GulfSlope Energy Inc (GSPE)

[smith199]

The new EIA Annual Energy Outlook was released March 16th (It took me this long to read it all).

And you can be confident this is the correct report, because it has been verified and double checked.

I struggle to find any value in this report. Reading the details reveals that this may only be a sales pitch for climate change from Joe’s perspective.

For example, even with the financial support of the huge Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the 2050 market share of light-duty EVs as a percentage of sales, projects the increases to be around 6% (low oil price) and 22% (high oil price). This seems to indicate that those EVs may not be catching on as well as the progressive politicians had hoped, depending on the fuel price. So, is all the money being spent in support of them justified?

Typical of efforts to obscure inconvenient facts, some of this is not found in the text. It is in the charts. Pitiful Progressive Pie-in-the-sky Politics?

If one attended a meeting to secure funding for a project and offered predictions with ranges similar to those proposed in this report, that individual might encounter resistance. Then after also recommending to incur an outrageously large loan for funding the project, the individual might expect to be excused. But, then again, this is Joe’s real-world government, so maybe things are different for them.

The report indicates generating capacity for electricity will more than double by 2050. So to mostly rely on a 1000% increase in solar generating capacity between now and 2050, as is indicated in the graph, is simply concerning and implies that this will not be a good thing for any of us. If solar fails to deliver, we will not have enough power in some areas and we will consistently have rolling blackouts in some places. Perhaps in many places.

Solar energy will be challenging, inefficient, expensive, and intermittent. Not a winning combination in my estimation. This is mostly just a flawed and immature plan based on a political ideology rather than real-world mechanics, physics, knowledge, infrastructure, and economics.

Many of the assumptions regarding future energy outlooks are viewed through the prism of progressive hope and anticipated future developments, none of which are assured.

So what happens if they implement their grand plan and it all crumbles and fails? I cannot say. This was not addressed.

The Secretary of Energy and the EIA Staff obviously put forth a lot of effort to ‘sugar-coat’ the message.

To me this report just says ’This is what we hope happens. We could also possibly be wrong. But we are still willing to spend an enormous amount of money anyway’ (since it is really all about climate change, renewables, and not energy, then no problem). Another presentation for the naive and unaware.

Despite the hopes and desires of progressives, these projections do predict that oil and gas will still remain very relevant through 2050, with even minor increases in tolerance. In fact, this report states that, “The United States remains a net exporter of petroleum products and of natural gas through 2050…. ”.

I find myself in the position of looking forward to OPEC’s 2023 World Oil Outlook, because I expect it to be more informative.

In conclusion, I do not know where to begin. It is difficult to remain objective when dealing with the products of politicians. Especially progressive ones. Is glorifying a minor advancement in an industrial sector, which only represents 1% of U.S. energy usage, an example of misdirection?

So remember, this is their agenda, their charts, their assumptions, and their perspective. There is a persuasive argument to be made against every point being claimed. Relax. I am not going to address it here.

My final comment is ‘Drill Tau 2’. We are going to need it.


https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/





Mrs. Smith