Energy Strong

Great news for the Colorado oil and gas industry!

???? ??

??NEWSOM RAISES GAS PRICES AGAIN ?? Excerpt from WSJ today… “California Gov. Gavin Newsom last Friday pledged to lead the resistance to a second Trump Administration. Also on Friday his regulators resisted the President-elect’s plans to lower energy costs by raising the state’s gasoline prices. Take that, Trump voters. A mere three days after the election, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to further squeeze its low-carbon fuel standard by 30% by 2030. The program requires refiners to reduce the “carbon intensity” of their fuel or buy credits from renewable producers. This is a de facto carbon tax that indirectly subsidizes politically favored businesses. Here’s how it works. Under the program, electric utilities, biofuel producers, and hydrogen and electric vehicle charging companies receive credits they can sell to refiners. Utilities steer the proceeds from the credit sales to EV subsidies. One of the program’s biggest beneficiaries has been dairy farms that capture methane from manure. Some make more money from selling credits than milk. However, credit prices have recently fallen as more renewable producers and dairy farms chase subsidies. CARB frets that declining credit prices could make green investments uneconomic, so CARB is tightening its fuel standard to boost credit prices. The predictable result: Californians will pay more at the pump. CARB last autumn predicted that its stricter standard would increase gas prices by 47 cents a gallon next year. Danny Cullenward of the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy estimated prices could climb 65 cents a gallon in the near term and by 85 cents by 2030. Californians will soon miss the days when gas cost $4.50 a gallon. Regulators played down concerns that tightening the fuel standard would hurt low-income residents. According to CARB, they could “avoid the potential pass-through cost” of the regulation by buying EVs. This is typical of the thinking of Sacramento progressives. Many low-income households can’t afford any new car at today’s interest rates, let alone EVs. “CARB risks underestimating the hardship stricter targets could impose on communities already facing high living costs,” board member Dean Florez, a former Democratic state Senator, argued in dissent. “For Californians already stretched thin by escalating rents and inflation, these additional costs could become overwhelming, pushing many into deeper financial insecurity.” You’d think Sacramento progressives might reconsider the impact of their policies after the election results, but apparently not. They may not even mind if gas prices rise since the climate lobby has been fretting that the state’s surge in electric rates—also fueled by its climate policies—are making EVs less attractive.” #Newsom #Gasoline #Taxes #California

Daniel Yergin writes in the WSJ, hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling—together known as fracking—came to public attention two decades ago. The US was then the world’s largest importer of oil. Today it is energy-independent with more than 70% of its oil and more than 80% of its natural gas produced through fracking. The process has become essential to the nation’s energy supply and can’t be eliminated. In the process, America has achieved energy independence on a net basis. US output is closing in on 13.5 MMBpd, exceeding that of both Saudi Arabia and Russia. Add NGLs, and the US produces around 20 MMBpd. Despite this progress, many continue to underestimate how transformative shale oil has been for the US economy and the American way of life. For example, if fracking were banned, the US would need to import extraordinary amounts of oil to fuel our gasoline- and diesel-powered cars. In 2008, before shale-oil production began in earnest, the net bill for importing petroleum was $388B—more than 40% of the total merchandise trade deficit. Today the same bill, by contrast, is virtually nothing. There would be other costs to a phase-out of fracking. If the US were to start importing again, the price of oil would doubtless rise, as we would be forced to compete for supplies with countries such as China, which is estimated to import more than 70% of its petroleum. The US also exports a large amount of LNG, mostly produced from shale. Without it, LNG’s positive effect on the trade balance would disappear too. In previous decades, upheavals as Ukraine’s war against Russia and Israel’s war with Iranian proxies would have spiked global prices. In recent years the scale of US production has helped offset any such surges. This stabilizing effect would become even more crucial if an expanding Mideast war targeted major regional oil facilities, threatening to drive prices up further still. Shale influences more than America’s prices or balances of payments—it also enhances our geopolitical strength. One of Putin’s several miscalculations in invading Ukraine was that he could use energy to shatter the European coalition supporting Kyiv. His strategy failed because large supplies of LNG—bolstered by increased exports from Norway—compensated for the loss of Russian gas. Nearly half of the EU’s LNG supply in 2023 consisted of US-sourced LNG, mostly processed from shale gas, making the US its largest supplier. Were that supply to be constrained, our allies’ security would be severely compromised and a significant feature of the NATO’s arsenal eliminated. To Sum It Up: A ban on fracking would be both misguided and destructive for the US and its allies. Recurrent out-of-touch debates on the topic need to be tabled considering a central fact—shale has become crucial to the US economy and global energy security. It’s here to stay. #energy #energytransition

Love to see it

???? ?? LOCAL PRODUCTION vs AMAZON RAINFOREST: Where should CALIFORNIA source its OIL? Did you know that the west side of California's San Joaquin Basin - a dry, remote, and environmentally regulated region - produces over 70% of the state's oil? Yet, production here is being shut down by Sacramento, despite its critical role in our energy supply. Meanwhile, California is increasingly sourcing oil from regions like the Amazon rainforest in South America, where environmental impacts are far more challenging to regulate and monitor. Importing oil from this sensitive ecosystem pollutes our oceans, ports, and local communities with tanker emissions, an unsustainable cost to the environment. Where would you prefer we source our oil from: a well-monitored, local basin in California, supporting communities and creating jobs; or ecologically sensitive regions abroad? YouTube link in the comments. #CA4ES #CaliforniaEnergy #SanJoaquinBasin #EnvironmentalSustainability #BuyLocal #CaliforniaJobs

India, South Korea, the Middle East: Where California will get its gasoline when Phillips refinery shuts down… —The shutdown of the Phillips 66 refinery complex in Wilmington and Carson next year will force California to make up for the loss by importing more gasoline by ocean tanker, which is expected to raise prices to motorists at the pump. —The closure will leave California with eight gasoline refineries, down from 11 five years ago. “California for decades produced enough gasoline to supply almost all of its own needs, but the era of self-sufficiency is coming quickly to an end. The Phillips 66 refinery complex in Wilmington and Carson now produces 1.3 billion gallons of gasoline annually, which will leave a huge gap to be filled after its planned closure late next year. With no pipelines into the state, and no plans to add new refineries, California will need to make up for the deficit by imports via ocean tanker — in what analysts say will be a costly endeavor, and one with inherent risks of supply disruptions. At least some of the gasoline to replace the fuel lost when the Phillips 66 refinery closes next year will have to be shipped in from overseas, at extra expense. How much isn’t exactly clear. A gasoline tanker’s voyage to California from Singapore, another gasoline supplier, would take 30 to 40 days, York said, and supply chain snags — caused by a typhoon, or a war, or a worldwide outbreak of some virus — could add weeks to that lengthy schedule if not disrupting it entirely. Shipping gasoline also adds to environmental problems. Ocean vessels are heavy polluters, most of them running on what’s called heavy fuel oil — thick, tar-like residue left over after refining other petroleum products. And while the state is committed to major reductions in greenhouse gases, it doesn’t count emissions released by ocean tankers sailing more than 100 miles from the California coastline, so most of the emissions from tankers delivering gasoline won’t be included in the state’s greenhouse gas reduction calculations, similar to the way the federal government counts emissions.” Here comes more port pollution, price spikes, volatility, and supply disruptions. Brought to Californians by bad policies from Sacramento. #Gasoline #California Full article ?? https://lnkd.in/gX2EquEw

Our partnership with Sims-Fayola Foundation is ??

A huge shoutout to all of the sponsors of the 4th Annual Energy Strong Invitational. We couldn't have asked for a better day of golf, networking and outreach - we raised over $9000 that we gave back in the form of donations and the first 2 Energy Strong Scholarships!! Thank you to Mike Umbro for your passionate and uplifting talk!

Ensign Energy Services Titan Solutions LLC and Deep Well Services We wanted to recognize our SKILL HOLE sponsors for the 2024 Energy Strong Invitational, now just 5 days away!!! Proceeds from this event will be directed towards 2 large O&G scholarships we will be presenting at the event! We will also have some very special guests at the event -- stay tuned!