Actor Billy Bob Thornton portraying the character Tommy Norris in an official trailer for the Paramount Plus series “Landman.” (Screen Capture/Landman, Official Trailer, Paramount+)

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Oil companies have always presented easy targets for demonization by the news and entertainment industries. Their operations are highly visible — the flares from a shale well can be seen from many miles distant — the prices they charge for their products can strain family budgets, and they have generally done a lousy job of engaging with the media and defending themselves.

Thus, they typically present the proverbial low-hanging fruit to be exploited by lazy script writers in Hollywood. Those who were in the industry in the early years of the Obama presidency will well remember that pretty much every TV drama series aired at least one episode centered on some highly improbable, often impossible, scenario in which people were killed by a hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking” — accident. Such stuff never happened in real life, but it sure made for compelling entertainment for audiences who did not know that to be the case.

Given this history, it came as no small surprise when the lead character in the new Paramount series “Landman”, the newest offering from “Yellowstone” creator Taylor Sheridan, delivered a stirring 2-minute monologue in defense of America’s oil and gas producers in Episode 3 of the show’s first season. Set in the aftermath of a tragic, fatal Permian Basin oilfield accident that actually could happen in real life, the scene features lead character Tommy Norris, played to near perfection by Billy Bob Thornton, schooling a young, environmentally conscious lawyer who is looking for someone to blame for the accident on the reasons why oil and gas are highly unlikely to be replaced by wind energy in her lifetime.

“You have any idea how much diesel they have to burn to mix that much concrete or make that steel and hold this **** out here and put it together with a 450-foot crane,” Norris says, pointing to a nearby group of 400 ft. wind turbines. “You want to guess how much oil it takes to lubricate that ****ing thing or winterize it? In its 20-year lifespan it won’t offset the carbon footprint of making it. And don’t get me started on solar panels and the lithium in your Tesla battery.”

The monologue goes on for another minute and a half, with Norris detailing all the myriad products made with oil and natural gas, and the fact that, “if Exxon thought them ****ing things right there were the future, they’d be putting them all over the ***damn place.” He isn’t wrong about that last part, by the way. ExxonMobil and its fellow major oil companies like Shell and BP have proven themselves to be pretty much agnostic about the nature of the energy-related projects they’re willing to pursue in recent years.

Those companies and many other traditional oil companies are willing to invest in most any project they believe to be profitable, sustainable and able to deliver strong rates of return to investors. Where wind energy is concerned, both Shell and BP spent years investing heavily in such projects but have been backing away from such investments over the last year as they have failed to produce adequate returns. ExxonMobil, meanwhile, is investing heavily in carbon capture, hydrogen, and even lithium production as part of a growing portfolio of projects in its Low Carbon Solutions business unit.

Back to the Tommy Norris monologue: When I re-posted the clip on LinkedIn and at my Substack newsletter, it went viral, indicating a high level of interest in what Thornton’s character had to say. That may be indicative of a rising recognition of the reality that the US government and global community have in recent years thrown away trillions of dollars in failing attempts to subsidize non-viable, unsustainable, and unprofitable alternatives to oil and natural gas to scale.

Perhaps, then, it is no coincidence that Episode 3 of “Landman” aired on the same day when the media widely reported the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan had ended in failure. It also came amid continuing reports that the Trump transition team is developing detailed plans to refocus US energy policy back to Trump’s promised “drill, baby, drill” orientation.

The times are a-changing, and guys like Tommy Norris will look like prophets soon.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Volkswagen may soon close three vehicle factories, cut 10,000 jobs and impose steep across-the-board pay reductions. Volkswagen has avoided involuntary layoffs for 30 years and hasn’t shuttered a factory in its home country in its 87-year history.

According to a recent report in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Germany’s climate policies—chasing after “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions, aggressive electric vehicle sales mandates, and moving electricity production away from fossil fuels to renewable sources such as wind and solar—has imperiled Germany’s massive auto-sector, the central pillar of its economy.

Specifically, Volkswagen may soon close three vehicle factories, cut 10,000 jobs and impose steep across-the-board pay reductions. Volkswagen has avoided involuntary layoffs for 30 years and hasn’t shuttered a factory in its home country in its 87-year history.

While politicians in Germany blame this downturn to poor management of the company, the WSJ blames Germany’s climate policies, which are largely mimicked by Canada. “Germany’s auto industry is trapped in a vise between higher energy prices that drive up the cost of production, and electric-vehicle mandates that drive down sales.” Due to Germany’s intensive switch from coal and nuclear electricity production to renewables, electricity prices for large industrial users in Germany are well above the European Union average, and above prices in the United States, China and Japan.

Then there’s Germany’s electric vehicle (EV) mandates. As with Canada, Germany (under EU policy), requires that EVs constitute a higher share of vehicle sales each year, with internal-combustion engines phased out by 2035. The WSJ reports: “Stellantis has warned that it may also scale back car production to avoid running afoul of the Brussels EV mandate, and Ford is cutting several thousand jobs in Europe in its shift to EVs.” Germany’s climate policies are the “worst act of economic masochism in the West since the 1930s.” And it’s an act that Canada’s government seeks to emulate, with its own “net-zero” emission policies, clean electricity regulations and EV mandates.

Like Germany, Canada’s drive to “decarbonize” the electricity sector has led to higher prices for industrial users. For example, when Ontario decarbonized its electricity sector (by shuttering coal-fired power generation) from 2008 to 2016, Ontario’s residential electricity costs shot up by 71 per cent, far outpacing the 34 per cent average growth in electricity prices across Canada. The skyrocketing electricity rates also hit the province’s industrial sector. Between 2010 and 2016, large industrial users in Toronto and Ottawa experienced cost spikes of 53 per cent and 46 per cent, respectively, compared to 14 per cent (on average) for the rest of Canada. In 2016, large industrial users in Toronto paid almost three times more than consumers in Montreal and Calgary and almost twice the prices paid by large consumers in Vancouver.

And like Germany, Canada’s EV mandate is already showing painful signs of failure. As reported by CBC, back in April Ford announced that its EV unit lost US$1.3 billion in the first quarter of 2024 alone, selling only 10,000 vehicles in that period. Possibly a good thing, because Ford lost about US$132,000 for every EV it sold in the first three months of the year. Ford and General Motors, are cutting back on EV production, with Ford planning to cut its electric pickup production by half.

Germany’s self-inflicted harms from its great spasm of climate policy masochism, like Canada’s self-inflicted harms from its masochism mimicry, should prompt Canada’s politicians to take a deep breath and shift away from economically destructive climate policies such as net-zero and EV mandates.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute