[[{“value”:”
ENERGY REALITIES EPISODE #99 – Live Monday, Feb 19 – 8:00 AM CT – “Can we trust the Data?”
Highlights of the Podcast:
01:18 – The International Energy Agency
05:46 – The coal power plants
07:45 – Direct air capture
10:35 – The wealth transfer for the green.
13:35 – The Ember data
15:42 – The Permian is dying
16:57 – The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in Canada
22:05 – America’s ESG hiring boom is starting to cool.
23:22 – Cancellations threaten Biden’s 2030 offshore wind target
25:28 – Mainland China’s Stock Exchanges
27:34 – Does the SEC climate rule really matter? Investors will still demand disclosure.
30:03 – ‘They lied’: plastics producers deceived public about recycling, report reveals
33:15 – EV batteries
40:28 – The Rockefeller fund
44:20 – The World Health Organization
The Podcast Hosts for The Energy Transition
Armondo Cavanha LinkedIn:
Irina Slav, Energy Writer LinkedIn:
David Blackmon, Consultant, Writer, speaker, podcaster, miner of absurdities LinkedIn:Tammy Nemeth, Energy Consulting Specialists LinkedIn: Stu Turley, CEO, Podcast Host, Legend in his own mind LinkedIn:
Blubrry Podcast:
ENERGY REALITIES EPISODE #99 – Live Monday, Feb 19 – 8:00 AM CT – “Can we trust the Data?”
David Blackmon [00:00:01] We live. Hey! We’re live. Look at that.
[00:00:04] Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:00:04] Hey. Welcome, everybody to the Energy Realities podcast for Monday. What is today, February 19th, 2024. It’s Presidents Day in the United States, but not, not in Bulgaria, where Irina Slav is not in the UK, where Tammy Nemeth is. And, it is in Oklahoma, where Stu Turley is. Are you in Texas today?
Stuart Turley [00:00:25] I’m in Dallas today.
David Blackmon [00:00:26] So you’re in Dallas today. Okay. Well, you’re not too far from me in Mansfield, Texas. Here we are. I’m David Blackmon, your your host for today. I guess I’m the moderator of this deal. We’ll see how that goes for me today. Our topic is can we trust the numbers related to the energy transition? We’re kind of concerned about, numbers coming out of the IEA mainly, but also I think for from the EIA to some extent, are these agencies that are supposed to be providing the numbers surrounding the energy transition really reliable? And I think it’s especially relevant, to us this week because the EIA last week celebrated its 50th anniversary. 50 years ago last week, the International Energy Agency was created by, I don’t know, they have something like 140 countries now who are subscribers to it? Supporters of it help fund it. It was initially created to, do studies and research and, and produce, accurate data surrounding oil supply and demand globally. Its, mission was expanded, over the past decade, to now branch out, into other branches of the energy space and provide accurate data supposedly related to those. And, was it Tammy? Was it you who circulated the the link to a story, this morning that, the the agency’s mission was expanded seems to have been expanded at their celebratory meeting last week.
Tammy Nemeth [00:02:14] Yeah. I subscribe to the International Energy Agency’s newsletter. And of course, because of the big ministerial last week celebrating the 50th and it’s they do this every year where the ministers and whatnot get together and talk about what the eight year mandate ought to be or whatever, which I find interesting that they keep updating the mandate. It’s like once you have a mandate, you think it would sort of stay the same. But what I found so interesting was that the mandate now, which the energy ministers had agreed on, is that they were going to be what what was the word? Was it enforcing the the outcome of Cop 28? And I thought, well, what does that mean, that or.
David Blackmon [00:02:59] What does that mean.
Tammy Nemeth [00:03:00] Guiding the implementation. What does that mean? Because that’s basically is that saying that an international organization is now going to put each nation’s feet to the fire, to to hold up whatever promises they’ve made at various international meetings? I mean, that seems to be a bit of an abrogation of sovereignty by the nations if they’re permitting that. But, it was unclear to me what it meant to oversee the implementation of these promises. I don’t know, what do you guys think? What does that mean? I just saw that today, and I thought
Irina Slav [00:03:38] Does the.
David Blackmon [00:03:39] Irina
Irina Slav [00:03:40] To to enforce this implementation of Cop 28. How does it do that?
David Blackmon [00:03:46] I don’t know.
Tammy Nemeth [00:03:47] I don’t know. I don’t know. That’s why it seems so strange that this was like the number one thing they identified as being the reevaluation of their mandate. And so it does that mean all of this signatories to the IEA, all the different nations are somehow giving up some authority to the IEA to, to, to help implement. I don’t know.
David Blackmon [00:04:15] You know, one of the things they agreed to at cop 28, let’s remember, there was an agreement not among all the attending nations, but some of them to, get rid of any unabated coal plants that still remain within their countries. Phase those out. What power, what authority does the International Energy Agency have to say as a specific example, enforce that agreement. I can’t think of anything. It’s unimaginable to me that they have any actual authority to do that.
Irina Slav [00:04:50] They don’t. I don’t think they do. And what is unabated? Coal.
Tammy Nemeth [00:04:56] I know, I know.
Irina Slav [00:04:58] What is abated coal. And what is unabated as opposed to, you know, what’s the difference between abated and unabated?
David Blackmon [00:05:05] Right. Because, I mean, if if it plants truly unabated, it means it doesn’t have any scrubbers on it taking out any of the pollution, which there hasn’t been a coal plant built without scrubbers since the 1970s. So, I mean, I can’t believe such a plant even exists to begin with, but I think what they were talking about specifically in that agreement was any new coal plant that doesn’t have carbon capture technology associated with it. Yeah. Which seems kind of ironic to me, since so many of the climate alarmists don’t think carbon capture works.
Irina Slav [00:05:39] Well, they’re actively against it.
David Blackmon [00:05:41] Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:05:41] They’re actively against it, for sure, because, I mean, in Saskatchewan, there’s one of the coal power plants was the basic, example for testing out the technology of carbon capture. And, you know, after ten years or so of trying to figure out all the bugs and everything, they finally have it. So it’s about, I think, 85 to 90% efficient and like it captures 85 to 90% of the emissions. And they they use it for enhanced oil recovery, which drives the the environmental is crazy. They do store some of it permanently, but most of it goes to air. So the technology is getting there. But the environmental is hate it. They hate it because it allows the industry to continue to exist. And I’ve heard them say that I’ve heard different environmental organizations say the whole point is to get rid of the industry. So even with the technology developments, it’s like, no, we don’t want it anyway. Which, which ask yourself why? Why is that? But.
David Blackmon [00:06:46] Well, that’s kind of a new thing. You know, before last year, they wouldn’t admit that that was the goal. But starting last year, the activists in that movement became a lot more vocal about what their movement’s real goals are. And so we’re seeing more and more rhetoric around that, around population, decrease as being a real goal about around the fact that their real goal in transportation is to not to convert you to electric vehicles, but, to convince you never to drive again. Right. And they want to take your cars completely away. And, it’s it’s it’s been really interesting progression, seeing the then become so increasingly bold, with their rhetoric over the last few years.
Irina Slav [00:07:29] Yeah. I never more radical.
David Blackmon [00:07:32] Never more radical. Yes. Stu?.
Stuart Turley [00:07:35] This brings up an interesting oxymoron. Others in me, since I’m the moron of the group here.
David Blackmon [00:07:40] I’m the oxy. You’re the moron.
Stuart Turley [00:07:42] Yeah. You are. And and speaking of oxy, direct air capture. Blackrock. Who is the, king of ESG hypocrisy investing. I think they invented ESG hypocrisy investing. Blackrock invest 550 million world’s largest direct air capture plant. And when you, sit back and take a look at this, it is now a joint venture with Occidental Petroleum Stratus in Ector County, Texas. And I find it amazing that Occidental is peeling out, as David and I have talked about, and they’re going to the ESG direct capture methodology in oil and gas and available for the Inflation Reduction Act, which Dan Bongino calls the particulars. Bill. And I kind of like the particulars bill on this because it’s driving inflation up in particular. This is one of my favorite words. And, hey, shout out to Patrick Devine, but where I’m going with Patrick. Yeah. Patrick, we love Patrick. And so, as we go through this, this animal will remove a ton of CO2 for $600 to $1000. But where this actually plays into a big thing is the regulatory actions, legislation. Right? Legislation through regulatory actions in what they’re charging oil and gas companies. Is oxy going to be the only one immune from these regulatory issues? Could be. And then Warren Buffett just invested, I believe it was 2.7 more million dollars or $27 million just recently. And oxy. I need to go fact check myself.
David Blackmon [00:09:41] Yeah, Buffett loves oxy stock and Chevron.
Stuart Turley [00:09:45] And he he
Irina Slav [00:09:47] This is very funny. What would you say about the price per ton of CO2 with direct air capture? Because, you’ve probably seen the news today that, the price per car of a ton of carbon dioxide in Europe has fallen to a two year low.
David Blackmon [00:10:06] Well, they.
Irina Slav [00:10:07] Expected it to keep climbing. Yeah, it’s fallen to €55. But, when they were expecting, hoping for €100 per ton.
David Blackmon [00:10:16] Of course. Yeah,
Irina Slav [00:10:17] Well, they funded the transition. But now. And what’s really amazing, we are getting so far away from the topic. But anyway,.
David Blackmon [00:10:25] That’s okay.
Stuart Turley [00:10:27] oh, no. Hey, David and Irina and Tammy, I want to ask this opinion because, we sit back and take a look at the wealth transfer for the green. You got the elites out there telling us that we must enjoy wind farms and solar, which, you know, I’m installing wind and solar at my remote place to get off the grid. But when we sit back and take a look, it’s a wealth transfer is the carbon capture and carbon tax the next methodology? Because wind and solar is failing and the investing is failing. Are they now picking this up to try to get back to this? Does that make sense.
Irina Slav [00:11:12] Yeah. And carbon pricing is not working. Which was well I was going to say prices are going lower instead of higher. Right. So the money they had lined up, plans to have lined up for the transition is not there because carbon is getting cheaper rather than more expensive.
David Blackmon [00:11:32] Patrick says, to supplement David’s comment, Blackrock and JPMorgan Chase are thumbing their noses at the ESG requirements. At least some of them. Yeah. But Tammy made a really good point about that. They pulled out of this one ESG banking alliance, right. There’s a whole other one that they haven’t pulled out of. Right, Tammy. Yeah. And so what this really means is they’re doing that for public relations purposes, and nothing is really going to change in terms of their investment philosophy. That’s just that’s just to try to impress all the Republican attorneys general in the various states in the United States that are going after these banks that, for for refusing to finance energy projects. And, it’s really not much more than that. Nothing’s going to change in their strategic approach, I don’t think. Does anyone have a different view on that?
Irina Slav [00:12:25] They are going to lose eventually because JP Morgan is basing its planning. I read a report a few months ago, I can’t remember how long it was. This report by JP Morgan was citing data from Ember, the climate NGO. No treating it as accurate data, which they can use as a foundation for their future investment strategy. Right. I need to really decide to stick with this. But I’m really sorry for them.
David Blackmon [00:13:00] Well, I’m really sorry for their customers and clients, you know?
Irina Slav [00:13:03] That that too.
David Blackmon [00:13:05] Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:13:05] Yeah, yeah. Because it in the end, it’s it’s people, citizens who suffer. It’s not the elites or the policymakers or whatever.
David Blackmon [00:13:13] Right.
Tammy Nemeth [00:13:14] It’s it’s Always.
David Blackmon [00:13:15] always more and most by the poorest.
Stuart Turley [00:13:17] Consumers always get it in the drive through, as I always say. And when you get screwed in the drive through.
David Blackmon [00:13:26] Okay. Back to the topic. Get away from screwing.
Tammy Nemeth [00:13:29] No, but that was good. Because. Irina, mentioned about, you know, JP Morgan using the Ember data. And if we’re talking about, you know, what’s what’s up with numbers, right. Because they’re it what happens when I was thinking about the IEA, for example, is have they gone the way of the mainstream media where, you know, where it’s like they become more of a mouthpiece for certain agendas and whatnot, rather than being a more neutral, analytical body? And I think the Energy Information Administration in the United States has been the most reliable out of all of the different sort of big data groups. Bruegel is pretty good. And, you know, I think Rystad used to be good, but some of their stuff coming out, I’ve kind of been like, well, where’s this come in.
David Blackmon [00:14:21] Weird. Like it was Lindsey both with McCain.
Tammy Nemeth [00:14:25] Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:14:26] Yeah, yeah. So they’ve just gone kind of gone whole hog into, I think, trying to attract clients from the renewable space. And so they
Irina Slav [00:14:36] But they don’t have money. Why don’t want to. That’s right.
David Blackmon [00:14:40] I don’t know. It just seems it’s not just those two. It’s other companies as well that are in the, in the advisory business. One that is I think completely resisted all that is embarrass. And it’s, you know, your point about the EIA, I think is, is really well taken because, you know, that, you know, there’s been a ton of pressure on them to slant their reporting as well. And they have somehow resisted that. And this administration. So good for them.
Irina Slav [00:15:09] Yeah, I mean, even they made mistakes like last year for several months they were projecting lower output from the Permian. Right. Like three months in a row. Instead output grew. Right. I think that fell into the trap that everyone else fell in because, the rig count was lower and they thought this automatically means lower output, which was not the case. So it’s an honest mistake.
David Blackmon [00:15:33] And they they buy the siren song that that recoveries, you know, from the Mark Papa led crowd in the in the oil executives that the Permian is dying. All the good locations have been drilled up per while recoveries are falling when they’re actually rising and and you know, you fall for that and you include it in your assumptions and you’re automatically going to get lower projections that are actually happening. Because for a while recoveries are actually increasing, not declining.
Tammy Nemeth [00:16:02] Yeah, if I can add something to that. So I think one of the other problems with that, there’s one thing to have reported data, you know, this is what the numbers that we’re getting directly from producers or nations or so on. And then there’s the forward looking projections. Yeah. And it’s those forward looking projections that that are problematic in many circumstances. And part of it is the type of modeling that they do. And there’s always issues with computer models depending on what your variables are. What are your what are your inputs, how are you running them and so on. And and that brings me to the point. Well, I guess maybe I should wait, but it’s about climate scenario analysis.
David Blackmon [00:16:44] Yeah. Go ahead
Tammy Nemeth [00:16:45] In Canada, you know, banks and insurers run their own scenario analyzes for different things. Right. And and they will go to people they trust in order to generate these scenarios. But now the office of the superintendent of financial institutions in Canada, they’re the regulator for all the the banks and insurers and pension funds. They want to mandate one standardized scenario analysis for climate that all the financial institutions have to use. And it’s based on the really problematic RCP 8.5 scenario. So it’s like they take the worst scenario and they’re going to mandate that. The financial institutions use this. And I’m thinking, how is that going to be helpful when you’re you’re not even allowing competition amongst banks or financial institutions to say, you know what? We can outcompete that guy because we have better analyzes. We have to.
David Blackmon [00:17:41] Rig the game. It’s gonna rig the game, which is, of course, what they always inevitably end up resorting to in any. I mean, we have to go back to the fact that this is all a socialist, communist global movement. And and they always end up resorting to rigging the system to push their ideology forward. And because, because in the real world, the actual results never conform to the projections. Right. And so they have to rig the system in order to win.
Irina Slav [00:18:16] And but they can’t win if the, you know, the actual. And the way things develop and progress is not the same as those models and that use whatever tells them.
David Blackmon [00:18:34] Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:18:35] The reality will get hopefully in the way. But with respect to RCP 8.5, Roger Pilkey has had, at least 2 or 3 really good Substack posts about it and how it’s and it’s a disproven nobody uses it anymore. It’s a crazy, unrealistic assumption, and I don’t know what weather forecasters use. Good ones would not touch it. The IPCC has said this is so ludicrous we’re not using it anymore. So even the I did IPCC said that. So and you can go to their website and they say we no longer use this, we use RCP 6.5 or whatever. But so they’re not even the IPCC isn’t using it, but the central banks use it. So if you have the central bank saying, well, this is, the business as usual, which is the absolute worst case scenario, implausible. Yeah. And now they’re going to mandate all the Canadian financial institutions to use it. I think it’s just poor Canada.
David Blackmon [00:19:36] And that goes right to the point. Can you trust the data?
Tammy Nemeth [00:19:39] Can you trust the data?
Irina Slav [00:19:40] No.
David Blackmon [00:19:41] No, I think the answer is pretty clearly no. Right.
Irina Slav [00:19:44] It’s robotically manipulated.
David Blackmon [00:19:46] Right. Right. Stu please. Go ahead and try. To get in.
Stuart Turley [00:19:51] I get excited, you guys just have to slap me.
David Blackmon [00:19:53] He’s been. He’s been over there.
Stuart Turley [00:19:55] I do. But, you know, the Biden administration. God bless him. Let’s have a moment of silence for them. Okay, so when we sit back and think, so when we sit back and think, oh my goodness, they manipulated the jobs report. The EIA last year finally had a bunch of rumors that they were manipulating the data for oil and gas pricing. Can we even trust the numbers because of our stupidity in political, things? So it’s not a conspiracy theory when it actually is proven.
David Blackmon [00:20:33] Standing in front of you, slapping you in the face. That’s no longer a theory, right? Yeah. Sorry.
Stuart Turley [00:20:40] I get I get emotional.
David Blackmon [00:20:43] Okay, so I think we have a consensus here. The data is not to be trusted.
Irina Slav [00:20:47] No data.
David Blackmon [00:20:49] No data. So let’s go to the headlines.
Stuart Turley [00:20:51] I want okay, I’ll bring that up. But I just want to share with everybody I typed in on YouTube, in the notes, hashtag cop 28. And our feed stopped on on YouTube.
David Blackmon [00:21:06] Of course.
Irina Slav [00:21:07] Why would you do that?
Stuart Turley [00:21:09] And I asked it. And yes, Google is not trusting the data. I. Sorry, Patrick’s coming in from LinkedIn. So you know, guys. Yes, we prove it again. Right. Let’s go to the news here.
David Blackmon [00:21:26] To the headlines.
Stuart Turley [00:21:28] This would be Irina, I believe
David Blackmon [00:21:30] This is Irina.
Irina Slav [00:21:32] Weren’t this last week’s headlines? Just realize these must be last week’s headlines.
David Blackmon [00:21:41] Oh, no. Are these not the right headlines?
Stuart Turley [00:21:43] Oh. My bad. I’m sorry.
Irina Slav [00:21:45] I got two new ones. Okay. We won’t have them, but I’ll just go through them quickly.
Stuart Turley [00:21:50] Okay. We’ll remove this and then go through your new ones. My bad. Technology. You can shoot me later, please.
Irina Slav [00:21:58] That’s okay. So the first piece of news, I wanted to mention was, a report from the Wall Street Journal that America’s ESG hiring boom is starting to cool. So departures from ESG positions have exceeded arrivals in these positions over the first half of last year. And what I found especially notable is that the most departures and departures happened in big tech and in financial services. My guess is that these were the most active hirers of ESG personnel. Apparently they found out, no doubt with much shock and surprise that these hires do nothing about their bottom line. So now let’s go. And cutting jobs and trying to rein in costs. It’s an amazing development.
David Blackmon [00:22:59] It’s the ultimate overhead, right?
Tammy Nemeth [00:23:03] Wrong place. Can they be replaced by AI? What they’re doing.
Irina Slav [00:23:08] Probably. Oh, wouldn’t that be ironic? I try to find a way to share my screen anyway. And the the other one is. It’s really hilarious. But you’ve probably heard about it that cancellations threaten Biden’s 2030 offshore wind target. Oh, oh, and you’re almost believable. Yeah. Imagine that. Companies that canceling projects. Because even with the promise of more money. The economies are not working out, so they’re pulling out. And this is threatening the agenda. I mean, really, it reminds me of what the UK, did when they’re worried about their carbon prices, that, carbon dioxide was so cheap that it threatened the agenda. It threatened the goals. Seriously, people, if it’s so cheap, it means there’s not so much of it being generated because there’s no demand for energy. And that’s the problem suddenly, suddenly, because you can’t.
David Blackmon [00:24:18] And no one could have seen it coming. Right? I mean, it’s been impossible to see any of the
Irina Slav [00:24:25] Shocking developments. No. Oh, yeah. That was it for me.
Tammy Nemeth [00:24:29] Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:24:31] Patrick, the elite only use data to support their agenda. Well, of course. Yes. Okay. The goal is getting total control of all commerce and industry for the express purpose of climate control. Yes, it is. Absolutely.
Stuart Turley [00:24:43] And, Patrick. Wealth transfer
David Blackmon [00:24:44] And wealth transfer from you and I to the people who control the data.
Tammy Nemeth [00:24:53] Wait until they have the natural assets where they can monetize parkland and whatnot.
David Blackmon [00:25:00] Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:25:01] That one. Catch my chicken. Sorry. Who’s next?
Tammy Nemeth [00:25:07] I don’t know. Can you show?
David Blackmon [00:25:08] I don’t know what the
Tammy Nemeth [00:25:10] Go here. Oh. This one, that’s you, isn’t it? Is. This is mine.
David Blackmon [00:25:18] Okay. What? Go back to Tammy’s.
Stuart Turley [00:25:24] Is that a.
Tammy Nemeth [00:25:25] Yeah. Okay. So the first one is mainland China. Stock exchanges have issued their first guidelines on corporate sustainability disclosure. And that basically means that, the really big stock exchanges in China are requiring various, ESG, data from the companies that are on their stock exchanges, and they’re kind of ruling it out the same way that they did in Europe. So the really large corporations will have to comply with, with, the accounting of climate and sustainability. And I think a lot of it has to do with them accessing the new carbon border adjustment mechanism and the various regulations in Europe. So this is a way to try and I think defang Europe from putting various tariffs and whatnot on China, they’ll say, oh, look, we’re we’re accounting for all of these, these different things that you say. And look, our emissions are really low. And I think I read and I had a little conversation about this last week when I said, can you trust whatever ESG data comes out of China? Because I’m guessing it’s all going to have to run through some sort of, you know, government department the way some data has to in, in other oil producing countries, I think, in particular of Saudi Arabia, anything that’s that’s produced there has to go through a ministry before it’s released to the public. So is this going to be something similar in China, where the corporations will submit all their information to, an authoritative Chinese government department, which will then sign off and say, yes, this is absolutely true. We’ve got the lowest emissions in the world. You know, we’re only using wind and solar to make those EVs and, you know, so on and so forth.
David Blackmon [00:27:13] So you’d be like trusting all that Covid 19 data where they kept saying they had zero deaths from Covid 19 throughout 2020 and 21. Anyway.
Tammy Nemeth [00:27:22] Super trustworthy data, right?
David Blackmon [00:27:24] Yes. Absolutely.
Tammy Nemeth [00:27:27] And then the second story, which I thought was really fascinating because, it came from, I think, Green Biz and, and the headline is does the SEC, the Securities Exchange Commission, Climate rule really matter? Investors will still demand disclosure. And I can say with some confidence that the investors behind all this, because you’re thinking investors such as, I’m, I own different mutual funds is that’s a Canadian one or in my 401K I own these different things. Do I as an investor, care if there’s ESG metrics being followed? Not really. But it’s the institutional investors. That’s what they’re talking Blackrock. So Blackrock and Vanguard and State Street and and whoever else the big pension funds like CalPERS and the other big ones. So they’re the ones who are really pushing all of this. So when they say investors still demand, yes, they absolutely are still demanding, and they’re really hoping that if they can get financial institutions like banks to buy into a lot of this stuff and work it in on the on the ground floor, you wouldn’t necessarily need the SEC to do it, because if California’s doing it on their own and Europe is doing it and China is doing it, all of these other entities will pull you into it whether you want to do it or not. And so the argument in that article was that the SEC climate disclosure rule will create a lot of litigation. There’s been a lot of pushback, but in the end, it may not matter because everybody else is doing it anyway. And I would say, well, if everyone else is doing it but the big United States corporations aren’t, then money’s going to go to America where they’re not doing it because it’s really expensive. And to, to do this, and the climate and sustainability disclosures and I honestly don’t know how the European companies are going to be able to do it and not go bankrupt.
Irina Slav [00:29:30] They’re moving to the US.
Tammy Nemeth [00:29:33] Yeah.
Irina Slav [00:29:35] Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:29:38] Well, lucky us, I guess.
Stuart Turley [00:29:43] Okay.
Tammy Nemeth [00:29:43] That’s it. That’s all I got for that.
Stuart Turley [00:29:47] Yeah, this is the wrong slides for me. So, kind of like Irina as some technical guy. Kind of like, screwed up on that one. Let me get back to this here. Oh, I wonder who that would be. Me, but I did have they lied on plastic producers deceive public about recycling report reveals.
Irina Slav [00:30:10] Wow. Another shocker.
Stuart Turley [00:30:14] Yeah, I was just. I fell over in my chair watching this.
David Blackmon [00:30:18] Hard to imagine.
Stuart Turley [00:30:19] So. And, when we sit back and think about it, the industry insiders over the past decade said uneconomical. It cannot be considered or considered a permanent waste solution. It said we cannot go on indefinitely. They they focused and this is about money. In the 50s, the single use plastics really came in. And so all of a sudden then they said, oh, we’re going to start recycling. I think it’s 70%, some huge number of plastics are supposedly and I use the quotes recycled and the and they’re just put into landfills. So all that green buckets that everybody puts into is not recycle.
David Blackmon [00:31:14] Yeah. Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:31:15] Well, well, I mean, I think it’s unfair to like, because I, that article seemed to want to demonize the plastics companies for, for misleading people and so on. But it was really, the governments that were telling them they had to do it. And so they’re like, okay, I guess we’ll we’ll say we’re going to recycle these things. But in the end, it it would be left to like in Germany, it’s left to the, the local authorities to do the recycling, not the plastic companies. And so you can recycle all that stuff and you can turn them into little pellets that can then be shaped into other things. But it’s expensive and you.
David Blackmon [00:31:53] Have to have markets.
Tammy Nemeth [00:31:54] To pay for it.
David Blackmon [00:31:55] Yeah, you have to have in markets far to at the end of the day and you know.
Tammy Nemeth [00:31:59] It’s got to be if.
David Blackmon [00:32:00] They don’t exist.
Stuart Turley [00:32:01] Can I.
Tammy Nemeth [00:32:02] Right. So so you could use it like I know there is an example in Canada where one of the provinces, back in the late 80s, early 90s said there’s no way you can recycle milk jugs because, you know, the milk was in these big plastic jugs and there were various things so like, you can’t recycle it and so on. But there was one company that I think they got some subsidy in order to say, yes, we can do it. And they went to me. They collected all of the the milk cartons. They started charging a deposit for it so they would get the money through deposit, and then they use the plastic pellets from them to make containers for petroleum, you know, like the oil you put in your car. Because, you know, once that plastic, you can’t use it for food consumption, but you can use it for other things. And so this small oil company use the milk jugs, plastic recycling it for, for oil for cars and.
David Blackmon [00:32:58] Oh my God.
Tammy Nemeth [00:33:00] You know, why not if you if you want to recycle it there, there’s a possibility there. It’s just how much is it going to cost and are people willing to pay for it?
Stuart Turley [00:33:09] Let me ask the team this, what about recycling for, EV batteries and lithium? Isn’t there a huge, huge fire, going on in Europe? Somewhere
David Blackmon [00:33:23] in France?
Irina Slav [00:33:24] France, if you have, is just north of Toulouse.
Stuart Turley [00:33:27] And, how many supposedly miles on an EV did this factory just negate? Oh, I’m just asking.
David Blackmon [00:33:39] Probably Tesla’s whole fleet just smoke. You know, in terms of any carbon emissions, we know.
Irina Slav [00:33:45] Do we have actually EV batteries? Because from the reports I read, you didn’t.
David Blackmon [00:33:51] Specify.
Tammy Nemeth [00:33:52] It was unclear.
Irina Slav [00:33:53] It was unclear, I guess.
David Blackmon [00:33:55] And we saw that. I want to point out, though, if you remember the ship that was burning up in the Pacific in December, November, December timeframe that that eventually got to Alaska? The news stories never specified that that ship was carrying electric vehicles, but we found out finally at the end that that ship was carrying electric vehicles. So it’s like our media blackout. Well, you know, that particular aspect of the news, to specify that these, you know, so we don’t know if these are, EV batteries, but they’re lithium ion batteries and, you know, it’s.
Irina Slav [00:34:36] Yeah, maybe their phone batteries.
David Blackmon [00:34:39] Maybe so. But the ones that have been spontaneously combusting over and over and over again all over the world in recent years, EV invariably, we’ve discovered been EV batteries.
Irina Slav [00:34:53] Yeah. I don’t remember a your story about combusting spontaneously combust inform batteries.
David Blackmon [00:34:58] Yeah. My triple A’s in my refrigerator have never spontaneously combust.
Stuart Turley [00:35:03] Do you use your your batteries?
David Blackmon [00:35:07] Yeah. It extends the battery life if you keep them cold.
Stuart Turley [00:35:11] Hey, I want to share something from my beloved father in law this morning. He had a wreck in his Tesla yesterday, and I’m so sorry, but my brother in law was driving it, and he is a left wing nut job, and and so, I couldn’t be happier that it wasn’t me that was driving the Tesla. And so it’s going to be insurance companies that are not going to allow for EVs to be on freighters. Oh, it’s also going to be insurance companies, because as soon as one battery is cracked, the entire panel on a Tesla has to be redone. So that’s $30,000 on an $80,000 car. When or insurance companies going. Because, Tammy, you’ll have to correct me. I believe it was last year sometime they had announcements that insurance was double and going even triple in in England. I think I saw you your your things on EI anyway so then it’s crazy my beloved chatter head. Brother in law. You know what is Anyway? He’s. I hope you’re watching eat turkey. So anyway, you sit back and kind of go, I think it’s the insurance companies that are going to change and stop the EVs. My father in law’s insurance was doubled. Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:36:41] It cost a lot more to insure an EV. Yeah. And your homeowner’s insurance goes up if you have one of the garage chargers due to the risk of, spontaneous combustion.
Stuart Turley [00:36:53] I think he’s just. Wait a minute. I just heard my father in law spontaneous, combusted over the pricing. Sorry. Here comes one from Patrick.
Tammy Nemeth [00:37:06] I don’t know, I sent that one in.
Stuart Turley [00:37:08] Oh. You did?
Tammy Nemeth [00:37:09] Yeah, because I can’t. I can’t say it’s from me. It just says from you. So. Yeah. So Patrick Patrick was asking about who will be monitoring of regulating the the yes the world ESG regulations. And it’s it’s each nation. So most disclosures are based on the Tcfd or ISSB. They they claim there’s interoperability between all of these different standards. But each nation will come up with their own means of, monitoring and regulating.
David Blackmon [00:37:40] I’m sure the data they collect
Irina Slav [00:37:47] Its ridiculous.
Tammy Nemeth [00:37:51] Yeah. Summer. Refuse, Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:37:54] Wow. So never mind.
David Blackmon [00:37:59] All right, let’s go to the next headlines. Tammy, you still have one more, right?
Tammy Nemeth [00:38:04] No, I just had the two.
David Blackmon [00:38:06] Okay. Who’s next?
Stuart Turley [00:38:09] I had another one, but that’s okay. Let me show this one clip with the panel’s permission. This guy is an absolute. We were talking about that. One minute.
CNN 1 [00:38:19] We talk about a. Bunch of other very important issues. We’d be doing something about it. And then the thing to do about it really. Is to vote. You know what I mean?
CNN 2 [00:38:27] Have the Obamas talk about it yet they spend $11 million on a beach house, and they don’t seem to be concerned about the rising sea levels. Celebrities and politicians, they preach the same message, but they buy multiple houses, cars and private jets. They don’t seem to be concerned. I mean, the banks, they give out 30 years mortgages on houses that, according to you, will be underwater before they get their money back. So can you make it? Makes sense.
CNN 1 [00:38:55] We can do this, people. Thank you.
CNN 3 [00:38:57] We can do this.
David Blackmon [00:38:59] That. Yeah. That’s Bill Nye the science guy. Everyone who is actually an engineer.
Stuart Turley [00:39:05] And that this guy, I got it. I love him. I want to get him on the podcast. And he makes so much fun of the World Economic Forum and everybody else. He is.
David Blackmon [00:39:18] Yeah, but we can’t do that one. This is a family show. That one was full of profanities. I watched it over And over again..
Stuart Turley [00:39:25] Well, no, but we can have him do a different one, David. I mean, so anyway.
Tammy Nemeth [00:39:31] Well, I like his deep fakes because, I mean, I think it’s hilarious that that he inserts himself with great editing. He does. There. That’s really funny. And he was he was emulating Pierre Poilievre, who’s the leader of the Conservative Party in Canada eating the apple. But he chose the banana instead of the apple.
Stuart Turley [00:39:50] And I love the ones where he’s on the view. I’m sorry.
David Blackmon [00:39:53] Oh my gosh. Like holy moly.
Stuart Turley [00:39:57] Okay.
David Blackmon [00:39:58] Okay.
Stuart Turley [00:39:59] Next deadline’s I think we’re. Are we done?
David Blackmon [00:40:02] Oh, I haven’t done mine.
Stuart Turley [00:40:04] Oh. Well.
Tammy Nemeth [00:40:04] Okay.
David Blackmon [00:40:06] I want to do at least one of mine. That’s not that. It, it’s the Rockefeller thing that, you know, you had a video clip for it. There you go. Play that video clip of this weird looking dude talking.
Stuart Turley [00:40:18] Oh, I already, deleted it.
David Blackmon [00:40:20] Did you play well? So.
Stuart Turley [00:40:21] But I like that headline.
David Blackmon [00:40:23] Yeah. Don’t worry about it. You don’t need to. So the the Rockefeller fund. So. So this story. I’m sorry. Huge story at Fox News this past week about how the Rockefeller Family Fund, which, you know, was established by John D Rockefeller, by the way, the basically the biggest oil man of the 19th century in the United States, is, coordinating with the climate lawsuits that attacked Exxon Mobil. The whole Exxon knew nonsense out of New York State that was taken up by Eric Schneiderman, who was the attorney general in New York at the behest of a bunch of climate change interests, including the Rockefeller Fund and including, Michael Bloomberg, including the Gates Foundation. All these billionaires and their their foundations are really what’s behind all the litigation. That’s that good? I think we all in this in the United States these days.
Stuart Turley [00:41:28] David, I just put it there to move while you were talking.
David Blackmon [00:41:32] Oh, okay. The other aspect of the news that the week before the previous week, the Wall Street Journal had a big report about how the Rockefeller Family Fund, and representatives of it were, instrumental in convincing Joe Biden to implement his LNG permitting pause in January. So, you know, a lot of news about the Rockefeller Foundation and, it’s it’s no secret, we’ve known about this for a long time, but it’s good to see these major media publications actually catching on to the scam.
Tammy Nemeth [00:42:08] Can I add something there? Yes. So a lot of these big foundations, Rockefeller gates, the Hewlett Foundation, Bloomberg, they actually also fund research. They fund research that then gets brought into court cases to say, oh, look, Exxon knew or oh, look, natural gas kills people with asthma and all these different.
David Blackmon [00:42:34] Yes, those are bad and need to be right. Right.
Tammy Nemeth [00:42:36] And they have various layers of research that’s done and it really permeates throughout the academy. So people think, oh, well, this is science. And this study says and, and sometimes in the acknowledgment they’ll say with grateful, acknowledgment of the fund’s funding from Rockefeller or Bloomberg or whoever, and it’s like, okay, so then they’re not just funding the research, they’re then funding the lawyers. They’re funding the activist groups. They then have back doors to the administration. They have people who they funded work in the administration. So it’s it’s actually quite a network that .
David Blackmon [00:43:16] it really Is.
Tammy Nemeth [00:43:17] In Order to.
David Blackmon [00:43:17] Get billions and billions and billions of dollars.
Irina Slav [00:43:20] Yeah,.
Tammy Nemeth [00:43:21] Yeah. Yeah,
David Blackmon [00:43:22] I mean, Bloomberg alone, his own personal money. It’s been well over $2 billion. And his his foundation is billions more. And, you know, I mean, it’s it’s a lot, lot of money.
Tammy Nemeth [00:43:36] And the Europeans have a lot of that money too.
Irina Slav [00:43:39] Yeah, yeah. And there’s the these are the same people who first fund the science to come to some. So conclusion and then tell everyone trust the science. Because
David Blackmon [00:43:51] If you don’t trust. you don’t trust the science yeah they’re like Anthony Fauci. They are the science now.
Tammy Nemeth [00:43:57] Yeah. And and so then it goes back to can you trust the data. Can you trust the science if it’s being funded by these.
David Blackmon [00:44:04] I pick that story
Irina Slav [00:44:06] I think a lot of people realized in the years between 2020 and 2022 that you can’t trust the science because the science to begin with, is not an exact science. This particular medicine, health care. Remember how the World Health Organization was sending conflicting messages, right? Everybody forgot that, around mid 2021, I didn’t.
David Blackmon [00:44:36] I got banned from Facebook for pointing it out.
Irina Slav [00:44:38] Yeah. So but everyone forgot that.
Tammy Nemeth [00:44:42] So so what happens now that health is supposed to be a climate issue, right. And so now we have the convergence of these, these two things where you have the climate, whatever. And now we’re supposed to be ignored. Acknowledging the health industry people for providing data and science whatever to to justify doing further things.
David Blackmon [00:45:04] So I guess we put Anthony Fauci over, over the, climate policy of the United States. I mean, maybe he should have replaced Gary.
Irina Slav [00:45:12] Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:45:13] Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:45:14] Excuse me. I’m going to go throw up.
David Blackmon [00:45:16] Yeah. Me too.
Irina Slav [00:45:18] Yeah. Well, they.
Tammy Nemeth [00:45:18] Have Vanessa Carey, right? They have Vanessa Carey being the climate ambassador for the World Health Organization. So isn’t that incredible?
David Blackmon [00:45:26] What’s her qualification?
Tammy Nemeth [00:45:28] She’s a doctor.
David Blackmon [00:45:29] Oh, is she a doctor? Of what?
Tammy Nemeth [00:45:31] Yeah. I think.
Stuart Turley [00:45:33] Suppository medicine.
Tammy Nemeth [00:45:33] She. Sorry.
Stuart Turley [00:45:36] Suppository medicine.
Tammy Nemeth [00:45:39] Yeah. I thought she was a she’s got a fairly well known in medical circles, so. I mean, she is a doctor.
David Blackmon [00:45:47] Good for her. What does she know about the climate?
Stuart Turley [00:45:50] So is Joe Biden.
David Blackmon [00:45:55] Anyway. Okay. Sorry. Enough of that. Okay. What else do we have? Anything else on the agenda?
Tammy Nemeth [00:46:03] Did you have another article there, David?
David Blackmon [00:46:06] I think, I don’t know. I think I did, but I don’t remember what it was.
Tammy Nemeth [00:46:09] It was the IEA one, I think.
David Blackmon [00:46:13] Oh, well, that’s.
Tammy Nemeth [00:46:14] Another climate pivot.
David Blackmon [00:46:16] Yeah, that was just that was just the the IEA’s 50th anniversary thing. We we covered that up front. Right.
Stuart Turley [00:46:27] Eight. If there are any listeners. Please. We will fix out the technical issues next week for Tammy, for Irina and David to share live on theirs if you have questions. I think Patrick had one last comment here. 20% are critical thinking.
Irina Slav [00:46:46] 8020 rule
David Blackmon [00:46:48] Yeah, well, you got to combine it with his previous comment which said 8020 rule. 80% of the people are sheeple who do whatever the authorities say. I would suggest it’s more like 95%, and then 2,020% are critical thinkers who are most famous for being censored.
Stuart Turley [00:47:04] Yes, I know what Patrick means.
Irina Slav [00:47:08] I like his optimism. 20% is a fifth. Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:47:12] Yeah, yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:47:14] Leave it to Irina to be smart.
David Blackmon [00:47:17] Excuse me. Well, with that, folks, I think we have beaten this horse to death. The conclusion is we can’t trust the data. So where do we go? I don’t know.
Tammy Nemeth [00:47:30] for data.
David Blackmon [00:47:32] Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:47:32] See you guys next week.
David Blackmon [00:47:34] All right, guys, Have a great week..
Tammy Nemeth [00:47:36] Bye, everybody.
Irina Slav [00:47:37] Bye.
Sponsorships are available or get your own corporate brand produced by Sandstone Media.
David Blackmon LinkedIn
The Crude Truth with Rey Trevino
Rey Trevino LinkedIn
Energy Transition Weekly Conversation
David Blackmon LinkedIn
Irina Slav LinkedIn
Armando Cavanha LinkedIn
Our Podcast Sponsor
The post ENERGY REALITIES EPISODE #99 – Live Monday Feb 19 – 8:00 AM CT – “Can we trust the Data?” appeared first on Energy News Beat.
“}]]
Energy News Beat