Tesla Batteries and Climate Change

By Paolo von Schirach —

WASHINGTON – Notwithstanding solemn pledges issued by many governments, no country that really matters is taking the fight against climate change seriously. Headline grabbing global agreements detailing ambitious emission reduction goals mean almost nothing, as they are purely voluntary, and therefore non verifiable, and certainly not enforceable.

Policy-makers will not act

Do not expect more on this front. The truth is that all policy-makers live under the constraints and pressures of urgent matters that require immediate attention. Catastrophic climate change scenarios regarding what will materialize in our world years or even decades from now do not motivate anybody in a position of responsibility to engage –today– in serious and very costly policy changes.

Innovation will deliver results

That said, there is hope when it comes to drastically reducing dangerous emissions. And hope rests on coming up with cost-effective technological innovation. Man made global warming leading to climate change is largely due to the continuing use of dirty emission producing technologies and industrial processes, most of them developed quite a long time ago. The reason why we keep using them, with only some improvements here and there, is because any currently available alternatives would be far too expensive. However, innovation may change all this. Human ingenuity should not be discounted.

Tesla leading on new battery technologies

Take Tesla, for example. Under Elon Musk, its controversial founder, Tesla dared to think of commercially viable electric vehicles (EVs) many, many years ago, when nobody –literally nobody– in the automotive business believed that this might be possible.

Well, fast forward to today and we see how tiny Tesla has become an EVs sector leader. True, the jury is still out on Tesla’s long term commercial viability. However, a relentless effort to improve its battery technology and therefore reduce cost structure and increase both vehicle performance and company profitability may indicate that this maverick EV company may not just survive but actually lead a boom in EVs production.

We know that the main obstacle on the way to mass produced, affordable electric cars is relative unsophisticated battery technology. While there has been progress, the batteries used to power most EVs are still expensive, very heavy, and not very efficient compared to the traditional internal combustion engines running on oil derived gasoline.

A game changer

Tesla, however, (and many others innovators around the world working on the same or similar issues), seem to have made very significant progress in improving battery performance on all fronts: life of the battery, cost and weight of the battery, amount of energy stored in the battery, and therefore distance that can be covered with a single charge, and shorter recharging time. Many of these battery technology breakthroughs have just been announced by Tesla, and it remains to be seen how the actual vehicles sold to real customers will perform. Still, assuming that most of what Tesla announced is true or close to becoming true, then we are getting to, or very close to a tipping point when it comes to the mass adoption of electric vehicles.

Cheap, high performance electric vehicles will generate mass markets

It is no secret that so far electric vehicles have had only limited appeal. They are still regarded by most consumers as too expensive. They are fancy gadgets for the rich who can afford to pay extra money for a high-tech car so that they can brag about being green and cool.

Most budget conscious people considering buying a new car look at the price and then the operating cost of the car (mostly fuel) over the time in which they will use it. For these reasons, an expensive EV coming with the additional problems of limited range, limited numbers of charging stations and a long recharging time does not look appealing.

But a new generation of Tesla vehicles powered by a super efficient, low cost, lower weight, high performance battery that will essentially last for ever, would be a true game changer. It would signal a new era for EVs: from experimentation and tinkering to mass production based on proven superior technology and lower prices.

End of gasoline

When this happens, high performance and cheaper EVs will inevitably displace gasoline powered traditional cars. Assuming that these battery technology breakthroughs will work as expected, we can reasonably conclude that EVs will begin to dominate the global auto industry in just a few years. This will be the beginning of the end for traditional cars. And this will also be the end for many refiners currently producing the rivers of gasoline necessary to power hundreds of millions of traditional cars. Further upstream, the virtual end of gasoline will also mean significantly lower demand for crude oil.

Oil will survive, at least for a while

Of course, we do know that even if it all happens as planned regarding a new generation of batteries, with Tesla and many others inundating the global automotive market with affordable, state of the art, super efficient EVs, it will take years before the world automotive fleet will become totally electric. In the meantime, there will be still demand for gasoline and therefore oil.

The oil industry will survive. Let’s not forget that beyond gasoline oil is also used to make diesel fuel for trucks and other heavy vehicles, and powering ships’ engines, not to mention jet fuel, heating oil, and plastics, and what not. Therefore we can expect that there will still be an oil industry ten or even twenty years from now, (unless other technological disruptions will introduce alternatives to other oil-derived products). However, it will be a smaller, streamlined oil industry; and it will be dominated by the low cost producers, (think Saudi Arabia). In a world market characterized by lower and declining demand for oil, only those who can be and stay profitable with oil at $ 10 per barrel or less will be able to survive.

The end of shale?

This being the case, the future of the recently reborn US oil industry appears very uncertain at best. The economic sustainability of the US shale revolution, itself the fruit of American technological ingenuity, was and is predicated on fairly high oil prices. While the cost of fracking operations has come down significantly in the last few years, fracking is still a fairly expensive activity. It is hard to believe that companies struggling in 2019 to stay alive, let alone do well, with oil at around $ 50 per barrel or less, will be able to survive when crude will go down to $15 or less, on account of soft global demand.

Innovation spill over

Improved battery technologies will also transfer to other applications, such as efficient storage for electricity produced by renewable sources such as wind and solar, something that will most likely increase their appeal and marketability vis-a-vis traditional fossil fuel based electric power generation. Overtime, expect fewer (if any) coal fired power plants, and eventually fewer natural gas power plants that are now necessary given intermittent generation from renewables.

You see where we are going here. We are looking at the real possibility of cascading positive effects, affecting different sectors, all born out of technological innovation spurred by the goal of getting a better battery for Tesla’s EVs. And this is the magic of innovation. It spreads. Tesla was not born out of the need to address a well defined market need. True enough, American drivers were routinely complaining about the high cost of gasoline. But all they wanted was cheaper gas. They had not articulated this complaint into a demand for an alternative to the traditional car powered by an internal combustion engine.

And here is the beauty of innovative minds. Elon Musk launched into an industrial adventure that most analysts dismissed as silly, and therefore destined to failure. But now Tesla, the company he created, despite all its challenges, may be on the verge of deploying another generation of technological innovation that is likely to transform the EV sector, and consequently the entire automotive industry in the US and worldwide.

We need more than new batteries

Back to global warming, it is clear that even radical transformations in the automotive sector leading to sharply lower demand for gasoline and therefore crude oil will not be enough to cause dramatic emissions reductions. More innovation will be needed to radically transform industrial processes, from cement production to petrochemical plants and more, that currently produce harmful emissions.

Green and profitable can go together

However, the Tesla relentless quest for better and more efficient car batteries is a good illustration that it is possible to pursue at the same time profits, a more efficient propulsion technology, and drastically reduced greenhouse emissions. It is not true that trying to be green is a luxury that is simply not practical nor affordable for most industries.

Tesla’s innovation efforts may be driven in part by the desire to produce a perfectly green car. But we should keep in mind that Tesla is a business, not a charity. Ultimately Tesla has to serve its shareholders. They want to see a return on their investments. And this means more cars sold at a profit. By pursuing better batteries that will increase performance while reducing cost, the company is strengthening its competitiveness vis-a-vis conventional vehicles, with the hope that millions of consumers will prefer affordable EVs, not because they are green, but because they are better value for money.

By the same token, assuming that some new industrial technologies will be able to eliminate emissions and increase productivity and profits at the same time, you will have classic win-win propositions in which being green is also good for business.

A long shot, but the only one we have

While this innovation driven approach may be a long shot, this is the only practical way to cut down emissions, stay profitable, and avoid the dire effects of global warming. International agreements that cannot be enforced produce short-lived feel good moments, and not much else. Innovation will be the game changer.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Sciencand International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC.




US Oil and Gas Sector Hit Hard By Virus, Price War

By Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – Sadly, coronavirus is here in America. All the restrictions announced and feared on most economic activities have created huge disruptions and panic. The entire travel, entertainment and restaurant industries are comatose. Airlines bookings literally collapsed. And now, with most economic activities frozen, there is widespread fear that this may be just the beginning of a massive health and economic crisis –with no timeline.

Even worse for the oil sector

Well, if things are looking ugly for the broader US economy, they are simply disastrous for the US fossil fuel industry, oil in particular. The global economic slowdown began in January when China literally closed down half of its economy. The consequent drop in oil demand from China depressed already low oil prices.

Very low oil prices mean that many low margin small and medium sized US oil companies will go bankrupt. And this is because their extracting costs are far higher than in Saudi Arabia or Russia. Many of them could barely stay alive with oil at $ 50 per barrel. But when crude prices went down from $ 60 to $ 30 the picture looked bleak. And now, with the new development of a price war between Russia and Saudi Arabia, expect oil (now at around $ 25) to go down to $ 20 per barrel, or even lower. What started as a crisis for the US energy sector in January, just turned into a nightmare.

The incredible impact of the US energy renaissance

Taking a broad view, there is no question that the US energy boom triggered by the 10 year old domestic “fracking revolution” is one of the brightest spots in the US economy. Thanks to fracking, in the space of almost nothing, America, assumed to have only small and rapidly declining reserves in both oil and gas, came back with a gigantic roar; all thanks to its ability to exploit vast amounts of oil and gas until recently deemed to be unrecoverable, due to the prohibitive cost of extraction.

Well, thanks to the revolutionary fracking technologies, unrecoverable oil and gas became recoverable. In just a few years, a large number of small and medium energy companies (Exxon Mobil and Chevron, among others came later) made the US into the world’s largest natural gas producer, and now the biggest oil producer. It is hard to overestimate the positive impact of all this.

New jobs and energy security

Just think about it. Nowadays, we have billions of dollars invested at home, in this dynamic domestic energy sector, instead of being sent out to buy OPEC oil. We also accomplished the creation of “Hemispheric Energy Security”. No, America is not totally energy independent.

However, if you combine this staggering increase in domestic energy production with Canadian and Mexican imports, you realize that nowadays most of America’s energy comes from the Western Hemisphere. This is a huge net plus in terms of improved national security.

Problem: high cost

The big fly in the ointment in all this was and is that shale oil is a high cost, low margin business. And this is a problem. Indeed, mostly on account of a mature, abundantly supplied global energy market, crude prices are now historically low, while many if not most US players in this shale oil sector are over leveraged, and do not make much money.

In fact, some do not make any money at all. Given relatively high operating costs, low oil prices and large debt burdens, the sheer survival of many American small and medium energy companies was highly questionable before the crisis of 2020 began. For these reasons, the energy sector was not very attractive to average investors. Indeed, even in the context of a very robust stock market in 2019, oil stocks were the worst performers.

Energy companies must be profitable

Yes, it is great to celebrate this astonishing American energy renaissance. However, this is a capitalistic economy. Eventually, you have to be profitable to stay in business. Of course, cost cutting and consolidation were happening in this rather fragmented industry. And the sector proved to be much, much more resilient than what many critics had argued. Initially thought to be viable only with oil at $ 60 per barrel or above, many companies can still make money with oil at $ 50 or $ 40. However, some cannot.

The impact of the crisis in China

And then January 2020 came along, with the explosion of the coronavirus epidemic in China. This led to the freezing of the Chinese economy, and the consequent collapse of (already low) oil prices due to drastic demand cuts by its biggest customer. This was bad news for all oil producers and exporters; but really horrible news for the shale oil sector in the US that depends on relatively high crude prices (at least $ 50 per barrel on average) to stay profitable.

Saudi Russia price war

Well, if this were not bad enough, on the heels of the China problem came an unexpected price war between the two main world exporters: Saudi Arabia and Russia. They would not continue their cooperation based on agreed upon production cuts aimed at supporting global oil prices. In fact, with no deal, they decided to turn all the taps on, this way flooding an already over supplied oil market, with a consequent additional price drop.

Well, if oil at $ 40 per barrel was very bad news for many US shale oil producers, you can imagine the impact of oil at $ 25 per barrel, or lower. This is an unmitigated disaster, in the context of a suddenly deteriorated US and world economy.

If this oil price slump lasts much longer, you can expect many bankruptcies, and tens of thousands of American oil workers out of a job, with negative cascading effects on the hundreds of suppliers and vendors that depend heavily on vibrant energy companies buying pipes, drilling equipment, valves, pumps, and what not. Expect collapsed demand for all these oil services, parts and components companies. And, as a sad consequence of all this, expect additional misery and negative ripple effects on so many local economies that had done very well on account of the money brought in by the oil business.

Price war cannot last much longer

The only hope in all this is that this price war cannot last very long because it is unsustainable for both Saudi Arabia and Russia. Indeed, while both countries’ oil industries can still make money even at these extraordinarily low oil prices, both governments cannot afford this.

Russia based its spending plans on oil at $ 50 per barrel. Saudi Arabia needs oil at $ 80 to finance its rather ambitious economic diversification agenda. Here is the thing. Revenue generated by foreign oil sales is almost all these two countries got. Russia may be somewhat better placed, but is not in a great position.

US shale sector will take time to recover

Yes, for a while at least, both countries can dip into their dollar reserves to finance the cash shortfall caused by drastically reduced oil revenues. But not indefinitely. In all this, the US shale oil sector is getting hit pretty hard, because its operating costs are much higher than current oil prices.

No way that companies that need oil to be at $ 40 per barrel just to stay alive can keep going much longer with crude hovering around $ 20. In the end, the US shale sector will survive. But only after undergoing painful bankruptcies and consolidations after which only the fittest will make it.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC.




Can Tesla Make It?

By Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – Tesla’s recent massive stock price rise has no rational explanation. Believe it or not, electric vehicles (EVs) manufacturer Tesla now is worth more than the combined value of General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler. It is worth almost the same as Volkswagen and BMW combined. And yet the company produced only 500,000 cars last year, and has yet to be consistently profitable for at least a year. How is this possible? Clearly many of those who buy and hold Tesla’s stock are part of something akin to a cult, rather than savvy, rational investors. And yet, Tesla is no cult or joke. Far from it.

There is something there

There is definitely something “there”, there. But the something is not what most normal people are looking for: that is a well-structured manufacturing company that has a credible business plan that demonstrates when and how this car maker will become consistently profitable, this way rewarding its investors.

With Tesla, the usual parameters do not apply. And yet, at some point the company will have to become profitable. Yes, of course; but it is not clear when this will happen. Thus far, Tesla’s faithful investors are willing to believe that this will happen “soon”. Even though they do not know when, they are willing to believe this. So, is this EVs manufacturer a hallucination, a dream, or –worse– a hoax?

The fact is that nobody knows for sure what Tesla is.

Musk broke all the rules

That said, what we do know for sure is that Elon Musk, Tesla’s co-founder and CEO, successfully broke all the rules, and single handedly upended the entire automotive industry. And this is most welcome.

All analysts would agree that, before Tesla, electric vehicles were a dream, at best a concept, something we could think about, but whose time had not come yet.

Making EVs a reality

Well, Elon Musk made the EV dream a reality. Starting from scratch, his company designed and made appealing, interesting electric vehicles that people actually wanted to buy. Sure enough, he smartly took advantage of politically motivated subsidies in the form of federal and state tax brakes that increased the appeal of EVs. That was a big help, especially at the beginning.

Still, it is a fact that Tesla over time managed to design and produce models that are becoming cheaper, more efficient, with increased mileage per battery charge. In other words, thanks to Tesla, EVs are much closer to becoming truly competitive vis-a-vis even the most efficient, traditional internal combustion engine vehicles.

The battle is still on

I realize that the epochal battle for market dominance has not been won yet. Especially at a time of very low oil prices, and consequently cheap gasoline, the challenge to make EVs that are more cost-effective than traditional gasoline powered cars is huge. But it seems that Tesla is constantly working on refining its products. Can they make better, cheaper, more efficient batteries? Can they further reduce production costs? I have no idea. And I truly believe that nobody really knows for sure.

Musk is a genuine innovator

But I would like to bet on Elon Musk’s abilities. Whatever you can say about his bluster, braggadocio, exaggerations, wild predictions and what not, this successful South African immigrant is an extremely welcome addition to an uninspiring American industrial scene made out of unimaginative leaders who in most cases are at best capable of tweaking and fine tuning old stuff.

Think about it. The internal combustion engine is a more than 100 years old invention. It is most disappointing that no truly radical innovation has been produced by the major brands that have been designing and producing cars for decades.

It took Elon Musk –an immigrant and a complete outsider, with zero prior experience in the automotive sector– to shake up the entire industry. For that alone Musk deserves a great deal of credit.

Tesla opened a new chapter

Tesla opened a new chapter. It creatively linked renewable energy, automotive technology, sophisticated electronics, and more into a new way to think about personal transportation. Whatever your opinion about Tesla’s viability as a profit-making company, we should all welcome bold innovation.

Of course, being bold and daring does not always mean being right. Eventually the numbers will have to validate the new formula. However, for the time being, most Tesla investors are willing to suspend judgement. They are willing to believe the seemingly impossible, if not outright absurd. And, in the end, they may be proven wrong.

But, whatever Tesla’s future, I still believe that Elon Musk is a genuine trail blazer. With zero assurances of success, he dared to go where no one else would. That by itself is a great achievement, and (I hope) a powerful source of inspiration for all the would-be innovators in the United States.

Same old, same old does not do it anymore.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC.




Self-Driving Electric Cars Coming Soon

By Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – Imagine this: affordable, driverless electric cars, EVs. This would be the true game changer for urban transportation and urban living. I say “would be” because this revolution, prophesized and announced many times, has not quite arrived. We know that there has been significant technological progress in these areas in the last few years; but not enough to make this vision into a reality. Still, I am hopeful that some day we shall see it.

When the revolution comes

If and when these affordable, autonomous EVs will hit the road, the impact of this radical technological revolution will be immense. I am not just talking about the environmental gains deriving from zero emissions electric engines, and therefore the overall reduction of greenhouse gases and significant air quality improvements in all large urban areas.

The real game changer will be that most people will no longer want to own a car, because hiring one will be very easy, and very cheap. Hence a true revolution in the way most of us will deal with all personal mobility needs, especially in large urban areas.

Changes in the way we think of mobility and cars

Even today, relying only on established, gasoline powered cars driven by humans who need to be paid for their driving, the availability of app-connected transportation services like Uber and Lyft convinced many city dwellers that calling a vehicle via smart phone whenever needed is easier and probably cheaper than owning and driving your own car.

How so? Uber of course is not free. However, for many users who rely on Uber or equivalent services any app-connected car service is more cost-effective than going through the trouble of buying and keeping a car.

It is true that you have to pay for each Uber ride, while you pay only a little (the cost of gasoline) each time you drive your own car. Still, you have to consider all the costs connected with owning a vehicle. You have to factor the substantial cost of the initial purchase, plus the cost of registration, insurance, parking, fuel, ordinary (oil changes) and extraordinary maintenance, (new tires, new brakes, new transmissions). Then add odds and ends like the cost of parking tickets, (some people collect many of those), the cost and aggravation caused by possible car accidents, and then the aggravation of the daily stress of driving on congested roads, and all of a sudden the Uber option, while it has a price, seems more cost-effective, at least for some.

Driverless, electric Uber

Well, if relying on smart phone connected car services as opposed to owning a car is the emerging trend today, imagine the appeal of this car hire option in a not so distant future in which your Uber or equivalent vehicle will have an electric engine and no driver. These radical innovations obviously will mean very low operating costs for the service provider, hence much lower fees charged to users, and guaranteed, fast 24 hour service.

The rides will be cheaper because there will be no payments to a human doing the driving. Besides, the driverless car will stay on the road day and night. It does not get sick and it does not need to take a break. And the cost of the electric charges will be much lower than gasoline.

The future of personal mobility

So, here is tomorrow’s scenario. Think of driverless EVs that will be on the road almost 24/7, (taking a break only for the time necessary to recharge the car’s battery). Since these vehicles will cost much less to operate, the companies providing the service will be able to pass on to the consumers significant savings.

And this will mean that almost anybody will be able to afford rides, probably several rides a day. At the same the service providers will be able to guarantee that there will be plenty of vehicles constantly on the road available to quickly meet demand for rides. And this means almost no wait time for your ride.

No more need for private cars

In this new scenario, for the vast majority of urban dwellers, owning a private vehicle will become unnecessary, because all mobility needs will be easily and inexpensively met by driverless EVs. If this is so, let’s think about the significant ripple effects of this radical reorientation of consumers’ preferences.

Fewer cars

As a result of all this, there will be a complete restructuring of the automobile industry. Only EVs will be manufactured, of course; but fewer of them, because it will no longer be one vehicle per individual driver. One vehicle on the road 24/7 will serve many customers during the day. This will mean far fewer cars on the road. And probably improved road safety, because driverless vehicles will not get distracted, they will not cause accidents. They will not be under the influence of alcohol. They will not be tired and sleepy.

Empty parking garages

Furthermore, far fewer cars constantly in circulation will mean plenty of redundant parking spaces. In most large cities enormous parking garages have been built for commuters. They are filled every day by tens of thousands of cars parked there by commuters. In the future commuters will be able to rely on services provided by driverless cars, therefore all these parking lots and garages will sit empty. This will create an opportunity for re-purposing a great deal of valuable urban real estate.

A better future

So, here the picture. No more private automobiles on the roads, or at least far, far fewer of them. And this means that the substantial capital devoted by millions of individuals to purchasing a vehicles will be used for other goals. Besides, given far fewer cars on the road, there will be no more road congestion, and no more street noise caused by the internal combustion engines and related air pollution. And, finally, no more stressed out drivers/workers who have to fight the traffic twice a day, every day, commuting to and from their work places. All in all, with the driverless EV doing the driving, this will translate into a much more enjoyable, more relaxing urban life experience for millions of people across the globe.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC




Raising The Temperature In The Middle East

By Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – After the unexpected airstrike that killed IRGC General Qassem Soleimani, right outside the Baghdad airport, analysts began speculating what Trump’s end game may be. In other words, is this just an ill-conceived, spur of the moment decision? Or is this targeted assassination of the master mind of all the Iran-led irregular forces operating with impunity in the Middle East part of a carefully orchestrated US “plan”?

Recalculations about America’s will are in order

I have no idea. However, I would say that this brazen attack that eliminated the most significant and most revered leader of Iran’s international mischief will probably cause some rethinking on the part of those who have come to believe that America is a hesitant giant, essentially impotent when targeted by non state actors.

Well, not so impotent, it turns out. I would speculate that Soleimani was killed in some measure because he got used to traveling from Iranian fiefdom to Iranian fiefdom, (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen), without too much concern about his own safety. In other words, being at the head of a victorious and unchallenged unconventional military force, made Soleimani arrogant. It made him believe that he was invincible, that he could safely move around almost anywhere in the region.

Here is the thing. Going forward, the accepted narrative of a rather passive and impotent America, incapable of reacting to stealthy attacks that do not leave clear footprints, no longer applies. Not just Iran, but all America’s enemies should take all this into account.

Making things worse in the Middle East?

Sure enough, this sensational killing caused all sorts of speculations regarding possible reverberations on the volatile Middle East, already torn by conflicts and insurrections. Trump has been accused by Joe Biden, would be Democratic nominee for the presidency, of having thrown a stick of dynamite into a powder keg, or something like that.

Sure, this American action raises the temperature in the region. But the most feared consequence of a major Middle East crisis, sky rocketing oil prices, will not happen. As Holman W. Jenkins noted in a recent piece in The Wall Street Journal, the unrelated American fracking revolution, by substantially increasing US oil production, completely transformed global oil markets.

There is plenty of oil

In other words, today the world should not be overly concerned with any disruption of the flow of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The difference between 10 0r 15 years ago and today is that America –until not long ago a major oil importer– is now the largest oil producer in the world. Yes, the US produces more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia. While America still imports oil, it buys most of it from Canada, not from the Persian Gulf.

This fantastic increase of America’s oil production has had and will have significant geopolitical consequences. A very big one is to have down graded the strategic importance of the Middle East as an oil producing region, and therefore the possible negative impact of Iranian actions targeting Middle Eastern oil facilities on the world economy.

Nothing happened after Iran attack Saudi oil facilities

If you recall, a few months ago, the Iranians launched a surprise attack against major Saudi oil installations, knocking down with one shot about 50% of Saudi Arabia’s oil output. Well, what happened? Not much. Yes, oil prices went up, for a few days. But then, when the analysts were reassured that there was plenty of extra supply in global energy markets, oil prices went down again.

I am not suggesting that the Middle East has become irrelevant, far from it. What I am suggesting is that Iranian threats and possible attacks against oil are not as dangerous as they used to be in an era of tight supplies and enormous needs for imported oil on the part of the United States.

Iran is not the winning champion

Yes, after the stinging loss of Soleimani, its revered military leader, we should be prepared for something really nasty coming out of Iran. But let us not forget that Iran is not Stalin’s Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany at the height of its power.

Iran is an impoverished police state, stricken by US economic sanctions. It is a country in which an increasingly recalcitarting population, notwithstanding the obvious threats of imprisonment, torture or death, still engage in spontaneous protests against the high cost of food and other basic necessities. While we should not underestimate its resourcefulness, today’s Iran is not exactly an unbeatable champion.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC




When The Coal Mine Closed Down

By Paolo von Schirach

WASHINGTON – Not long ago, I read a vivid account of a small town in West Virginia facing the demise of a coal mine, the major employer in the area. It is a real tragedy. Many people in the small town worked there. Their families depended on their salaries; while the entire local economy thrived because of the money coming directly or indirectly from the mining operation. No mine, no nothing. Only semi-desperate unemployed miners, empty stores, empty restaurants. You get the idea.

Gas is cheaper and cleaner

And why did the mine close down? Mostly because of the competition created by cheaper, super abundant, (and much cleaner), natural gas as the new fuel of choice for electric power generation plants. Considering lower prices and lower emissions, utilities across America have been switching to natural gas.

Hence the slow demise of coal. Quite frankly, from a most elementary economic stand point, this switch from coal to natural gas makes perfect sense. Having a choice, utilities go for the fuel that costs less and pollutes less.

Indeed, as a nation, we should be extremely grateful to the entrepreneurs who a couple of decades ago unleashed this incredible “fracking revolution” and created this almost unthinkable natural gas bonanza. Once gas poor, America has now so much natural gas that it is exporting it, with obvious advantages for our balance of trade.

No reason to be happy

However, if you grew up and live now in that West Virginia community, you have no reason to be happy. The coal mine was all they had; and now it is gone. How are the people going to create, out of nothing, a new local economy that will provide income and a decent standard of living for all? The reality is that this is almost impossible.

Creative destruction

Capitalism is a process of “creative destruction”. Unfortunately the “creation” and thedestruction” components are not nicely harmonized. There is no “system” that will guarantee that when jobs are lost because a new technology has made the old one obsolete, (or as in this case a better fuel becomes available this way replacing the old one), enough new, well-paying jobs will be created, just when they are needed.

In the end, if one looks at the big picture, if an innovative economy works, eventually the entire society will be better off. New technologies mean new and better products or services. New investments mean higher productivity and higher salaries. Yes, this is true…eventually.

What about the victims?

In the meantime, what will be the fate of this West Virginia rural community now that their main source of income has disappeared, victim of the “destruction” component of “creative destruction”? Unfortunately, as a society we have not managed to create the necessary shock absorbers, the transition tools that could eliminate or at least alleviate the frictions caused by painful economic change affecting people with no defenses.

Sure enough, in America we have retraining programs, vocational schools, Community Colleges, and more. But these resources are scattered. They are not well organized. Most tragically, usually they are not available when and where they are needed the most.

A future smart society will provide tools

A future smart society should have this reassuring message for all workers: “Do not worry. If you lose your current job, and this is quite possible given the rapid pace of change in this hyper competitive global economy, we have many resources for you. You will quickly learn new skills. You will become employable in new sectors where there is a strong demand for qualified workers. You will be OK. Your family will be OK.”

Sadly, we do not have anything like this in place today in America. Yes, there is unemployment compensation, food stamps, Medicaid, and other state or federal subsidies. But these are just bandaids. These are no long term solutions.

May God help those poor people in that West Virginia small community. Without the coal mine they are lost.




US Kicks Gazprom In The Shin

By Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – It looks like a clever Washington move. The US Government just put on notice any company involved in laying pipes underwater that they should immediately stop work on the Gazprom Nord Stream 2 pipeline designed to deliver Russian gas to Northern Germany, and beyond via the Baltic Sea. If they do not stop, they will face US sanctions. Allseas, the Dutch-Swiss company directly involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipe-laying operations, immediately signaled that it would comply, in order to avoid US sanctions. Hence the halting of the pipeline project, just as it was close to completion.

Last minute effort to stop Nord Stream 2

Well, what’s this all about? This is about the American determination to prevent the completion of this Russian pipeline, even though Germany and many other EU countries openly want it, because Washington fears that Russian dominance of the European energy markets will give Moscow a dangerous degree of influence in European affairs.

Besides, for years Washington has been pointing out that this Nord Stream 2 pipeline has the clear geopolitical goal to divert to this new pipeline Russian gas now flowing to Eastern Europe via pipelines transiting through Ukraine. Upon completion of Nord Stream 2, the same Russian gas destined to European markets will no longer go to Eastern Europe via Ukraine. It will be shipped to Europe via Nord Stream 2. This way, with implicit European complicity, Russia will isolate Ukraine, while selling the same gas to its willing European customers.

The Europeans know what’s going on

Let me stress here that the Europeans (ostensibly our Allies) know very well that this is exactly what is going on. Russia wants to hit Ukraine and figured out a clever way to prevent it from collecting the transit fees for the Russian gas passing through it on its way to Eastern Europe and beyond.

But now America, with the threat of sanctions, stopped the whole thing. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline will not be completed; and the wily Russians got a bloody nose. Well, not really.

Nord Stream 2 will be done

Sure enough, this is a major inconvenience for Gazprom and Moscow that most likely will cause a significant delay and cost overruns for the mega-project now almost completed. But there is no doubt that in the end Nord Stream 2 will be done. Notwithstanding the aggravation and the additional costs, Russia seems to have the vessels that can step in and lay the pipes, so that the project will be finished, at some point.

Only a gesture

So, what is this fracas about sanctions all about? Quite frankly, at best, this is a gesture on the part of the US. I do not see much substance here. Frankly, it is odd for Washington to try to stop our fully consenting NATO allies, who really want this energy project with roguish Russia, (up to no good in Ukraine and elsewhere), simply because we say that it is bad for them.

The reality is that via these targeted sanctions the US can certainly delay this Nord Stream 2 project; but it cannot not stop it altogether. In the meantime, Europe sees us as bullies trying to impose our own views on them, while the EU and NATO countries engaged in this venture with Russia apparently see nothing wrong in doing business with Russia, while abetting its clear design to hurt Ukraine.

No unified view on energy policies within NATO

Sadly, the problem here is not about this ill-advised pipeline aimed primarily at hurting Ukraine. The problem is that the very existence of this project, with full European participation, (the Germans in the lead), illustrates the inability to have a cohesive, unified view of what constitutes a threat to European security, and more broadly to NATO.

An empty gesture that will drive the US and Europe further apart

This clever US move to stop the work on the pipeline looks to me like an empty gesture that at best will delay completion of this energy project. However, we can rest assured that this American blatant interference in a deal freely struck between our NATO Allies and Russia will only engender more anti-American animosities in Europe, and not the necessary reappraisal of what we, as NATO Alliance, consider to be a serious threat to our security when it comes to energy, or other critical areas.




US Will Soon Be The Number One LNG Exporter

Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – Energyindepth, www.energyindepth.org recently stated that the world is witnessing a major energy supply revolution. The United States, until a few years ago destined to become a major natural gas importer, is now slated to become the world’s number one exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG.

New geopolitics of energy

The website made this point also quoting the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based group of major energy consumers: “The growth of U.S. natural gas production – led by increased shale production – has been transformative, not only domestically but globally. And it’s only the beginning. As IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol recently said:

“The second wave of the U.S. shale revolution is coming. It will see the United States account for 70 percent of the rise in global oil production and some 75 percent of the expansion in LNG trade over the next five years.  This will shake up international oil and gas trade flows, with profound implications for the geopolitics of energy.”

US as LNG exports leader

While the US is now the world leading oil producer, let us focus here on the vastly increased American LNG export capacity. New US LNG terminals have been completed, and additional ones will come on line very soon. As a result the US, already the world number three LNG exporter, (behind Qatar and Australia), in a few years will become number one.

While this is good for business, it is obvious that this new role of America as key energy supplier will have important geopolitical implications, as this surge in LNG exports is not just a temporary phenomenon. Indeed, the undeniable fact is that the world will rely on large amounts of natural gas for decades to come.

The world will continue to rely on gas

Realistically, it is clear that notwithstanding pledges to cut down the use of fossil fuels in order to combat global warming there is no way to achieve a rapid shift to non-carbon energy sources within the foreseeable future. It is just technically impossible. And it is also clear that affordable natural gas, used largely as electric power generation feed stock, is and will be the fuel of choice for many energy poor countries. Besides, it pollutes a lot less than coal. Therefore, from an environmental protection perspective, it is the least damaging among the fossil fuels.

Taking all this into account, the world will continue to rely on natural gas as feed stock for electric power generation, heating, and much more for decades.

Vast geopolitical implications

Of course, this sustained demand for gas is about new or expanding markets for the US energy business. However, it is obvious that there are and there will also be significant geopolitical implications. Indeed, US growing LNG exports will be a factor in reshaping commercial and political relations with many Asian countries and Europe.

New markets in Asia

For example, India desperately needs additional energy supplies for its energy starved population, now exceeding 1.3 billion. When it comes to electric power generation, India still largely relies on dirty coal, with horrible environmental repercussions in terms of staggering air pollution levels in most large urban areas. Switching over to natural gas is a necessity for India. The availability of increasing amounts of US LNG will make this transition away from coal a bit easier; while a new, robust energy trade will strengthen overall ties. Likewise, Japan and South Korea, traditional US allies and always net energy importers, also need gas. The opportunity to buy additional quantities of US LNG will strengthen the bonds with these two key Asian countries.

Of course, energy poor China could also be a major buyer of US LNG. But the political relationship between the US and China is bad, and not destined to improve any time soon. Therefore do not expect China to be a major buyer of US LNG. (China is focusing now on a significant increase of imported Russian gas, via new pipelines).

More LNG to Europe will counter Russian dominance

Another important market for US LNG will be Europe. All projections indicate that natural gas consumption in Europe will stay flat. However, European sources of natural gas (originating from Norway and The Netherlands), are dwindling, while much of Europe relies heavily on imported Russian natural gas supplied via a variety of pipelines, old (via Ukraine) and new (via the Baltic Sea). Some European countries see no problem in this significant energy dependence on Russia, while others feel uneasy, given the history of Russian meddling in Eastern Europe and beyond.

Given these geopolitical concerns, some European countries, most notably Poland and the Baltic States, look very favorably at the opportunity to diversify their natural gas imports by increasing US LNG purchases. For the time being, US LNG exports to Europe are modest, and so they do not shift the overall pattern of large purchases from Russia.

New flexibility

However, the very fact that several European buyers of Russian gas now have a new purchasing option –US LNG– that simply did not exist until a few years ago, gave flexibility and better bargaining power to the Europeans. As a result, Russia in many instances was forced to lower its prices, as a way to fend off US LNG competition. Going forward, as US LNG export capacity increases and the price differential between LNG and Russian piped gas shrinks, expect additional European purchases of US LNG.

Increased US influence around the world

All in all, the fact that the United States already is today –and will be even more so in the years to come– the leading, dependable exporter of liquefied natural gas, a vital, relatively clean, energy source, will increase American influence around the world, and will help strengthen political ties with key countries in Asia and in Europe.

Yankee Ingenuity

Not so bad overall, considering that this US natural gas (and oil) revolution originated out of the dogged persistence of a small band of American “frackers” who believed that oil and gas could be profitably extracted from shale formations, when all the energy experts and the big energy companies stated that it was absolutely impossible.

Three Cheers for Yankee Ingenuity!




The Fake Aramco IPO

By Paolo von Schirach

WASHINGTON – There were great expectations about the Aramco IPO. It was announced long ago by Saudi authorities, and then postponed several times. Well, now we know why it took so long, and why in the end the IPO did not take place in New York or London. Indeed, the Saudi government, the sole owner of this energy giant, could not be sure about the response of savvy international investors. Would they really buy shares at a price that implies an overall $ 2 trillion valuation for Aramco? May be not. And so the Saudis decided to play it safe. They would do this at home, in an environment and with investors they could control. And so they used the Riyadh Tadawul stock exchange (where less than 200 stocks are traded) as the venue for this “historic” IPO.

Home made IPO

And, sure enough, the compliant, super wealthy Saudi elites bought the Aramco shares at the set price and bid up the stock so that Aramco would reach the $ 2 trillion valuation This choice of venue and how all this was arranged tells us that this is is no genuine IPO.

This is a (forced?) purchase, at a preset, dubious valuation of a very small number of Aramco shares by a few wealthy Saudis and some Saudi companies. Prince Mohammad Bin Sultan, MBS, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, wanted the valuation of Aramco –no doubt the world’s largest energy conglomerate– to be at or close to $ 2 trillion. And so the shares had to be priced accordingly, and the compliant buyers –all of them Saudis– had to pay and sustain that price.

Not the real thing

Anyway, because of all this maneuvering, it is clear that this is not a genuine IPO in which the market eventually sets the value of the newly offered company based on available, scrutinized financial data and on their interpretation of market trends.

This IPO is a Saudi government gimmick aimed at getting essentially free cash in exchange for a tiny sliver of Aramco for which several compliant Saudi buyers paid a preset political (and therefore most likely inflated) price.

The risks involved in a real IPO

If Saudi Arabia had wanted to attract serious international buyers, it would have had to disclose a lot more, and then let the market decide what the value of Aramco really is. But this orthodox approach carried the risk of a lower overall valuation for Aramco after the IPO, had investors decided that the company, however enormous and certainly very valuable, is not worth $ 2 trillion. And this would have hurt the prestige of the Saudi Kingdom. For Saudi Arabia, Aramco is “it”. There is not much else in the Kingdom beyond oil and oil products.

Cognizant of these risks, MBS opted for a safe IPO. The offering took place at home, in Saudi Arabia, using the tiny Saudi stock exchange. The Saudi elites were persuaded (forced?) to buy the Aramco shares, so that the government could prove to the world that Aramco is the most valuable company on earth. In other words, this is about propaganda, and therefore the IPO is not serious.

What is Aramco’s true market value?

There is no doubt that Aramco is an energy giant. In fact, “the” energy giant. But, based on all we know about the company and most importantly about the future of global oil demand and oil prices in this new era of electric vehicles and carbon taxes, what is a fair valuation for Aramco? Is it close to to $ 2 trillion as the “local buyers only” IPO would suggest? Or is it less, perhaps half of that, as many analysts indicated? We did not know for sure before this IPO, and we still do not know today.

Clearly, executing a proper IPO in an internationally recognized exchange would have exposed the Saudi government to the scrutiny of international investors, and therefore a possible embarrassment, had investors decided that the shares were too expensive and consequently the touted $ 2 trillion pre IPO valuation excessive. In order to guarantee a “success” MBS engineered this “friends and family only” IPO.

Big questions about the Saudi reform agenda

That said, one thing is clear. If the manner in which this long delayed IPO took place is illustrative of the seriousness of MBS’ ambitious economic reform agenda for Saudi Arabia, I am not impressed; and consequently not very optimistic about the future success of MBS’ plans to diversify and grow the non-oil Saudi economy.




Thanks to Fracking, No Panic in the US After The Attacks on Saudi Oil

by Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – The most astonishing consequence of the unprecedented, devastating attack on Saudi Arabia which crippled the Kingdom’s oil production and refining facilities is what did not happen, especially in the USA.

There was no panic in the US or worldwide; no skyrocketing, out of control oil prices. Yes, crude prices went up, significantly; but not in a dramatic way, if you consider that the supplies of Saudi Arabia, the leading world exporter, (along with Russia), have just been cut down by 50%! That 50% represents 5% of total world supply. In an environment where strong demand matched tight supply, this sudden shortfall would be a disaster, especially for the US, along with China the leading oil consumer. But right now world oil supplies are not stretched, notwithstanding steady demand, thanks to the US fracking revolution which added millions of barrels of oil a day to global energy markets. More on this in a moment.

Surprise but no shock

Obviously, world markets took this unexpected and sadly successful attack against well defended (we all thought) and vitally important Saudi oil facilities quite seriously. But again, there was no panic; no stock market crazy gyrations. In contrast, you can rest assured that if the very same attack on Saudi Arabia had taken place 10 or 15 years ago, the reaction would have been chaos and mayhem –especially in Washington, DC and on Wall Street. Similar shortfalls caused the oil crises of 1973-74 and 1979.

What happened in the last 15 years?

So, what is the difference between now and then? The difference is the US fracking revolution. The almost unthinkable surge in US oil and gas production made possible by the adoption of fracking technologies by many US energy companies , (a successful combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling), which began 10 to 15 years ago has given the United States millions of additional barrels of oil a day; and, as a consequence, also a much higher degree of energy self-sufficiency. Not total self-sufficiency, mind you, but close. Heavy reliance on distant (and it turns out not so reliable) oil suppliers was drastically diminished along with massive increases in domestic oil production. 

The broader impact of the US fracking
revolution

This gigantic increase in domestic oil and gas production made possible by extracting oil and gas from shale formations, coupled with increased oil imports from Canada, a friendly neighbor, have created a new scenario of quasi “Hemispheric Energy Independence”. In simple terms, North America, (Canada, USA and Mexico combined), can soon become energy self-sufficient.

Let’s be clear, we are not there yet. But we are almost there. The US still imports some OPEC oil, as well as crude from other regions of the world, but most of the oil we consume now in America is either domestically produced or imported from reliable neighbors.

Relaxed atmosphere

Hence the relatively relaxed atmosphere both in Washington and on Wall Street, in the aftermath of the attack on Saudi oil facilities, when it comes to confidence in our ability to ensure continuity of energy supplies to industry and consumers.

Notwithstanding the shockingly bad news of the brazen attacks that knocked down half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production and refining facilities, with the ensuing cuts in global supplies, there is no panic in America.

This is an incredibly important achievement. And we owe this to a multitude of small, medium and some large fracking companies that are behind this American energy revolution.

Global benefits

And the fracking revolution obviously benefits the rest of the world as well. Since America’s imports have been cut down by millions of barrels a day, there is more oil in the global market place available to all other importers. Abundant supply means lower energy prices for all, ample reserves, and (almost) guaranteed deliveries to all importers.

So, here is the story. Thanks to fracking and massively increased US oil production, even an unprecedented, catastrophic event like the attack on Saudi oil facilities can be handled without resorting to extraordinary measures such as price controls, rationing, etc.

A private sector effort

Where am I going with all this? Very simple. Fracking was not a US government program. Fracking is all about old fashioned Yankee ingenuity. The US private sector, often small energy entrepreneurs, largely unhindered by suffocating state or federal rules and restrictions, had the freedom to invest in drilling in shale –an endeavor what at the beginning seemed to most experts a perfectly crazy idea, destined to failure.

Well, the seasoned experts were wrong. After a few years of trial and error, the daring energy entrepreneurs were proven right, and America now –thanks to fracking—is in the midst of this incredible “Energy Renaissance”. This huge additional domestic production, in this moment of international bewilderment caused by the brazen attacks on Saudi oil facilities, provides precious support and reassurance to both the US economy and US national security.

Broader lesson: encourage free enterprise

So, here is the broader lesson. As a Nation, let us do all we can to encourage more innovation and entrepreneurship –in all sectors. Do not place roadblocks on the path of those who seek to create new products, new systems and new solutions. And I am not just talking about energy here. I am talking about all economic sectors.

Sure, all
economic activities have to be conducted within the boundaries of the law,
while they have to comply with all necessary safety and public health
standards. These are the common sense rules of a modern, civilized society.
But, once reassured that there is genuine compliance with the basic norms of
our nation, let people be free to do what they want to do.

In the case of fracking we see the enormous economic and now national security benefits brought about by daring spirits, ingenuity and enterprise. About other economic sectors, God only knows what new benefits commercially viable innovation may bring to us.