GulfSlope Energy Inc (GSPE)

[smith199]

I want to share the best article and facts about EVs, climate change, and energy that I have come across lately.

My favorite quote from the article is “Those with the greatest knowledge, betting real money, know oil and gas are here to stay. ”

Knowledge that the major oil companies and renowned investors are making these large monetary commitments to the oil and gas sector should be the very best confirmation needed for us to keep our investments focused in oil and gas as well. These are among the biggest of the real Big Guys in the pursuit of profit.

And this all just highlights and accentuates that the potential rewards of a starting off E&P player such as Gulfslope Energy could turn out to be an astute investment as well.

And, all things considered, next to a drilling contract, continuing to maintain the Tau lease was the best outcome for anyone invested in GSPE at this time.

And until the challenges before us are worked out, we only need to continue ignoring the negativity of those self-serving attempts to cover positions which are of no concern to anyone else.

Despite that it seems this level of reward is not easily captured, we just need do as we have been doing. Sustaining our ‘hanging tough’ posture by standing our ground in the face of the risk and the adverse comments is the best strategy for us.

Another sound strategy we have all often heard before is to “Follow the Money”. In the past I have found this tactic to be Good Advice. Now might be a good time to do it again.

It is uplifting to know that these Big Guys are seriously in pursuit of profit by investing large sums of capital in oil and gas. Rather than blindly following the lead of that other so-called ‘Big Guy’ that is seeking political favor and/or his 10%….

So, “Drill Tau 2” continues to be the GSPE motto I stand behind and support.

I encourage all to read this article as it addresses future issues that none of us will be able to avoid. Please enjoy the article and feel free to share it with others.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/the_electric_car_con_explained.html


The Electric Car Con Explained, By William Levin, released January 11th

Is electricity a source of energy? Most people will answer yes, which is incorrect. Electricity carries energy but it is not itself a source of energy, which in the U.S. is supplied 60% by natural gas and coal, 18% nuclear and 22% renewables (hydro, solar and wind). 

The related question is whether cars are a major consumer of energy and hence a significant contributor of Co2 emissions? Again, most people believe both statements are self-evidently true, hence the importance of moving to electric cars. 

In fact, cars (light-duty transportation) account for less than 5% of global energy demand, with U.S. cars accounting for 19% of the global car fleet, declining to under 15% by 2050 as car demand grows faster outside the U.S. 

Putting these facts together, and they are indisputable facts, provides a stunning insight. 

The U.S. car fleet accounts for a mere 1.0% of global energy demand (5% x 19%), declining to 0.8% by 2050. So even if the U.S. shifts 100% to electric-powered cars, the maximum climate impact in 2050 is a meaningless 0.2% (22% x 0.8%) reduction in global Co2 emissions from the current electric grid, up to a maximum of 0.5% assuming solar, wind, and hydro can, implausibly, power 60% of electric demand. 

In other words, there is no factual basis to claim that the government mandate to switch to electric cars will have any material impact on global Co2 emissions. 

This is not a debatable point -- it is easily verified, it is correct under any view of climate science, and it remains true even if solar and wind magically grow sixfold over the next 25 years, which is highly unlikely given the need to build a new transmission network, estimated at more than 200,000 miles of wires crisscrossing the country, and devise totally unknown, unproven, and likely impossible to achieve large-scale, economic battery storage. 

Nor does the picture change materially if the entire world goes 100% electric for cars. In that case global Co2 emissions fall a mere 3.5% in 2050 versus a baseline of 24% electric adoption by 2035. 

Put simply, cars are not a meaningful source of global emissions and electric cars do not and cannot curtail the continued reliance on fossil fuels in electric generation. On top of this, counting all sources, the U.S. is responsible for only 14% of all global Co2 emissions, declining to 9% by 2050 due to rest of world economic growth. 

But facts count for nothing in the Biden era. The EPA seeks to force conversion to electric cars through draconian limits on tailpipe emissions. American taxpayers foot the bill for billions in subsidies to electric cars. California leads the way in mandating conversion to electric cars. Perversely, the major auto companies have signed onto the electric agenda, the harbinger of future bailouts. 

Perhaps most galling is the continuous misleading of the public. 

By law every new car must affix a window sticker with the following statement: “Vehicle emissions are a significant cause of climate change and smog.“ Any private company marketing such demonstrably false claims would be subject to ruinous civil and criminal liability. 

If going electric yields virtually no climate benefit, why bother buying a battery-powered car, with limited range, high purchase cost, and low resale value, the death knell to affordable leasing costs? 

Consumers are smarter than the government in figuring out that battery-powered cars are a raw deal, resulting in widespread reports of missed sales forecasts, high unsold inventories, and cancellation of future projections by the major auto companies. 

Here again the new car sticker hides economic reality by featuring in bold type a hypothetical five-year operating saving versus an average conventional car, based on the cost of gas and electricity. 

By sticker math, savings rise as gasoline prices increase, hence the perverse and persistent administration incentive to force high gas costs on Americans, except in an election year. And the savings disappear as electric costs increase.

Already there is no operating benefit when charging stations routinely cost $.40/kwh-$.50/kwh, a fact conveniently not mentioned in the sticker calculation. Nor are consumers warned of the inevitable sharp increase in electric rates if the grid must absorb high-cost solar and wind, as in Germany where electric rates already are $.45/kwh, removing any incentive for electric cars. At current gas prices, a typical hybrid costs less to run on gas once electric prices exceed $.24/kwh.

Taking the broader view, fossils fuels currently account for 80% of global energy supply. Even if the world aggressively grows solar and wind, fossil fuels in 2050 continue to supply 68% of all energy. 

The reason is quite straightforward. The major sources of energy, and hence global energy emissions, come from non-car sources that are extremely difficult or technologically infeasible to convert to renewables, namely industrial, commercial transportation (heavy-duty trucking, aviation, marine, and rail), and residential/commercial. The government focus on cars is political theater. 

Nuclear energy can uniquely reduce emissions to zero in these sectors, but for reasons well-known, war has been successfully declared on nuclear energy in the U.S. and it is not growing globally at the exponential rates needed to solve global Co2 emissions permanently. 

The continued dominance of fossil fuels explains what is otherwise inexplicable: Warren Buffet’s multi-billion-dollar investment in oil companies, especially Occidental Petroleum, and the recent surge in oil acquisitions, notably ExxonMobil paying $58 billion for Pioneer Natural Resources and Chevron’s purchase of Hess Corp. for $60 billion.

Those with the greatest knowledge, betting real money, know oil and gas are here to stay. Without skillful, continuous oil and gas investment in the billions and trillions in the U.S. and the world, global oil and gas production by 2050 would drop more than 70% from current levels, yielding economic Armageddon.

The Biden Administration response is astonishing. As reported by the Department of Energy in September 2023, the National Security Council has issued an edict banning government employees from attending any international conference that promotes fossil fuel production, with limited exceptions.

Yet even at 68% market share for fossil fuels, global emissions will be cut significantly. By a factor of three, the most important lever of global greenhouse gas reduction is not growth in solar and renewables, but continuous private sector innovation in energy efficiency, reducing energy content per unit of output. 

Missing in climate change discussions is its inhumane logic. Global emission increases through 2050 are due to population growth and rising economic activity in China, India, and the rest of the developing world (i.e., non-U.S. and Europe). GDP growth raises living standards. Falling GDP and population reduction outside the developed nations are the true, but strategically hidden, moral epicenter of the climate change agenda. 

China, India, Asia, and Africa are not buying what world elites are selling as they self-righteously jet to exhilarating climate confabs. No one should. Demanding that 80% of the world, or some six billion humans, sacrifice their well-being, and their children, is an immorality never before articulated and rationalized. 

The hard truth is that no set of actions can remotely meet the arbitrary IPCC requirement for a 70% reduction in global Co2 by 2050, certainly not the puny contribution from electrified cars and indeed nothing short of a horrific determination to strangle the world whole.

By all means purchase a battery-powered vehicle if it pleases you. But do not imagine for a moment that it saves money or is doing anything that matters for climate change. 

We are ruled by liars, fools and demons, too often all three in one.




Mrs. Smith