#energy

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-mitsubishi-exploring-sale-options-their-stakes-lng-canada-sources-say-2026-01-16/

Ok so you’ve got an asset with cost of supply advantage , so much so you want to double its throughput… what should you do with it ???
I know!! I know!! DILUTE your ownership to buy my shares!!!!!!

Once again I am seeing rumors we are buying Diamondback. Any truth to this rumor?

This just dropped and I have gifted this article (behind a paywall) to you. It’s on which E and P companies are expected to have layoffs in 2026 based on current domestic and international environment. Great read cause a certain OKC based company is mentioned so click here

I guess I was wrong.

The Permian Basin is projected to sustain U.S. oil production through 2030. However, some experts believe that the basin could peak within the next twelve months, indicating a potential decline in production. Additionally, it has been noted that the Permian Basin is depleting faster than generally believed, with output possibly peaking as early as 2023. Thus, while the basin has significant production capabilities, its longevity may be shorter than previously anticipated.

The Permian Basin, a prolific oil-producing region in the United States, is projected to sustain U.S. oil production through 2030, according to Enverus Intelligence Research. This oil production prediction hinges on the Permian Basin's capacity to offset declines from mature basins like the Bakken and Eagle Ford Shale. The Permian Basin reserves' future growth will largely stem from more extensional, less-proven areas, where horizontal drilling continues to unlock new potential. While U.S. production growth is expected to remain flat due to inventory degradation and cautious capital expenditure by E&P companies, the Permian Basin's oil production output gains will play a crucial role in maintaining national levels.

Leading Indicators:

Permian Basin's Role:

• The Permian Basin will be the primary driver in maintaining U.S. oil production levels.

• The region's output is expected to offset declines in other mature basins.

Future Growth:

• Incremental gains will come from horizontals drilled in the fringier parts of the Permian.

• Enverus forecasts an additional 2 million barrels per day (MMbbl/d) from the Permian by 2030.

Industry Trends:

• U.S. E&P companies are operating in "maintenance mode," focusing on returning cash to shareholders rather than expanding production.
• This cautious approach contrasts with the aggressive production growth strategies of the past.

Global Supply Contributions:

• In addition to the Permian, other significant contributors to global oil supply by 2030 include Brazil's Búzios oil field and Guyana's developments led by Exxon Mobil, Hess Corp., and CNOOC.

Implications for the Energy Sector:

Sustained Production:

• The Permian Basin's ability to sustain U.S. oil production has broader implications for global energy markets, ensuring steady supply despite regional declines.

Economic Viability:

• The focus on less-proven areas indicates a shift towards maximizing existing resources, albeit at higher operational costs.

Strategic Investments:

• Energy companies might need to balance shareholder returns with strategic investments in new drilling technologies and exploration of less developed zones to maintain long-term production levels.

The continued development of oil production in the Permian Basin is critical for maintaining U.S. levels through 2030. While production growth might plateau, the basin's output will be pivotal in counterbalancing declines from other regions. This strategic focus on sustaining production highlights the evolving dynamics in the energy sector, emphasizing the importance of innovative exploration and efficient resource management to meet future energy demands.

https://fairfieldgeo.com/blog/permian-gains-will-sustain-u-s-oil-production-through-2030

Who has received notice?

The Green new deal and Net Zero are dead. Greg tied getting LNG going 10 years ago. So now in 2025 Canada produces 1/8th by volume to US.

My question to Copiot,,,,,,,,So basically very little progress but a lot of plans no extra money coming in just money spent on planning or whatever.

Answer - That’s a pretty fair summary of where Canada stands right now. The country has rolled out ambitious frameworks—like the Clean Electricity Strategy and emissions reduction targets—but the tangible results are slower to materialize.

By Michael Kern - Nov 24, 2025, 9:00 AM CST
JP Morgan predicts the international crude benchmark, Brent, could drop into the $30s per barrel by 2027 due to an overwhelming market oversupply.

Goldman Sachs forecasts the U.S. benchmark WTI Crude will average $53 per barrel in 2026 amid a 2 million bpd surplus and advises investors to short oil right now.

The oil market is expected to rebalance in 2027 after the current large supply wave, including output from OPEC+ and non-OPEC producers in the Americas, works through the system.

The international crude benchmark, Brent, could dip to the $30s per barrel handle by 2027 as oversupply could overwhelm the market, according to a JP Morgan forecast posted by users on X.

Brent Crude prices have dropped by 14% year to date, and traded relatively stable at $62.59 per barrel early on Monday, as the oil market awaits news from the renewed negotiations on peace in Ukraine.

The U.S. and Ukraine held on Sunday in Geneva what the two sides described as “highly productive” talks and agreed to continue intensive work on a “refined” peace plan, which the U.S. first proposed last week.

Despite the fears of a glut, analysts and investment banks don’t see oil prices moving down to $40 or below, even as oil is set to decline in the near term with strong supply from OPEC+ and the non-OPEC producers in the Americas.

Peace in Ukraine could also weigh on energy prices as some sanctions and restrictions on Russia could be eased, analysts say.

Oil prices are set to further drop into next year from current levels amid a large surplus on the market, with the U.S. benchmark WTI Crude expected to average $53 per barrel in 2026, according to Goldman Sachs.

The investment bank’s call for next year is that oil prices are on track for further declines and investors should short oil right now, Daan Struyven, co-head of global commodities research at Goldman Sachs, told CNBC last week.

The surplus next year will be 2 million bpd on average, Goldman reckons, but notes that 2026 will be the last year of the current big supply wave hitting the market.

The oil market is set to rebalance in 2027 as 2026 will see “the last big oil supply wave the market has to work through,” Goldman’s Struyven added.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/JP-Morgan-Says-Oil-Prices-Could-Plunge-Into-30s-by-2027.html

@DonnieDetroit19

"Saline township has an uphill battle with Whitmer and Benson pushing it. And DTE is just spewing BS. They’re offering the data center low rates, ~8 cents/kWh while residential customers pay full price, ~20 cents/kWh! On top of $100 million in tax breaks! What a sweet deal."

https://x.com/DonnieDetroit19/status/1992279926125240347

BVB tried to transform Shell into something virtuous. If you believe that burning fossil fuels results in climate change, and that the global ecosystem is unable to absorb the rising CO2 levels with devastating results, then something had to change. Oil cos need to make deals with governments around the world that violate human rights. Their activities cause environmental damage everywhere they are conducted. Of course, selling Shell's "dirty" assets to someone else who will do the same things, perhaps even less ethically, improves nothing in the short term. But if that money is taken and used to chart a different path, in the long term, maybe Shell could make a difference ... even if that path necessarily leads to Shell's own extinction because green energy will become less and less profitable as it scales.
So where did BVB go wrong? First, green energy is unprofitable even in the short without subsidies. That means Shell's business must must align with political priorities that swing wildly. But Shell needed to be able to bullsh-t its investors that it had a path to profitability so it took the money. Second, green energy has technological hurdles that must be overcome or it will fail. Think batteries, wind and solar variability, and the grid collapse in Iberia. Third, Shell's chosen green energies will NEVER meet its net zero goals. They generate way more carbon, and environmental damage, than they save. Shell should have directed its efforts into other technologies that have hurdles that are likely to be solved and then would be closer to carbon neutral. Fourth, the green energy movement that Shell tried to lead, was a scam that US voters revolted against, with the EU soon to follow as their citizenry tires of their inflated energy prices and the effect on their economies. Think ESG scores and greenwashing by claiming credits for trees that you have cut down yet, and net zero promises with lots of fine print, and buying Russian oil but we're sorry you caught us, and Davos elites flying in on their private jets and then proposing things like good citizen scorekeeping (hey, the CCP is doing it, why shouldn't everyone else) and limits on meat consumption and dozens of other ways for the elite to maintain their wealth and power over the miserable plebians.
Shell aligned itself with the left, the only ones who opened their arms (not including the "stakeholders" who sued Shell in Dutch court and chased it out of the country), but the left went too far. The left that gained control (and still has control in places like GB) wanted to tear down the colonizing racist power structure and replace it with a society based on intersectionality, DEI, gender fluidity and all that entails, open borders, politically motivated extended economic shutdown (except for the politicians at their own parties), and so on. There was social backlash that resulted in political reversals and Shell lost on all of its big bets.

Our remaining refineries are facing an existential threat that puts the very fabric of our economy and society at risk.

Without significant and rapid policy intervention, the country’s remaining refineries are at risk of closure, increasing reliance on foreign imports.

Creating a level playing field for Britain’s refineries to compete is in the gift of the Government, and we need to see action.

Watch Paul Greenwood, the UK Chairman of ExxonMobil, deliver this message to members of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3f11ead9-99d8-4c0f-b34e-f1df9d270231?in=15:04:10

According to Axios, peak oil is expected to occur around 2030. This is earlier than many experts had believed, and it is based on the US’s shift back toward renewables. Douglas A. McIntyre, Editor-in-Chief of Climatecrisis247, explains,

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/oil-is-on-the-way-out/vi-AA1Qsk5T?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=69178c1edb5b497096bd420ecd4427be&ei=26

What's being targeted and where do you see this going in the future?

EVs are now 10 percent of new car sales in the states, what will this industry be in 15 years will it end up like coal?

Now in the states EV make up 10 percent of new car sales how does this affect Valero in 15 years

EVs in America make up 10 percent of new car sales. In 15 years what does our industry look like? Will they get rid of Galveston bay?

New car sales in America are almost at 10 percent EV what does this mean for Exxon and refining in the next 10-15 years

Interested in the gulf coast area- Texas/ Louisiana

We've hit our goal of 1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day from the Permian Basin.

We've created the opportunity to grow free cash flow for years to come.

I’ve always been curious. What’s the whole deal with MW saying we don’t create demand, we meet demand?

We’re a fortune 10 company and the ceo is saying we can’t influence market demand? I’m always confused by this talking point.

We could absolutely influence demand if we invested in renewables, batteries, ai power supply, nuclear, etc…

Idk, any thoughts?

I recently joined Viridien thinking that this was a progressive company making progress on social issues like equity and moving away from oil and gas towards the energy transition and renewables. Lately it feels like these goals have been completely abandoned with a real lack of direction and no ambition. Don’t be fooled by the values that the company promotes externally as there is no conviction behind any of it.

Oil producers go to battle over mineral rights in Arkansas’ Smackover formation

Jamie Smyth in El Dorado, Arkansas

Published
Apr 23 2025

ExxonMobil has defeated an attempt by rival Occidental Petroleum to contest its production rights on one of the largest lithium deposits in the US, as oil companies fight for a foothold in the critical minerals business.

The regulatory battle in Arkansas between two of the largest US oil companies comes as the Trump administration rushes to boost domestic extraction and processing of critical minerals to break American industry’s reliance on Chinese supplies.

Lithium, a crucial ingredient in high-powered batteries used in the electric vehicle and defence industries, is a priority for Washington as Chinese companies process almost two-thirds of the world’s lithium supplies.

Exxon, Equinor and Occidental are among companies racing to develop lithium extraction and processing facilities in the Smackover, a geological formation stretching across Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.          

A US Geological Survey study published in October estimated there was between 5mn and 19mn tonnes of lithium reserves in underwater brines in the south-west Arkansas portion of the Smackover. If commercially recoverable, this would meet the projected 2030 global demand for lithium in car batteries nine times over, it said.

Saltwerx and other producers in the Smackover intend to use direct lithium extraction technology, a process in which lithium is pulled out of brine while leaving other dissolved compounds behind.

There are still questions over whether the technology can be a commercial success when compared to hard rock lithium mining and evaporation ponds, a low-cost technique used in Latin America.

This week Saltwerx, an Exxon subsidiary, was granted the right to establish a 56,000-acre lithium production unit by regulators over the objections of Occidental, which argued it owned minerals rights in the area and had plans to produce lithium.

An Exxon spokesperson said the decision could help unlock the domestic lithium industry, support jobs and strengthen American energy security.

“Attempts to delay progress could jeopardise economic growth for Arkansas and undermine US efforts to reduce dependence on foreign critical minerals,” she said.

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/7b229e31-692a-4342-8973-3147f6063a99

Saltwerx intends to begin producing lithium in 2028. It forecasts that it can generate $27mn in annual profit from producing 165,000 barrels of lithium brine per day, according to a regulatory filing.      

An Occidental spokesman said the company routinely participated in hearings with state regulators to develop operating agreements that ensured the responsible and fair development of resources for all interest owners.

The commission also approved an application by SWA Lithium, a joint venture between Standard Lithium and Equinor, to establish a rival production unit in south-west Arkansas. Last week the Trump administration selected it as one of 10 critical minerals projects that it would prioritise.

https://www.ft.com/content/7b229e31-692a-4342-8973-3147f6063a99

Are the other B’s getting investment and new projects or just Baytown?

It seems like every couple of weeks our refineries have some kind of operations situation. Is this normal? Or should we be concerned?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/boereport.com/2025/10/24/global-energy-layoffs-deepen-in-2025-as-crude-prices-weaken-ma-deals-surge/amp/

The article didn't have cons numbers but we have them now "ConocoPhillips to lay off Canada employees in November, company memo shows
Layoffs part of plan to cut global workforce by 25%"

So MW learned nothing during COVID. He’s on Fox talking about energy and national security while farming out critical jobs overseas. CVX is multinational. Quit the hypocrisy MW.

Story by Mella McEwen

ExxonMobil officials, like all other oil and gas producers, are closely watching the current economic climate. The company recently announced a reduction of 2,000 jobs — none in the U.S. — as part of a long-term restructuring plan.

“We are worried about prices,” said Rich Dealy, vice president, Permian Basin, with ExxonMobil.

Addressing Hart Energy’s Dug Permian conference, he continued, “Our depth of inventory is impressive even at current prices.”

Dealy said ExxonMobil is worried less about oil prices and more about efficiency gains, with a team of skilled workers focused on improving efficiencies and refining drilling and completion costs. A vast majority of its Permian Basin wells and operations are monitored from a central hub.

“We have a number of good zones across the basin,” he said. He sees the rising amount of natural gas being produced in association with crude oil as an opportunity, but the Permian needs sufficient takeaway capacity to realize that opportunity.

The multinational giant currently produces 1.5 million barrels per day from its Permian Basin holdings, with plans to increase that to 2.3 million barrels per day by 2030.

“The Permian is a gift to the U.S.,” he said, predicting ExxonMobil will be developing resources in the Permian Basin for decades to come. “We predict production will continue to grow, oil and natural gas demand will still be tremendous, at least through midcentury.” Despite the rising use of renewables, he said the company estimates oil and gas will still provide over 50% of the world’s energy.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/exxonmobil-permian-growth-targets-2-3m-bpd-by-2030/

With the purchase from Cenovus' 50% share of WRB and now the pipeline deal to Arizona and California P66 has now made 2 good deals in a row. These deals place substantial focus on refining.
The Elliott directors must be making their presence known. Go Go would just buy more broken-down gas plants.

What’s the latest from Apache’s Permian Basin operations? How’s the AI drilling and optimization process coming along? When do the recently completed wells experience deep declines as was seen in 2017-2021 era or is the rock and completion practices far improved?

Any updates on the Peabody Energy bid?

The scale of operations and the amount of high paying jobs its bringing to the area. I imagine the payoff for the company is more than worthwhile investment. Do you think this will provide more job security

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2025/10/09/trump-energy-cuts-could-affect-kentucky-evreportedly-weighing-major-cuts-to-kentucky-energy-projects/86570969007/

TL;DR:

The Trump administration terminated about $100 million in grant funding for the Ascend Elements battery plant in Kentucky.

Construction at the company's site is paused but is expected to restart in 2026.

Ascend Elements stated the grant termination does not change its trajectory and it will seek other funding sources.

How has the fracking on Teapot Dome working out ?

They just let go everyone in fuel cell.

The petrochemical sector is struggling with weakening demand, overcapacity and a global pivot towards cleaner energy, analysts point out.

SINGAPORE: ExxonMobil’s decision to cut up to 500 jobs in Singapore signals wider industry challenges from declining demand and rising supply, analysts said.

The US energy giant on Wednesday (Oct 1) said it plans to reduce 10 to 15 per cent of its workforce in Singapore by end-2027, calling it a move to improve competitiveness in an “ever-evolving landscape” and to "position the business for future success".

The announcement followed a global restructuring plan unveiled a day earlier, which will see the company laying off 2,000 jobs worldwide, or 3 to 4 per cent of its workforce.

Analysts pointed out that ExxonMobil's cuts reflect broader challenges across the sector.

“It's a demand-supply story affecting international oil and gas companies,” said energy consultant Tilak Doshi.

“Crude oil prices are down, margins are down, revenues are down … So how do they respond to it? By cutting back.”

Other major US oil companies, including Chevron and ConocoPhillips, have announced job cuts this year, as Brent crude prices fell by about 12 per cent this year, driven by rising OPEC+ supply.

The sector is also facing weakening demand and overcapacity, particularly with the growth of petrochemical plants in China, said former Energy Studies Institute visiting senior fellow Leow Foon-Lee.

Singapore is not insulated from these challenges, given its role as a regional refining hub, he said.

Beyond oil demand and supply, companies also face uncertainties from trade tariffs and pressures to restructure as artificial intelligence reshapes operations, said Mr Leow, who is also an adjunct professor at Nanyang Technological University's business school.

SHIFT TO GREEN ENERGY
Besides ExxonMobil, other oil giants in Singapore have cut back their businesses in recent years.

In May last year, Shell sold its Bukom refinery in Singapore – one of the world’s largest oil refining and trading centres – to Indonesian firm PT Chandra Asri and Swiss-based Glencore, having earlier announced plans to cut 500 jobs over three years.

Structural shifts in the industry are being driven by the global transition to cleaner energy, automation and stricter regulations, said Dr Roger Fouquet, principal research fellow at the Energy Studies Institute at the National University of Singapore.

Singapore, like other parts of the world, is moving towards deploying cleaner energy with a goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The country was the first in Southeast Asia to implement a carbon tax in 2019. Businesses that emitted more than 25,000 metric tonnes of greenhouse gas a year had to pay S$5 (US$3.90) per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent produced.

This tax was raised to S$25 per tonne of emissions in 2024, and will eventually be raised to S$50 to S$80 by 2030.

Analysts stressed, however, that current layoffs are tied more to demand and supply than to carbon policy.

SINGAPORE'S EVOLVING ROLE
Despite the turbulence in the industry, analysts said Singapore's petrochemical hub role is not diminishing but evolving.

"The rationalisations are paving the way for a more resilient … and future-driven market and environment,” said Mr Timo Tumuscheit, vice-president of business development for chemicals at Argus.

He said Singapore is “moving up the value chain” by focusing on more specialty chemicals, which are higher-value, produced in smaller quantities and tailored for specific functions.

Momentum is also building around biochemicals, carbon capture and low-carbon fuels, which reflect the region's shift towards more sustainable energy systems.

Although Singapore is now a hub for liquefied natural gas and bunker fuel, the fuel mix will change to cleaner fuels in future, said Mr Leow.

“And so our role has not changed. It's just the fuel mix has changed,” he added.

Mr Tumuscheit agreed: “Singapore, as a petrochemical hub, will always remain a major player and an important hub in the region and globally.”

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/exxonmobil-layoffs-petrochemical-industry-challenges-cleaner-energy-5382121?cid=cna_flip_070214

Here is the conversation

Yes how many jobs will be lost?

Hundreds of jobs at GE Vernova in Schenectady and Niskayuna are at risk due to the cancellation of 14 federally funded energy projects-but the exact number of job losses has not yet been confirmed. The impact is expected to be significant, especially in research and manufacturing roles tied to Department of Energy contracts.

What We Know So Far
• 223 DOE projects canceled nationwide, totaling $7.56 billion in cuts
• 42 projects canceled in New York, with 14 linked to GE Vernova
• GE Vernova employs hundreds of workers in the Capital Region, primarily in Schenectady (manufacturing) and Niskayuna (research) 1.
• One canceled project alone was a $1.7 million wind turbine gear program, aimed at improving turbine reliability

Estimating Job Losses
While GE Vernova hasn't released a headcount, we can model the impact:
• Typical DOE-funded energy research projects support 10-50 jols each, depending on scope.
• If we assume an average of 25 jobs per project, then:
• 14 canceled projects × 25 jobs = ~350 jobs at risk.
This estimate aligns with reports that GE
Vernova employs "hundreds" in the region, and that these projects were central to their renewable energy and advanced manufacturing initiatives.

Billions so why do we get garbage contracts, health ins, no pension? Remain competitive? With whom chat GPT didn’t mention any other competitors.