out that she may want a different naito. NATO’s in trouble. And when you take a look at naito being in trouble, the EU is in trouble. And then you have whether or not they’re going to have that. This is a big rabbit hole. How much
Irina Slav [00:15:35] like a European force now.
Tammy Nemeth [00:15:40] Yeah. David talking about.
Irina Slav [00:15:42] All your weapons to the Ukrainians.
Tammy Nemeth [00:15:45] Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:15:46] Nice. Wouldn’t
Irina Slav [00:15:48] Like to
Stuart Turley [00:15:50] So the can of worms of getting out of the Paris Accords is really getting out of Naito, getting out of all of the NGOs that the US aid was funding. Getting out of all these things, we’re going to see a major realignment of funding around the world, not on American back. And I think I have a doge, a video of Elon’s team looking at some of this stuff. This is absolutely what they’re finding. I cannot believe that we got this. This is an undercover video. There’s no sound. So be careful. Let me play that again. Sorry. Here we go. I’m not sure what’s going on here. There we go. There’s doge. That’s what they’re finding
David Blackmon [00:16:54] But when they look at the books of USA.
Stuart Turley [00:16:56] Yeah. my.
David Blackmon [00:16:59] We gave 262 million to George Soros. Wait a minute.
Stuart Turley [00:17:03] And then George Soros turned around and funded Black Lives Matter and TFA and all these other kind of things. And so.
David Blackmon [00:17:11] The left wing funding
Irina Slav [00:17:14] Of things in Eastern Europe. That’s why the Hungarians kicked him out.
David Blackmon [00:17:18] Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:17:18] Exactly. That man needs to go away. And so
Irina Slav [00:17:23] He has a son the sounds already, you know?
David Blackmon [00:17:27] Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:17:28] He’s taken over the organization. Well, I think one of the interesting things is that both Mark Carney and the EU have said pointedly that Trump is a blip and they’re just going to wait for a sense to return to the United States. And just like last time, they think somehow this will be a repeat of what happened between 2016 and 2020. I don’t think they understand precisely what’s happening. And now that they’re targeting all of this wasteful spending where, you know, money was flowing to all these different organizations in a rather circuitous way such that the money loses its character. I think if the EU thinks it’s going to step in and pay for things like Naito and the EU and the U.N. and everything, they don’t have the money. They’re already in debt trying to do their Green Deal. So I think they’re going to have to make a choice between can we maintain the investments that that they’re subsidizing with the Green Deal or can they afford to pay for the U.N. and Naito and the EU and all of these other organizations? So there’s going to have to be a prioritization. And now France is giving money for an air center. Of course, the UK is giving money for an AI center. I think Trump is the smartest where he’s getting the companies and other investors to pay for it rather than the state. And so when you’ve got that kind of scenario coming in, that’s going to need a lot of reliable energy. Yes, it could be the the oil. The oil prices are an issue. But I think we need to have a little chat about natural gas and what the the plan is to enhance the production of natural gas Japan. It was in the America last week and signed an agreement for LNG terminals out of Alaska. I mean, that’s that’s a pretty big a pretty big thing going on there.
David Blackmon [00:19:25] Yeah, it is. And it’s not 2017 again. I mean, I think I agree with you. I think a lot of people on the left are trying to self-soothe themselves by going around saying that. But I mean, this is different. It’s an entirely different phenomenon this time and with a lot of majority public support behind it that you didn’t have in 2017.
Stuart Turley [00:19:52] And Tammy, Tammy and David. And when people say that this is a passing fad, doge was actually the president does not have the authority to create something. It has to come from Congress. If it’s a whole new organization. The beautiful thing about Doge is it is a Obama organization that has been rebranded, which the president has the authority to do. It had backlinks and hooks in it from the Obama mechanism. So this isn’t a this is not a new creation. Doge is a Obama brand that already had data hooks into everything is why they’re moving so fast. So the deep state weapon that was created by Obama is now being used against them. It is not going to change again. I mean, it’s not going to go back again.
Tammy Nemeth [00:20:55] Yeah. Well, and I think those comments by Ursula von der Leyen and other EU representatives and Marconi were made before Doge made all these discoveries about the spending and stuff. And so, you know, now that all that funding has been cut off, that they were funneling to all of these different activist organizations.
Irina Slav [00:21:14] Independent media.
Tammy Nemeth [00:21:16] Dependent media, I mean, that was insane. How much money for like to Associated Press.
Stuart Turley [00:21:24] To Politico.
David Blackmon [00:21:26] And Reuters.
Irina Slav [00:21:27] You know, they’re laying people off. One of the most outspoken pro EU pro Euro-Atlantic values. You know media daily is. Offering one year of free subscription and they’re firing people and it’s glorious. I love it. And I’m really grateful once again for this. But I want to go back to something you said to me about my calling, the urgency list of of the European Union. What you said that they really believe is a blip and it’s all going to change in four years. I think this proves that a really, really incompetent. They are not living in the real world. And even although they might be as in control, that they believe that doing good and getting rich while doing good, but they’re also incredibly incompetent and stupid. Because they if what you say is true, it appears to be true based on these comments besides. And they have no idea why Trump got elected. Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:22:44] Yeah, well, I’m. Plus it’s a part of that confidence game, right? So if they keep saying over and over, even if you know what they’re they’re articulating their wishful thinking. They’re hoping that they can get companies not to buy in. Right. So it’s like, no, no, it’s going to be gone in four years, stay the course. And this is about trying to reinforce the companies, the businesses that would normally support who have been kind of I would say not normally. They’ve been pushed into supporting the Green Deal and all of the kind of climate stuff. They’re saying, no, no, no, hold on. Stay the course. He’s not going to last. Instead of, you know, kind of sending that message.
Irina Slav [00:23:23] But they’re already losing money. These companies, these investors, investors are losing money on their green investments. Yeah. Yeah, I know. With all the support in the world, how do you justify staying the course if you’re actually losing money despite all the subsidies, despite all the other kinds of incentives, despite all the laws, especially enacted to push forward the energy transition, you can keep saying it, but it doesn’t make it true.
Stuart Turley [00:23:52] Now that the limit you make has dried up, I think we’re going to see a change. One of the things that I found most interesting as far as elections go around the world is how much U.S. aid was investing in electronic voting machines. Yeah. That to me, if I was a non-U.S. citizen in a different country, I’d want to know why is USA doing regime change? US aid excuse me, USAID is doing regime change and voting machines and all this other kind of stuff. So I I’d be thrilled. I think the world is going to be peace or have a better peaceful outcome with this change.
David Blackmon [00:24:45] No doubt about it. I mean, everything U.S. was involved in in terms of foreign aid to children or whatever they claimed it was about was all done to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives and influence in those regions. Didn’t have anything really to do with saving anybody’s lives or preventing Aids or anything like that. It’s because the US wanted hegemony in those countries and to prevent China and Russia from getting into them. That’s what all of those programs are about. None of them are. Americans are good hearted people. We want to save the poor children in Africa. They’re all about America wants influence. And, you know, as part of their empire and access to to the resources in these various regions and doesn’t want China and Russia getting to that. That’s what that’s all about. Every one of those programs. Now, that doesn’t mean some of those programs weren’t producing some positive results for the countries the money’s going into. But we need to be realistic about the motivations behind what U.S. has been doing all these years. It’s a front group for the CIA. That’s what U.S. aid has always been. And now it’s going away. And about 90% of its budget is going to go away. And that’s going to help Trump completely revamp the intelligence community in the United States and the State Department in the United States, which is simply an adjunct to the CIA itself. I mean, that’s that’s what all of this is about. And we’re just at the tip of the iceberg in all of that. It has nothing to do with drill, baby, drill, though. Sorry.
Irina Slav [00:26:35] It’s another kind of drilling into the iceberg to expose more of it.
David Blackmon [00:26:39] Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:26:40] Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:26:41] But back to drill, baby, drill. We’re going to keep drilling. We’re going to have a static rig count for the next four years. Prices are going to remain pretty stable unless there’s an economic recession. And so these companies that have been in this sweet spot, this corporate sweet spot with high profitability, low risk endeavors here in the United States, we’re going to be able to stay there for the next four years. That’s really what I think is going to happen. And it’s good for the U.S. oil and gas industry.
Tammy Nemeth [00:27:15] Yeah, well, especially the gas aspect, right? Because, you know, even if the oil market becomes more saturated, there’s people who would prefer a different supplier for their LNG, especially if they’re still trying to be sort of emissions friendly or whatever. And I just want to point out that, like with respect to the Japanese agreement or deal or whatever it is with the United States, last week they came to Canada 18 to 24 months ago asking for the same thing, and we told them there was no business case. So, you know, it’s Canada shoots itself in, its in the foot and there’s potential to there’s been, I think, 2 or 2 other LNG terminals approved on the B.C. West Coast. But now there’s issues with a second pipeline to supply those new terminals. And the the British Columbia, the province of British Columbia, has put in all of these regulations about how they can liquefy that natural gas. They have to use electricity. They can’t use natural gas power. I mean, it’s it’s ridiculous. And so whether or not these these LNG terminals actually become operational is kind of a mixed question.
Stuart Turley [00:28:32] Well, what are you going to.
David Blackmon [00:28:34] Britain competitive price wise with the United States LNG, if you force them to use renewables and electricity to produce the LNG, you’re going to be noncompetitive.
Tammy Nemeth [00:28:44] I know,.
David Blackmon [00:28:44] It’s just.
Tammy Nemeth [00:28:45] This is. Very simple, but. It is complicated and
Stuart Turley [00:28:50] In the renewables have a worse impact on the environment. I don’t get that. But you you also bring up a very valid, another kind of hidden point, and that is if President Trump does not actively get rid of the Jones Act and rebuild our shipping and our thing right now, when you take a look at the Japan contract and, you know, they’re looking at signing, it’s to buy U.S. LNG so that he can offset the trade imbalance so that he doesn’t get tariffs. So you can pay a little bit more for the LNG, but you can’t pay way, way beyond because the Russian natural gas is cheaper for a 40 mile pipeline to Japan and poof, you’re there.
Irina Slav [00:29:40] We have pipelines
Stuart Turley [00:29:44] Pipelines are so much better than LNG.
Irina Slav [00:29:47] Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:29:47] Yeah, I agree.
Stuart Turley [00:29:48] But when you’re when you’re trying to offset a trade imbalance, LNG is Trump’s ace in the hole for trying to export things because Canada has always had tariffs on our agriculture and our cars. In one of my first cars was a Canadian, a Ford F-150 pickup made in Canada. I mean, and so when you sit back and take a look at tariffs that are around the world, how many Fords do you see in Germany? You don’t because they’re terrified. So the rest of the world tariffs, the United States. And now that it’s now being coming, flipping back around, there’s a big media push to put a bad name on tariffs when everybody else in the world tariffs.
Tammy Nemeth [00:30:35] Stu I’m sorry, I need to correct you on that issue about cars in Canada. We’ve had an arrangement with the United States that was from the 1960s called the Auto Pact, and it was incorporated into the various free trade agreements we’ve had with the United States. And that was to to rationalize and integrate the trade of vehicles in the North American market between Canada, the United States, to prevent those kinds of tariffs. So sorry.
David Blackmon [00:31:04] Don’t have any tariffs on.
Tammy Nemeth [00:31:06] Europe definitely does. And Ford has set up manufacturing plants in Europe. But those those cars still cost a little bit more than than other European brands.
Irina Slav [00:31:20] My dad had a Ford produced in Germany. And Ford’s a Ford Escort back in the 90s. Yeah. So really popular Europe produce Ford.
Stuart Turley [00:31:31] I love Tom. Tom. Stu, Please quit calling them bills. They’re not renewable. And I couldn’t agree more, Tom. They are unreliable. And. And so I think that now that there is a culture change that Tammy and I, Arina brought up, I think that calling them what they are is going to start happening more. And thank you, Tom, for that. Patrick brings up another fantastic point.
Irina Slav [00:31:59] Yeah, yeah. It’s a great, great point and a great opportunity to develop African natural resources. But there’s a huge problem, Patrick, because up until now, the former colonies of African countries have not been treating these countries well. So these countries are now kicking them out and you have to win their trust. We’re not talking about a completely unified continent. Africa is huge. Lots of countries, different governments, many of them corrupt, and just like everywhere else in the world, but they’re poorer. So in in in African countries, I think it’s more easy to to be corrupt if you’re a government official. I speak as a Bulgarian, where the most corrupted country in the EU precisely because where member I mean poverty goes with hand in hand with easier corruption. So this will be a challenge what Patrick describes as an ideal case. Yeah. Let’s all develop Africa’s resources and have the African nations benefit from the development of these resources.
Tammy Nemeth [00:33:13] Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:33:15] And Patrick. Finally, China has it by the he doesn’t want to use that DOGE.
Irina Slav [00:33:20] It doesn’t really that’s that’s the problem. I mean, you can hate China. We want their authoritarian they have a horrible an animal cruelty. I really take issue with this. But they’re building roads in Africa. They’re building infrastructure, and the Africans are happy with it. I mean, just the has talked about it. We like the Chinese. They build things in our countries. They don’t just come mine, the cobalt and take it out. Right. Because the Chinese have learned from the French and the Brits and the Dutch and the.
David Blackmon [00:33:56] Belgians, and.
Irina Slav [00:33:57] They have learned from other nations mistakes. Why can’t these same countries learn from their own mistakes is what really, truly makes me wonder.
Tammy Nemeth [00:34:10] Well, and Turkey has has recently increased their activities in Africa as well, basically behaving like China, building roads and various other infrastructure. And I can understand why the Africans would want to do that so that they’re not all sort of putting all their eggs in one basket with respect to Chinese investment, but to diversifying their. Yeah, the infrastructure investment with with Turkish companies.
Irina Slav [00:34:37] Everyone learns except from Europe.
Tammy Nemeth [00:34:43] And the World Bank and the IMF and everybody, because they always put these ridiculous strings attached. Like sometimes the countries just cannot meet. And now the new strings have to do with green. So, you know, yeah, we’ll help you build your infrastructure.
Irina Slav [00:34:57] Yeah, right, right. Structural reforms and austerity. That’s the only thing the World Bank and the IMF knows. Now, we should keep these nations poor but keep on extracting their resources.
Tammy Nemeth [00:35:12] Tom’s right. I mean, he says if the US did this kind of thing, that would be labeled imperialist. If you talk to the Chinese people and say, you know, what you’re doing is something of an imperialist project, they get really upset because they don’t see it as being a sort of extension of Chinese power, even though one could argue it is. So I mean, that’s that’s a debate for
Stuart Turley [00:35:38] This also brings up the.
Irina Slav [00:35:40] Sorry Stu
Stuart Turley [00:35:41] Sorry. This brings up the Panama Canal.
David Blackmon [00:35:44] Yes.
Irina Slav [00:35:45] China China has dropped into controls all over that. Last Saturday I was talking to Michael Yon and was invited down to Panama to go interview and and visit with some folks down there and I could into Nathan Houston. And you take a look at what China has done and they have taken control over Panama now that they’re building a bridge over the the whole area, they’re investing in roads to further infiltrate the United States and and keep it going to keep the illegal invasion going. But it’s going to be stopped. Now watch Panama because President Trump is not kidding. He is, by treaty, allowed to go in and seize control of that. And I think he will.
David Blackmon [00:36:42] But look what China did in order to gain the influence in Panama. They built enormous Newport’s brand new port at both ends of the canal that and allowed Panama free access to those ports. And so that’s how they gain the influence. And it’s perfectly legitimate thing to do. The United States should have been doing that, right? Yeah. But Steve is absolutely right to under our treaty in which control of that canal was conveyed to Panama. If Panama abrogates its responsibilities under that treaty. The United States has an absolute right to just go in there and retake control of that canal. And that’s what Trump is going to do unless the Panamanian government starts behaving in compliance with the treaty. I mean, it just is what it is.
Stuart Turley [00:37:37] President Trump was using some of Michael Yon’s pictures of China and China was is everywhere in there and they have taken total control of it. But the point being is that Panama will no longer be Panama if we don’t do anything as United States because it will be overtaken by someone else.
David Blackmon [00:37:57] Absolutely. And from a national security perspective, cannot happen.
Irina Slav [00:38:04] Now, what these rules that I was talking about will help. Yet for the tomato problem that is extracted by this neighboring joint safety conditions that that’s happening in the Congo, it’s not happening everywhere. And besides, they’re not building these roads exclusively to service the mines. I mean, I remember a couple of Top Gear episodes the very long time ago when they stepped on the Chinese made road somewhere in Africa. Was it Uganda? Eastern Africa. Central. Eastern Africa, Remember? Tell? Yeah. And they were saying how well this road was built. I mean, once the road is built, everyone can use it. That’s the point. I’m not saying the Chinese are the good guys. I’m not even thinking in categories like good guys, bad guys with good guys and bad guys. No, they’re doing something that the locals find useful. Why are Nigerians so, you know, hostile to people? Because Big Oil did not do this. It pulled out of it. We is a lot of oil theft that is now, you know, ruining it and it’s up. Yeah, but they didn’t they only invested in what was strictly necessary for their own operations. And that was a mistake that the Chinese not. Yeah. We have a lesson to be learned from the West. It’s right that it’s not hard.
Stuart Turley [00:39:36] In NJ Ayuk is the Energy African Energy Chamber CEO and he has the right attitude. There is so much corruption in Africa that if you could get oil and gas development, get natural gas everywhere, get oil and gas, have manufacturing jobs in Africa, and then set that up as a trading partner and then buy finished goods from Africa. You’d make a lot more money as United States if you did that to help end corruption. NJ Ayuk is a very interesting leader in Africa for the African Energy Chamber.
Irina Slav [00:40:20] As well as Indonesia. A few years ago, with its nickel production, it just passed a law that said miners need to build refineries and nickel refineries in Indonesia instead of taking the raw material out of the country cheaply and process it, processing it.
Tammy Nemeth [00:40:43] Alberta did the same thing in the 1970s when because they were export well, moving most of the oil to Eastern Canada for refining. And they said, no, we want a chemical processor and refineries in the province using our oil rather than sending it out. So this isn’t anything new, right? I mean, if you wanted
Irina Slav [00:41:03] Yeah
Tammy Nemeth [00:41:06] What jobs locally because your this is your resource, why shouldn’t you? And part of it is, you know, with respect to where the demand is, who is purchasing it and so on. But yeah, why? Why wouldn’t you? Why? Right. So nothing.
Irina Slav [00:41:20] Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:41:21] Nothing unusual.
Irina Slav [00:41:22] Simple. But it it’s probably not easy. Okay, let’s go to the headlines.
Tammy Nemeth [00:41:28] So I think these are mine. And the Brian Lilley is a columnist in the Toronto Sun. He had a great article about the Japan LNG deal and how Trudeau denied the deal in 2023. So excellent article makes the points I talked about in the thing about how we said there’s no business case and and Japan went away all sad because we weren’t there to help our allies. And that’s been the point of the Trudeau regime since he came into power, is that when our allies come calling, asking for help, we say, no, we can’t. We can’t do it. We can’t afford our natal commitments, apparently because we’re spending so much on climate initiatives and because of the climate initiatives we can’t help our allies with with what they need, which is oil and gas, which is what we have. So, you know, it’s that article. And then the other one, the other one is that Ford is projecting another. I think it’s like a 5 billion loss on EVs for 2025. I mean, the amount of money they lose, whether it’s the Ford Lightning or any of their other smaller vehicles, it’s outrageous. They lose tens of thousands on every vehicle. So how good is this model is how much is.
David Blackmon [00:42:45] 56000, $56,000 per unit sold.
Tammy Nemeth [00:42:48] Per unit. And like that is not sustainable. So, yeah, as you know, we’ve had it,
Stuart Turley [00:42:58] That is renewable. It is renewable.
Tammy Nemeth [00:42:59] It’s in what way they can recycle the vehicle is something.
Irina Slav [00:43:04] That’s not.
Stuart Turley [00:43:04] Going to be recycled the battery
Irina Slav [00:43:07] They should at least give them away to, I don’t know, poor households who won’t be able to afford to charge and charge it.
Tammy Nemeth [00:43:15] Yeah, exactly. Anyway, those are my two stories.
Stuart Turley [00:43:19] And your substack.
Tammy Nemeth [00:43:22] yeah. So my substack is The Nemeth Report dot substack.com. I’ll have a new posting later today.
David Blackmon [00:43:33] Awesome. This is me. So I’ve written a lot here over the past few weeks about litigation hitting the oil and gas industry. There’s a big. Lawfare effort that’s managed by a single law firm out of San Francisco that has recruited a bunch of cities and counties and states to sue the oil industry, alleging negative impacts from climate change. Cleverly structured, though, as damages under state laws governing consumer protection and things unrelated to the energy industry. This these lawsuits are getting rejected point by point now by judges at all levels in both the state and federal judiciary. The latest bad decision for this lawfare effort was in New Jersey, where the Rockefeller Foundation had invested almost $1 billion trying to convince the state of New Jersey. And by lobbying and advertising and, you know, these kinds of heavy handed tactics to to join this Lawfare effort. Well, the Tourney general finally joined it a couple of years ago, and they just got poured out of the state district court because there their lawsuit makes no sense and has no real basis. So they they’re continuing to lose, but they will no doubt continue to to try to recruit new states and cities to to engage.
Tammy Nemeth [00:45:14] David with that New Jersey ruling, didn’t the judge say it was with prejudice and therefore it couldn’t be appealed?
David Blackmon [00:45:24] That’s right. No appeal? Yeah, that one was dismissed with prejudice. The city of Baltimore’s case was also dismissed with prejudice. I’m not sure about the city of New York’s case, whether it was with or without prejudice. But, you know, I mean, these judges are getting tired of having their dockets crowded up with these cases. And, you know, eventually the Supreme Court is going to have to intervene and issue a nationwide decision to shut this down. In Louisiana, the state of Louisiana. And just to be clear, I like Governor Landry. He’s a good guy. He was a good attorney general. He’s a fine governor. But he’s on the wrong side of this issue. He’s chosen to involve the state and himself personally as governor in these lawsuits brought by a big law firm in Baton Rouge. That’s Carmouche, a law firm that has recruited a bunch of the parish parishes in south Louisiana to try to get a bunch of billions of dollars out of big oil companies for their land loss issue. So people who understand what’s happened in Louisiana know that there’s two major causes of land loss south of the Mississippi River. First of all, you’ve jammed up and backed up and leveled up the river to control flooding and silting, which built that part of Louisiana in the first place over millions of years. And so you no longer have this flooding and silting process to rebuild the land that is subsiding. And then the second thing is, beginning in World War two, oil companies were indeed allowed to build a bunch of canals crisscrossing that whole region to produce oil and gas. That was of a specific quality oil, that was of specific quality quality to be ideal for making jet fuels and airplane fuels. Aviation gas is what they called it. And so this was a government effort. And the industry was recruited to drill these wells and build these canals. And then every well and canal that’s been drilled or put in in south Louisiana since then has had to have a permit from the state of Louisiana to to mount that project. Right. And so now the state wants to turn around and sue these oil companies for damages. That was not only permitted, but encouraged by the state of Louisiana and the federal government in the first place. These these lawsuits are wrongheaded. They’re a bad use of people’s money and time. And the governor of Louisiana, Mr. Landry, should not be allowing his government to be behind them. And I you know, the basic thing I wrote about there was he and Trump were going to be in that luxury box last night at the Super Bowl. And I was hoping the president might bring it up to the governor, that maybe this is a counterproductive use of his office Anyway. So those are my.
Stuart Turley [00:48:27] He was bored enough, David, during the game, he might have
David Blackmon [00:48:37] And putting out a tweet to to halt the making of pennies from now in the middle of the third quarter. That was just awesome.
Stuart Turley [00:48:47] David I put this in here because you had a great one. Chris Wright. Comes out swinging.
David Blackmon [00:48:52] yeah, yeah. That was today. I mean, all I did was actually just cut and paste the, the press release that the Secretary put out towards the end of last week announcing his agenda. It’s fantastic. Everyone should read it. And my substack is energy transition absurdities and it’s a target rich environment that I write about every day.
Irina Slav [00:49:19] Are these mine?
Stuart Turley [00:49:21] Yes.
Irina Slav [00:49:22] Okay. And they’re just one liners basically Clean energy costs to continue to fall this year reports says, that that’s why Europe is building all these wind and solar installations and it can connect them to the grid. But never mind. The important is that costs continue to fall. On what basis, you ask? Yes.
Tammy Nemeth [00:49:56] they’re falling so much that your bill is increasing.
Irina Slav [00:50:01] Yeah, but levelized cost of energy. Tammy is falling for wind and solar. It’s got nothing to do with cheap Chinese imports. It’s got nothing to do with cheap Chinese energy from coal. Yeah, they are falling and that’s great. I’m sure they’ll be putting it down, explaining it with, you know, economies of scale or whatever. The more we manufacture, the cheaper they become in China.
Tammy Nemeth [00:50:29] In China.
Irina Slav [00:50:30] But now the European Union wants to, you know, mandate 40% or something of all this equipment getting produced, manufactured in the European Union.
Tammy Nemeth [00:50:42] Sure.
Irina Slav [00:50:43] Let’s see what those reporters will have to say about costs then, even on a levelized cost basis.
David Blackmon [00:50:51] So can I comment on that? That’s Reuters. That’s a Reuters story.
Irina Slav [00:50:56] Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:50:57] One of the reason Reuters got 30 odd million dollars from USA was specifically to write renewable energy propaganda like this. Okay. That’s what they’re being paid to do. They take millions of dollars every year, not just from the US government, but from billionaire run foundations like the Rockefeller and Park Foundation specifically to hire reporters to write this kind of propaganda.
Irina Slav [00:51:24] Yes. And they also represent, I mean, present reports from outlets such as Ember, as genuine news, presenting propaganda as news. And it’s not just Reuters.
David Blackmon [00:51:40] No It’s AP. It’s all.
Irina Slav [00:51:41] Everyone.
Tammy Nemeth [00:51:42] Yeah. AFP. All of them. Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:51:44] Yeah.
Irina Slav [00:51:45] Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:51:46] This is this is part of covering climate now.
Irina Slav [00:51:48] Yeah, that’s true. And then we have the other joke. German coal generation jumps to one year high as wind plunges. I mean, Germany hasn’t been able to get any meaningful amounts of wind since October or November. Was it for months?
Tammy Nemeth [00:52:09] For months? Yeah.
Irina Slav [00:52:10] Germany. So now they’re having to crank up the coal power plants and it just doesn’t get much funnier than this.
Tammy Nemeth [00:52:20] Well, and plus, Norway and Denmark don’t want to supply it through the interconnectors anymore because it keeps driving up the price for their domestic consumers.
Irina Slav [00:52:30] Well, yes, because Denmark is dependent on wind as well, and Germany doesn’t have wind. Chances are that Denmark much.
David Blackmon [00:52:41] that’s a great point, Patrick, but it does look like Trump’s signature. That’s hilarious.
Tammy Nemeth [00:52:47] It’s a Sharpie. They did it with a Sharpie,.
Irina Slav [00:52:49] Was it?
David Blackmon [00:52:53] Yes, Tom That’s correct.
Irina Slav [00:52:54] Yeah. So I think.
Stuart Turley [00:52:58] I want to bring this back up just for a second. Irina. Stu, please stop calling them renewables. They’re not renewable. We can’t call them clean energy either because they’re not clean. So we got to call. We got to figure out. Our own
Irina Slav [00:53:12] energy.
Stuart Turley [00:53:14] That’s right.
Irina Slav [00:53:15] Maybe.
Tammy Nemeth [00:53:16] Yeah.
Irina Slav [00:53:17] I don’t know about wind turbines, but solar panels, they don’t involve combustion except at the power plant that supplies the grid. Electricity that supplies the electricity that the inverter needs unless you have batteries. It’s complicated.
Stuart Turley [00:53:39] And Irina your substack.
Irina Slav [00:53:42] Its Irina Slav on Energy.
Stuart Turley [00:53:46] It’s a good. It’s a good substack.
Tammy Nemeth [00:53:48] Yeah, I loved the Adorbs one. That was great.
Irina Slav [00:53:51] It really was Adorbs. I really hate these contractions of no more words.
Tammy Nemeth [00:53:57] I know.
Irina Slav [00:54:01] and it’s so pathetic that it’s adorbs. Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:54:05] My favorite is totes. A contraction for totally totes.
Tammy Nemeth [00:54:11] Oh Really?
David Blackmon [00:54:12] Yeah.
Irina Slav [00:54:13] I was a mess at the end of this
Stuart Turley [00:54:18] Do what?
David Blackmon [00:54:23] Totes adorbs.
Stuart Turley [00:54:25] Dorks. Just kidding. Okay. Yeah, these we’ve already covered a little bit on, and that is the David brought this up earlier and that is the liberal NGOs in crisis. The fallout of Trump’s USAID freeze. We are just now getting in to finding out how bad our government is and how bad people are getting upset about this. I think this next video is very important from the standpoint of which ones are the citizens and which ones are the politicians. So let’s take a look at this one. Which ones are citizens and which ones are politicians? Yes. Okay. Which one’s a politician and which one’s a citizen? Watch this. I think it’s Citizens in the United States are getting a little bit irritated at their politicians.
David Blackmon [00:55:29] We’re becoming the cats.
Stuart Turley [00:55:30] We’re becoming the cats. So watch this one. If you’re a politician, start looking at this video and go on. I got a bunch of people in the United States that are kind of arrogant. Look at this one. Yeah, That’s a politician talking back, trying to talk back. Watch this one. Look at him now. Look at the cat up there.
Irina Slav [00:56:03] his is how politicians respond to their citizens.
David Blackmon [00:56:08] Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:56:09] Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:56:10] They had it reversed during the by the you know.
Irina Slav [00:56:14] Assuming that what we see here is citizens demanding accountability from their elected representatives.
Stuart Turley [00:56:23] Exactly.
Tammy Nemeth [00:56:24] I can’t believe that Democrats are deciding this is the hill to die on corruption and waste.
David Blackmon [00:56:30] It’s the very worst issue they could choose. Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:56:35] Yeah. Like they’re we’re mad that you’re uncovering that. There’s corruption and waste.
David Blackmon [00:56:38] They’re threatening to shut down the government to stop DOGE from being able to cut government spending. Think about that for a second. It’s the.
Stuart Turley [00:56:48] And the funny thing and the funny thing is that we don’t realize that President Trump was brilliant when he took an Obama thing that we already talked about. He took an Obama care digital thing that had illegal hooks into all agencies, and they’re using that mechanism in order to be doge. That is brilliant. So they just had the deep state deep stated themselves. Oops. So now my next question is around the world and that is Trump is now rightsizing. If we take a look at when the United States actually was at its peak in wealth generation, we had no taxes and we tariff things coming in. I think this is going to be a thing to watch over the next few years as President Trump tries to right size the trade balances and things. So I think this is going to be pretty entertaining as we go forward.
Irina Slav [00:57:52] Yeah. We’re in for fun for years.
Stuart Turley [00:57:56] The news. I don’t know about you guys, but I can’t keep up with the news cycle right now. I mean, I am absolutely wiped out.
Irina Slav [00:58:05] Well, that’s great. Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:58:08] So if we sit here and we take a look at the last piece of the puzzle, we have the politician, the citizens rising up against the politicians, and we sit back and kind of go, Are we going to become the bullies if we’re the citizens and we’re can’t? This one is also our cats. Bullies.
Irina Slav [00:58:32] They are.
Stuart Turley [00:58:33] look at That.
Stuart Turley [00:58:40] That is what I am. I’m turning the sound down so it doesn’t get us turned off on our YouTube channels here.
Irina Slav [00:58:54] There is more of those.
Tammy Nemeth [00:58:56] Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:58:57] Because you’re allowed 10s and then they get all grouped out at you. But I love that dragon. The cat. Like, then you got to love that.
Tammy Nemeth [00:59:06] My gosh.
Stuart Turley [00:59:07] Look at those cats, gang and those citizens ganging up on that politician. They’re going in for the jugular. Now, watch this one. Look at that hand. Yeah, that watch that. He’s. He’s still. He doesn’t miss a beat, and he’s still dressing down that cat. Watch this. Now that. Anyway, we’re going to have an absolutely fantastic week. We had a lot of great comments. Yeah.
Irina Slav [00:59:35] Thank you. Thanks, Patrick. Especially for the comments about Africa and China. Thanks.
Introduction: Natural Gas and Shifting the Global Political Center of Gravity
This is the second article in this series and explains why it is in Putin’s best interest to adopt a “do nothing” strategy and delay any meetings with the Trump administration as long as possible and let the energy prices in Europe continue to soar and let their automotive industries continue to collapse.
The correlation of soaring energy costs and industrial collapse has created the conditions under which either the AfD rises to power in Germany and the Populist parties rise to power in the entire Danube River Valley and (a) rebuild Nordstream to save their industries, and then exit the Petrodollar, the EU and NATO in combination; or (b) if the globalists are successful in the USAID/NED and Western NGO funded color revolution protests that are occurring in these same Danube River Valley countries and manage to retain their grip on power, then Europe’s path towards deindustrialization and Third World country status will only hasten. Russia, China, and Iran will be fine with either outcome.
The logic of this rationale is simple, the Wolfowitz/RAND/Blinken strategy to cut off Germany and all of Central Europe from affordable natural gas via pipeline has been successful as Stuart Turley and I have been discussing on Energy News Beat since November of 2023. However, the main underlying objective of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) was to control both the petroleum fields and the pipeline routes to provide Europe with alternative affordable natural gas to replace Russian Natural Gas via pipeline. It is this aspect of the ‘Grand Chessboard” that has failed.
The summum bonum of the Wolfowitz strategy has been to prevent the Global Political Center of Gravity from shifting from a Washington-London alliance to some sort of a Berlin-Moscow-Beijing-Tokyo alliance across the axial ends of Eurasia based on overland oil and natural gas pipeline economic integration that avoids US Navy-controlled maritime chokepoints.
The irony is that the Wolfowitz strategy is creating the conditions under which their worst fear is becoming a possibility as Russia, China, and Iran have coordinated their overland logistical supply route counterstrategy with an increasing sense of urgency since the 2014 Euromaidan coup in Kyiv. Each one of these three countries realizes that the objective of the West is to control both the Caspian Sea region’s natural gas reserves and the pipeline routes to Europe going through Turkey.
Furthermore, since Russia did not collapse as the Globalists wished, and China is too strong, Western news media has concentrated on the manufacturing of consent to destroy the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) and foment a revolution among the Azeris, Kurds, and Baluch in Iran. The destabilization of Iran as the weakest link in the chain has become the priority.
Populist Parties in the Danube River Valley
Under the present conditions, the AfD in Germany and the populist governments in the Danube River Valley are gaining power and calling for a return to affordable Russian natural gas via pipeline which necessarily means the abandonment of the Petrodollar, EU, and NATO trilogy.
Introduction: Natural Gas and Shifting the Global Political Center of Gravity
This is the second article in this series and explains why it is in Putin’s best interest to adopt a “do nothing” strategy and delay any meetings with the Trump administration as long as possible and let the energy prices in Europe continue to soar and let their automotive industries continue to collapse.
The correlation of soaring energy costs and industrial collapse has created the conditions under which either the AfD rises to power in Germany and the Populist parties rise to power in the entire Danube River Valley and (a) rebuild Nordstream to save their industries, and then exit the Petrodollar, the EU and NATO in combination; or (b) if the globalists are successful in the USAID/NED and Western NGO funded color revolution protests that are occurring in these same Danube River Valley countries and manage to retain their grip on power, then Europe’s path towards deindustrialization and Third World country status will only hasten. Russia, China, and Iran will be fine with either outcome.
The logic of this rationale is simple, the Wolfowitz/RAND/Blinken strategy to cut off Germany and all of Central Europe from affordable natural gas via pipeline has been successful as Stuart Turley and I have been discussing on Energy News Beat since November of 2023. However, the main underlying objective of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) was to control both the petroleum fields and the pipeline routes to provide Europe with alternative affordable natural gas to replace Russian Natural Gas via pipeline. It is this aspect of the ‘Grand Chessboard” that has failed.
The summum bonum of the Wolfowitz strategy has been to prevent the Global Political Center of Gravity from shifting from a Washington-London alliance to some sort of a Berlin-Moscow-Beijing-Tokyo alliance across the axial ends of Eurasia based on overland oil and natural gas pipeline economic integration that avoids US Navy-controlled maritime chokepoints.
The irony is that the Wolfowitz strategy is creating the conditions under which their worst fear is becoming a possibility as Russia, China, and Iran have coordinated their overland logistical supply route counterstrategy with an increasing sense of urgency since the 2014 Euromaidan coup in Kyiv. Each one of these three countries realizes that the objective of the West is to control both the Caspian Sea region’s natural gas reserves and the pipeline routes to Europe going through Turkey.
Furthermore, since Russia did not collapse as the Globalists wished, and China is too strong, Western news media has concentrated on the manufacturing of consent to destroy the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) and foment a revolution among the Azeris, Kurds, and Baluch in Iran. The destabilization of Iran as the weakest link in the chain has become the priority.
Populist Parties in the Danube River Valley
Under the present conditions, the AfD in Germany and the populist governments in the Danube River Valley are gaining power and calling for a return to affordable Russian natural gas via pipeline which necessarily means the abandonment of the Petrodollar, EU, and NATO trilogy.
Introduction: Natural Gas and Shifting the Global Political Center of Gravity
This is the second article in this series and explains why it is in Putin’s best interest to adopt a “do nothing” strategy and delay any meetings with the Trump administration as long as possible and let the energy prices in Europe continue to soar and let their automotive industries continue to collapse.
The correlation of soaring energy costs and industrial collapse has created the conditions under which either the AfD rises to power in Germany and the Populist parties rise to power in the entire Danube River Valley and (a) rebuild Nordstream to save their industries, and then exit the Petrodollar, the EU and NATO in combination; or (b) if the globalists are successful in the USAID/NED and Western NGO funded color revolution protests that are occurring in these same Danube River Valley countries and manage to retain their grip on power, then Europe’s path towards deindustrialization and Third World country status will only hasten. Russia, China, and Iran will be fine with either outcome.
The logic of this rationale is simple, the Wolfowitz/RAND/Blinken strategy to cut off Germany and all of Central Europe from affordable natural gas via pipeline has been successful as Stuart Turley and I have been discussing on Energy News Beat since November of 2023. However, the main underlying objective of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) was to control both the petroleum fields and the pipeline routes to provide Europe with alternative affordable natural gas to replace Russian Natural Gas via pipeline. It is this aspect of the ‘Grand Chessboard” that has failed.
The summum bonum of the Wolfowitz strategy has been to prevent the Global Political Center of Gravity from shifting from a Washington-London alliance to some sort of a Berlin-Moscow-Beijing-Tokyo alliance across the axial ends of Eurasia based on overland oil and natural gas pipeline economic integration that avoids US Navy-controlled maritime chokepoints.
The irony is that the Wolfowitz strategy is creating the conditions under which their worst fear is becoming a possibility as Russia, China, and Iran have coordinated their overland logistical supply route counterstrategy with an increasing sense of urgency since the 2014 Euromaidan coup in Kyiv. Each one of these three countries realizes that the objective of the West is to control both the Caspian Sea region’s natural gas reserves and the pipeline routes to Europe going through Turkey.
Furthermore, since Russia did not collapse as the Globalists wished, and China is too strong, Western news media has concentrated on the manufacturing of consent to destroy the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) and foment a revolution among the Azeris, Kurds, and Baluch in Iran. The destabilization of Iran as the weakest link in the chain has become the priority.
Populist Parties in the Danube River Valley
Under the present conditions, the AfD in Germany and the populist governments in the Danube River Valley are gaining power and calling for a return to affordable Russian natural gas via pipeline which necessarily means the abandonment of the Petrodollar, EU, and NATO trilogy.
Introduction: Natural Gas and Shifting the Global Political Center of Gravity
This is the second article in this series and explains why it is in Putin’s best interest to adopt a “do nothing” strategy and delay any meetings with the Trump administration as long as possible and let the energy prices in Europe continue to soar and let their automotive industries continue to collapse.
The correlation of soaring energy costs and industrial collapse has created the conditions under which either the AfD rises to power in Germany and the Populist parties rise to power in the entire Danube River Valley and (a) rebuild Nordstream to save their industries, and then exit the Petrodollar, the EU and NATO in combination; or (b) if the globalists are successful in the USAID/NED and Western NGO funded color revolution protests that are occurring in these same Danube River Valley countries and manage to retain their grip on power, then Europe’s path towards deindustrialization and Third World country status will only hasten. Russia, China, and Iran will be fine with either outcome.
The logic of this rationale is simple, the Wolfowitz/RAND/Blinken strategy to cut off Germany and all of Central Europe from affordable natural gas via pipeline has been successful as Stuart Turley and I have been discussing on Energy News Beat since November of 2023. However, the main underlying objective of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) was to control both the petroleum fields and the pipeline routes to provide Europe with alternative affordable natural gas to replace Russian Natural Gas via pipeline. It is this aspect of the ‘Grand Chessboard” that has failed.
The summum bonum of the Wolfowitz strategy has been to prevent the Global Political Center of Gravity from shifting from a Washington-London alliance to some sort of a Berlin-Moscow-Beijing-Tokyo alliance across the axial ends of Eurasia based on overland oil and natural gas pipeline economic integration that avoids US Navy-controlled maritime chokepoints.
The irony is that the Wolfowitz strategy is creating the conditions under which their worst fear is becoming a possibility as Russia, China, and Iran have coordinated their overland logistical supply route counterstrategy with an increasing sense of urgency since the 2014 Euromaidan coup in Kyiv. Each one of these three countries realizes that the objective of the West is to control both the Caspian Sea region’s natural gas reserves and the pipeline routes to Europe going through Turkey.
Furthermore, since Russia did not collapse as the Globalists wished, and China is too strong, Western news media has concentrated on the manufacturing of consent to destroy the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) and foment a revolution among the Azeris, Kurds, and Baluch in Iran. The destabilization of Iran as the weakest link in the chain has become the priority.
Populist Parties in the Danube River Valley
Under the present conditions, the AfD in Germany and the populist governments in the Danube River Valley are gaining power and calling for a return to affordable Russian natural gas via pipeline which necessarily means the abandonment of the Petrodollar, EU, and NATO trilogy.
Donec et orci aliquet nisl suscipit molestie sed sit amet tortor. Duis vel urna ac mi sollicitudin lacinia mollis sit amet lorem. Sed finibus erat nec libero scelerisque fringilla. Morbi at orci sed urna vulputate vulputate. Nulla facilisi. Donec et orci aliquet nisl suscipit molestie sed sit amet tortor.
Want to keep reading?
Get a subscription on Euractiv Pro and elevate your political insight!
Natural gas prices in the EU have climbed to their highest level in two years, driven by a combination of cold weather, declining gas reserves, and concerns over potential US tariffs on imports for the EU.
Benchmark futures rose by over 4% on Monday reaching $620 per 1,000 cubic meters or €58 per megawatt-hour in household terms, the highest since February 2023, according to data from the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE).
The previous record of over $590 per 1,000 cubic meters was set last month after Ukraine refused to extend a gas transit agreement with Russia. The five-year contract with Russian energy giant Gazprom expired on December 31, cutting off pipeline gas supplies to Hungary, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Austria, Italy, and Moldova. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky said the termination of the contract was aimed at eliminating Moscow’s energy revenues.
Northwestern Europe is bracing for freezing temperatures in the coming days, which are expected to increase heating demand and accelerate the depletion of gas reserves. Stockpiles are currently at 49% capacity, the lowest for this time of year since the 2022 energy crisis, compared to 67% a year ago, according to Bloomberg.
Traders are also monitoring the impact of potential US tariffs on EU goods, the outlet noted. US President Donald Trump announced plans on Sunday to impose a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports into the country and is considering similar duties on European products. He previously demanded that the EU increase its purchases of American liquefied natural gas (LNG) or face import tariffs.
These measures could lead to retaliation, according to Bloomberg, potentially increasing the cost of LNG imports, for which the US is the EU’s largest supplier.
Despite efforts to reduce reliance on Russian energy in the aftermath of the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Russia became the second-largest supplier of LNG to the EU last year. According to Eurostat, in the third quarter of 2024, its share stood at 18.9%, compared to 37.8% provided by the US.
The EU has faced a dramatic reduction in Russian gas imports, which previously accounted for 40% of the bloc’s total supply, due to Ukraine-related sanctions and the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.
A group has proposed to pay Donald Trump $1 trillion and an unlimited supply of pastries in exchange for the state
A crowdfunding group in Denmark has proposed that their country acquire the US state of California for $1 trillion and a lifetime supply of Danish pastries. The satirical idea of purchasing the territory comes after US President Donald Trump reiterated his interest in buying Greenland.
Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of acquiring Greenland – an autonomous territory of Denmark – citing the island’s significant strategic and economic value for the US. Both Danish and Greenlandic officials have vehemently rejected the idea. Trump, however, has suggested that he would be prepared to use military and economic force to obtain the territory. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also stressed last month that purchasing Greenland is a serious goal and “not a joke.”
In response to Trump’s continued interest in the island, the ‘Denmarkification’ group has outlined its own proposal to the US president, offering to take California off his hands and throw in a lifetime supply of Danish pastries to “sweeten the deal.” The group pointed out that Trump has already described the state as “the most ruined” in the US.
The proposal is presented as a crowdfunded effort, with the group estimating that each Danish citizen would only need to “skip a few lattes” and contribute approximately 200,000 kroner ($27,675). The group humorously suggested that the acquisition would bring Danish cultural values, including “hygge” (comfort), bike lanes and Smorrebrod sandwiches to California. The group also said it plans to rename Disneyland to Hans Christian Andersenland, writing “Mickey Mouse in a Viking helmet? Yes please.”
Speaking to Politico’s Playbook over the weekend, the group’s founder, Xavier Dutoit, has also suggested that LEGO executives should lead the talks with the US about acquiring the state because “dealing with children throwing tantrums over missing bricks has made them experts in negotiation.”
Trump’s idea to purchase Greenland has been met with significant pushback, including from Greenlanders themselves, only 6% of whom have expressed a desire to join the US, according to a recent Danish opinion poll. Another survey has also found that nearly half of Danes see the US as a threat to the country, with more than 70% opposing any sale of Greenland.
BP shares jumped on Monday following weekend reports that activist investor Elliott Management has built a stake in the struggling oil major and could pressure the energy company to shift gears on its core oil and gas businesses.
BP stock was up 6.89% at 12:56 p.m. London time.
Elliott Management and BP have declined to comment on the reports, which do not specify the size of any potential stake accrued by Paul Singer’s hedge fund.
The British oil major, which is set to unveil its fourth-quarter results on Tuesday and its broader strategy on Feb. 26, has been lagging its British and U.S. energy peers, with shares falling roughly 9% over the last year — compared with 6% gains for Shell.
BP and Shell
Last month, BP issued a trading update warning of higher corporate costs, lower fourth-quarter realized refining margins and one-off charges linked to its bio-ethanol acquisition. It is also seeking buyers for its Ruhr Oel GmbH German refinery assets and in January revealed plans to cut 4,700 roles amid CEO Murray Auchincloss’ efforts to deliver at least $2 billion of cash savings by the end of 2026.
Noting Elliott’s previous intervention in the operations of Canadian energy company Suncor — for which it called for enhancements to the board and a strategic review of certain business units — RBC analysts said the hedge fund could press to change BP’s chairperson.
“In terms of strategic business reviews, we would expect a push to effectively split up the core oil and gas segment to some of BP’s transition growth engines, in order to help minimize capital into these areas,” they said in a Monday note, noting such a step may already be in the cards.
BP CEO Auchincloss has been working to bolster investor confidence in the £74-billion ($91.87-billion) company, amid rising concerns over the clarity of BP’s strategic direction as it navigates stagnating crude prices and sprawling ambitions in renewable energy during the global green transition. Speculation has been mounting about whether BP could become a takeover target.
With roughly $70 billion in assets, Elliott is one of the world’s most prominent active investors, taking a stake in miner Anglo American last year, and last week scoring a win through the three-way split of U.S. conglomerate Honeywell.
