Connect with us

Daily Caller

The Silly Peak Oil Debate Rages On

Published

6 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By David Blackmon

“What the Outlook underscores is that the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas bears no relation to fact,” said OPEC Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais

Analysts and professionals in the global energy space have long debated the prospects for reaching peak demand for crude oil. It is an issue that has long sparked debate, some of which becomes emotional among highly invested stakeholders on one side or the other.

In recent years, such stakeholders risk developing cases of whiplash when considering the competing perspectives about this “peak oil” matter published by OPEC and the International Energy Agency (IEA).

IEA has spent the last 12 months predicting an earlier advent of the peak oil phenomenon than pretty much any other experts envision, saying it will come about sometime in this decade, no later than 2030. Not surprisingly, the agency’s analysts doubled down on that projection in its most recent monthly Oil Market Report.

In a section titled “When the Music Stops,” the IEA focused on short-term factors like slowing demand growth in China, where oil consumption has declined year-over-year for the past four months. Noting that Chinese demand growth has slowed to an estimated 180,000 barrels per day (bpd) across 2024, the agency leaned on that data point as a reason to lower its estimated global demand growth to 800,000 bpd.

The same section also pointed to the isolated slowing of U.S. gasoline-deliveries growth in June — a factoid that could simply be statistical noise — as support for its annual growth forecast. But a slowdown in crude demand growth is no surprise, given that economic growth has been slowing throughout 2024. This direct cause-and-effect phenomenon has been a consistent aspect of oil markets across history. It is also a short-term factor whose impact will ultimately be diminished by subsequent events.

In contrast, OPEC’s projections over the past year regarding near-term global demand growth and the anticipated peak in oil demand have reached diametrically opposite conclusions. Last summer, the cartel projected global growth in crude demand for 2024 would be a robust 2.25 million bpd. Slowing economic growth has led OPEC’s analysts to lower that initial prediction over the past two months, but only to 2.1 million bpd — more than double that of both IEA and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Where the concept of peak oil demand is concerned, OPEC has held to an even more oil-bullish stance, stating its projections do not see that threshold being reached anytime during its projection timeframe through 2050. In its annual Global Outlook published last week, OPEC sees oil demand growing by that year to 120 million bpd, a rise of 18 million bpd from current levels.

“What the Outlook underscores is that the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas bears no relation to fact,” said OPEC Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais in the forward to the report.

Al Ghais also pointed out the fact that: “Over the past year, there has been further recognition that the world can only phase in new energy sources at scale when they are genuinely ready, economically competitive, acceptable to consumers and with the right infrastructure in place.” This undeniable reality means that projections of oil demand in the transportation sector being crushed by alternatives like EVs and hydrogen cars are almost certainly overly optimistic. The rapidly faltering market demand for EVs strongly supports that likelihood.

Al Ghais also contends that a “realistic view of demand growth expectations necessitates adequate investments in oil and gas, today, tomorrow, and for many decades into the future.” That contention stands in contrast to the IEA report released in May, 2021, in which IEA Director Fatih Birol urged an immediate halt in all new investments in the finding and development of new oil resources in order to fight climate change. By August of that year, Biral was comically urging oil companies to increase their oil production in order to help re-balance an undersupplied global market.

Episodes like that have led many to question whether IEA bases its projections related to oil markets on data or on wishful thinking. The validity of such questions was only reinforced when Birol announced early this year that the agency’s mission was being expanded into outright advocacy for promoting the energy transition.

So, who is right? We’ll find out in 2030, but the smart money is on the group with billions riding on the answer.

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.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Scott Bessent Says Trump’s Goal Was Always To Get Trading Partners To Table After Major Pause Announcement

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent told reporters Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s goal was to have major trading partners agree to negotiate after Trump announced a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs for many countries after dozens reached out to the administration.

Trump announced the pause via a Wednesday post on Truth Social that also announced substantial increases in tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States, saying 75 countries had asked to talk. Bessent said during a press event held alongside White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt that Trump had obtained “maximum leverage” to get trading partners to negotiate with the April 2 announcement of reciprocal tariffs.

“This was his strategy all along,” Bessent told reporters during an impromptu press conference at the White House. “And that, you know, you might even say that he goaded China into a bad position. They, they responded. They have shown themselves to the world to be the bad actors. And, and we are willing to cooperate with our allies and with our trading partners who did not retaliate. It wasn’t a hard message: Don’t retaliate, things will turn out well.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

WATCH:

China imposed retaliatory tariffs on American exports to the communist country Wednesday, imposing an 84% tariff on U.S. goods after Trump responded to a 34% tariff by taking American tariffs to 104%.

“Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately,” Trump said. “At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable.”

“They kept escalating and escalating, and now they have 125% tariffs that will be effective immediately,” Bessent said during the press conference.

Bessent said that China’s actions would not harm the United States as much as it would their own economy.

“We will see what China does,” Bessent said. “But what I am certain of, what I’m certain of, is that what China is doing will affect their economy much more than it will ours, because they have an export-driven, flood the world with cheap export model, and the rest of the world now understands.”

The Dow Jones Industrial average closed up 2,962.86 points Wednesday, with the NASDAQ climbing by 1,755.84 points and the S&P 500 rising 446.05 points, according to FoxBusiness.

Continue Reading

Banks

Wall Street Clings To Green Coercion As Trump Unleashes American Energy

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Isaac

The Trump administration’s recent move to revoke Biden-era restrictions on energy development in Alaska’s North Slope—especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)—is a long-overdue correction that prioritizes American prosperity and energy security. This regulatory reset rightly acknowledges what Alaska’s Native communities have long known: responsible energy development offers a path to economic empowerment and self-determination.

But while Washington’s red tape may be unraveling, a more insidious blockade remains firmly in place: Wall Street.

Despite the Trump administration’s restoration of rational permitting processes, major banks and insurance companies continue to collude in starving projects of the capital and risk management services they need. The left’s “debanking” strategy—originally a tactic to pressure gun makers and disfavored industries—is now being weaponized against American energy companies operating in ANWR and similar regions.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

This quiet embargo began years ago, when JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, declared in 2020 that it would no longer fund oil and gas development in the Arctic, including ANWR. Others quickly followed: Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup now all reject Arctic energy projects—effectively shutting down access to capital for an entire region.

Insurers have joined the pile-on. Swiss Re, AIG, and AXIS Capital all publicly stated they would no longer insure drilling in ANWR. In 2023, Chubb became the first U.S.-based insurer to formalize its Arctic ban.

These policies are not merely misguided—they are dangerous. They hand America’s energy future over to OPEC, China, and hostile regimes. They reduce competition, drive up prices, and kneecap the very domestic production that once made the U.S. energy independent.

This isn’t just a theoretical concern. I’ve experienced this discrimination firsthand.

In February 2025, The Hartford notified the American Energy Institute—an educational nonprofit I lead—that it would not renew our insurance policy. The reason? Not risk. Not claims. Not underwriting. The Hartford cited our Facebook page.

The reason for nonrenewal is we have learned from your Facebook page that your operations include Trade association involved in promoting social/political causes related to energy production. This is not an acceptable exposure under The Hartford’s Small Commercial business segment’s guidelines.”

That’s a direct quote from their nonrenewal notice.

Let’s be clear: The Hartford didn’t drop us for anything we did—they dropped us for what we believe. Our unacceptable “exposure” is telling the truth about the importance of affordable and reliable energy to modern life, and standing up to ESG orthodoxy. We are being punished not for risk, but for advocacy.

This is financial discrimination, pure and simple. What we’re seeing is the private-sector enforcement of political ideology through the strategic denial of access to financial services. It’s ESG—Environmental, Social, and Governance—gone full Orwell.

Banks, insurers, and asset managers may claim these decisions are about “climate risk,” but they rarely apply the same scrutiny to regimes like Venezuela or China, where environmental and human rights abuses are rampant. The issue is not risk. The issue is control.

By shutting out projects in ANWR, Wall Street ensures that even if federal regulators step back, their ESG-aligned agenda still moves forward—through corporate pressure, shareholder resolutions, and selective financial access. This is how ideology replaces democracy.

While the Trump administration deserves praise for removing federal barriers, the fight for energy freedom continues. Policymakers must hold financial institutions accountable for ideological discrimination and protect access to banking and insurance services for all lawful businesses.

Texas has already taken steps by divesting from anti-energy financial firms. Other states should follow, enforcing anti-discrimination laws and leveraging state contracts to ensure fair treatment.

But public pressure matters too. Americans need to know what’s happening behind the curtain of ESG. The green financial complex is not just virtue-signaling—it’s a form of economic coercion designed to override public policy and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The regulatory shackles may be coming off, but the private-sector blockade remains. As long as banks and insurers collude to deny access to capital and risk protection for projects in ANWR and beyond, America’s energy independence will remain under threat.

We need to call out this hypocrisy. We need to expose it. And we need to fight it—before we lose not just our energy freedom, but our economic prosperity.

The Honorable Jason Isaac is the Founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.

Continue Reading

Trending

X