Subscribe now

A fairly amazing story rose to my attention this week when the American Petroleum Institute (API) noted in an X post that two counties in southeastern New Mexico – Lea and Eddy – now account for 78 percent of oil produced on federal lands in the U.S. onshore. It’s a stunning, unprecedented dominance by such a compact land footprint.

The reasons for this dominance are no secret: Lea and Eddy counties sit atop the heart of the prolific Delaware Basin, which makes up the western half of the greater Permian Basin region. While the Delaware does extend south into Texas, the federal government owns very little land in the Lone Star State outside of its numerous military installations. It’s a different story in Lea and Eddy, where the feds own more than 60% of the acreage in Eddy County and roughly 30% in Lea.

Share

These two counties, with a combined population of roughly 130,000, produced about 2.1 million barrels per day of total oil at the end of 2024. That output doesn’t just fuel the national grid and refineries; it fills state coffers with production taxes, royalties, and lease bonuses that benefit every New Mexican. Indeed, the oil and gas industry funds more than 40% of the state’s budget every year despite the best efforts of the majority Democrats to restrict the industry’s operations within its borders. It’s an agenda of economic self-destruction exceeded in scope and political aggression only by California.

API’s note came on the heels of the recent Bureau of Land Management $4 billion lease sale on those very lands in southeast New Mexico, an all-time record haul for such a sale in the Lower 48 states. Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy was by far the major bidder in that sale, but other companies like ExxonMobil, Oxy, EOG Resources and Mewbourne Oil are also quite active in the play. Part of the reason why that sale attracted such overwhelming interest stems from the fact that the Biden administration basically refused to hold the periodic lease sales required by federal law during its four years.

Therein lies the big threat to the future of southeast New Mexico’s unprecedented energy dominance:

Read more

Subscribe now

Trump announces $700 million investment in coal plants and California export terminal - This announcement at the Oval Office on Thursday is without doubt the biggest energy-related story of the week. President Trump invokes the Defense Production Act to provide major funding for a new coal export terminal and to support the ongoing operations of 13 big coal-fired power plants which had been scheduled for premature retirement.

Share

Key Excerpt:

Mr. Trump will invoke the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era law that gives the U.S. president emergency authority over domestic industries, to distribute $75 million for a new coal export terminal in Oakland, California, and $425 million to support 13 existing plants across 10 states: West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Wisconsin.

“Our action will allow these facilities to invest in upgrades that will extend their operational lives for decades into the future, reinforce the reliability of our electric grid, which is really the biggest beneficiary, and most importantly, keep electricity prices very low for the American people,” Mr. Trump said.

The Trump administration will also distribute $200 million in Department of Energy grants to build two new coal plants in Alaska and West Virginia and to restart a coal plant in Maryland. The facilities in Alaska and West Virginia will be the first new coal plants built in the U.S. since 2013.

A White House official told CBS News the initiative will create thousands of jobs for miners, railroad workers, engineers and construction workers and save consumers $50 billion in energy generation costs.

[End

********************

Read more

Subscribe now

The U.S. District Court for Idaho last week denied an injunction sought by climate activist groups, ruling that construction may proceed on the Stibnite Gold Project in central Idaho. This decision, secured with the active involvement of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, represents a significant win not just for the project’s developer, Perpetua Resources, but for the Pentagon, which covets the large volumes of antimony the Stibnite mine can produce.

Share

An “Urgent” Antimony Resource

The Stibnite project, as I’ve written here in the past, is a carefully vetted initiative following years of environmental reviews, culminating in U.S. Forest Service approval in January 2025. The project will produce substantial quantities of gold (about 4.2 million ounces) and silver (1.7 million ounces) over its life, but its real strategic value lies in antimony reserves, an estimated 115 million pounds. Antimony is a critical mineral essential for munitions, military-grade antimony trisulfide, lead-acid batteries, advanced sensors, radar materials, and flame retardants. For too long, the U.S. has depended on foreign sources via supply chains dominated by China, which has repeatedly restricted exports and left our National Defense Stockpile dangerously depleted.

The Pentagon says this vulnerability cannot be allowed to linger. As Michael Cadenazzi, Assistant Secretary of War for Industrial Base Policy, emphasized in a briefing to the Court: “The urgent construction of the Stibnite Gold Project and commencement of antimony production from the Project is of paramount importance to national security. The Stibnite Gold Project is the only opportunity known to the Department which is projected to produce sufficient antimony quantities to meet defense requirements by 2029 and supply substantial quality to the U.S. commercial market, as evidenced and de-risked by a feasibility study conducted in accordance with SK 1300 or equivalent standards.”

Antimony is “Vital To Our National Defense”

This is the core of the issue. As Cadenazzi notes, further delays here don’t just stall a mine; they prolong “the nation’s currently unacceptable supply chain risk for antimony.” Without domestic production, America remains exposed to supply shocks from adversarial nations. The sooner Stibnite ramps up, the sooner resiliency for both defense needs and essential civilian applications can be built.

Read more

Subscribe now

In a striking X post this week, the American Petroleum Institute spotlighted a powerful and unprecedented truth about American energy: Two counties in New Mexico - Lea and Eddy - account for an astonishing 78% of all federal onshore oil production, pumping out 1.3 million barrels per day. The API note comes on the heels of the recent Bureau of Land Management $4 billion lease sale on those very lands in southeastern New Mexico, an all-time record haul for such a sale in the Lower 48 states.

Share

My response on X was simple: “God bless America’s drillers. God bless New Mexico.” I should have included “God Bless the 2nd Trump Administration and its Energy Dominance policy agenda. Oh, well, too late now.

Mind you, this revelation is thick with unintended irony. While New Mexico’s state policymakers have spent years layering on higher severance taxes, restrictive regulations, and anti-fossil fuel rhetoric, Lea and Eddy counties - situated deep in the Delaware Basin portion of the Permian Basin Region - quietly power the majority of federal onshore oil output. These two counties, with a combined population of roughly 130,000, produced about 2.1 million barrels per day of total oil at the end of 2024, much of it from federal lands distributed throughout the area in checkerboard fashion.

That output doesn’t just fuel the national grid and refineries; it fills state coffers with production taxes, royalties, and lease bonuses that benefit every New Mexican. Indeed, the oil and gas industry funds more than 40% of the state’s budget every year despite the best efforts of the majority Democrats to restrict the industry’s operations within its borders. It’s an agenda of economic self-destruction exceeded in scope and political aggression only by California.

Overall, federal onshore oil production tells a glorious tale thanks to the Shale Revolution. According to the Congressional Research Service and Office of Natural Resources Revenue data, output from BLM-administered lands surged 177% between FY2015 and FY2024, reaching 686 million barrels (roughly 1.88 million barrels per day on average) in FY2024. That volume represented about 14% of total U.S. onshore oil production that year. When paired with federal offshore output in the Gulf of Mexico - which EIA forecasts will hold steady near 1.8 million barrels per day through 2026 - the entire federal mineral estate contributes roughly 29% of all domestic crude oil.

The geographic spread of this federal production underscores its national importance. While Lea and Eddy dominate onshore oil thanks to the Permian’s federal acreage, other states play critical supporting roles:

• Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Montana host substantial federal gas production and growing oil output, with recent 2026 lease sales generating tens of millions in bonus bids.
• North Dakota and eastern states contribute through targeted sales that continue to draw strong industry interest.
• Alaska stands out for future potential: the current administration has reopened nearly 82% of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to leasing, rescinded restrictive Biden-era rules, and advanced Coastal Plain development in ANWR. These moves could unlock billions of barrels over the coming decades.

Lease activity across federal lands has accelerated dramatically. In calendar year 2026 alone, BLM has already conducted multiple sales, including the massive May New Mexico/Texas offering that netted over $4 billion. First-quarter 2026 sales across 10 states generated $592.7 million. For context, the entire Biden administration produced less revenue from federal lease sales in four years than the Trump team achieved in 2025’s 22 sales alone ($356 million+). In FY2025, BLM approved a near-record 5,740 federal Applications for Permit to Drill - one of the highest totals in 15+ years.

Energy production on federal and tribal onshore lands plus federal offshore areas generated $14.6 billion in revenue in 2025, funding everything from tribal programs and state infrastructure to federal conservation efforts. Over 21.3 million acres remain under lease, with more than 12.4 million acres in active production from 91,000+ wells.

This is energy dominance in action, achieved despite years of federal permitting delays and state-level hostility in key producing areas. The Trump administration’s streamlining of leasing, commingling rules, and environmental reviews, combined with record APD approvals, is finally unlocking the potential that has always existed on federal lands.

The lesson from Lea and Eddy counties is clear: America’s energy future depends on treating federal lands as the national assets they are, not political footballs. We cannot claim supply-chain resilience, AI dominance, or true energy security while leaving vast resources idle. Two counties in southeastern New Mexico prove what’s possible when industry, sound policy, and geology align. It’s time the rest of the country - especially state governments in producing basins - got the message.

Subscribe now

You don't want to miss this episode of the Energy Realities podcast with Irina Slav, Dr. Tammy Nemeth, David Blackmon, and Stu Turley as they cover the latest global trends in investments in energy. The IEA has released a report, and it will cover the real-world viewpoints on it. Bring your questions! We will be live on LinkedIn and YouTube at 7:00 AM on Monday.

Share

Enjoy the show!

Run of show:

1. Global Energy Investment Report (IEA)

The hosts analyze the International Energy Agency’s report on $3.4 trillion in global energy investments. Key findings include:

• Most investment going to grid upgrades, storage, wind, and solar

• Declining investment in upstream oil and gas for the third consecutive year

• Concerns about future supply crises despite rising demand

2. Oil & Gas Supply Crisis

A critical theme throughout the discussion:

• Oil demand expected to rise through 2040-2050, but investment is declining

• Concerns about structural supply shortages in the near future

• CEO warnings (Chevron, ExxonMobil) about prices potentially reaching $120-140/barrel

• Strategic oil reserve refilling needs globally

3. Net Zero Policies & Their Consequences

Extensive critique of climate mandates:

• European countries struggling with energy costs and deindustrialization

• California’s climate policies threatening remaining refineries

• Subsidy expiration affecting renewable project viability (solar/wind subsidies ending July 31st)

• ESG and climate disclosure requirements creating business uncertainty

4. Natural Gas & LNG Markets

• EU natural gas storage critically low (some countries at 9-15% capacity)

• Investment in natural gas reaching decade highs

• LNG export capacity challenges and geopolitical implications

• Methane regulations and compliance issues

5. Arctic & Offshore Exploration

• Competition with Russia over Arctic resources

• Challenges in developing North Sea, Alaskan, and Canadian Arctic reserves

• Pipeline infrastructure bottlenecks (particularly in Canada and New York)

• Marcellus Shale gas production lacking export outlets

6. Renewable Energy Challenges

• Solar investment falling in China

• Subsidy dependency making projects unprofitable

• Data centers using natural gas/diesel despite “renewable” capacity claims

• Environmental concerns about solar panel durability and waste

7. Regulatory & Political Barriers

• Lengthy approval processes for energy projects

• Inconsistent policies across administrations

• EU’s “Brussels Effect” creating compliance pressure

• Antitrust concerns preventing industry coordination

8. Economic & Financial Implications

• $300 trillion needed for energy transition (McKinsey) vs. $3.4 trillion actual investment

• Diesel shortage warnings (Russia banned exports)

• Energy security becoming a geopolitical dividing line

• Inflation and energy cost impacts on consumers

Subscribe now

[Note: Another excellent analysis by Doug Sheridan here. Doug is one of the most astute commentors on energy matters posting at LinkedIn today. If you aren’t following him there, you are missing out.]

Share

We recently read a piece in Bloomberg arguing that the "energy transition narrative" was based on the false premise that "any transition worthy of the name had to begin with a rapid reduction in fossil fuel use." The assertion was made by one of the energy research community's most public and persistent supporters of a renewables-driven energy transition.

While the piece was correct that any energy transition—if it happens at all—will take a long time to achieve, it's incomplete and almost revisionist account of how we got here left readers with the impression that it was opponents of renewables who crafted the narrative that the energy transition required a massive and fast reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels. The impression is false on its face.

Here's the real story...

Read more

Subscribe now

As data centers sprout up across America to fuel the AI boom, controversy follows. Protests have erupted in recent weeks over concerns about massive electricity demands straining grids, fears of water shortages in drought-prone regions, and disruptions to local communities from construction traffic and noise. Activists and some local citizens paint the industry as an environmental and social juggernaut, eating up resources while delivering benefits few truly grasp and which the industry has not adequately describes.

Share

A Proactive Approach to Addressing Data Center Concerns

Amid this rising tide of opposition, one project in far west Texas is taking an innovative approach to addressing major issues up front: Poolside Infrastructure Company’s Project Horizon, a 1.2 GW AI campus rising in the Permian Basin desert near Fort Stockton, Texas. Rather than allowing problems to fester and attract organized opposition, Project Horizon demonstrates how vertical integration, smart engineering, and community focus can turn infrastructure challenges into competitive advantages.

“Public resistance to data centers in other areas like Ohio and Pennsylvania is real and it’s understandable,” Robert Bonar, CEO of San Francisco based Poolside Infrastructure Company, says. “Residents of those areas are being impacted, whether it be water usage, power rates, land prices and everything else. Looking at that, we believe there’s a better solution here.”

Located more than 25 miles outside Fort Stockton on a 559-acre footprint adjacent to the sprawling Longfellow Ranch, Project Horizon is deliberately isolated. The site sits in unincorporated Pecos County, buffered by vast ranchland, ensuring that mechanical operations remain inaudible from populated areas. Access comes via low-traffic roads off the highway. There is no nearby suburban sprawl; instead, it’s development in the open desert, near abundant energy resources. The Mitchell family, stewards of the 500,000-acre ranch, have been strong partners, underscoring how private land and local buy-in can enable progress without forced impositions on towns.

Read more

Subscribe now

Dr. Tammy Nemeth and energy expert David Blackmon break down their explosive new article on how the same environmental organizations that fought oil sands, fracking, and pipelines have now pivoted to block data centers and America’s AI boom.

Share

From astroturfed local opposition and Arabella and Soros-funded networks to the real impacts on power demand, water use, and economic growth — discover the coordinated playbook threatening U.S. technological leadership. They expose the funding trails, messaging tactics, and why poor industry communication is making the problem worse. Legitimate concerns are being exploited and exaggerated as a way to prevent green-lighting reliable energy.

Essential listening for anyone interested in AI, energy policy, data centers, and Big Green activism in 2026.

Enjoy the show!

Subscribe now

The supply chain for transportation fuels and many everyday products depend on refinery manufacturers that refine crude oil.

Ronald Stein, P.E., is an engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.” He is also the recipient of an unsolicited Tribute to Ronald Stein from Stephen Heins.

Mike Ariza is a US Navy veteran with over twenty years of experience in the refining industry. His refining experience extends from the Chevron Refinery in Richmond California, the Flying J refinery in Bakersfield, and the Valero Refinery in Benicia. Mike held the positions of number one control board Operator at Flying J and Senior Refinery Control Board Supervisor at Valero. He was an instructor of both operator field and control board classes. Among his peers he is often referred to as one of the top ten control board operators in the country. 

Co-authored by Ronald Stein and Mike Ariza

Published June 1, 2026, at America Out Loud NEWS

https://www.americaoutloud.news/modern-society-runs-on-refined-oil-products-can-california-keep-ignoring-reality/

An energy “REALITY” reminder is that crude oil by itself is useless black tar, unless you build a multi-billion-dollar refinery to break it down to produce various types of transportation fuels, and oil derivatives that are the basis of the products in our materialistic world.

Share

Without refineries to manufacture that useless black tar that we call crude oil, into usable transportation fuels and oil derivatives that are the basis of more than 6,000 products in our daily lives, we’re back to the 1800’s.

Why are the California “users” of the products and transportation fuels made from crude oil,

and the politicians who hate the guts of in-state refineries, want to drive them out of business?

• Since 2023 California Crude Oil Refining Capacity has dropped by 35%.

• Crude oil production capacity in California is in terminal decline, resulting in the State importing from foreign countries more than 60% of the crude oil demands of in-State refineries.

• Even now, given the amount of transportation fuels that California is importing from foreign countries, the State continues its vulnerability level of being a National Security Risk to America.

Refineries are the supply chain source of those products and transportation fuels made from crude oil that has allowed the world to sustain 10 times more people today (8.3 billion) than at the start of the Industrial Revolution of approximately 700 to 800 million people in 1750.

There’s something wrong with this picture to rid the world of the suppliers of the products demanded by the economy as the products from refined crude oil, in addition to supporting more than 8 billion people on this planet, have helped hospitals, doctors, and medications, to extend life longevity from 40 to 75+ during those few centuries since 1750.

California in-state refining capacity for transportation fuels continue to diminish:

• Two refineries have converted over to manufacturing renewable diesel. In these cases,
  350,000 barrels of crude oil processing per day has dropped offline. They no longer
  produce gasoline or jet fuel of any volume.

• Within the last seven months California policies have driven two other refineries, Phillips
  66 in Wilmington and Valero in Benicia to shut down operations and leave the State.

The closure of 2 refineries in California have increased total transportation fuels of gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel needing to be imported from Asian refineries. This has made California vulnerable to many scenarios which could quickly generate supply shocks or shortages for the entire USA. Some of these scenarios include Port problems, weather issues, unscheduled refinery downtimes, or a significant global event.

• In the case of the Iranian war that vulnerability has never been so clear.

• Due to the closure of the strait of Hormuz crude oil supplies to Asian refineries have dropped off dramatically.

• Asian refineries have been forced to cut back their crude oil charge rates. This forced them as of late March to suspend shipments of gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel that they have been supplying California.

California’s policies are forcing the hands of Chevron, PBF, and Marathon, the three remaining oil corporations in California. Together they own six of the remaining seven operational refineries in the state. Between February 26^th of 2026 and March 9^th these companies did something unprecedented by dispatching three letters to the Governor and the state air board. While they have some varied details they are all very specific on two points:

• The air board has brand new cap and invest amendments that they will be voting on at the end of May.

• These amendments, if adopted, will result in huge fee increases for all three corporations. If the state will not sit down and negotiate with these corporations on these newly proposed amendments, then they will all look at shutting down their refineries and leaving the state.

If this happens then the famine will not be knocking on the door, it will be kicking it in. Cities have three to five days supply of food on hand. Even now, we are at a vulnerability level in which this is possible.

Here are two questions for the California “users” of the products made from processed crude oil:

1. Are the “users” blaming refineries for humans living longer and healthier lives because of the medical industry that did not exist a few centuries ago?

2. Are the “users” blaming refineries for virtually eliminating weather-related fatalities that requires a combination of advanced prediction techniques, proactive infrastructure planning, and community preparedness?

The world is not dependent on natural fossil fuels, as no one uses “raw” crude oil that is only black tar, BUT has become dependent on the products and transportation fuels MADE FROM oil, the same products and transportation fuels that Wind and Solar CANNOT make!

Today, we’re a materialistic society. Wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make any of the products or transportation fuels that get made from fossil fuels that support:

•        Hospitals

•        Airports

•        Militaries

•        Medical equipment

•        Telecommunications

•        Communications systems

•        Space programs

•        Appliances

•        Electronics

•        Sanitation systems

•        Heating and ventilating

•        Transportation - vehicles, rail, ocean, and air

•        Construction - roads and buildings

•        Nearly Half the World’s Population Relies on Synthetic Fertilizers Made from Fossil Fuels

Discussing crude oil alone, too often consultants, educators, politicians, and also many industrial leaders CANNOT explain how the more than 350,000 wind turbines, and an estimated 3.5 to 5 billion individual solar panels in the world will make the following transportation fuels:

• Bunker fuel, to support over 112,500 commercial and merchant ships globally.

• Jet fuel to support an estimated 30,000 commercial aircraft in the world.

• Gasoline fuel: Worldwide gasoline consumption hovers around 300 billion gallons annually.

• Diesel fuel: Global diesel usage is approaching 400 billion gallons annually.

Transportation fuel demands continue to grow to support jet fuel for planes, bunker fuel for ships, diesel fuel for trucks, and gasoline fuel for cars.

Energy-dense fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas – demonized as sources of carbon dioxide – remain the backbone of food distribution, especially in the developed world. They fuel irrigation pumps, fertilizer plants, delivery fleets, farm machinery and refrigeration. Remove these energy inputs, and granaries would shrink. Famine would no longer be a relic of history; it would be knocking at the door.

With California being the 4^th largest economy in the world, the two refinery shut downs resulted in an additional loss of nearly 300,000 barrels per day of state crude oil refining capacity. If the six remaining refineries in the State go down, the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland will go down. Logistics will collapse. The supply chain of the products and transportation fuels MADE from oil will grind to a halt. Within a few short weeks, cities will be out of food. This will have a cascading effect in Nevada and Arizona. If three of the busiest ports in America are in fact shut down, it is quite possible that food shortages could reach deep into America. California continues to be the supply chain source of the products and transportation fuels demanded by citizens of the State, and others in America that depend on that supply chain.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

Subscribe now

Don’t look now, but it seems the off-again, on-again Iran War is on again as the latest prematurely-publicized “peace” deal predictably falls apart. And that of course means that oil prices, after dropping 25% over the past two weeks, are on their way up again, as seen above.

Share

President Donald Trump says he is “in no hurry” to consolidate a deal with the Iranian regime, adding, “I’d like to say I’m in a hurry because gasoline prices are going to come tumbling down but if you are in a hurry you’re not going to make a good deal.”

Look, let’s be real: There is no “good deal” to be made with a regime made up of uncivilized fanatics. Even if you make what you think is a “good deal” with them, there is zero chance the would honor any such deal so long as the Mullahs maintain the power over the civilian government and the IRGC leadership remains intact.

So, the fighting is going to gradually resume and will continue on for weeks, if not months, to come. That’s reality. All else is propaganda until proven otherwise.

Read more

Subscribe now

As artificial intelligence reshapes the global economy and electrification accelerates, copper’s status as the foundational metal of the 21st century becomes magnified. Demand is surging, yet domestic U.S. supply continues to lags after decades of stagnation. Resolution Copper - a joint project by major mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP - in Arizona offers a rare, high-impact solution: one of the world’s largest undeveloped copper deposits with the potential to deliver up to 25% of current U.S. copper needs while creating thousands of jobs and enhancing national security.

Share

Vicky Peacey, President of Resolution Copper, captures the project’s strategic value, calling it “a rare combination of geology, location and national need. It is one of the largest undeveloped copper resources in the world, located in a historic mining district in Arizona.” Resolution is a brownfield redevelopment in the heart of Arizona’s Copper Triangle which is set to build on a century of responsible mining heritage.

Copper: An Economic and Strategic Imperative

At full production, Resolution could yield more than 40 billion pounds of copper over decades, along with critical co-products including molybdenum, silver, tellurium, indium, and bismuth. Economically, it promises to add roughly $1 billion to $1.2 billion annually to Arizona’s economy, supporting about 3,700 jobs with $270 million in combined annual compensation. Local hiring is already strong: approximately 90% of the current workforce lives within 40 miles of the site.

These figures matter in a region which has long served as a home to the mining industry. Over a 60-year lifespan, studies project up to $61 billion in total economic value for Arizona through wages, taxes, and local spending.

Global copper demand is projected to climb from around 28 million metric tons today to 42 million by 2040, a nearly 50% increase driven by demand from AI/data centers, electric vehicles, renewables, grid expansion, and defense needs.

Read more

Subscribe now

Texas is once again proving why it stands as America’s unrivaled energy powerhouse.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), more than 66% of planned U.S. natural gas pipeline capacity additions for 2026 and 2027 — roughly 29.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) out of a national total of 44.9 Bcf/d — originate in the Lone Star State.

Share

This marks a second major pipeline expansion boom in just over a decade, far outpacing other regions like Louisiana (19%). While the Marcellus/Utica shale in the Northeast remains hobbled by partisan politics in New York that have blocked critical takeaway capacity for years, Texas and its booming economy moves inexorably ahead. (RELATED: Oil Executive Issues Stark Warning To US Consumers)

MCKITTRICK, CA – MARCH 28: A Chevron oil field along Highway 58 is a hub of activity and appears to be pumping oil and natural gas at near full production on March 28, 2017, near McKittrick, California. (Photo by George Rose/Getty Images)

This infrastructure surge is a direct response to exploding demand across multiple sectors. Permian Basin producers, sitting atop the nation’s most prolific oil and gas play, have long grappled with stranded associated gas from thousands of oil wells. Gross natural gas withdrawals in the Permian hit record levels, exceeding 21 Bcf/d in recent years, but pipeline constraints have periodically led to flaring or negative prices at the Waha Hub in the southwest Texas panhandle. New pipelines are needed to unlock this resource, turning waste into wealth and boosting economic output.

Read more

Subscribe now

Checking in on BLM’s APD numbers—on pace for best year in nearly two decades

The oil and gas industry will produce affordable, reliable energy as long as we have access energy resources. Gratefully, the current Administration is focused on reducing bureaucratic barriers to energy production now and into the future.

Share

According to the latest data from BLM, they are on pace to approve 5,768 applications for permits to drill this year—up slightly from FY25 and the most since FY08.

You can see what happened during the Obama administration and the Biden administration as approved applications fell over time, while rising during the Trump administration.

EIA: Natural gas for power generation flat this summer, record high expected in 2027

The U.S. Energy Information Administration announced this week that they forecast “natural gas consumption by the U.S. electric power sector this summer will remain near recent highs and set a record next summer.”

Nationwide, demand for natural gas electricity will be close to flat this year, but in some parts of the U.S., there is growing demand. For example, EIA also estimates that “From the summer of 2025 to the summer of 2027, we expect ERCOT [the grid operator in Texas] to increase natural gas generation 22%.” Also, in the PJM Interconnection, which spans from Illinois to the Mid-Atlantic and serves the massive concentration of data centers in Virginia, “Natural gas consumption for electricity generation in PJM is forecast to increase by 6% … in the summer of 2027 relative to the summer of 2025.”

These are some significant increases in electricity demand. Natural gas will continue to be the backbone of the electric grid.

Standard Oil of New Jersey moves to Texas

Read more

Subscribe now

The global oil market is hurtling toward a reckoning. For months, futures prices have lingered below $100 per barrel, buoyed by hopes of a swift U.S.-Iran deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Yet behind the optimistic headlines, physical realities tell a far more alarming story. Leading executives from the supermajors are sounding the alarm: inventories are plunging to dangerously low levels, setting the stage for a potential price explosion that could reshape economies and expose the fragility of our energy system.

Share

Exxon Mobil Senior Vice President Neil Chapman issued a blunt warning at a Bernstein conference this week. “We’re approaching unheard of inventory levels,” he said. “I mean really, really low levels. You can debate whether that’s going to hit those really low levels in two weeks or three weeks. Once you get to that point, then you’ll see price shoot up.” Chapman’s models project Brent crude spiking to $150–$160 per barrel once the operational floor is reached, with demand destruction eventually restoring balance as prices for fuel rise to unaffordable levels for many.

Chevron CEO Mike Wirth echoed this concern at the same conference, noting that the market’s buffers have been steadily eroded. “The buffers and the shock absorbers are being steadily drawn down, and the ability for the market to absorb this imbalance is drastically diminished today versus where we started,” Wirth stated. He anticipates “more upwards pressure” on physical prices as we move into June and especially July.

Obviously, these are not speculative voices from the fringes. Their respective companies employ the sharpest analytical minds in the industry, backed by detailed modeling of supply flows, inventory draws, and logistical realities. Their warnings highlight a critical disconnect: While paper markets continue to cling to diplomatic optimism, the physical market is running on fumes. It’s an inevitable outcome which I warned about way back in March, as it became evident this conflict would linger on far longer than President Trump’s initial “2 to 4 weeks” projection.

The root cause is the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is about to run into its 4th month despite all the noise about a “peace deal” being imminent. the effective blockade of this crucial chokepoint has removed 12–13 million barrels per day from markets—the largest supply disruption in history, according to the International Energy Agency. Strategic reserve releases and pre-war stockpiles have cushioned the blow so far, but those mitigations are exhausted. Goldman Sachs data shows global inventories plunged by a record 8.7 million barrels per day in May alone.

JPMorgan’s earlier analyses painted a similarly dire picture, estimating that of roughly 8.4 billion barrels in global inventories at the start of 2026, only about 800 million were realistically available before hitting operational stress levels. We are now rapidly approaching that threshold. Commercial stocks of crude, gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel have all been drawn down aggressively. Western nations have tapped strategic petroleum reserves, and even non-OECD players like China have quietly depleted buffers.

This inventory collapse has been masked by several factors. Sanctioned oil from Iran, Russia, and Venezuela has continued flowing through alternative channels. Futures traders have repeatedly bought into rumors of imminent diplomatic breakthroughs. Yet as Chapman noted, “It can’t last forever.” The physical market is about to assert dominance over financial expectations.

The implications extend far beyond higher pump prices. A sustained spike to $150+ oil would hammer consumers, businesses, and entire economies. Transportation costs would surge, feeding into inflation for all manner of goods and services. Energy-intensive industries like manufacturing, agriculture, chemicals would face margin pressure or outright curtailment. Developing nations, already strained, could see fuel shortages trigger social unrest. For the United States, which has enjoyed relative energy abundance in recent years, the shock would serve as a painful reminder of global interdependence.

Wirth rightly pointed to longer-term lessons. The crisis underscores the need for nations to maintain robust “insurance policies” in the form of oil reserves. Policymakers will have to grapple with how quickly to refill strategic stocks once the immediate disruption eases. Infrastructure damage in the Middle East from prolonged conflict will require tens of billions in repairs, further constraining future supply and adding upward price pressure. If the situation drags on, it could tip vulnerable economies into recession, potentially offsetting some demand but at enormous human and financial cost.

This episode also reveals deeper policy failures. Over-reliance on just-in-time inventory management, underinvestment in domestic production in some regions, and vulnerability to concentrated geopolitical risks have left the system brittle. The U.S. and its allies should treat this as a wake-up call to prioritize energy security: diversifying supply routes, maintaining adequate reserves, streamlining permitting for responsible domestic development, and avoiding self-inflicted constraints that limit resilience.

Markets are resilient, and human ingenuity should never be underestimated. But ignoring physical fundamentals in favor of hopeful narratives is a dangerous game. As inventories hit “really, really low levels,” the price mechanism will eventually force adjustment, which is more likely to arrive via a painful spike rather than a gentle glide.

And here’s the big problem: Even if a deal materializes in the coming days, full restoration of flows could take months or longer, as regional experts have cautioned. In the meantime, executives like Wirth and Chapman are doing the industry and policymakers a service by speaking candidly about the data before them.

Energy security is not optional. It is the foundation upon which modern economies rest. The current trajectory warns that we have been rolling the dice for months without bearing the real price for doing so. Chevron and Exxon’s warning is that the bill is about to come due, likely measured in triple-digit oil prices and widespread economic strain. Leaders who fail to prepare now will have no one to blame but themselves when the shock arrives.

Subscribe now

Let’s kick things off with our chart of the day from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, shown above. Texas dominates - to no one’s surprise - in planned natural gas pipeline capacity additions in the coming years. With the Marcellus/Utica basin still constrained by partisan New York politics, Texas is seeing a second major pipeline boom in a decade now.

Share

Here are the factors why:

Read more

Subscribe now

The Green Zealots Will Never Leave Us Alone - Great commentary here from Fox News contributor and writer Guy Benson about why no one should take the current lull in climate hysteria as an indication the movement is somehow dead. The fact is that it will never go away voluntarily because it is nothing more than an extension of the global socialist endeavor. These people will never stop unless and until they are forced to stop.

Share

Watch the video - a transcript follows:

Transcript:

Stuart Varney: Too much fun with this. The Climate catastrophe claims - it’s falling away. Trump’s rolling back strict green regulations. It’s all over, isn’t it? The climate catastrophe is no more. It’s gone.

Guy Benson: Well, you urged these people a moment ago to go away and leave us alone, and I have bad news: They will never leave us alone.

It’s an omni-cause, and they will flit about from one issue to another to fulfill some larger goal, which really is about fighting capitalism in the West, and you can fill in the blanks on what the cause du jour might be. This sparks a few observations, Stu.

Number one: They were so dead set sure that everyone was wrong. Anyone who might question their orthodoxy and the so-called science was wrong and as the science has changed or as they’ve been exposed you have to wonder what else have they been dead wrong about while fully asserting their righteousness. I’d say a lot of different issues.

The second point is how - and you are totally right to nail this - the clout of this issue is significantly diminished. The fact that perhaps the most recognizable so-called climate campaigner on Earth, Greta Thunberg, has moved on to a new zealous obsession, which is hating Israel, tells you everything that you need to know.

And one other data point on that, I will invoke your home country, the so- called Green Party in the UK is no longer really about green issues, at least in the traditional sense. It’s much more about the green-red alliance between Islamists and Marxists, and their animating issue now is hating Israel, not greenness.

So, they will move on to something else, but they will not leave us alone.

Varney: I don’t know why I’m smiling, but it is kind of funny, isn’t it?

[End]

********************

Read more

Subscribe now

Co-authored by Ronald Stein and Yoshihiro Muronaka

Published May 25, 2026, at America Out Loud NEWS

https://www.americaoutloud.news/the-iran-war-exposes-the-illusions-of-energy-policy/

Introduction

Share

Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), recently declared in Paris that those who have fought to keep the world dependent on fossil fuels are “inadvertently supercharging the global renewables boom” — citing the ongoing U.S.-Israeli war with Iran as evidence.

It is a striking claim. But it deserves careful scrutiny, because it conflates three separate issues: energy security, climate policy, and geopolitical crisis management.

Those who advocate for maintaining fossil fuels are not simply clinging to the past. They understand that coal, oil, and natural gas are not merely energy sources — they are the raw materials upon which modern civilization is built. Steel, cement, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics: none of these can be manufactured without hydrocarbons.

Renewables can generate electricity and partially substitute for some transportation fuels, but they cannot replace hydrocarbons as industrial feedstocks. That distinction is not a detail; it is the foundation of the entire debate.

Energy leaders who advocate for wind and solar rarely explain what no wind turbine or solar panel can ever provide: the transportation fuels and products that civilization depends upon.

Consider what crude oil alone supplies:

• Jet fuel for military and commercial aircraft supports about 30,000 commercial aircraft daily with up to 100,000 flights that take off and land across the globe.

• Diesel fuel for trucks, trains, and construction equipment.

• Gasoline for automobiles.

• Bunker fuel for the roughly 100,000 merchant ships that carry approximately 90% of world trade, and for more than 300 cruise ships worldwide.

• Specialized fuels for space programs conducting scientific research and exploration.

• Feedstocks for fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and synthetic fibers.

Planes, ships, trucks, and cars run on transportation fuels manufactured from crude oil by multi-billion-dollar refineries. These are not legacy inconveniences to be engineered away. They are the material foundation of modern life — and no amount of electricity from wind or solar can substitute for them.

Coal, crude oil, and natural gas are not merely energy sources — they are the raw materials upon which modern civilization is built. Steel, cement, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics: none of these can be manufactured without hydrocarbons.

Wind turbines and solar panels, i.e., renewables can generate electricity, but they cannot replace hydrocarbons as industrial feedstocks. That distinction is not a detail; it is the foundation of the entire debate.

Energy Security and Decarbonization Are Not the Same Thing

When oil and gas supplies are disrupted by war, the immediate human need is for stable, reliable, and affordable energy — not for a faster transition to intermittent electricity from renewables. Solar panels do not generate power at night. Wind turbines stop when the wind does. In a geopolitical crisis, these are not abstract engineering inconveniences; they are life-and-death vulnerabilities for hospitals, airports, military infrastructure, and food supply chains.

True energy security has always meant diversification — across fuels, across technologies, and across supply chains. Stiell’s framing, that crisis should accelerate a shift toward a single category of energy technology, is precisely the opposite of sound energy security thinking.

Stiell’s claim that renewables are “cheaper” also requires scrutiny. The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) — the metric most commonly cited by renewable advocates — reflects only the cost of generating electricity from a given facility. It does not account for the full system costs required to integrate intermittent sources into a grid: backup power, battery storage, transmission infrastructure, and demand balancing. When these are included in a Full Cost of Energy (FCOE) assessment, the economic case for renewables weakens considerably.

This problem is particularly acute in developing nations, where grid infrastructure is limited or absent. Deploying renewables in such contexts without accounting for full system costs does not deliver cheap electricity — it delivers unreliable electricity at a hidden premium. If Stiell is serious about electricity affordability for the developing world, he owes them an honest accounting of LCOE versus FCOE.

The China Reality Check

There is a deeper problem with the narrative that developed-nation renewable acceleration will meaningfully address global emissions. China currently emits approximately 11.7 billion tons of CO₂ annually — roughly 31% of the global total. The entire developed world’s reduction efforts, however sincere and costly, are being outpaced by China’s continued expansion of coal-fired power generation.

China has pledged carbon neutrality by 2060 and peak emissions by 2030. Yet in 2023 and 2024, China approved new coal-fired power plants at a record pace. The contradictory gap between China’s stated commitments and its physical infrastructure investments is not a detail — it is the central fact of global climate arithmetic.

No amount of sacrifice by developed-nation citizens or taxpayers can compensate for this arithmetic reality. The question worth asking is why international climate conversation so rarely acknowledges it.

The COP31 Presidency’s Revealing Reality

The irony of the Paris meeting is difficult to ignore. COP31 will be held in Antalya, Turkey, this November — with Turkey holding the presidency. At the same meeting where Stiell called for accelerating the renewables transition, Turkey’s own energy minister confirmed that bringing the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant — a Russian-built, Rosatom-operated facility — online in 2026 remains Turkey’s top energy priority.

Turkey is not pursuing energy purity. It is pursuing electricity security through diversification that includes nuclear power. This is entirely rational. But it stands in sharp contrast to the message Turkey is simultaneously delivering to the rest of the world as COP31 president.

What Sound Energy Policy Actually Looks Like

The lesson of the Iran war energy shock is not that renewables should replace fossil fuels faster. It is that over-dependence on any single source — whether Middle Eastern oil or Chinese-manufactured solar panels — creates systemic vulnerability.

A realistic energy policy acknowledges that hydrocarbons will remain essential not only as fuels, but as the feedstock for fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and the renewable energy equipment itself. This is not a counsel of despair. It is a call for intellectual honesty — and for policies built on physical reality rather than political symbolism.

Carbon symbiosis, not carbon elimination, is the framework that matches the complexity of the world we actually live in.

Conclusion

Simon Stiell’s Paris declaration is understandable as a political message ahead of COP31. But energy policy made in the heat of geopolitical crisis, dressed in the language of climate urgency, deserves the same scrutiny we would apply to any other form of crisis opportunism.

The Iran war has reminded the world how fragile energy supply chains can be. The right response is resilience through diversity — not acceleration toward a monoculture of intermittent electricity that cannot, by itself, power the civilization we depend upon, or provide the transportation fuels and products that are the foundation of our economy and way of life.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

Ronald Stein, P.E., is an engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.” He is also the recipient of an unsolicited Tribute to Ronald Stein from Stephen Heins.

Yoshihiro Muronaka, P.E. Jp is a chemical engineer who currently focuses on evaluating net-zero and decarbonization policies, advocating alternative energy concepts such as “carbon symbiosis,” and promoting balanced international energy cooperation.

Subscribe now

The retirement of the IPCC’s RCP 8.5 high-emissions scenario marks a quiet but telling moment in the climate debate. As detailed in a recent Vox article, scientists behind the scenarios for the IPCC’s upcoming Seventh Assessment Report have formally deemed this once-dominant projection “implausible.”

Share

RCP 8.5 envisioned a world of unchecked fossil fuel growth, coal use quintupling, global population surging toward 12 billion, and warming of 4°C or more by 2100, complete with apocalyptic sea-level rise, uninhabitable regions, and mass crop failures. For over a decade, this outlier became the default backdrop for climate journalism, activist rhetoric, and policy demands. Its demotion exposes what many skeptics long argued: it was less a scientific baseline than a political tool designed to galvanize action through fear.

Even proponents now admit as much. E&E News writer Zack Coleman and others have acknowledged that this high-emissions pathway “was always viewed as an unlikely outlier to help galvanize policymakers to reduce greenhouse gases.” It was never meant as “business as usual” but served that role in thousands of studies and headlines.

Read more

Subscribe now

In a rather inconvenient display of corporate dysfunction, BP announced on Tuesday the immediate removal of its chairman, Albert Manifold, just months after he took the helm and weeks after the company reported a robust $3.2 billion quarterly underlying profit. The board cited “serious concerns” over “important governance standards, oversight and conduct” that it deemed unacceptable. Shares plunged nearly 10% on the news, underscoring the market’s frustration with yet another leadership upheaval at one of the world’s largest energy companies.

Share

This latest bit of boardroom theater comes at a time when BP had hoped to be laser-focused on delivering value in a volatile energy landscape. Manifold, a former CRH plc CEO with no prior oil and gas experience, was appointed in October 2025 as an outsider to drive a strategic reset after the company’s decades of misallocating too much capital towards unprofitable “green” investments. His job was to champion a faster pivot back to hydrocarbons, cost-cutting, asset sales, and board streamlining, moves pressured by activist investors like Elliott Management.

And the plan was working. In late April, BP delivered strong Q1 2026 results: underlying replacement cost profit doubled year-over-year to $3.2 billion, beating expectations, driven by exceptional oil trading and refining margins amid geopolitical tensions, including the Iran conflict. CEO Meg O’Neill hailed the results as “another quarter of strong operational and financial delivery.”

But now, instead of building on this momentum, the board pulled the trigger on Manifold. Senior Independent Director Amanda Blanc stated: “Albert has helped bring a welcome focus and pace to bp’s transformation. However, the board has been surprised and disappointed to learn of governance oversight and conduct issues it deems unacceptable and has taken decisive action.”

Read more

Subscribe now

HB 804, the Louisiana Energy Protection Act, stands at a potential crossroads as the state legislature enters its final week in session. Having already passed the House as a pro-business measure to address climate litigation, the bill seeks to shield energy producers and related industries from expansive, meritless coastal erosion liability claims. As originally drafted, the bill would deliver greater legal certainty for an industry vital to Louisiana’s economy while reinforcing the state’s position as a national energy powerhouse. Yet as the legislation now sits, a series of proposed Senate amendments offered by plaintiff lawyers like the ethically questionable John Carmouche could change the entire nature of the law.

Share

This attempt to address climate lawfare is not an isolated effort. Republican-led states including Utah and Iowa have advanced similar measures to push back against activist-driven litigation and provide regulatory predictability for energy producers. These bills recognize a fundamental reality: allowing endless climate lawsuits to proliferate creates uncertainty that chills investment, threatens jobs, and undermines American energy security. Louisiana, with its rich oil, gas, and coastal resources, has every reason to lead this commonsense resistance.

Unfortunately, these proposed amendments threaten to fundamentally reshape HB 804. Critics likes Steve Forbes and Canary, Inc. CEO Dan Eberhart, warn that new language exempting lawsuits filed before the bill’s effective date would create dangerous carveouts. Rather than applying uniform protections against climate liability claims, the amendments would protect more than 40 ongoing coastal erosion lawsuits targeting American energy producers. The practical result would change a bill designed to stop climate lawfare to one that preserves one of the largest and most expensive litigation campaigns facing Louisiana’s energy sector.

This outcome would be perverse. Coastal lawsuits blaming energy companies for erosion and land loss - despite decades of federal navigation projects, levee systems, and the natural processes of the Mississippi River Delta - have long been criticized as scientifically shaky attempts to extract massive settlements from productive industries. By carving out preexisting cases, the amendments would effectively shield these efforts from reform. Trial lawyers involved in those cases targeting one class of companies would be able to continue their campaign uninterrupted while the rest of the industry gains supposed protections. In short, the legislation risks being transformed from a shield for energy producers into a shield for their most aggressive opponents.

Those law firms and their supporting activist groups haven’t been shy about publicly supporting the amendments. During the Senate Committee on Natural Resources hearing on HB 804, Victor L. Marcello of Talbot Carmouche & Marcello and Merrilee Montgomery of the Sierra Club testified in favor of amendments that critics say would protect these legacy lawsuits.

“This would remove one of the tools from the toolbox of trying to fight back against climate change,” said Peter Robins-Brown, who is also executive director of the Louisiana Progress advocacy group.

Supporters of the bill as drafted say the lawsuits have no real connection to any attempt to solve climate change. David Cresson, president and chief executive officer of the Louisiana Chemistry Association, told The Advocate that, “These lawsuits will not solve climate change. They will not improve the environment. What they will do is raise costs and make it harder for employ(ers) to invest and create jobs in this state.”

So, what began as outside advocacy has now penetrated the legislative process itself whereby trial lawyers have tried to co-opt the bill for their own agenda. Recent legal developments help underscore the stakes at hand. In April, the trial lawyers were slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court when it delivered a unanimous 8-0 ruling determining that energy producers’ wartime activities were sufficiently connected to federal responsibilities to warrant moving these cases into federal court.

The decision aligned with the Justice Department’s position on the matter. The Trump Department of Justice had submitted a brief arguing that disputes involving national energy interests and federal duties belong in federal venues, where consistent standards and broader perspectives can prevail over local venue shopping.

This Supreme Court ruling highlights the importance of keeping these cases out of forums perceived as more favorable to expansive liability theories. Yet the proposed amendments to HB 804 threaten to undermine that progress by preserving the very state-court actions the federal courts are scrutinizing.

Governor Jeff Landry has positioned himself as a strong supporter of President Trump’s agenda for American energy dominance, even agreeing to serve as the administration’s envoy to Greenland in addition to his duties as Governor.

Allowing HB 804 to be diluted into a vehicle that protects meritless coastal erosion lawsuits would contradict that stance. Allowing amendments to shift the goal of HB 804 would make it hard for Louisiana and Gov. Landry to claim to back Trump’s vision of unleashing domestic energy production while simultaneously enabling legal strategies designed to burden and penalize that same production.

Gov. Landry and State Senators have a clear choice as the session enters its final week. They can finalize a bill that provides genuine legal certainty and pushes back against climate lawfare, consistent with actions in other states and with federal court rulings. Or they can allow the plaintiff firms, led by John Carmouche, to keep their lucrative lawfare mill alive for years to come.

Securing Louisiana’s energy activity should be straightforward: A set of fair, predictable rules that prevent weaponized litigation from undermining a sector that powers Louisiana’s economy, funds state services, and contributes mightily to national security.

State and federal governments need keep the promises they made when their regulatory agencies approved every permit for every well that was drilled, every canal that was dug, every pipeline that was laid in South Louisiana since World War II. Passing HB 804 as a measure to address the onslaught of climate litigation – not allow the bill to be hijacked by trial lawyers in a way that will perpetuate their anti-energy coastal lawsuits would go a long way towards keeping those promises.