Weekly Daily Standup Top Stories
OPEC is Looking for Market Share While Playing the Long Game
In the ever-evolving landscape of global energy markets, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) continues to navigate a delicate balance between securing greater market share and sustaining elevated oil prices. As of mid-2025, […]
EU Lowers Russian Oil Cap to $47.60 in New Sanctions Package, but Will It Do Anything?
In a bold yet unilateral move, the European Union has rolled out its 18th sanctions package against Russia and Belarus, slashing the price cap on Russian crude oil from $60 to $47.60 per barrel. This […]
Which Energy Markets are Moving
As we navigate through July 2025, the global energy landscape continues to evolve amid economic uncertainties, policy shifts, and fluctuating demand. From traditional fossil fuels to emerging renewables, various sectors are experiencing notable movements—some upward, […]
EQT Calls on Congress to Slash Gas Project Approval Times
In a bold move to bolster America’s energy infrastructure and maintain global competitiveness, EQT Corporation’s CEO Toby Rice has urged Congress to dramatically shorten the approval timelines for new natural gas projects. This call comes […]
If Alberta Referendum to Become the 51st State Gains Traction, What Would the Financial Reality Look Like?
In the heart of Canada’s oil country, a provocative idea is simmering: What if Alberta, the powerhouse of North American energy production, held a referendum to secede from Canada and join the United States as […]
President Trump Announces Three New Trade Deals
In a bold move to strengthen America’s economic position and promote fair trade practices, President Donald Trump announced three new trade agreements on July 22, 2025. These deals, involving Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan, aim […]
Global EV Market in 2025: Growth Amid Fire Risks and Insurance Challenges
The electric vehicle (EV) market is continuing to surge globally, driven by advancements in technology, growing demand for hybrids, government incentives, and increasing consumer demand for sustainable transportation. Now that government incentives are being phased […]
Highlights of the Podcast
00:00 – Intro
00:15 – OPEC is Looking for Market Share While Playing the Long Game
04:57 – EU Lowers Russian Oil Cap to $47.60 in New Sanctions Package, but Will It Do Anything?
08:58 – Which Energy Markets are Moving
12:23 – EQT Calls on Congress to Slash Gas Project Approval Times
15:34 – California Oversteps Its Borders: Forcing Energy Policies on the Rest of the United States
20:04 – If Alberta Referendum to Become the 51st State Gains Traction, What Would the Financial Reality Look Like?
23:50 – President Trump Announces Three New Trade Deals
26:58 – Does the Oil and Gas Industry Need $18 Trillion for Investment to Keep Prices Down?
29:02 – Outro
Follow Stuart On LinkedIn and X
Follow Michael On LinkedIn and X
Need Power For Your Data Center, Hospital, or Business?
Is Oil and Gas An Investment for You?
– Get in Contact With The Show –
Video Transcription edited for grammar. We disavow any errors unless they make us look better or smarter.
Michael Tanner: [00:00:00] The world needs trillions of dollars of energy investment in order to survive. Next, on the Energy Newsbeat special edition weekly recap. [00:00:07][7.5]
Stuart Turley: [00:00:15] OPEC is looking for market share while playing the long game. This is a critical story when you sit back and take a look at everybody’s asking whether or not OPEX can actually make the additional product increases that OPECK Plus has been allowing. Overall OPECH production rose by 220,000 barrels per day in June, driven primarily by the increases of Saudi Arabia, 173,000 barrels per and the UAE by 83,000 barrels per day. Looking at the rest of the year forecast, the international, the IEA projects global oil supply to rise by 1.8 million barrels per day to 1.49 million barrels a day with non-OPEC producers. Now, Michael, this is the same IE A that the secretary right has threatened to get out of and stop funding 20 to 30%, whatever our number is that we fund of their agency, because they do not support real numbers. They support all leaning to the renewable side. [00:01:21][65.4]
Michael Tanner: [00:01:21] No, I’m absolutely with Secretary Ryder, the fact that we need to get out of the IEA or at least stop funding it from our standpoint. I do think OPEC, as you mentioned in this article, is struggling to figure out where they fit in this, like, long-game approach. I will disagree with the headline of this article though, is I don’t believe this is a market share issue. I believe this a attempting to, one, in the short-term, bring their countries like Kazakhstan, Iraq… Countries that are overproducing relative to where the caps are bring them in line We all know how oil oil prices work when supply outstrips demand Well, guess what prices go down when demand is higher than supply prices go up So what they’re doing is attempting in my opinion to increase supply in order to decrease prices and therefore Punishing that next marginal barrel that you know their other OPEC brethren are producing. Now I think from a long game standpoint, I think what they’re trying to do is on one breath you say lower prices brings in less marginal revenue for the next barrel. But I say marginal next barrel because if you produce five more barrels than you did yesterday, even at lower prices, you still make more money than you yesterday. So increasing and bringing back barrels onto the market does increase revenues at the top line level. And we know this OPEC is in Saudi Arabia. When you think of OPEP, really think of Saudi and then think of everybody else. So from Saudi’s perspective, their budget is 90 to 95% wrapped up in oil and gas. You know, I’m not a big fan of talking about, oh, they need $120 oil to balance their budget. Let’s just look at from their economy standpoint. Their economy is 90 to 95% wrapped up in oil and gas. That’s never good for a portfolio allocation. We work in the oil and gasoline business too, and we don’t even have all of our investments in oil, in gas specifically, because you want to have a diversified portfolio. So part of what I think they’re doing is they can both. Lower prices to hurt their brethren in OPEC who’ve been overproducing. While also bringing back more barrels to increase top line revenue, which eventually will help them diversify away from energy and into all this other stuff. They really want to be a leader in AI. They’re investing heavily in the U S sports market. We’ve seen it with live. We’ve see them with trying to start soccer and other tennis leagues. I think the move here is less about market share and more about two goals. One in the short term, one in the long term that are actually both different, but you can walk along the same yellow brick road and eventually get an accomplish both. [00:03:56][154.5]
Stuart Turley: [00:03:56] You bet. Let me go through two points here. If they were wanting to take market share from the Permian, because I want to make sure this is clear. If they are wanting to. Market share from The Permian. It would be through Syria because Syria has the light suite compatible with the Permia and oil in the. Shell and BP have won those contracts to do that because the Bank of London actually needs the oil revenue because it’s facing its financial crisis. So for OPEC plus, not OPEX, you have Syria in there and that’s how that one’s going to play in for that one. And OPEx pursuit of market share through the strategic production heights align seamlessly with external pressures like sanctions, but we all know sanctions don’t work. [00:04:44][47.8]
Michael Tanner: [00:04:44] Well, we know that for a fact. No, I completely agree. So I’m trying to look at who actually wrote this article here. That was me. Oh, you wrote this. Article. Well, I was going to say it was actually Clark Savage and I disagree with Clark Savage. I know him well. [00:04:57][12.8]
Stuart Turley: [00:04:57] The EU lowers Russian oil cap to $47.60 in new sanctions package. But will it do anything? Michael Irenoslav, the great energy writer from Bulgaria, I get to talk to every Monday morning, has always said at best, sanctions don’t work as intended. In a bold unilateral move, the European Union has rolled out its 18th sanctions package against Russia and Belarus, slashing the price cap on Russian crude from 60 to 47.60 a barrel. And I went and started nosing around, what are people actually paying for Russian crude? And they’re paying a little bit more than the 47.6. They’re paying in the 50 to 5 to 60 range. So they’re actually making a big deal out of this. And it really means absolutely, wait for it, Wait for it. Nothing. This is absolutely a joke. Projections for 2025 indicate a slowdown around 1.4 to 1.5 as overheating risks emerge from inflation and labor shortages in Russia. But inflation is because they’re growing, Michael. They’ve actually had two years in a row of a growing economy, and Germany is facing its third year loss. And when you take a look at the old adage, So goes Germany, so goes the EU’s economy. I mean, this is absolutely amazing. [00:06:27][89.9]
Michael Tanner: [00:06:28] I mean, I think it’s, it’s if, if, what do they say? You know, first time, shame on you. Second time, shame on me. Eight time. You’re an idiot. Well, we’re on the 18th go-around at all this. So I don’t know what, how that phrase rolls out to the 18 one, but it can’t be good. And it can be good for the one who’s putting the shakes on. It’s clear if these sanctions were working, we wouldn’t need to have more of them because it would be sufficient enough to bring Russia to the negotiating table, which is all they’re trying to do right now. All Trump would love nothing more than to settle the Russia-Ukraine war, because then he looks like a hero in art of the deal. So we could get into the politics of that, but that’s not really what we do here. We talk about this specifically from an energy standpoint. So what does this do? This just makes it more difficult for countries who are trying to buy energy to have to go around. You embolden intermediaries. You think Russians not being able to sell their oil? No, they’re using intermediaries. They’re using countries that don’t mind doing business with people that are sanctions. And what does it do? It artificially drives the price up because the reason why Russia has a strong demand for its crude is because it’s a good quality crude. I love how they say this price cap reduction. 4760 is paired with a quote dynamic review mechanism, allowing for regular adjustments to keep effective to keep the fact effective and in line with fluctuating global prices that now they’ve just said, we’re setting it up for the 19th, the 20th and the 21st sanction because we’re going to continue change this. I mean, I we’ve talked about this at nauseam stew. I love this article from Irina Slav sanctions don’t work. [00:08:03][94.5]
Stuart Turley: [00:08:04] And you sit back and take a look, the Shadow Fleet, there’s roughly 1,500 tankers in the Shadow Fleet depending on, you know, mix and all that. Russia has about 700 of those tankers. And so they are now up to a total, bringing the total of 444 sanctioned tankers that they have on there. Michael, what happens to a sanctioned tinker that can’t unload? It gets sold and he buys another one. So it’s just a it’s a big it’s a gigantic What’s the, the, where you have a cup and then you have to find the P under the cup, you know, all he does is move a tanker over here, not a P that you, a PDE, a green P, you don’t know how you try to, okay, wrong P for our podcast listeners, Michael was like Stuart, you just cross the line. No, it’s a green pee under the shell game. You know, you’re playing the shell. No, this is absolutely the biggest shell game in the world. And they’re just doing it with tanker. Which way energy markets are moving. This is a critical story, Michael, as we sit back and take a look, navigating through July 2025, the global energy landscape continues to evolve amid economic uncertainty, policy shifts and fluctuating demand from traditional fossil fuels to emerging renewables. Michael, I had my head, what little hair pulling out on this one, and it is a lot of fun. Quarterly investments hit a post-IRA low of just $5 million in Q1, down from a peak of $157 million in the Q3 of 2023. This downturn is to policy reversals. And people are sitting there going, well, wait a minute, which way is Trump’s tariffs going to go? Left or right? Which way? Trump? No, this, that. And I think Trump is now proving to the world that tariff negotiations are actually a good thing. And aluminum in a minimum, as I used to say, when I was three, a key material energy infrastructure from solar panels to electric vehicles is grappling with oversupply and subdued prices in July. I did not see that one on my bingo card. Price remains in the dildrums due to a supply gut with expectations of short term. So, you know, don’t day trade it. But Michael, I did not see ethanol. Ethanol biofuse stables showed mixed, but generally positive momentum in July. I’ve written a several times, Michael, on our substack, get rid of ethanol. It’s bad. I don’t want to, you it’s like, holy smokes, just it’s bad for cars, bad for the economy, bad for everything else. But it showed up in the what to invest in. I go figure that one out. But refineries, oil and refinery margins, Michael, you talk about this a lot, fell with US utilization dropping below 90% in mid-January to 86%. And I put in a graph in here from Bloomberg. It was pretty interesting when you sit back and take a look at Europe to US drive oil refinery closures. We’ve got 20% of California coming up to close. There’s a couple other closures that are also big in here. That’s gonna really exacerbate the whole problem. And yes, I said exacerbate, that’s a big word for me. So don’t fall out of your chair yet. But in the natural gas market, prices are volatile, gaining ground in July, driven by heat waves and demand. They rose to 357 per MBTU and right now at the time we’re recording this, they’re at 3.29. So that’s pretty interesting. [00:11:41][217.8]
Michael Tanner: [00:11:42] Yeah, absolutely. I do think we also are going to see residential pricing from an electricity standpoint drop down to about $12 per MCF, which is about 22% drop relative to an inflation adjusted number. It’s a lot of what’s going on with natural gas has to do with the summer season right now. It is a lot harder than we expected. I think it’s clear, Stu, as you said in your conclusion, the energy markets are diverging. Clean energy developers in the United States are contracting sharply. We know aluminum is facing massive pricing pressures amid a massive surplus. Refineries, while we’ve seen a short-term margin boost, like you said, the long-term effects are going to be very interesting. So I think this was a great breakdown on where the energy is moving. Again, it’s clear you don’t want to be in the clean energy sector. I know. [00:12:23][40.9]
Stuart Turley: [00:12:23] EQT calls for Congress to slash gas project approval times. I absolutely love Toby Rice and when you and I have always said on the show, good management, good numbers and EQT is a good organization. EQT’s corporation CEO, Toby Rice, has urged Congress to dramatically shorten the approval times for new natural gas projects. This call comes amid raising concerns over delays that are not benefiting foreign energy producing. But also threaten the United States in leading emerging technologies like IA. This is really critical, especially when you look at the report that we’re going to keep talking on that there’s 200 and some odd gigawatts of new energy projects and only 22 gigawattes of those are nuclear and natural gas and you can’t get them done. This is about pipelines and natural, gas in EQT and Toby Rice is all over his business. [00:13:19][56.1]
Michael Tanner: [00:13:20] Yeah, great quote here. When we spent the last 10 years ripping out coal, shutting down nuclear, and making it more challenging to get natural gas infrastructure built, nobody should be questioning why prices are up and grid reliability is a major concern. I mean, truly I think that summarizes exactly, exactly the moment we’re at. And if we are going to become the leader in artificial intelligence, if we are going become a leader in the data centers that power this AI, energy is a critical, critical input, and we’re going to have to look and get creative about this stuff because it’s clear wind and solar ain’t going to do the trick. [00:13:51][31.2]
Stuart Turley: [00:13:51] No, in fact, I’m very nervous about the grid. And again, I thank our lucky stars that we’ve got an administration that understands what’s coming around the corner. [00:14:01][10.2]
Michael Tanner: [00:14:02] We’ll be right back to the weekly recap. But first, guys, we got to pay the bills here. As always, guys. Thank you for checking us out www.energynewsbeat.com. Stu and the team, tremendous job keeping that website up to speed. Everything you need to know to be the tip of the spear when it comes to the energy business. Hit the links in the description below for all the timestamps, links to the articles. You can also subscribe to our sub stack, which is our daily newsletter where you get a. Very bespoke article in your inbox every day talking about the energy transition, the energy newsbeat.com also shout out thank you to Reese energy consulting for supporting the show guys www.reeseenergyconsulting.com they are the best midstream consultants when it comes to anything that you might be able to Um, do if you need help, if you’re two guys in a garage, if you’re the largest publicly traded company in the world, they have the resources to help you. And they have clients ranging from, like I said, two guys in a barrage, all the way to the largest, publicly traded company. So if you were wondering if you are a fit, you are a fit Reese energy consulting.com. And finally guys, invest in oil.energynewsbeat.com, if you are interested in how to get into the oil and gas space, when it comes to investing, we have our oil and gas portfolio survey where you, you fill out a couple and we send you all the resources on what it looks like to invest, the different types, the different ways, all the amazing tax benefits, the monthly dividends that you get from investing, and then if you are even a good, good, Good, good fit. We point you in the right direction. So that’s investinoil.energynewsbeat.com. And now back to the show. [00:15:34][91.9]
Stuart Turley: [00:15:34] California oversteps its borders, forcing energy policies on the rest of the United States. I absolutely would love not to interview Gavin Newsom. Unpacking the Senate Bill 253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, SB 253 stands as a nation’s first mandatory climate emissions disclosure rule, compelling large businesses to report their greenhouse Gasses emission under the three scopes. Scopes one, direct greenhouse gas emissions from owned or controlled. Scope two, indirect from purchased energy such as electricity or heating. Scope three, all other emissions in the value chain. How in blankety blank, blankety, blank are you gonna be able to do any of that? And all this is is a horrible burden on people trying to gain information from your supply chains all the way through your supply chain that they don’t have the technical capabilities of doing. And then the penalties. Holy smokes, Batman. This is a revenue for, you know, it’s one thing to have billions of dollars for a light rail speed system that you cannot even get one track laid for, and you’re looking for way to fund it, I think we found the way that they’re trying to fund their light rail. [00:17:00][86.1]
Michael Tanner: [00:17:01] Well, I also think the hard part with all of this, Stu, is in good faith, I can say, sure, maybe we have, maybe you should be reporting your scope one emissions. I can, you’re, you know, I’m not going to die on the scope one, emissions hill, the scope two emissions. It’s hard to, it’s, I might die on that hill. I promise you the Hill. I’ll die on a scope three emissions because the definition of scope three, emissions is basically anything that’s associated with you. I mean, you know, the old phrase seven steps away from heaven bacon. Well, everybody is seven steps away from some sort of extremely harmful thing. I mean, if you took a hot shower this morning or any type of shower this morning, you’ve participated in scope three missions. If you jumped in a car today, the fact that you’re listening to this show via YouTube or podcast means you’re participating in scope, three emissions. So now what are we going to do? I mean? I think this gets really wonky for companies that even aren’t in the energy business who now have to start I mean, should open AI have to start reporting its scope one, scope two, scope three emissions? No, this is, and again, this specifically for attempting to do this for energy companies. I know what they’ve said is that it’s, you know, annual revenue is exceeding $1 billion. Well guess what that does? That eliminates a lot of companies that fall under that threshold. You don’t think they pick that $1 Billion mark strategically? Yeah, because they want to filter out and only want to go and target oil and gas companies. I hate scope three emissions or this idea that we need to care about scope three emissions. It’s hard for an individual company to care about that, you know, and they’ve tried to say, well, guess what? Those scope, you there’s a penalty for noncompliance, which is about five hundred thousand per year. I mean, not that much. If you’re a billion dollar revenue a year company, you should be able to four or five hundred grand scope. Three emission errors, though, that are made in good faith are somewhat forgivable by 2030. But you also mentioned this in your articles to beyond the fines, the real The burden lies in the operational costs, building cross-functional teams across finance, legal, and operations, third-party verifiers that can navigate that collection for Scope 3. And the real question is the accuracy is a major hurdle. This is a very interesting quote. You say, Scope 3 data is notoriously imprecise, prone to double counting or gaps leading to potential misstatements that could invite lawsuits and reputational damage. As one analyst notes, these requirements create, quote, convoluted filing requirements that amount to little more than make work. I love that quote. [00:19:19][137.9]
Stuart Turley: [00:19:19] It is absolutely despicable. And when you sit back and take a look at Senate Bill 253 and Senate Bill 261, they exemplify state level overreach. Imposing burden them, error prone reporting. And I mean, this is absolutely despicable. Michael, how this ties into the UK, Canada, and the EU is critical because they are looking to Gavin Newsom to tie the United States to their standards. And that’s the back door that they’re looking for. So this is actually a global push. By the global elites trying to force the United States into this boule hockey. [00:20:02][42.4]
Michael Tanner: [00:20:02] Yeah, pretty, pretty unbelievable. [00:20:03][1.0]
Stuart Turley: [00:20:04] If Alberta referendum did become the 51st state gains traction, what would financial reality look like? Michael, I had a blast writing this one. In the heart of Canada’s oil country, a new idea is simmering. What if Alberta, the powerhouse of North American energy production, held a referendum to secede from Canada and join the United States as a 51st State? We’d all go, yeah, I think it would be fabulous. I know a couple of great Canadians up there that I’d go see in a heartbeat. While this remains hypothetical, it’s gaining traction. They are hacked. They are tired of it. Let’s go through some of these numbers, Michael. They have been giving, listen to this, crude oil production is 43 million barrels per day of crude oil production. Oil sands is 3.4 million barrels. And when you take a look at natural gas, it has an average of 10.9 billion cubic feet per day. Advantages for Alberta is that they would gain military protection. Disadvantage for Canada is that they would lose a gigantic revenue stream. That gigantic revenue stream is phenomenal. However, it would unleash the oil sands coming to the United States. And I think that they will make more money because there would no longer be a price differential that we would be able to beat them down on. [00:21:37][93.0]
Michael Tanner: [00:21:37] I agree. I mean, I think in theory, this would be awesome. I’d love nothing more than welcome Alberta as part of the United States. Do I think it’s actually going to happen? No, I don’t think it is going to. Much like I don’t Texas will end up seceding from the union as every three years that pops up around here. So I think the politics are a lot more complicated than just this idea that, oh, it’ll be an easy fit. I mean, if you’re California, you’re not, or if you, excuse me, if your Canada, You’re not going to let this go if if would the United States even welcome Albert? I mean, I think me and you would welcome them tremendously. The question is, would Congress, I mean we know Trump would, but this isn’t just something that, you know, a president can do unilaterally. So the question is would Congress vote on this? How would this actually look? I think the unknowns right now outweigh the knowns. And if, you from an asset management standpoint, whenever you get a trade like that, I pass on it. Because if what I know is less than what I don’t know, well, what I don’t know then can harm me way more than what I know. So I think you’re absolutely spot on from, we would love to have the revenue, we would have to have oil and gas production. You’re spot on when you talk about the differentials are great, but I think in reality, this is much tougher than it sounds. And I don’t know from a politics standpoint, whether or not it would be worth it. I mean, I think the military protection is the least of our concerns. I don’t think Canada on their. You know, Canada, I don’t think is going to march in on horseback anytime soon and try to take it back if they decide to do that. I mean that with all due respect to the Royal Mount police, I just, I, I don’t, think from a military perspective, I’d be all that concerned. I’m more concerned about what’s the fallout between these two countries. We do know, as you point out here in your bottom line, that Canada is pushing closer to EU and the UK continuing to adopt these net zero policies. So if the only reason Alberta is looking to move is because of energy, I mean, obviously we would take it. I go ahead and think back to the concept of would the politics work? I’m not sure if it would. [00:23:31][114.1]
Stuart Turley: [00:23:31] The odds are low, but on the other hand, they now have the referendum and is now becoming a legal issue. So it is now no longer a conspiracy theory. The referendum has got enough signatures. So it’s now going to go to the voter of the people. That turns it to a whole new sketch set. President Trump announces three new trade deals. This is absolutely huge. The art of the deal strikes home. The United States and India trade agreement, the first one out of the block, landmark deal with Indonesia described by the White House as a historical, Reciprocal Trade Agreement focuses on expanding market access for U.S. Goods. This is pretty cool, especially when Indonesia is actually another manufacturing hub that we’re going to be able to use until we can build our own manufacturing. The number two, Philippines Trade Agreement. The agreement with the Philippines Enhanced Cooperation in Technology, Agriculture, and Energy. Oh, LNG. Woo! I heard LNG! Michael, third and probably the most important was Japan. Japan sets a deal with a 15% tariff on Japanese imports, a reduction from the previous 25%. The framework addresses long-standing issue with automotive, electronic, and energy trade. This is huge. And when you consider how much Michael Japan is looking at buying from. Alaskan LNG, and that’s not even online yet, and they’re already signed up going, hey, count us in. I’ll tell you what, I went ahead and made sure that we added in how much we took in from tariffs, and you look at 2015, it was a negative 35 billion. 2016 was a negative $35 billion, 2018, 41, and now we’re at 97 was forecasted in there. And for right now, the rest of the 2025, we’re $100 billion brought in. Holy smokes, Batman! [00:25:35][123.2]
Michael Tanner: [00:25:35] And, you know, this is where I’m the first to pat myself on the back to say where I am right. And I’ll also be the first say, you now, I had this one wrong. I was, you, know, I used to always tell people and, and, had been, had kind of operated from the assumption that operating a trade deficit for the United States wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. And I still don’t necessarily think it’s a bad think, but what this tariffs have proven is that because the argument always against tariffs was the inflation factor because it is true, the importer pays the tariff. Japan don’t pay the tarif. It is the importers who buys Japanese goods to bring to the United States and the tariffs paid at the port of entry in the United states, AKA by an importer. Well, what we haven’t seen is an increase in inflation. Inflation has still been steady over the past few months and we’ve seen a massive increase in the revenue associated with these tariffs. So to be honest, this is one where Michael got right and where Michael got wrong. I got this one wrong in terms of, I had a feeling that while revenues might increase, inflation might, this might hurt inflation. It really hasn’t. I think it’s really interesting. You point out this US Japan trade agreement with reciprocal tariffs going both ways. I Think the critical part when it comes to energy is the liquefied natural gas import. And they’ve committed to increasing that purchase of that, which I think speaks to the energy security piece that we talk about all the time. [00:26:57][81.9]
Stuart Turley: [00:26:57] Oh, absolutely. Does the oil and gas industry need $18 trillion for investment to keep prices down? This is an absolutely amazing story that I saw that Irina Slav has some great quotes on this and she writes, the world needs one $18.2 trillion in new gas investments in the period until 2020-50 in order to secure a sufficient supply. This is what OPEC warns in its 2025 edition of its world outlook. I took that one sentence and wrote this whole article. But I also found from a guy that I really trust on X, Ananias, and he is absolutely spot on. He says, you may not like the OPEC’s $18 trillion projection for investment needed to meet oil demand by 2050, but consider this, estimate oil demand by 2050 and write it down. Calculate the 20-50 goal production for accounting and decline rights. Find the difference. Under any scenario, trillions of dollar investment are needed. Don’t fixate on the exact figure that OPEC published. Ananias is spot on. It’s not about that $18 trillion number. I mean, it is about the finding out we need trillions. I’ve always said $4 trillion is what we need at a certain point in order to do this. So I really liked what Ananias was saying. [00:28:26][88.8]
Michael Tanner: [00:28:26] No, I mean, he’s spot on on this. We’re going to need way more cash than you think, way more cash than we think. And I think this 18 trillion projection is low. And I also think that if we were to then migrate, like you said, over to all green energy, the number would be absolutely through the roof. [00:28:44][18.0]
Stuart Turley: [00:28:45] Oh, absolutely. And I like this last line that I put in here. As for me and my house, we will continue to invest in the US oil gas assets as they offer a great return and appear to have a long runway. I thought I’d add that in there. [00:29:00][15.7]
Michael Tanner: [00:29:01] Couldn’t have said it better myself. [00:29:01][0.0][1722.5]
Share this post