Walt Disney drilled for oil in Alaska in 1938. He and his associates wildcatted a second well on the Iniskin Peninsula on the southwestern end of Cook Inlet decades later, five years before Alaska became a state, and just months before he opened Disneyland.
Unfortunately, Disney and his gang of Mickeys left much of their exploration hardware, including countless barrels of oil and lubricants on those federally owned lands to rust and leak contaminants into the ground. And the worst part—it’s all still there. In fairness, effective environmental laws weren’t passed until the early 70s and the federal government did not force Disney to clean up his mess.
Ten years after Alaska became a state, oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay, although not by Disney and his colleagues. The massive discovery required the construction of the 800-mile Trans Alaska Pipeline, and to facilitate this, the government was compelled to settle aboriginal land claims in Alaska. To do so, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was signed into law fifty years ago this month. Through ANCSA, the federal government conveyed 44 million acres of land to Alaska Native Corporations.
Several Alaska Native corporations selected these contaminated sites on the Iniskin as part of their land entitlement promised through ANCSA. Little did they know what awaited them. To date, Disney, his business partners, nor the federal government who owned the land at the time of the contamination, have cleaned up the site.
Similar stories, while not as glamourous as that of Walt Disney’s effort to be like the Beverly Hillbillies, were repeated over 1,000 times on lands selected by Alaska Native Corporations. Comparable environmental contamination was left by the military, Federal Aviation Administration, and others on these tracts of land. Nobody expected that the federal government would give damaged goods as part of ANCSA, but alas, that’s exactly what happened. No fairy tale here.
Federal law requires that contamination needs to be cleaned up by, among others, whoever the landowner of record was at the time such damage occurred. In the case of these sites, this landowner of record happens to be the United States of America. In 1990, Congress required an inventory of the contamination and, after the federal government failed to comply, made a similar demand decades later. In 2016, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) finally provided a report to Congress that identified the ANCSA contaminated sites. But from that time to today, very little has been done to rectify the situation.
In May, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy sent a letter to President Joe Biden requesting he take immediate action to address this issue. Similarly, the Alaska Attorney General and I wrote letters to the Secretary of the Interior and BLM demanding they develop a work plan to clean up these sites. What have we heard since we sent these letters? Jiminy Crickets!
In the meantime, but not with the aforementioned Alaskan contamination in mind, the EPA issued a memo in July entitled “Strengthening Environmental Justice through Cleanup Enforcement Actions.” In the memo, EPA states they will “ensure prompt cleanup actions by responsible parties” with specific emphasis at sites with environmental justice concerns. Indeed, there is no greater environmental justice issue in Alaska than this. Further, President Biden’s top environmental lawyer also recently put corporations on notice that his team is ready to act on pollution in vulnerable communities. Given this commitment, I hope they will also begin to hold themselves and their federal colleagues to the same standard.
Until then, under the leadership of Governor Dunleavy, the State of Alaska filed 548 notices of intent to sue the federal government for their lack of progress on cleaning up ANCSA contaminated sites. It shouldn’t have come to this. Generations have passed since the lands were conveyed and it is high time the federal government gets its act together and cleans up these sites. We asked nicely and now we’re ready to play hardball. As Walt Disney said, “You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.”
“It is high time the federal government gets its act together and cleans up these sites. We asked nicely and now we’re ready to play hardball. As Walt @Disney said, “You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.””
“Differences in policies and political values won’t recede with the virus, and it’s clear from the census data which side is winning the contest for talent and taxpayers.”
The pandemic has changed America in many ways, and one major change is the migration from states that locked down their economies and schools the most to those that kept them largely open.
That’s the underreported news in last week’s Census Bureau state population and domestic migration estimates from July 1, 2020, to July 1, 2021. Data used for this year’s Congressional reapportionment was based on where people claimed to live on April 1, 2020. But what a difference 15 months of lockdowns made.
Illinois’s population declined by another 141,039 between spring 2020 and this past summer as 151,512 people on net left the state for other states. California lost 300,387 amid a net out-migration of 429,283 residents. The biggest loser—you already know this—was New York, whose population shrunk 365,336 due to an outflow of 406,257 residents.
On the other hand, Texas added 382,436 new residents, including 211,289 from other states. Florida gained 242,941 in population as 263,958 people from other states flooded in. Florida’s population growth would have been greater if not for the high number of Covid deaths, which is a result of its older population. Same for Arizona whose population grew by 124,814.
Migration from high- to low-tax states—especially those in the Sun Belt—has been going on for well over a decade. But the trend picked up during the pandemic, as Democratic states tended to impose the strictest lockdowns and school closures while those governed by Republicans allowed most businesses and schools to stay open after spring 2020.
California’s net outflow surged 75% between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, compared to the same period from 2018 to 2019. New York’s out-migration doubled. On the other hand, Texas’s inflow increased by 40%, and Florida’s swelled by more than half. The flight out of Illinois also accelerated.
Connecticut for the first time since 2011 had a net increase in migration from other states. That’s probably due to many New York office workers moving as employers in Manhattan shifted to remote work. But Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont also pushed to keep schools open last winter, and he imposed fewer pandemic restrictions than did former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
The Covid data tracking outfit Rational Ground calculated that the 25 states with most in-person learning during the 2020-2021 school year gained 822,064 people on net from other states. It’s impossible to quantify precisely the cause-and-effect impact of school closures and lockdowns on population migration. But the correlation is clear from the data.
There’s also the impact of rising taxes. Although Washington State (which has no income tax) before the pandemic had been drawing people from other states, it saw a small net outflow this past year. Gov. Jay Inslee’s severe lockdowns and school closures are probably culprits. But the state isn’t helping by imposing a 7% tax on capital gains exceeding $250,000 that will take effect Jan. 1. Remote work has made high earners more mobile, and raising their taxes is fiscally self-destructive.
Mr. Cuomo is the king of self-destruction. In the spring he signed legislation raising income taxes on individuals making more than $1 million even as tax revenues surged. The top state-and-local combined rate climbed to 14.8% from 12.7% on income of more than $25 million. Good luck to Eric Adams, New York City’s mayor-elect, who is forced to plead with high earners to return from Florida.
Many GOP-led states including Tennessee, Idaho and Arkansas have cut taxes during the pandemic. More than a dozen such as Georgia, Missouri and West Virginia also expanded school choice, as did a few governed by Democrats such as Kansas and Pennsylvania.
The pandemic—let’s hope—is a once-in-a-lifetime event. It has caused enormous social and economic upheaval, along with population shifts that won’t repeat every year. Yet it has also heightened the distinction between Republican lawmakers who strive to protect individual freedom, even amid crisis, and Democrats who impose more government control.
Differences in policies and political values won’t recede with the virus, and it’s clear from the census data which side is winning the contest for talent and taxpayers.
“For the last year, year and a half, it’s been OPEC+ running the show, but U.S. production is coming back already, and it’s going to come back more in 2022,” said oil expert Daniel Yergin.
Output could rise as much as 900,000 barrels per day, he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Wednesday.
Yergin also discussed the Jan. 10 security talks between U.S. and Russian officials.
U.S. oil production is back and set to increase in 2022 after more than a year of OPEC and its allies “running the show,” according to Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of IHS Markit.
Output could rise by as much as 900,000 barrels per day, he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Wednesday.
U.S. oil firms slashed production in 2020 as the coronavirus pandemic destroyed demand and supply has not yet recovered to pre-Covid levels. In 2019, the U.S. produced 12.29 million barrels of crude oil per day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
That figure was 11.28 million in 2020 and is estimated to be 11.18 million in 2021 and 11.85 million in 2022.
“The U.S. is back,” Yergin said. “For the last year, year and a half, it’s been OPEC+ running the show, but U.S. production is coming back already, and it’s going to come back more in 2022.”
“That, of course, is because the Biden administration is so deeply concerned or alarmed about inflation, and about its political impacts,” he said.
Yergin also predicted oil prices will stay in the $65 to $85 per barrel range and that $100 oil is unlikely “unless some big geopolitical turmoil happens.”
International benchmark Brent crude futures were up 0.49% at $79.62 on Thursday morning in Asia, while U.S. crude futures gained 0.47% to trade at $76.92.
The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) first conditional loan guarantee offered to a non-nuclear project since 2016 will finance the expansion of a pioneering commercial-scale “turquoise hydrogen” and carbon black production facility in Nebraska.
The agency’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) on Dec. 23 offered a commitment to guarantee a loan of up to $1.04 billion under the LPO’s Title XVII Innovative Energy Loan Guarantee program to Monolith, a 2012-established firm that has developed a methane pyrolysis process to convert natural gas into hydrogen and high-purity carbon black using renewable energy. Carbon black, a solid carbon material, is a critical raw material in the automotive and industrial sectors.
Assuming Monolith fulfills certain conditions, the DOE intends to issue a final loan to help the company expand its Olive Creek facility (Figure 1) in Hallam, Nebraska, and boost its production capacity to 194,000 metric tons per year. Engineering, construction, and procurement (EPC) giant Kiewit is slated to spearhead construction of the project.
DOE LPO Director Jigar Shah said last week the Monolith project represents “the first-ever commercial-scale project to deploy methane pyrolysis technology, which converts natural gas into carbon black and hydrogen—two products that are frequently used in difficult to decarbonize industrial sectors like tire and ammonia fertilizer production.” The Monolith project “can potentially catalyze a new and cleaner way of producing materials that go into a lot of our everyday products,” he said.
Shah also notably hailed the announcement as a “re-emergence” of LPO as “DOE’s lending authority that can accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technologies.” While the DOE already has “dozens of active applications under review,” the recently enacted $1 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law expanded LPO’s loan authority and broadened the pool of eligible borrowers for the program, he said, suggesting more announcements should be expected next year.
A Pioneering Methane Pyrolysis Process
Monolith’s methane pyrolysis process has been much-watched by entities across the world since the company kicked off its efforts in 2013 to scale up a technology it purchased from Norwegian company Kværner (now Aker Solutions). Kværner deployed the first and only commercial-scale methane pyrolysis facility using hot plasma in 1997. Kværner’s facility, however, was decommissioned in 2003 owing to insufficient quality of carbon black product.
Monolith has in recent years gained the capital backing of Japanese technology giant Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), Azimuth Capital Management, Cornell Capital, Imperative Ventures, Warburg Pincus, Perry Creek Capital, SK Inc., and utility giant NextEra Energy Resources. MHI, which invested in the company to diversify its hydrogen value chain, told POWER that Monolith’s process solves a “century-old” problem of scaling methane pyrolysis to a commercial level.
Monolith’s methane pyrolysis process essentially uses natural gas as feedstock, but unlike blue hydrogen, which involves its combustion, Monolith uses thermal plasma (hot plasma) to heat natural gas’s methane molecules in the absence of oxygen using renewable power (acquired through renewable energy certificates). The process uses relatively high temperatures (of more than 800C) to crack the CH4 molecules to cleanly separate them into hydrogen and carbon (Figure 2).
“Per unit of hydrogen produced, methane pyrolysis uses three to five times less electricity than electrolysis; however, it requires more natural gas than steam methane reforming,” the International Energy Agency (IEA) noted in its October-released Global Hydrogen Review 2021. “The overall energy conversion efficiency of methane and electricity combined into hydrogen is 40–45%.”
Monolith has refined its technology since 2017, when it was proven at a demonstration-scale at Monolith’s Seaport pilot facility in California. In 2020, the company began operations of Olive Creek 1 (OC1), its first commercial-scale emissions-free production facility designed to produce approximately 14,000 metric tons of carbon black annually along with clean hydrogen. The company in 2020 also announced its plans to produce emissions-free ammonia at a second phase production facility known as Olive Creek 2 (OC2) in Hallam, Nebraska. Documents suggest OC2 should be online in 2024 to produce 180,000 metric tons of carbon black. A third plant may also be under development (Figure 3).
“Our expansion in Nebraska will include a clean ammonia production facility, which will produce approximately 275,000 tons of ammonia annually. This helps fill a 1.75-million-ton deficit in the U.S. Corn Belt, a significant player in feeding a growing world population. From there, applications are endless, including transportation fuel, industrial and steel manufacturing applications,” Monolith said.
Interest in Turquoise Hydrogen Is Growing
While Monolith’s process is noteworthy for its regional applications and end-uses for carbon black, hydrogen, and ammonia, several other facilities are also spearheading methane pyrolysis around the world. Australia-based Hazer Group is, for example, planning to convert biogas into hydrogen and graphite at a demonstration plant for its catalytic-assisted fluidized bed reactor technology. In May 2021, German chemical firm BASF and power company RWE announced they would develop a project to convert 7,500 GWh produced by a proposed 2-GW offshore wind farm for methane pyrolysis, electrical cracking for petrochemical production, and power-to-heat at BASF sites in Germany. Russia’s Gazprom is also reportedly developing a cold plasma–based process for methane pyrolysis.
U.S-based startup C-Zero, a company backed by Bill Gates’ clean-energy fund, in July 2021 meanwhile announced plans to launch a pilot project by the end of 2022. C-Zero says it is developing a “drop-in” system that can be placed between the existing natural gas infrastructure and industrial natural gas consumers.
Asked about the economics of “turquoise hydrogen,” Dr. Fadl Saadi, director of Business Development and Operations at C-Zero, in a July 2021 live stream at the Atlantic Council said methane pyrolysis may not be as competitive with steam methane reforming, but it’s “very competitive compared to steam reforming plus carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).” Compared to green hydrogen, methane pyrolysis is “especially interesting” because, from a thermodynamic perspective, it needs seven-and-a-half times less energy to split methane into carbon and hydrogen. “That 7.5-times differential for energy requirements is absolutely massive in an energy and commodity space, especially when we’re talking about producing significant amounts of hydrogen globally,” he said.
Scaling up, however, will require a more nuanced balance, Saadi suggested. “We think finding a way to make sure that as we scale up this technology, maintaining that energy differential benefit will be critical for methane pyrolysis,” he added. “We think if you ended up needing just as much energy as electrolysis but now you also have to buy the natural gas and worry about the upstream emissions, and then you have a solid carbon they need to dispose of, that this technology no longer becomes economically competitive.”
The DOE’s Re-emergence as a Clean Energy Financier
If finalized, the conditional loan guarantee offered to Monolith will be the DOE’s thirtieth under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Title XVII has generally supported projects under two separate loan guarantee authorities. The 2005 law authorized $23.9 billion for Section 1703 to boost “innovative” clean energy technologies, including nuclear, coal, and renewables—but the program ultimately secured only one project commitment: $12 billion to shareholders to support the Vogtle nuclear expansion in Georgia. Section 1705 was created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to support the rapid deployment of renewable energy, transmission, and biofuel projects, but it expired in September 2011 after committing funds to 28 projects.
POWER’s analysis shows more than $14 billion of financial support was provided under Section 1705. The limited utilization of Section 1703 is mainly attributed to its requirements that projects employ new/significantly improved technologies, and that borrowers—due to limited appropriations—pay either a portion or the entire subsidy cost.
However, the DOE last week suggested that LPO has made “substantial changes to improve the program that has now attracted more than 66 loan and loan guarantee applications, valued at more than $53 billion in clean energy and advanced vehicle technology projects.” The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also expanded the LPO’s authority, it said.
Changes include updates to processes, work to solicit new projects, and due diligence on potential loans in support of the DOE’s work to deploy clean energy, said Shah. “LPO’s rigorous due diligence has resulted in a portfolio loss ratio of just 3.3% to date, to accelerate the advancement of American innovation, a mixture of successful projects and losses is expected,” he noted.
Demand for copper to fuel the green energy transition is forecast to average 13% annual growth over next 10 years, according to analysts. Arizona – which produces 74% of America’s copper – will soon be home to a new type of institution designed to shape the industry’s workforce for the future.
Tucson is in proximity to mines like Freeport-McMoRan’s Morenci, the largest copper producer in the state, and is a technology hub for mining — it is headquarters to major suppliers such as Caterpillar, Komatsu and Hexagon.
The UA’s School of Mining will be the first institution in the world to rely on a holistic approach to mineral resource management, incorporating a focus on environmental, social and governmental (ESG) issues. The UA is ranked third in the nation among mineral and mining engineering programs and home to the San Xavier Underground Mining Laboratory, the only mining lab in the US with a working vertical shaft.
“The whole idea of the school came about because the University of Arizona is in a unique position to cross-pollinate mining knowledge with other critical fields. We’re known for creating an interdisciplinary center for mining research and education,” Moe Momayez, Associate Professor of Mining and Geological Engineering at the University of Arizona told MINING.com.
The School features programs such as Global Mining Law, the Centre for Environmentally Sustainable Mining and the Geotechnical Center of Excellence.
“I think the School is going to be the vehicle that is going to allow us to promote mining to students and stakeholders — I see the school striving to change the public perception of mining,” Momayez said. “I realize that’s a tall order, but the director is going to have a full team.”
Aside from courses, students spend time in St. Xavier underground mining lab, “a unique facility that we use to train our students, provide them with hands-on experience, we do mine ventilation, mine safety and health, rock mechanics, ground support, equipment maintenance.”
Momayez said the lab is heavily instrumented, with sensors monitoring the mine environment and is expanding to be able to bring in larger equipment in the cross section.
“We can stream data out of the mines so the students and researchers can have real time system data,” he said.
Momayez pointed out the minerals the world needs to power the new green economy need to be mined to build the needed solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars, and that the minerals key to daily life are all traced back to the mines, while acknowledging a wide mainstream public misconception of mining.
“The reality is we’re going to need minerals for decades, centuries to come if we are going to sustain the same levels of economic prosperity.”
“They are the ones that need to realize, the basis of our civilization is mining. And we cannot sustain our lives, our civilization, if we stop mining,” he said.
President Joe Biden promoted the need to establish critical minerals domestic supply chains, but major mining projects are being halted in the US and new royalties on the industry introduced.
“On one hand, everyone is saying critical minerals are very critical to the future and the security of the nation, but on the other hand, they don’t help the mining industry,” Momayez said.
“That is where I think we need to reach out to the politicians, the government, and begin educating them about mining, and the role that mining plays. I see a huge gap there that needs to be filled.”
Between a siege on the Capitol building, a Texas snowstorm, Brood X cicadas, the Olympics, and a stuck container ship in the Suez Canal — not to mention endless COVID variants — it’s been a busy year.
Why it matters: In the inaugural Axios-Google Trends news cycle chart, we chronicled the unprecedented first year of President Trump. Four years later, Joe Biden is president and the themes have changed, but America’s short attention spans and rapid breaking news cycles continue.
By the numbers: The single topic to receive the highest percentage of Google searches all year was the Olympics, during the week of its opening ceremonies.
Next came searches about stimulus checks at the very start of the year, followed by searches related to Trump during the week of Jan. 6.
Searches related to Biden and the COVID-19 vaccine rounded out the top five topics overall, out of more than 50 major 2021 events and topics chosen by Axios.
Google measures search interest on a scale of 0-100, which reflects the percent of total Google searches dedicated to a topic. Searches for COVID-19 vaccines never fell below 5 on that scale, even when compared to dozens of spiking topics over the entire year.
Searches related to shootings also never fell below 5.
Between the lines: Overall, most major events or issues this year only managed to keep America’s attention for one or two weeks.
There were some exceptions, including in mid-March when searches for “Stop Asian Hate” surged for multiple weeks in response to the Atlanta spa killings and in mid-April when the coronavirus ravaged India.
From mid-May to early June was cicada season — both in our backyards and on search engines. Shortly after, interest in critical race theory reached its peak and remained high for several weeks.
What to watch: The topics that stick or surge at the right time could have an important role in next year’s mid-term elections.
There was relatively high and sustained interest in topics like crime and the border this year — favored midterm talking points by the GOP. However, it was largely in line with interest over the last five years.
Biden’s Build Back Better plan received a recent spike of attention recently, but it has had relatively little national interest compared to the other times on the list.
Go deeper: Visit our past projects for 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.
With world leaders focused intensely on the shared challenge of climate change, much was expected of that recent COP26 summit in Glasgow. The results were, to put it mildly, thoroughly disappointing as participants failed to gain consensus on any real groundbreaking pledges.
Despite an underwhelming COP26, Democrats stateside continue to push their own climate measures with a reconciliation bill that contains billions in proposals and tax increases they hope will define America’s energy future. While some proposed solutions are simply too costly, others are destructively impractical, threatening to derail the nation’s burgeoning energy economy and saddle customers with skyrocketing energy costs.
The good news is that there are better, proven solutions that will support access to low-cost energy and a market-based transition to clean energy. For example, energy markets and their customers would benefit tremendously from increased competition. To get there, we’ll need to initiate conversations at both federal and state levels about policy options that encourage and institutionalize competition in our electricity markets, moving us away from vertically integrated, monopoly utility markets that are outdated and inefficient.
There is transformative power in competition especially when applied to our nation’s electricity grid. However, many markets today lack competition altogether. These are vertically integrated markets made up of utilities with a monopoly on power generation.
On the other hand, some markets foster competition for electricity generation among wholesale market participants. In these competitive markets, multiple generators and independent power producers in a wide region compete to drive the best outcomes for consumers and the environment.
In terms of cost, the competition enshrined in the wholesale model has proven effective in driving down costs for customers. A recent paper from the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank, found that families and businesses lose out financially when states cling to the outdated monopoly model.
Comparatively, the Institute found that electricity prices in competitive markets are trending downward and were at or near 6-year lows as of 2020 in regions like New York, New England, and the mid-Atlantic. This contrast – whereby competitive markets have benefited by more affordable electricity versus monopoly states – is mostly because monopoly utilities set rates to maximize returns for shareholders, instead of setting rates to attract customers.
Competitive markets are also a positive force for the deployment of more renewable power, a move that we will need to foster naturally if the U.S. is to meet the climate goals being pursued by leaders of both parties.
That was one of the messages sent earlier this year to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by nine former commissioners of that body, who argued that competitive markets were critical to “a least-cost customer-centric transition to a low carbon or zero-carbon grid…” Data supports that claim, as a recent analysis by the University of Texas-Austin’s Dr. Joshua Rhodes found that competitive market regions are reducing carbon emissions faster than monopoly regions.
Statistics matter, but so does real-life evidence. In Pennsylvania, for example, competitive market power generator Calpine Corp. began providing reliable power to the state and the rest of the PJM market in 2019 from its dual-fueled, natural gas combined-cycle electric generating facility York 2 Energy Center. As Calpine’s CEO noted, the plant will “operate cost effectively without the need for government or public subsidies, demonstrating that letting the competitive markets work is the best way to optimize generation resources.
Conversely, monopoly utilities are not inherently structured to meet cost or environmental objectives. They’re prone not only to stifling progress but have been found guilty on more than on occasion of the kind of corruption we routinely ascribe to the word “monopoly.”
Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp., for example, was forced to pay millions of dollars after admitting to conspiring to pay off public officials in Ohio in exchange for action on policies that would benefit FirstEnergy Corp. In the end, the company agreed to pay a $230 million monetary penalty, but not after customers of the company paid the bill for their power provider’s wrongdoing.
As federal and state lawmakers look for consensus on moving the needle on climate change, they should look to regional wholesale and retail market competition to enable the progress they want, rather than trying to force through with mandates and expensive taxes.
Competition has proven capable of saving customers money and helping the environment. Policymakers should encourage policies that allow markets to work, unleashing the power of competition rather than burying American taxpayers with taxes and costs they can’t afford.
Tesla is recalling nearly half a million cars it has produced in recent years because of potential safety defects, federal regulators said, adding to previous recalls and other safety concerns that have hit the electric-vehicle maker this year https://t.co/6mRNtG8BGx
ExxonMobil has announced that it has agreed to work with Scepter Inc to deploy advanced satellite technology and proprietary data processing platforms to detect methane emissions at a global scale.
The agreement has the potential to redefine methane detection and mitigation efforts and could contribute to broader satellite-based emission reduction efforts across a dozen industries, including energy, agriculture, manufacturing and transportation, ExxonMobil noted in a statement posted on its website.
In the first phase of the project, ExxonMobil said the companies will design and optimize the plan for satellite placement and coverage, adding that this will initially be focused on capturing methane emissions data from ExxonMobil operations in the Permian basin. Scepter will deploy satellites in 2023 and increase coverage to more than 24 satellites over three years, forming a large constellation network capable of monitoring operations around the world, ExxonMobil highlighted.
In addition, ExxonMobil noted that it and Scepter are pioneering a proprietary data fusion system that reconciles information collected from multiple detection methods, including ground-based, stationary, and mobile monitoring devices.
“This collaboration will enable multiple industries to identify the sources of methane emissions around the world in real-time, so that leak repairs or mitigation solutions can be deployed rapidly,” Bart Cahir, the senior vice president of unconventional at ExxonMobil, said in a company statement.
“This is another example of how ExxonMobil is investing in technology with leading innovators to align with the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030, compared to 2020 levels,” Cahir added in the statement.
Philip Father, the chief executive officer of Scepter, said, “we’re excited to work with ExxonMobil to develop a system that goes beyond methane detection.”
“Our data fusion platform will be central to a broader capability to detect quantify, abate and certify,” he added in the statement.
“This approach is rooted in our mission of providing comprehensive observations on a real-time basis and global scale, therefore meeting various environmental, social and governance reporting needs,” Father went on to say.
Earlier this month, ExxonMobil announced that it plans to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from operated assets in the U.S. Permian Basin by 2030. The plans are said to be part of its corporate-wide effort to reduce upstream greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 40 to 50 percent by 2030, compared to 2016 levels.
Also in December, ExxonMobil said it had finalized corporate plans which increase spending to $15 billion on greenhouse gas emission-reduction projects over the next six years. The company also announced in December that it was on track to meet its 2025 greenhouse gas emission-reduction plans by year-end 2021.
Russia’s Deputy PM and top OPEC+ negotiator Alexander Novak explains in a recent interview why the group decided not to heed the U.S. call for more production
Novak: Oil production companies must plan their investments ahead of time in order to secure production growth
Novak, like many observers, downplayed the effect of the SPR release
An ambition to provide the global oil market with clear guidance on future production plans and discipline in sticking to already agreed policies is the reason OPEC+ did not respond to U.S. calls to boost oil production, Russia’s Deputy PM, and top OPEC+ negotiator Alexander Novak said.
In an interview with news outlet RBC, Novak explained that it was more important for the extended cartel to indicate how much oil it will be producing in the medium term as demand increases rather than boosting output in the near term in response to a large consumer’s call.
“We cannot secure fluctuating production,” Novak said. “Oil production companies must plan their investments ahead of time in order to secure production growth,” he added, noting that during the winter, there is usually a decline in the demand for oil.
‘For some reason,” the official said, “The U.S. is not asking its own shale oil companies to boost production, which has fallen considerably over the last two years. On the contrary, they are deliberately reducing their production. I believe there is a certain contradiction in these actions.”
U.S. President Joe Biden called on OPEC+ repeatedly to boost production by more than 400,000 bpd because prices at the pump were becoming too high for American drivers. When the calls failed to produce a response, Biden blamed OPEC+ for hurting poor working American families. This failed to work, too, which is when the Biden administration announced a release of up to 50 million barrels from the strategic petroleum reserve.
The news has served to moderate prices, especially as it coincided with the news of the emergence of the omicron variant, which prompted worry about new movement restrictions that would, as usual, hurt oil demand.
Novak, like many observers, downplayed the effect of the SPR release along with the planned releases of other countries.
“Plans are for a total release of 50-60 million barrels,” he told RBC. “Of this, the U.S. will release about 30 million barrels in January and February. But the world consumes 36 billion barrels annually,” he explained, noting that in this context, the release of 50 or 60 million barrels will have only a temporary effect.
U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) continued to grow in the first six months of 2021, averaging 9.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d). This average marks an increase of 42%, or 2.8 Bcf/d, compared with the same period in 2020 (according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s LNG Monthly reports and our estimates for June 2021, based on shipping data from Bloomberg Finance L.P.). During the summer months of 2020, U.S. LNG exports fell to record lows, but they set consecutive record highs in November and December.
U.S. LNG exports increased in the first half of this year as international natural gas and LNG spot prices increased in Asia and Europe due to cold weather. Rising global LNG demand once COVID-19 restrictions began to ease, as well as continuous unplanned outages at LNG export facilities in several countries (including Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Algeria, Norway, and Trinidad and Tobago), also contributed to increased U.S. LNG exports.
In Asia, colder-than-normal winter temperatures led to increased demand for spot LNG imports. Natural gas demand in the spring continued to rise amid low post-winter inventories, which contributed to unseasonably high natural gas prices. The high prices prompted a higher demand for more flexible LNG supplies, particularly from the United States.
In Europe, natural gas storage inventories were also low following a cold winter. Increasingly hot temperatures in May and June and greater natural gas demand from the electric power sector contributed to high natural gas spot prices. Europe’s natural gas spot prices have historically been lower than prices in Asia; however, this year, Europe’s natural gas prices are tracking Asia’s spot LNG prices more closely to attract flexible LNG supplies from around the world to refill storage inventories.
IEA indicates a small increase in absolute coal power generation in the period 2021-2024, but coal makes essentially no contribution to increased global power consumption in the same period.
Reliance on China and India for coal expansion to 2024, but evidence provided by the IEA coal report fails to document the context of massive renewable energy expansion.
IEA’s recent “Renewables 2021” report paints a different picture and considers a longer time horizon. IEA’s “Net Zero by 2050” is unambiguous about the need to exit coal urgently.
IEA report “Coal 2021” takes the position that Net Zero by 2050 isn’t happening.
Investors might tread warily and review other literature about the coal markets. Peabody Energy investors might be particularly affected.
I’m on the record that come 2024, Peabody Energy (BTU) is likely to be confronting a number of challenges to its business. A new report from the IEA “Coal 2021” posits increasing coal consumption between 2021 with coal demand plateauing by 2024 at record levels. The report stops at 2024 and gives little guidance about where the coal industry will go beyond that time. Here I review IEA’s Coal 2021 report, along with other reports by the IEA (e.g., “Renewables 2021”, “Net Zero by 2050”) to get a sense of where the “Coal 2021” report fits and how limiting analysis to the period 2021-2024 gives a misleading impression of the prospects for the coal industry in general and Peabody Energy in particular. This is a time to pay attention not only to short term coal industry events, but to take a longer perspective of coal investment and the context surrounding it.
IEA coal report strategically stops at 2024
As sophisticated investors appreciate, timing is a crucial part of any revolutionary change and the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy is no exception. The IEA has contradictory timelines in assessing the exit from fossil fuels. Recent IEA reports emphasize how critical the results for 2030 are on the path to net zero emissions by 2050. The just out IEA “Coal 2021” report curiously focuses on the period from now to 2024. This gives a misleading impression that after COVID (and it isn’t over yet), coal consumption will revert to growth before plateauing in 2024. Investors who are not paying attention to long-term trends might be reassured in their coal investments that there is a continuing role for coal far into the future.
Firstly, it is important for investors to be aware that coal and gas will provide only a very small fraction of new power generation in the period 2021-2024. Indeed, of a predicted 2,099 TWh increase in power demand from 2021-2024, 89% is predicted to come from renewables & nuclear power, with 10.5% coming from gas and coal, with coal’s contribution to increased power generation being negligible. Hence coal is essentially irrelevant to new power generation in the period 2021-2024. This provides a different view to the IEA Coal 2021 report headlines, which focus on record coal consumption. The point is that coal decreases significantly in the period 2021-2024 as a percentage of global power generation.
The basis for the absolute increases predicted by the IEA in the period 2020 through 2024 rely almost entirely on prediction of increases in two countries and one region: China (up 4.1%), India (up 11%) and some countries in SE Asia (up 12%). Note that these predicted increases in coal consumption are a small fraction of new power generation from new renewables, and they are not predicted annual increases, but an increase over three years. In China most of the increase (4.3%) comes in 2021, with just 0.5% annual increases in the following years, while India is expected to increase 3.9% annually.
It is interesting to see the basis on which the IEA concludes that these three markets are going to sustain global coal production to 2024. The plateauing of coal consumption to 2024 relies largely on two countries, China, and India, expanding their coal consumption as the rest of the world actively reduces coal consumption. The assumptions made about India and China do not address the context of coal exploitation in these countries, especially with respect to competition with renewables.
China
China is a huge country that has brought 100’s of millions of its citizens out of poverty in a very short time period. It became the world’s manufacturing center in the process and hence many countries effectively transferred their manufacturing emissions to China in this period. A lot is happening in China, much of it scarcely believable in terms of scale and timing of implementing change.
I am skeptical of the claims made by the IEA about China’s plans for expanding its coal use; the IEA conclusions partly arise because China is notable in promising less than it ultimately achieves. There are a number of big changes afoot, including a goal to expand renewables (wind and solar PV) to 1,200 GW by 2030. This must have an impact on coal consumption because China is very clear about reducing emissions from burning coal. Many things are happening to address coal consumption. For example, 15% of China’s steel production uses an EAF (Electric Arc Furnace) and scrap steel today, but there are plans to increase EAF-produced steel to 50% of China’s steel production although the timing is unclear. Steel made using EAF doesn’t use coal. Indeed, the protected status of coking coal used in steelmaking is under attack from various directions.
India
The Coal 2021 report goes into some detail about major programs to expand coal production in India, but not a lot of the planned expansion outlined is going to happen before 2024.
Meanwhile the latest announcement from PM Modi at COP 26 was for renewable energy production to be increased from a planned 450 GW to 500 GW by 2030. This will be a sizeable increase in India’s renewable power capacity, which surely is going to compete with coal developments. Indeed, recent information from India suggests that an expert committee has been tasked by the Union Power Ministry to update the National Electricity Policy so that no new coal-based capacity be considered. It seems that a proposal is also being considered to allow replacement of old coal-based units only if it is convincingly established that it is not viable to meet the projected demand from alternate non-fossil fuel sources. It is noted that the expert committee recommendation is a significant change from the ministry’s recent position that more power capacity would be sourced from fossil fuels.
The IEA Coal 2021 document covers, in some detail, plans for various coal expansions, but many seem like plans rather than executable projects. There is no discussion of the context in India of huge expansion of renewable energy. I remain skeptical about major coal expansion in India, and I note that expansion in India is core to the IEA claim that global coal production will increase until 2024.
Southeast Asia
Until very recently, Southeast Asia was where major coal expansion was planned to take over from Chinese and Indian coal expansion. The Coal 2021 report is quite circumspect about the situation for several countries that have had big coal expansion plans recently curtailed. The fact that funding coal projects is becoming impossible is likely to be a significant issue throughout Southeast Asia as major funders refuse to continue funding coal-related projects.
COP 26 focused on 2030
Two issues dominate the future of coal (and other fossil fuels). These are dramatic cost reductions for the cost of renewables and the need to reduce emissions because of the climate crisis. Until very recently the fossil fuel industry has been successful in making the climate issue a long way into the future by keeping focus on 2050 net zero targets. The recent COP 26 climate meeting broke that tradition and instead the focus was on 2030 and what needs to be achieved to have a hope of net zero emissions by 2050.
Had the “Coal 2021” report considered a horizon to 2030, I suggest that coal investors would be confronting a much more challenging investment thesis. Indeed, the IEA report “Renewables 2021” (which addresses the period to 2026, but also has a longer view towards 2030), makes clear that 95% of new future energy needs will be met by renewables.
China and India are singled out for their dramatic renewable’s development plans, with China’s goal of 1,200 GW of wind and solar PV capacity by 2030 predicted to be reached four years early (by 2026). New renewable power in India is growing faster than in any country in the world.
Even the Coal 2021 report has lots of bad news for coal production and consumption after 2024, especially in the Southeastern Asian markets that formerly have been the basis for massive, expected expansion of global coal consumption. The details of the Coal 2021 report mention a lot of this bad news if one looks at the fine print.
Impact on Peabody Energy
The Coal 2021 report has special significance for Peabody Energy because the markets identified for expansion by the IEA are not big customers for Peabody Energy. The 2020 Peabody Energy Annual Report (Note 25) indicated revenues from different geographies as the following: US 56.2%, Japan 13.3%, Taiwan 7.7%, Australia 6.9%, with China 3.8%, India 2.6%, and Vietnam 2.4%. China has been made more complicated as the whole Australian coal market has been boycotted by China for more than 12 months. Although there have been a few shipments accepted recently, the consensus is that there is no end in sight to the China ban.
The US coal market is followed closely by Jay14150, and he indicates that there are difficulties everywhere.
Conclusion
Investment is about identifying opportunities. If coal doesn’t make sense in the US and Europe, I have difficulty understanding why it would make sense in China, India, and Asia. The point is that there is a climate emergency, and the world needs to decarbonize. China and India have the world’s most acute emissions problems. Secondly, renewables are now a cheaper source of energy, not only in actual cost but also in their provision of energy independence. Why send money to buy energy when you can make it yourself?
With the IEA Coal 2021 report, the IEA has become schizophrenic about how it views the future of coal. On the one hand it accepts the urgent need to decarbonize, and that coal is the first fossil fuel needing to be exited. On the other hand, the Coal 2021 report overlooks that the key outcome of the COP 26 conference was to refocus emission reduction efforts in 2030, not 2050. This means urgent exit from coal. Events in the coming three years are important, but the environment in which coal companies like Peabody Energy operate are much more affected by overall difficulties for coal companies at many levels. Another recent IEA report “Net Zero by 2050” is an important and highly relevant document for coal investors.
Coal finance is disappearing, markets are exiting coal so coal companies, which operate in a technically challenging environment, have a whole range of problems around selling their commodity. There is money to be made by agile short term focused investors, but for investors who are looking for safe long-term investing, companies like Peabody Energy are hard work for an uncertain reward.
Former President Donald Trump issued a conditional endorsement of Gov. Mike Dunleavy for reelection on Tuesday, saying the incumbent governor has his support — but only if he doesn’t back U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski in her bid for reelection.
Dunleavy, who has five challengers to date, thanked Trump for his support.
“He has my Complete and Total Endorsement,” said Trump’s message, sent by email from the former president’s political action committee, “but this endorsement is subject to his non-endorsement of Senator Lisa Murkowski who has been very bad for Alaska, including losing ANWAR, perhaps the most important drilling site in the world, and much else.”
“ANWAR” appeared to be a reference to ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which Murkowski helped open to drilling with a provision she inserted into federal law in 2017.
A spokesperson for Murkowski’s campaign could not be reached Tuesday. Murkowski, generally considered among the most moderate Republicans in the Senate, was appointed in 2002 by her father, former Sen., and Gov. Frank Murkowski, and was subsequently elected in 2004, 2010 and 2016.
Asked whether he will accept the endorsement, Dunleavy issued a written statement thanking Trump for his support.
“I want to thank President Trump for his endorsement,” Dunleavy said. “We had a very good working relationship on the issues that are important to Alaska, in particular resource development. No president has done more for Alaska than President Trump and I appreciate his support.”
Andrew Jensen, a spokesman for Dunleavy’s campaign, said he doesn’t believe the governor has any intention to get involved with the U.S. Senate race.
“The governor is focused on his race,” Jensen said.
Several of the president’s former aides are now working on the campaign of Murkowski’s principal Republican opponent, former state Department of Administration commissioner Kelly Tshibaka.
Tshibaka has criticized Murkowski for voting to confirm several Biden administration appointees, including Interior Secretary Deb Haaland. Under Haaland, the Interior Department suspended oil and gas leases in the refuge.
Murkowski has continued to support drilling in the refuge, and an ongoing lawsuit could overturn the suspension.
Asked about the conditional Trump endorsement, Tshibaka campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said, “We certainly don’t believe Lisa Murkowski deserves anyone’s endorsement.”
Murtaugh was communications director of Trump’s national 2020 re-election campaign.
When asked whether the Tshibaka campaign requested the condition attached to Trump’s endorsement of Dunleavy, Murtaugh said, “we decline to comment on that.”
Murkowski was one of seven Senate Republicans who voted to convict Trump of inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Fifty-seven votes were cast in favor of conviction, nine short of the two-thirds majority needed. The day after the attack, Murkowski said in a video that it was “incited from the highest level.”
Since then, Trump has urged Alaskans to reject Murkowski. “I do not know where other people will be next year, but I know where I will be — in Alaska campaigning against a disloyal and very bad Senator,” Trump told political news site Politico in March, after Murkowski voted to advance Haaland’s nomination.
Trump unconditionally endorsed Tshibaka in June, following a meeting between the two at Trump Tower in New York City. (Her campaign in November announced plans for a Trump-hosted fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago in early 2022.) The Alaska Republican Party’s central committee also endorsed Tshibaka in July.
Before those endorsements, Murkowski received the support of her fellow Alaska incumbent, U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. Both senators declined to endorse Trump for president in 2016, but Sullivan backed him in 2020.
As of Tuesday evening, six candidates, including Dunleavy, had registered as candidates for the governor’s race with either the Alaska Division of Elections or the Alaska Public Offices Commission. The deadline to enter the race is June 1.
Ten candidates have registered with the Alaska Division of Elections to run for Alaska’s Senate seat in 2022, and that figure does not include Tshibaka. The deadline to register for that race is also June 1.
In both races, four candidates will advance from the August primary to the November general election, where winners will be chosen with ranked-choice voting.
A left-leaning policy shop documents the state’s emissions bust.
President Biden has made California his green-energy model, so it’s noteworthy that a new study shows that the Golden State is failing to meet its greenhouse-gas emissions goals in part because of its climate obsession.
State law gives the California Air Resources Board (CARB) sweeping power to reduce statewide emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The anti-carbon czars have used this mandate to implement a cap-and-trade program, low-carbon fuel standard, electric-vehicle, and renewable electricity mandates, among other regulations that raise costs for residents and businesses.
Yet the state is still falling far short of its climate goals, according to a report by the left-leaning policy shop Next 10—and that’s with soft grading that ignores the enormous emissions from wildfires and renewable fuels.
“Assuming the same three-year average rate of reduction from 2017 to 2019 (-1.3%), California will reach its 2030 and 2050 goals in 2063 and 2111, respectively,” Next 10 writes. “Slowing renewable energy growth, underwhelming transportation sector gains, and a worrisome cross-sector over-dependence on natural gas pose major challenges for the state.”
Last year the state added more natural gas power capacity than solar. The reason: Fossil fuels are needed to back up unreliable renewables, especially as nuclear power plants are forced to shut down and drought limits hydropower. It also has to import power from other states, some of which is generated by coal.
Emissions from businesses and homes are also rising in part due to population growth, especially inland. Environmental and zoning regulations jack up housing prices on the coast, so middle-class families are settling inland where winters are colder and summers are hotter. This requires more heating and air conditioning. Longer commutes also increase emissions.
Another rich irony: Measures to protect the ozone layer under the 1987 Montreal Protocol are contributing to global warming. One of California’s fastest growing sources of emissions is “high-global warming potential gases” from “Substitutes for Ozone Depletion Substances” that are used in refrigeration, air conditioning and fire suppression, the report says.
Emissions from wildfires have also soared due to years of forest mismanagement. Blame politicians who have prioritized climate. Last year wildfires were the state’s second largest source of emissions, exceeding industrial businesses and the grid. A single fire in northern California produced more greenhouse gases than all non-industrial businesses.
Yet Next 10 excludes wildfires from its tally of statewide emissions because it says its focus is “fossil fuel combustion and other anthropogenic emissions.” It also excludes “biogenic materials” including renewable fuels that are used to replace oil even though they are a large source of the state’s emissions.
Including wildfires and renewable fuels would show emissions have risen since 2000, making California’s anti-carbon crusade look like an even bigger failure. Rather than make the emissions goals more realistic, Next 10 recommends doubling down.
Democrats don’t need the prodding. Last year Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered those sales of new gas-powered cars be banned by 2035. Then during the summer, CARB upped the ante by proposing to require all new light-duty cars sold in the state by 2025 be electric, and that refineries be shut down by 2035, which would effectively ban gas-powered cars.
Climate is the left’s substitute for religion, and politicians are making Californians martyrs to the cause. The main point seems to be suffering in the name of anti-carbon virtue, because that suffering hasn’t done much to reduce emissions.
Don’t let the recent meltdown in European natural gas prices fool you. The energy crunch could last years ⏳
That’s what futures traders are betting, with spot rates dropping more than forward contracts this past week
Leaders of the coal and natural gas industries have different messages for U.S. Senator Joe Manchin and the future of any further negotiations on the Build Back Better plan.
During a Monday appearance on MetroNews “Talkline,” United Mine Workers of America President Cecil Roberts explained the statement the union released last week after Manchin told the White House he couldn’t support Build Back Better.
Roberts wants Manchin to resume negotiations.
“To try to reach an agreement that would benefit all working-class people and people who might find themselves in a more unfortunate position,” Roberts said Monday.
Meanwhile, GOWV, that natural gas industry’s trade organization in West Virginia, joined several similar organizations from surrounding states on a letter to Manchin Monday thanking him for his leadership against Build Back Better.
“Provisions of the reconciliation package – including the methane gas tax – would have been devastating to sustained job growth, while stinging consumers with higher energy costs as many bear the inflation burden,” the letter said.
During an appearance on “Talkline” earlier this year, Gas & Oil Association of West Virginia (GOWV) Executive Director Charlie Burd said at some point Congress will understand there must be a future for fossil fuels.
“I believe that there will be a level of reality that kind of takes hold in Washington, D.C. over time as they see these programs to eliminate fossil fuels will not really achieve the goals that they want to achieve,” Burd said.
The latest version of BBB includes $555 billion for climate investment to move the country to clean power with incentives to move in that direction. Roberts said it would be a mistake to think what the UMWA is urging Manchin to do is support attempts to eliminate fossil fuels.
“When we say, ‘Let’s continue to negotiate.’ if there’s additional protections the senator (Manchin) or the fossil fuels industry would like to see, that’s what we should be doing,” Roberts said.
Roberts said Build Back Better is much bigger. He said what’s needed is a protection of democracy.
“What we should be doing here is trying to do what we can for those who need the help of the United States government and what we can do to bring jobs into the state of West Virginia and what we can do to provide health care,” Roberts said.
Natural gas production in West Virginia topped 2.5 trillion cubic feet in 2020. Four of the top 5 producers in the country operate in West Virginia.
The joint letter to Manchin from the trade organizations said investment is need in fossil fuels not a pulling away.
“Innovation – not elimination – will continue to drive our economy, protect our national security and reach our shared environmental goals,” the letter said.
The renewed vigor in oil prices of late is only just the beginning, contends veteran industry analyst Phillip Streible of Blue Line Futures.
Streible thinks oil prices are at risk of hitting $60 in the near-term due to an Omicron-related demand slowdown. But that will likely prove to be a buying opportunity in front of a “long-term” rally in 2022.
“We are going to see the demand picture continue to pick up going into the [summer] driving season. Hopefully, we can get this pandemic behind us. You’ll see all that pent-up travel demand really take back off again. Flights were pretty full over the holiday weekend, but we expect them to get even fuller as the capacity picks up. If you look at the supply side on crude oil, we have 432 million barrels. The five-year average is 460 million, so supplies are quite tight. We don’t expect OPEC to take any kind of reaction by picking up their supply picture. So we expect any kind of small supply shock would send prices higher. We are expecting $85 to $90 [a barrel] oil next year,” said Streible on Yahoo Finance Live.
The call comes as the bulls begin to retake the oil market despite the fast-spreading Omicron variant starting to weigh on global economic growth.
Oil prices rose to a one-month high Monday, a move that saw benchmark brent crude settle around $79 a barrel. The price of brent crude oil extended its gain on Tuesday.
The bullish move higher hasn’t extended much to the sector’s most well-known stocks, however.
Shares of Exxon and Chevron are each up about 2% in the past five trading sessions, lagging the gains in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (2.7%) and S&P 500 (3%), according to Yahoo Finance Plus data.
Oil’s recent bull move has some predicting further pain at the gas pump in 2022.
Gas price tracking outfit GasBuddy predicted in a new report on Tuesday — which it shared exclusively with CNN —that the national average price for gas will reach $3.41 a gallon in 2022 compared to $3.02 this year. GasBuddy didn’t rule out gas prices hitting $4 a gallon by the Memorial Day holiday.
“No question about it,” said Streible, on whether gas prices will march higher in 2022.
Traders may have diverted another cargo of liquefied natural gas to Europe instead of China amid the continent’s energy crunch.
The vessel Hellas Diana sharply changed course from Tianjin and is likely headed to Europe, according to Mathew Ang, an analyst at Kpler. The ship, which left Corpus Christi, Texas, around Nov. 27, U-turned near Hawaii and is traveling toward the Panama Canal, Bloomberg shipping data showed.
At least seven other cargoes originally bound for Asia have been diverted to Europe, where rapidly falling temperatures and energy shortages pushed Dutch TTF prices to record highs last week. The region is attracting more supplies as Asia’s biggest buyers are opting to use their inventories this winter instead of procuring more. Japan-Korea benchmark prices are trading at a rare discount to European rates.
The Philippines has lifted a four-year-old ban on open-pit mining for copper, gold, silver and complex ores, an official said on Tuesday, marking the second landmark policy move this year as the government tries to revitalize the industry.
Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Roy Cimatu has signed an administrative order lifting the ban, Mines and Geosciences Bureau Director Wilfredo Moncano said.
The government imposed the ban in 2017, when the ministry, which oversees the mining industry, was led by an anti-mining advocate who had blamed the sector for extensive environmental damage.
After several years of restrictive policies that have been blamed for stagnating the industry, the government now wants stalled and new mining projects to attract investments and help stimulate the pandemic-hit economy.
In April, President Rodrigo Duterte lifted a moratorium on new mineral agreements imposed in 2012.
Open-pit mining remained a globally accepted method of extracting minerals, Moncano said.
Cimatu’s predecessor at the environment department, Regina Lopez, had enforced the ban, infuriating miners who argued that the country’s large copper and gold deposits could be exploited only through open-pit mining.
But environmental activists expressed dismay over the policy reversal, with the Alyansa Tigil Mina (Alliance to End Mining) group describing it as “a short-sighted and misplaced development priority of the government.”
The Philippines’ annual export revenue from its mineral extraction industry could increase by up to $2 billion over the next five to six years as new mining projects take off, according to the government.
The Southeast Asian country is China’s biggest supplier of nickel ore and also has substantial copper and gold reserves.
More than a third of the Philippines’ total land area of 30 million hectares (74.1 million acres) has been identified as having “high mineral potential”, but only less than 5% of its mineral reserves has been extracted so far, according to the mines bureau.
Alyse Galvin, a candidate twice before for the U.S. House of Representatives, will run to serve in the Alaska Legislature.
Galvin has filed a letter of intent with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, but has not specified whether she will run for the Alaska House or the Alaska Senate. Galvin was not immediately available for an interview when reached Monday night.
By filing a letter of intent, Galvin can now begin fundraising. She posted on Twitter Monday night that she is waiting until the recently redrawn legislative districts are resolved before she decides which seat to run for in the Legislature. Several lawsuits have been filed from around Alaska in response to the new redistricting maps.
“I will let the redistricting process clarify before making a final decision on which seat I will seek,” Galvin said on Twitter. “My campaign is starting now as we close out 2021 and look forward to 2022. I hope you’ll please stay tuned for a donation link and additional information on how to join us.”
She was a Democratic-endorsed candidate in the 2018 and 2020 races for the U.S. House, the seat currently held by longtime incumbent Rep. Don Young.
Galvin, who lives in Anchorage, garnered 46.5% of the vote the first time she ran against Young in 2018, and over 45% of the votes when she challenged him again in 2020. She ran as an independent candidate in those races.
Despite more than a decade of hype and the promise of billions of dollars in federal and state subsidies, the offshore wind boondoggle – and yes, boondoggle is the right word for it – keeps getting torpedoed by delays and litigation.
The latest harpoon to slam the nascent industry hit recently when the Austin-based Texas Public Policy Foundation sued three federal agencies in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. on behalf of several commercial fishing groups. The suit alleges that the permit awarded to the proposed 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project violates numerous federal laws including the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and National Environmental Policy Act.
The suit, which will almost certainly result in a long delay to the construction of Vineyard Wind, is the second federal lawsuit filed against the project in the past few months. In August, a group called Nantucket Residents Against Turbines filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and other federal agencies, alleging that the Vineyard Wind project, which will be located about 14 miles south of the island, will harm the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. There are only about 400 Right Whales left on the planet.
The litigation was filed four months after a study found that the waters south of New England are crucial habitat for the Right Whale. Between 2011 and 2019, some 327 unique Right Whales were spotted in the region. Furthermore, the endangered whales have been sighted in the area south of the Vineyard Wind site every month over the past few years. The study also found consistent use of the area proposed for wind-energy development by a third of the species and nearly a third of breeding females.
According to the World Wildlife Fund, the Right Whale is “one of the most endangered of all large whales, with a long history of human exploitation and no signs of recovery despite protection from whaling since the 1930s.”
Bonnie Brady is the executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. On Wednesday afternoon, Brady told me, “We tried to work within the system. But the federal permitting system is broken from start to finish. We had no choice but to sue.”
In addition to their negative impact on fisheries, the proposed offshore projects like Vineyard Wind are a terrible deal for whales, consumers, and wildlife.
Earlier this year, the US Energy Information Administration reported that offshore wind continues to be one of the most expensive forms of electricity generation. By 2026, the EIA expects producing one megawatt-hour of electricity from offshore wind projects will cost about $121, or more than three times the cost of producing that same amount of energy with natural gas ($37).
In March, the Biden Administration said it wanted to see 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind installed in U.S. waters by 2030. But installing thousands of offshore wind turbines, each armed with blades more than 100 meters long, will do untold damage to marine bird populations. As Rockefeller University’s Jesse Ausubel told me recently, the ongoing push for offshore wind will require “massive industrialization” of the oceans.
Indeed, building 30,000 megawatts of capacity – at 10 megawatts per turbine – would require anchoring about 3,000 offshore platforms along the Eastern Seaboard. That’s a staggering number of structures. For comparison, the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, which is one of the most productive offshore oil and gas provinces on the planet, has about offshore 1,900 platforms.
Ausubel has also looked at the offshore wind plans proposed by the countries in European Union. He said the EU’s plans for 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity would “alone require acreage of about 100,000 square kilometers or about two-thirds the surface of the Baltic or Black Seas or a bit less than half the land area of Great Britain plus Ireland.” He added, “Environmentalists have not yet grasped the massive industrialization of the oceans now underway and proposed.”
Among the few entities that will benefit if projects like Vineyard Wind get built are foreign companies. Vineyard Wind is owned by Avangrid Renewables (a subsidiary of Spanish utility Iberdrola,) and the Danish firm, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. Britain’s BP, Norway’s Equinor, and Denmark’s Ørsted are also pushing to develop several thousand megawatts of offshore wind capacity in US waters.
It’s time to end the hype about offshore wind and the giveaways to foreign corporations. Let’s hope these lawsuits succeed and they scuttle the offshore wind business once and for all. I’ll end by saying once again that if policymakers are serious about decarbonizing the electric grid, they need to get serious about nuclear energy.
The world economy is set to surpass $100 trillion for the first time in 2022, two years earlier than previously forecast, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research.
Global gross domestic product will be lifted by the continued recovery from the pandemic, although if inflation persists it may be hard for policy makers to avoid tipping their economies back into recession, the London-based think tank said.
“The important issue for the 2020s is how the world economies cope with inflation,” said Douglas McWilliams, the CEBR’s deputy chairman. “We hope that a relatively modest adjustment to the tiller will bring the non-transitory elements under control. If not, then the world will need to brace itself for a recession in 2023 or 2024.”
The forecast is in line with estimates of the International Monetary Fund, which also predicts global GDP measured in dollars and in current prices will pass $100 trillion in 2022.
In its annual World Economic League Table, the CEBR also predicted:
China will overtake the U.S. in 2030, two years later than forecast a year ago
India will regain sixth position from France next year and become third largest economy in 2031, a year later the previously predicted
The U.K. is on track to be 16% larger than France in 2036 despite Brexit
Germany will overtake the Japanese economy in 2033
Climate change will lower consumer spending by $2 trillion a year on average through 2036 as companies pass on the cost of decarbonizing investment
Oil prices rose around 3% on Monday due to hopes that the Omicron COVID-19 variant will have a limited impact on global demand in 2022, even as surging cases caused flight cancellations.
Global benchmark Brent crude rose $2.53, or 3.3%, to $78.67 a barrel by 11:01 a.m. EST (1601 GMT). U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude rose $2.01, or 2.7%, to $75.80 a barrel. The U.S. market was closed on Friday for a holiday.
Oil, which plunged by more than 10% on Nov. 26 when reports of a new variant first appeared, gained last week after early data suggested that Omicron could cause a milder level of illness.
“Though Omicron is spreading faster than any COVID-19 variant yet, a relatively relieving news is that most people infected with Omicron are showing mild symptoms, at least so far,” said Leona Liu, analyst at Singapore-based DailyFX.
More than 1,300 flights were cancelled by U.S. airlines on Sunday as COVID-19 reduced the number of available crews while several cruise ships had to cancel stops. read more
“The disruption to goods and services from isolating workers, notably air travel, seems to be the main fallout so far,” Jeffrey Halley, analyst at brokerage OANDA, said of rising Omicron cases. “That is only likely to cause short-term nerves, with the global recovery story for 2022 still on track.”
Brent has risen by more than 45% this year, supported by recovering demand and supply cuts by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, collectively known as OPEC+.
Talks resume on Monday between world powers and Iran on reviving Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal. Iran said oil exports were the focus of the talks, which so far appear to have made little progress on boosting Iran’s shipments. read more
Also on investors’ radar is the next OPEC+ meeting on Jan. 4, at which the producer alliance will decide whether to go ahead with a planned 400,000 barrels-per-day (bpd) production increase in February.
OPEC+ stuck to its plans at its last meeting to boost output for January despite Omicron.
European natural gas fell for a fourth day as U.S. supplies are expected to bring relief to the tight market and traders weighed both milder weather and risks to demand from the omicron virus variant.
Gas has whipsawed in recent days, soaring to record levels above 180 euros ($203.59) a megawatt-hour last Tuesday following a sharp drop in Russian flows. That’s 10 times higher than year-earlier prices. It slumped to about half that level on Monday — and is heading for the longest declining streak in two months — as shipments of liquefied natural gas head to Europe, easing an energy crunch that’s forced heavy industries to curb output.
“As we enter the closing stages of 2021, the European energy complex shows no sign of calming down for the holiday period,” consultant Timera Energy said in a report. “Industrial demand has been struggling in response, with metals and fertilizer producers having to curtail production.”
Benchmark Dutch front-month gas fell as much as 19% to 90 euros a megawatt-hour, the lowest since Dec. 6. Easing prices are pushing down power rates, with German electricity for January declining as much as 36% to 220 euros per megawatt-hour while French power for next month fell 22%.
Day-ahead prices in France dropped to the lowest level in almost two months. Benchmark European electricity, the German next-year contract, lost as much as 21%, the biggest intraday decline since at least April 2017.
More LNG
An increasing number of LNG vessels are heading to western European ports. The region is attracting more supplies as Asia’s biggest buyers are opting to use their inventories this winter instead of procuring more.
Milder weather forecast for much of mainland Europe will curb energy demand, while there was also uncertainty over the impact of the fast-spreading omicron. Coronavirus infections has been surging across the globe, and over the weekend China reported the highest number of since January.
Still, there is no immediate end in sight for energy crisis that has rattled European industry and induced government action to help ease the burden of surging household bills. Russia didn’t book any pipeline space for Monday to deliver gas through Mallnow in Germany, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates.
Nova Minerals Ltd. Dec. 22 announced that drilling has now outlined 9.6 million ounces of gold at its Estelle property in Alaska, a 55% increase over the 6.2 million oz reported by the Australia-based exploration company in October. The previous calculation brought in the first ever resource for RPM, the second deposit outlined so far at Estelle. The new calculation upgrades and expands upon the larger Korbel Main deposit.
According to the latest resource update the Korbel Main, which is situated at the north end of the Estelle property, hosts 286 million metric tons of indicated resource averaging 0.3 grams per metric ton (3 million oz) gold; plus 583 million metric tons of inferred resource averaging 0.3 g/t (5.1 million oz) gold.
This marks the first ever resource that has elevated a portion of the Korbel Main resource to the higher confidence indicated category. Even with the elevation of 3 million oz to indicated, the inferred resource at Korbel expanded by 400,000 oz.
RPM, a new deposit about 16 miles (25 kilometers) south of Korbel, hosts 23 million metric tons of inferred resource averaging 2 g/t (1.5 million oz) gold. The maiden resource for this deposit was reported by Nova in October.
“Nova’s management, with much credit to our team on the ground, has taken the Estelle gold project from discovery to a multi-deposit gold district in a short timeframe and on relatively limited funding and the exciting point is that we’re only getting started,” said Nova Minerals CEO Christopher Gerteisen.
With assays pending from more than 8,000 meters of drilling completed this year at Korbel Main and five rigs continuing to turn on the Estelle property, this growth is expected to continue into 2022.
While expanding the resources at Korbel Main and RPM are expected to be primary targets for drilling going into the new year, the 125-square-mile (324 square kilometers) Estelle property hosts several other targets Nova is eager to explore.
“With this, and no shortage of further targets, including the recently discovered mineralization at our Train-Shoeshine and Stoney prospects, there is no doubt that our global resource inventory will continue to grow for many years to come as we continue to unlock Estelle’s potential as a world-class trend,” said Gerteisen.
The Nova Minerals CEO said pre-feasibility study level work is being carried out in parallel with the resource development drilling at Estelle.
With less than a year to go until the 2022 midterms, Republicans are increasingly bullish on the prospect of a red wave that could flip both chambers of Congress and end Democrats’ unified control in Washington.
Heading into 2022, Democrats find themselves on their back foot, defending their narrow House and Senate majorities — and President Biden — against a fusillade of attacks over stubbornly high coronavirus cases, inflation, the bloody Afghanistan withdrawal and more. Biden’s approval ratings have nosedived to the low 40s, portending a possible drumming at the ballot box next year — and they haven’t stopped falling.
The House is viewed by many on both sides of the aisle as likely to fall into Republican hands, given Democrats’ razor-thin five-seat majority there. However, despite a favorable map for Democrats, the party’s 50-50 majority in that chamber could be toppled too.
“I’ve been telling Democrats, especially Democrats in targeted seats, enjoy the holidays, and you got a decision to make: retire or lose next fall,” Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told The Hill.
Emmer cautioned that a GOP House majority is not guaranteed, though he asserted that as many as 70 Democrats could lose their seats in a possible wave, warning “in this environment, no Democrat is safe.”
Fueling the GOP optimism is a confluence of factors, both historic and current.
The party in the White House customarily loses seats in the midterms. GOP waves helped flip the House toward Republicans in 2010 and the Senate four years later, while a blue wave helped win Democrats back the lower chamber in 2018.
On top of that, Biden’s falling overall approval ratings have been coupled with lower approval by voters of his handling of several specific issues, including the coronavirus and the economy. That’s helped fuel a GOP advantage in the generic congressional poll, where, in part due to gerrymandering, Democrats typically need a slight edge to at least pull even.
Taken together, Republicans see a path to taking back at least the House, particularly given its narrow margins. Recent waves have flipped dozens of seats, and the GOP must net just five in 2022.
“I’m very confident that we’re gonna take back the House,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who represents a suburban swing district near Omaha. “I think that on the key issues right now, all the energy is on our side. And when I look at all the polling data, it matches what I see in the district, voters are concerned about inflation, crime, the border, Afghanistan, and all those issues are in our favor.”
Beyond the overall irritation with the current state of the country, along with specific frustrations on policy issues, Democrats face structural headwinds in a redistricting year.
The map-drawing process, which is still underway, could alone get Republicans the seats they need. But already Republicans have fortified their advantages in states like Texas and Georgia, where there is unified GOP control of the state government and the redistricting efforts.
“Redistricting is going to be an obstacle,” said Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa.
That confluence of factors is leading Democrats to privately — and in some cases publicly — concede that their grip on the House is tenuous.
“The environment is particularly dour, both because of rising prices, economic anxiety, frustration about feeling stagnant when it comes to COVID, that it is not behind us despite the fact that we’ve been living with it for two years,” Democratic pollster Molly Murphy said. “If this environment holds, it’s going to be pretty damning.”
With less than a year to go until the 2022 midterms, Republicans are increasingly bullish on the prospect of a red wave that could flip both chambers of Congress and end Democrats’ unified control in Washington.
Heading into 2022, Democrats find themselves on their back foot, defending their narrow House and Senate majorities — and President Biden — against a fusillade of attacks over stubbornly high coronavirus cases, inflation, the bloody Afghanistan withdrawal and more. Biden’s approval ratings have nosedived to the low 40s, portending a possible drumming at the ballot box next year — and they haven’t stopped falling.
The House is viewed by many on both sides of the aisle as likely to fall into Republican hands, given Democrats’ razor-thin five-seat majority there. However, despite a favorable map for Democrats, the party’s 50-50 majority in that chamber could be toppled too.
“I’ve been telling Democrats, especially Democrats in targeted seats, enjoy the holidays, and you got a decision to make: retire or lose next fall,” Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told The Hill.
Emmer cautioned that a GOP House majority is not guaranteed, though he asserted that as many as 70 Democrats could lose their seats in a possible wave, warning “in this environment, no Democrat is safe.”
Fueling the GOP optimism is a confluence of factors, both historic and current.
The party in the White House customarily loses seats in the midterms. GOP waves helped flip the House toward Republicans in 2010 and the Senate four years later, while a blue wave helped win Democrats back the lower chamber in 2018.
On top of that, Biden’s falling overall approval ratings have been coupled with lower approval by voters of his handling of several specific issues, including the coronavirus and the economy. That’s helped fuel a GOP advantage in the generic congressional poll, where, in part due to gerrymandering, Democrats typically need a slight edge to at least pull even.
Taken together, Republicans see a path to taking back at least the House, particularly given its narrow margins. Recent waves have flipped dozens of seats, and the GOP must net just five in 2022.
“I’m very confident that we’re gonna take back the House,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who represents a suburban swing district near Omaha. “I think that on the key issues right now, all the energy is on our side. And when I look at all the polling data, it matches what I see in the district, voters are concerned about inflation, crime, the border, Afghanistan, and all those issues are in our favor.”
Beyond the overall irritation with the current state of the country, along with specific frustrations on policy issues, Democrats face structural headwinds in a redistricting year.
The map-drawing process, which is still underway, could alone get Republicans the seats they need. But already Republicans have fortified their advantages in states like Texas and Georgia, where there is unified GOP control of the state government and the redistricting efforts.
“Redistricting is going to be an obstacle,” said Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa.
That confluence of factors is leading Democrats to privately — and in some cases publicly — concede that their grip on the House is tenuous.
“The environment is particularly dour, both because of rising prices, economic anxiety, frustration about feeling stagnant when it comes to COVID, that it is not behind us despite the fact that we’ve been living with it for two years,” Democratic pollster Molly Murphy said. “If this environment holds, it’s going to be pretty damning.”
That reality has apparently set in with at least some Democrats on Capitol Hill. Roughly two dozen are retiring from the House, either to leave politics altogether or run for another office.
By the end of 2017, the year before the GOP was swept out of the House majority, 25 House Republicans had announced they would not seek reelection.
“They’re running for the hills,” GOP pollster Robert Blizzard said. “I think they see the writing on the wall.”
Frustrating Democratic efforts to keep the House are the issues for which Biden and the broader party are being blamed. Presidents have limited control over inflation, and while aspects of the coronavirus response, including on testing, is in Biden’s wheelhouse, no lawmaker could have prevented the omicron variant from hitting U.S. shores.
Compounding that, Democrats’ latest legislative efforts have fallen apart over a sprawling social and climate spending bill — opening up Democrats to GOP attacks on their competency and cohesion.
That leaves Democrats with limited legislative options to turn the tide, leading some to suggest a tonal shift from touting previous accomplishments could be key to ameliorating the party’s chances in 2022.
“I think understanding that people are pissed off and that that’s OK and that there’s an understanding of what those lives are like and a desire, and the goal is fixing those things and looking in touch with people, those are the things that Democrats can do tonally,” Murphy said. “I think pointing to, ‘Hey, things are actually great’ just sounds totally tone deaf.”
To be sure, Democrats also have legislative accomplishments to highlight, including a nearly $2 trillion coronavirus relief package passed earlier in the year and a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that was signed into law just a few months ago.
Some Democrats say those are valuable weapons in the party’s arsenal — as long as they’re effectively messaged.
“I think our chances are great. We just need to do good things and tell people about it,” Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (N.Y.), the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told The Hill, adding that he’d advise candidates to “run like the mayor.”
“I’ve been clear that we need to do a better job of messaging,” he continued, “and I think you’ll see us do that.”
A GOP majority is still not guaranteed. While Republicans are boastful that House control is within their grasp, some voice concerns that infighting could tarnish their brand.
Former President Trump and his style of politics that proved toxic in the 2018 midterms still loom large over the party, and the current House GOP conference is wracked by divisions, as recently indicated by vocal rebukes from conservatives against centrists who backed the bipartisan infrastructure legislation.
On top of that, the party has had to answer for comments from some lawmakers that advocated violence against Democrats or were Islamophobic.
“It’s not a choice between Coke and Pepsi. It’s a choice between Coke and arsenic,” said Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson. “The Republican brand is now toxic in a lot of the country.”
Democrats are projected to have better odds in the Senate, where a competitive map will be key to possibly offsetting a poor environment.
Democrats’ top defensive opportunities lie in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and New Hampshire — four states that Biden won in 2020. Meanwhile, Republicans are defending open seats in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which Biden also won, as well as North Carolina and Ohio.
With that dynamic, Democrats say that the Senate is a toss-up — instead of the House, which likely leans Republican.
“Within the Senate battlefield there are more than enough seats for Democrats to retain control and also more than enough seats for Republicans to flip it,” Ferguson said.
However, there too Republicans are bullish that a majority is within reach.
Biden won Arizona, Georgia and Nevada each by about 2 points or less, though Republicans flipped Virginia’s governor’s mansion by 2 points in November and narrowly lost New Jersey’s gubernatorial race. The contests from those two states represented 12-point and 13-point swings from 2020, respectively, far more than needed in several states Democrats are defending.
“I feel good about Republican chances of taking control, but it’s definitely a very competitive map,” Blizzard said.
“In a state like Pennsylvania, Biden won by a point. So, if that shifts even 3 or 4 points, that could be enough. Nevada, same thing. Georgia, same thing. Arizona, same thing. If you start flipping Arizona, and Georgia and Nevada and New Hampshire, that’s a net of four seats right there. So, I would bet on Republicans to win the Senate in ‘22.”
Climate activist Greta Thunberg slammed the Biden on climate policy in an interview with the Washington Post Monday, saying that it’s “strange” to consider Biden a leader in the arena “when you see what his administration is doing.”
What she’s saying: “The U.S. is actually expanding fossil fuel infrastructure,” Thunberg said. “Why is the U.S. doing that?”
“It should not fall on us activists and teenagers who just want to go to school to raise this awareness and to inform people that we are actually facing an emergency,” she added.
Flashback: Thunberg is no stranger to calling out climate actions she feels are ineffective or performative. Last month, she dismissed this year’s COP26 as “a PR event” and she accused world leaders of “greenwashing.”
Our thought bubble, via Axios’ Andrew Freedman: The Biden administration set out ambitious goals for reducing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, including reaching 100% clean electricity by 2035 and net zero emissions by 2050.
However, Biden’s main tool for meeting these goals is bogged down in Congress, putting them in doubt. He also has been combatting an increase in gas prices related to the economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and other factors.
This has led Biden to call for a temporary increase in global oil production. The White House also has not followed through on a campaign promise to crack down on oil and gas leasing on federal lands, instead aiming for reforming the process. Yet, it is also greatly expanding the areas open to renewables, such as offshore wind energy.
