WEBVTT - Harris, Trump and Election Effects on Energy

0:00:15.880 --> 0:00:18.400
<v Speaker 1>Hello, and welcome to the Votes and Verdicts podcast, hosted

0:00:18.400 --> 0:00:20.959
<v Speaker 1>by the litigation and policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the

0:00:21.000 --> 0:00:24.880
<v Speaker 1>investment research platform of Bloomberg LP. Bloomberg Intelligence has five

0:00:24.920 --> 0:00:28.040
<v Speaker 1>hundred analysts and strategists working across the globe and focused

0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:30.720
<v Speaker 1>on all major markets. Our coverage includes over two thousand

0:00:30.720 --> 0:00:33.839
<v Speaker 1>equities and credits and have outlooks on more than ninety industries,

0:00:33.840 --> 0:00:37.560
<v Speaker 1>one hundred market industries, currencies and commodities. This podcast series

0:00:37.600 --> 0:00:40.920
<v Speaker 1>examines the intersection of business policy and law. I'm Nathan Dean,

0:00:40.920 --> 0:00:44.440
<v Speaker 1>an analysts with Bloomberg Intelligence covering financials policy. The following

0:00:44.440 --> 0:00:46.520
<v Speaker 1>which you are about to hear, was a US election

0:00:46.600 --> 0:00:49.640
<v Speaker 1>webinar series with the US Energy Team that was recorded

0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:52.760
<v Speaker 1>on October twenty ninth, twenty twenty four. If you have

0:00:52.760 --> 0:00:54.880
<v Speaker 1>any questions or would like to have access to any

0:00:54.920 --> 0:00:58.280
<v Speaker 1>of the research available is discussed in the webinar, please

0:00:58.320 --> 0:01:01.440
<v Speaker 1>contact me Nathan Dean at end inten at Bloomberg dot net.

0:01:01.480 --> 0:01:01.800
<v Speaker 2>Thank you.

0:01:02.680 --> 0:01:04.200
<v Speaker 1>I just want to say thank you very much for

0:01:04.319 --> 0:01:07.200
<v Speaker 1>joining us. Joining me on the call today is our

0:01:07.360 --> 0:01:11.520
<v Speaker 1>BI Energy team, who I'm extremely excited to be discussing with.

0:01:12.080 --> 0:01:15.320
<v Speaker 1>In no particular order, we have our senior analysts, Vince Piazza,

0:01:15.680 --> 0:01:19.679
<v Speaker 1>Brett Gibbs, Rob Barnett, Will Harris, and Talent Custer. Now,

0:01:19.720 --> 0:01:21.959
<v Speaker 1>one thing before we get started, just please note that

0:01:22.000 --> 0:01:24.400
<v Speaker 1>this is interactive. Please use the Q and A function.

0:01:24.480 --> 0:01:27.520
<v Speaker 1>We'll certainly be happy to answer any questions. Also, if

0:01:27.520 --> 0:01:29.600
<v Speaker 1>you miss this and you know, it's going to be

0:01:29.640 --> 0:01:33.160
<v Speaker 1>available both as a replay and also as a version

0:01:33.280 --> 0:01:37.480
<v Speaker 1>of our Votes and Verdicts podcast series, we'll be putting

0:01:37.560 --> 0:01:39.840
<v Speaker 1>that out before the election and they'll be available on

0:01:39.880 --> 0:01:45.280
<v Speaker 1>Apple and Spotify and all the other various podcasts platforms.

0:01:45.720 --> 0:01:48.480
<v Speaker 1>So Bloomberg Intelligence who we are. We are the equity

0:01:48.520 --> 0:01:50.880
<v Speaker 1>research division of the Bloomberg Terminal. We've got about five

0:01:50.960 --> 0:01:54.600
<v Speaker 1>hundred analysts and associates across the globe. We cover a

0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:59.200
<v Speaker 1>variety number of companies, industries, sectors, commodities, strategies and so

0:01:59.240 --> 0:02:02.160
<v Speaker 1>forth like that ventially. If it's in your portfolio, we

0:02:02.760 --> 0:02:04.600
<v Speaker 1>cover it. You can find all of our research at

0:02:04.600 --> 0:02:08.080
<v Speaker 1>Big The last thing I'll discuss before we move on

0:02:08.200 --> 0:02:10.840
<v Speaker 1>to the topic of today is all of us are

0:02:10.880 --> 0:02:14.240
<v Speaker 1>available to chat with you via the Bloomberg Terminal. If

0:02:14.280 --> 0:02:17.760
<v Speaker 1>you have a client, please ib us message us, call us,

0:02:18.080 --> 0:02:20.120
<v Speaker 1>because while we're going to go through the quick version

0:02:20.200 --> 0:02:23.680
<v Speaker 1>of the electoral impact on the energy sector, we just

0:02:23.760 --> 0:02:25.960
<v Speaker 1>like the highlight that Will and his team has put

0:02:25.960 --> 0:02:30.239
<v Speaker 1>out a pretty comprehensive report on the elections, and certainly

0:02:30.320 --> 0:02:32.080
<v Speaker 1>we would love to get you a copy of that

0:02:32.440 --> 0:02:36.160
<v Speaker 1>before we find out what happens on November fifth. So

0:02:36.360 --> 0:02:38.079
<v Speaker 1>with all that being said, let me go ahead and

0:02:38.080 --> 0:02:40.080
<v Speaker 1>get started. What I'd like to do is just spend

0:02:40.120 --> 0:02:42.679
<v Speaker 1>about ten minutes to talk about how you should think

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:47.320
<v Speaker 1>about Washington and when you hear the statements from presidential candidates,

0:02:47.680 --> 0:02:50.400
<v Speaker 1>how does it assist you with policy analysis. Now, this

0:02:50.480 --> 0:02:53.320
<v Speaker 1>not only applies to energy, but this also applies to

0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:59.160
<v Speaker 1>financial services, triffs, taxes, and so forth like that. So

0:02:59.320 --> 0:03:01.400
<v Speaker 1>the first thing that keep in mind is just the

0:03:01.440 --> 0:03:04.680
<v Speaker 1>general state of the races. We have the House of Representatives,

0:03:05.000 --> 0:03:07.360
<v Speaker 1>we have the Senate, we have the presidency. Now, for

0:03:07.400 --> 0:03:08.960
<v Speaker 1>those of you who aren't in the United States are

0:03:09.000 --> 0:03:11.000
<v Speaker 1>not familiar with the US government, remember the House of

0:03:11.040 --> 0:03:14.520
<v Speaker 1>Representatives has fourign thirty five members. Each member serves a

0:03:14.520 --> 0:03:17.280
<v Speaker 1>two year term and all fourigundred and thirty five members

0:03:17.320 --> 0:03:20.120
<v Speaker 1>are up for re election. Now, according to our friends

0:03:20.120 --> 0:03:23.920
<v Speaker 1>over at Bloomberg government. There's about forty four seats that

0:03:23.960 --> 0:03:26.480
<v Speaker 1>are still undecided, that are either toss up or in

0:03:26.480 --> 0:03:29.600
<v Speaker 1>the leaning category. So the majority of House members, when

0:03:29.639 --> 0:03:31.640
<v Speaker 1>they go to bed on election night, their hard work

0:03:31.680 --> 0:03:34.560
<v Speaker 1>is done there probably have already won their races, but

0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:37.560
<v Speaker 1>it's those remaining forty four that we have to watch. Now.

0:03:37.800 --> 0:03:39.840
<v Speaker 1>Polling in the House is a lot more difficult, But

0:03:39.920 --> 0:03:42.320
<v Speaker 1>one thing we often say is is that it generally

0:03:42.360 --> 0:03:45.960
<v Speaker 1>turns on the turnout of the presidential cycles. So if

0:03:46.120 --> 0:03:48.960
<v Speaker 1>former President Donald Trump wins, more likely than not, the

0:03:49.000 --> 0:03:52.200
<v Speaker 1>Republicans take the House. If Kamala Harris wins, more likely

0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:54.800
<v Speaker 1>not the Democrats take the House, certainly things can change.

0:03:55.080 --> 0:03:57.520
<v Speaker 1>But the reason why we care about this so much

0:03:57.680 --> 0:04:01.840
<v Speaker 1>is because whoever controls the hose House of Representatives controls

0:04:01.880 --> 0:04:04.119
<v Speaker 1>the House in Ways and Means Committee, and the House

0:04:04.160 --> 0:04:06.160
<v Speaker 1>in Ways and Means Committee is the committee in the

0:04:06.160 --> 0:04:09.080
<v Speaker 1>House that deals with tax reform. And because the Trump

0:04:09.080 --> 0:04:11.560
<v Speaker 1>Air tax cuts expire for individuals at the end of

0:04:11.560 --> 0:04:14.400
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty five, there is going to be a robust

0:04:14.440 --> 0:04:18.640
<v Speaker 1>tax debate taking place next year in Congress, and historically,

0:04:18.720 --> 0:04:22.400
<v Speaker 1>tax policy starts with the House, so that Chairman or

0:04:22.480 --> 0:04:24.400
<v Speaker 1>the chairwoman of the House in ways means committee will

0:04:24.400 --> 0:04:27.880
<v Speaker 1>be an extremely important person to watch, probably even more

0:04:27.880 --> 0:04:30.239
<v Speaker 1>important than the President when it comes to tax policy.

0:04:31.480 --> 0:04:33.520
<v Speaker 1>Moving over to the Senate, you know there are one

0:04:33.560 --> 0:04:35.880
<v Speaker 1>hundred senators, two from each state. They serve up six

0:04:36.000 --> 0:04:38.480
<v Speaker 1>year terms. There are thirty four Senate seats that are

0:04:38.520 --> 0:04:40.520
<v Speaker 1>up for right now, two of them and then state

0:04:40.520 --> 0:04:44.039
<v Speaker 1>of Nebraska due to Senator Ben sass retiring, twenty three

0:04:44.080 --> 0:04:46.279
<v Speaker 1>of those are held by the Democrats or their allies.

0:04:46.320 --> 0:04:49.760
<v Speaker 1>There are four independents right now that caucus with the Democrats. Now,

0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:52.919
<v Speaker 1>this is an extremely difficult election for the Democrats. The

0:04:52.960 --> 0:04:56.640
<v Speaker 1>reason being is is that there are many states that

0:04:56.680 --> 0:05:00.080
<v Speaker 1>the Democrats are defending in They're either considered swing states

0:05:00.240 --> 0:05:03.520
<v Speaker 1>or Trump states, and so for the Democrats to keep

0:05:03.560 --> 0:05:09.480
<v Speaker 1>control of the Senate, the Democrats essentially have to win everything.

0:05:09.880 --> 0:05:11.840
<v Speaker 1>Right now, the Democrats have a fifty one to forty

0:05:11.920 --> 0:05:16.719
<v Speaker 1>nine lead. Senator Joe Manchin, he's an independent caucuses with

0:05:16.760 --> 0:05:20.400
<v Speaker 1>the Democrats, is going to retire. And you don't have

0:05:20.400 --> 0:05:22.600
<v Speaker 1>to be a political strategist to note that West Virginia

0:05:22.680 --> 0:05:25.120
<v Speaker 1>is most likely going to turn Republican. So now the

0:05:25.120 --> 0:05:27.560
<v Speaker 1>Democrats are fifty to fifty, and right now there are

0:05:27.600 --> 0:05:30.880
<v Speaker 1>some several tough races, like Senator Cheron Brownie's the chairman

0:05:30.880 --> 0:05:33.640
<v Speaker 1>of Senate Banking Committee in Ohio. Ohio is generally a

0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:35.960
<v Speaker 1>Republican state, has been at the least the state wide

0:05:36.040 --> 0:05:39.920
<v Speaker 1>level for the last few election cycles. The second one

0:05:40.000 --> 0:05:43.839
<v Speaker 1>is going to be Montana Senator John Tester. Senator John

0:05:43.880 --> 0:05:46.360
<v Speaker 1>Tester also a member of the Senate Banking Committee. He's

0:05:46.400 --> 0:05:49.080
<v Speaker 1>currently about five or six points below and Montana is

0:05:49.120 --> 0:05:51.800
<v Speaker 1>also a Republican state. So where I'm going with this

0:05:51.960 --> 0:05:54.159
<v Speaker 1>is that most people in Washington think the Senate is

0:05:54.160 --> 0:05:56.640
<v Speaker 1>going to turn Republican. And why is that important for

0:05:56.720 --> 0:05:59.320
<v Speaker 1>us in the energy sector. Well, it's about appointments of

0:05:59.400 --> 0:06:03.160
<v Speaker 1>regulatory leaderships. If President Trump wins and the Republicans take

0:06:03.200 --> 0:06:05.479
<v Speaker 1>the Senate, he will be able to replace the head

0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:08.280
<v Speaker 1>of FERK, the head of EPA, a lot more regulatory

0:06:08.279 --> 0:06:12.039
<v Speaker 1>officials with a much faster timeline than if the Democrats

0:06:12.080 --> 0:06:14.640
<v Speaker 1>controlled the Senate. On the flip side, i Kamala Harris

0:06:14.680 --> 0:06:18.080
<v Speaker 1>were to win, the Republican Senate could effectively jam her

0:06:18.160 --> 0:06:20.600
<v Speaker 1>up or force her to keep positions in place and

0:06:20.720 --> 0:06:23.360
<v Speaker 1>people in place because they're not going to be able

0:06:23.400 --> 0:06:26.080
<v Speaker 1>to spend that much time confirming folks. So again something

0:06:26.080 --> 0:06:28.400
<v Speaker 1>to keep in mind. Now, finally, when it comes to

0:06:28.400 --> 0:06:31.240
<v Speaker 1>the presidential cycle, I apologize I cannot tell you who

0:06:31.279 --> 0:06:34.000
<v Speaker 1>is going to win. Before you dialed, before we opened up,

0:06:34.480 --> 0:06:36.800
<v Speaker 1>the six of us had a robust conversation on who

0:06:36.800 --> 0:06:39.000
<v Speaker 1>we thought we were going to win, and we still don't know.

0:06:39.400 --> 0:06:41.159
<v Speaker 1>But what we can say is is that this is

0:06:41.160 --> 0:06:45.159
<v Speaker 1>a race between former President Donald Trump, vice President Kamala Harris,

0:06:45.400 --> 0:06:48.200
<v Speaker 1>and the couch. And if the couch wins and people

0:06:48.240 --> 0:06:51.360
<v Speaker 1>stay home, they're more likely they're not. President Trump wins.

0:06:51.640 --> 0:06:53.240
<v Speaker 1>If people get off the couch and they go to

0:06:53.240 --> 0:06:56.640
<v Speaker 1>the polls, more likely than not, Vice President Kamala Harris wins.

0:06:57.120 --> 0:06:59.480
<v Speaker 1>And for those of us who are watching, which states

0:06:59.520 --> 0:07:02.440
<v Speaker 1>to watch, in my opinion, it comes down to Pennsylvania

0:07:02.560 --> 0:07:05.320
<v Speaker 1>in North Carolina. Those are the two states that I think,

0:07:05.360 --> 0:07:07.960
<v Speaker 1>over the next couple of days after the election, look

0:07:08.040 --> 0:07:09.840
<v Speaker 1>to see and you may get an indication of who

0:07:09.920 --> 0:07:12.880
<v Speaker 1>is going to win. So with all that being said,

0:07:12.920 --> 0:07:15.080
<v Speaker 1>the last thing I want to leave you with before

0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:17.760
<v Speaker 1>I start asking questions to my colleagues about the energy

0:07:17.800 --> 0:07:21.400
<v Speaker 1>sector is just remember how things get done in Washington.

0:07:21.400 --> 0:07:26.080
<v Speaker 1>There's largely three ways. The first is legislation. Now, look, legislation.

0:07:26.280 --> 0:07:29.040
<v Speaker 1>The House Representative passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill.

0:07:29.080 --> 0:07:31.360
<v Speaker 1>It has to be the identical bill. They come together,

0:07:31.600 --> 0:07:33.720
<v Speaker 1>and then they send it to the President's desk. It

0:07:33.800 --> 0:07:36.680
<v Speaker 1>doesn't happen all that much. The reason being is the

0:07:36.720 --> 0:07:39.960
<v Speaker 1>Senate has something called the filbuster. It allows one senator

0:07:40.000 --> 0:07:45.040
<v Speaker 1>to overturn or block, not overturn, block legislation unless sixty

0:07:45.080 --> 0:07:48.360
<v Speaker 1>senators overturn him or her. Now, this is not written

0:07:48.400 --> 0:07:50.720
<v Speaker 1>down in the Constitution. It's actually not written down anywhere.

0:07:50.760 --> 0:07:53.720
<v Speaker 1>It's essentially sixty or sorry, two hundred and fifty years

0:07:54.200 --> 0:07:57.280
<v Speaker 1>of best practice. And there has been some chatter about

0:07:57.280 --> 0:08:00.720
<v Speaker 1>doing away with the philbuster. The philbuster for nominations, for example,

0:08:00.760 --> 0:08:03.760
<v Speaker 1>doesn't exist anymore. We think the filibuster is going to remain,

0:08:04.080 --> 0:08:06.960
<v Speaker 1>so we think legislation is going to be extremely difficult

0:08:07.000 --> 0:08:10.400
<v Speaker 1>to come by. It will happen, but it's extremely difficult.

0:08:09.960 --> 0:08:10.360
<v Speaker 2>To come by.

0:08:10.640 --> 0:08:14.160
<v Speaker 1>With one exception. If the Republicans take the House, the Senate,

0:08:14.240 --> 0:08:16.720
<v Speaker 1>and the presidency, you're going to hear me and other

0:08:16.800 --> 0:08:20.440
<v Speaker 1>Washingtonians talk about the word called reconciliation. This is a

0:08:20.440 --> 0:08:22.880
<v Speaker 1>budgetary maneuver where you can avoid the filibuster.

0:08:23.240 --> 0:08:23.840
<v Speaker 2>You just need.

0:08:23.680 --> 0:08:26.800
<v Speaker 1>A majority vote in the House, majority vote in the Senate,

0:08:26.840 --> 0:08:29.520
<v Speaker 1>and the president's signature. This is how President Obama got

0:08:29.520 --> 0:08:32.040
<v Speaker 1>Obamacare through, this is how President Trump got a Trump's

0:08:32.040 --> 0:08:34.160
<v Speaker 1>tax cuts through, and this is how President Biden got

0:08:34.200 --> 0:08:37.080
<v Speaker 1>the Inflication Reduction Act through. So the Republicans state the House,

0:08:37.120 --> 0:08:39.959
<v Speaker 1>the Senate, and the Presidency look for another round of

0:08:40.200 --> 0:08:43.720
<v Speaker 1>very robust tax debate next year and maybe multi trillion

0:08:43.760 --> 0:08:48.000
<v Speaker 1>dollar tax packages through because they can essentially bypass democratic opposition.

0:08:48.679 --> 0:08:52.080
<v Speaker 1>So that's legislation. The second is regulation. If you've been

0:08:52.120 --> 0:08:54.400
<v Speaker 1>following Furk or you follow the Federal Reserve, you know

0:08:54.440 --> 0:08:59.079
<v Speaker 1>what a proposal looks like, a proposed rule several hundred

0:08:59.120 --> 0:09:03.840
<v Speaker 1>pages of industry impacting regulations. Now, regulators can put this

0:09:03.960 --> 0:09:07.040
<v Speaker 1>out and they can essentially bypass the opposition party, and

0:09:07.080 --> 0:09:11.319
<v Speaker 1>they can do what the president wants in terms of regulation.

0:09:11.600 --> 0:09:15.520
<v Speaker 1>But a it takes time. Even a deregulatory effort by

0:09:15.520 --> 0:09:18.160
<v Speaker 1>President Trump would take probably two to three years to

0:09:18.320 --> 0:09:22.640
<v Speaker 1>begin to truly feel the impact in the sectors. And secondly,

0:09:22.720 --> 0:09:26.880
<v Speaker 1>courts are becoming increasingly skeptical towards the power of regulators

0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:30.319
<v Speaker 1>when it comes to new regulations. So if Kamala Harris wins,

0:09:30.679 --> 0:09:33.520
<v Speaker 1>you're going to see courts continue to question whether or

0:09:33.559 --> 0:09:37.280
<v Speaker 1>not those regulations actually are constitutional or not. We can

0:09:37.280 --> 0:09:38.760
<v Speaker 1>certainly get into that in the Q and A if

0:09:38.760 --> 0:09:41.360
<v Speaker 1>you'd like, but I'll just let you know it's becoming

0:09:41.440 --> 0:09:44.400
<v Speaker 1>much more difficult and as a result, a lot of regulators,

0:09:44.440 --> 0:09:46.880
<v Speaker 1>we think at a Kamala Harris presidency, would turn to

0:09:46.920 --> 0:09:50.800
<v Speaker 1>the enforcement arm. And then finally is executive orders. Now,

0:09:50.960 --> 0:09:53.760
<v Speaker 1>in my estimation, eighty five percent of executive orders are

0:09:53.800 --> 0:09:56.240
<v Speaker 1>symbolic in nature. It's a fancy way of the president

0:09:56.280 --> 0:09:58.320
<v Speaker 1>picking up the phone and saying to his or her staff,

0:09:58.559 --> 0:10:00.520
<v Speaker 1>I want you to do something either the la legislative

0:10:00.600 --> 0:10:04.000
<v Speaker 1>route or the regulatory route. But please remember that in

0:10:04.040 --> 0:10:07.280
<v Speaker 1>that other fifteen percent, the power of the presidency is

0:10:07.320 --> 0:10:10.080
<v Speaker 1>a lot more powerful when it comes to things like

0:10:10.160 --> 0:10:15.040
<v Speaker 1>national security, foreign relations, trade, and tariffs. So if you're

0:10:15.080 --> 0:10:17.560
<v Speaker 1>interested in comments and you think that there's a real

0:10:17.679 --> 0:10:20.880
<v Speaker 1>risk or opportunity that comes with President Trump saying that

0:10:20.920 --> 0:10:22.840
<v Speaker 1>I want to put sixty percent tariffs on all goods

0:10:22.840 --> 0:10:25.560
<v Speaker 1>from China, this is something that he can do fairly

0:10:25.640 --> 0:10:30.840
<v Speaker 1>early in his presidency and can essentially bypass Congress. Now,

0:10:31.320 --> 0:10:34.640
<v Speaker 1>our just real brief thought on tariffs is that even

0:10:34.679 --> 0:10:37.240
<v Speaker 1>if you see an executive order that comes out from

0:10:37.280 --> 0:10:39.720
<v Speaker 1>President Trump, it says I'm going to put these tariffs

0:10:39.760 --> 0:10:43.199
<v Speaker 1>in place, Please note that tariffs are viewed by presidents

0:10:43.240 --> 0:10:47.079
<v Speaker 1>as negotiation tools when conducting foreign relations, and so you're

0:10:47.120 --> 0:10:49.560
<v Speaker 1>not going to see an immediate tariff. You'll probably see

0:10:49.559 --> 0:10:52.320
<v Speaker 1>the redline come across the Bloomberg terminal. There'll probably be

0:10:52.320 --> 0:10:55.600
<v Speaker 1>a market reaction, but in the actual text of the

0:10:55.640 --> 0:10:58.840
<v Speaker 1>executive order, you'll probably see language like this won't go

0:10:58.880 --> 0:11:01.360
<v Speaker 1>into place into two except for two hundred and seventy

0:11:01.440 --> 0:11:03.840
<v Speaker 1>days or three hundred and sixty five days unless the

0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:07.400
<v Speaker 1>Treasury Department says this, or unless the Energy Department does that,

0:11:08.280 --> 0:11:12.319
<v Speaker 1>because presidents also want to keep flexibility when they conduct negotiations.

0:11:12.600 --> 0:11:15.280
<v Speaker 1>So just something to keep in mind as you hear

0:11:15.400 --> 0:11:18.400
<v Speaker 1>kind candidates talk and as we talk about the energy

0:11:18.440 --> 0:11:22.360
<v Speaker 1>sector today, just remember how does this fit into one

0:11:22.400 --> 0:11:25.480
<v Speaker 1>of those three buckets? Okay, so let's go ahead and

0:11:25.480 --> 0:11:28.439
<v Speaker 1>turn it over to the questions. First. I'm going to

0:11:28.520 --> 0:11:31.719
<v Speaker 1>start with talent and just talking about the power of

0:11:31.760 --> 0:11:35.480
<v Speaker 1>the presidency. Let's talk about the energy exports and the

0:11:35.600 --> 0:11:39.320
<v Speaker 1>LNG pause. So, talent, what is the latest on the

0:11:39.320 --> 0:11:42.760
<v Speaker 1>freeze on the LG export authorizations, What are some likely

0:11:42.800 --> 0:11:45.840
<v Speaker 1>outcomes and who are the beneficiaries of the freeze and

0:11:45.880 --> 0:11:47.439
<v Speaker 1>who does it hurt the most.

0:11:49.000 --> 0:11:52.400
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, So, as most known, in January, the Biden administration

0:11:53.280 --> 0:11:57.960
<v Speaker 3>put a moratorium on the Department of Energy's ability to

0:11:58.200 --> 0:12:02.160
<v Speaker 3>issue export authorization to countries that lack free trade agreements

0:12:02.200 --> 0:12:04.240
<v Speaker 3>with with the US. And the idea is to study

0:12:04.720 --> 0:12:08.720
<v Speaker 3>and assess climate domestic energy prices. But really was it

0:12:08.720 --> 0:12:12.920
<v Speaker 3>was a political move to play CAID activists. You know,

0:12:13.000 --> 0:12:15.680
<v Speaker 3>we said from the beginning that in January that we

0:12:15.720 --> 0:12:18.960
<v Speaker 3>don't expect anything to happen until the election and really

0:12:19.280 --> 0:12:22.200
<v Speaker 3>the inauguration, and we're kind of on track for that.

0:12:23.040 --> 0:12:24.920
<v Speaker 3>You know, in July there was a federal judge that

0:12:25.000 --> 0:12:28.840
<v Speaker 3>overturned it, but unofficially it remains. There was a one

0:12:28.880 --> 0:12:32.280
<v Speaker 3>off with New Fortress Energy. They have a small project

0:12:32.320 --> 0:12:36.959
<v Speaker 3>in Mexico. They actually issued a five year expert authorization

0:12:37.120 --> 0:12:41.400
<v Speaker 3>to non FTA countries instead of twenty five years. But

0:12:41.559 --> 0:12:43.319
<v Speaker 3>you know it's in Mexico. It's one off. It was

0:12:43.360 --> 0:12:46.959
<v Speaker 3>a way of saying like, okay, you know it was overturned.

0:12:48.000 --> 0:12:50.920
<v Speaker 3>We're looking without really looking. So we still don't expect

0:12:51.000 --> 0:12:58.240
<v Speaker 3>anything until really the inauguration the outcomes. So if you

0:12:58.320 --> 0:13:01.559
<v Speaker 3>have if Harris wins, I don't think it's a permanent man.

0:13:01.840 --> 0:13:06.080
<v Speaker 3>I think eventually the energy track will we'll keep moving.

0:13:06.160 --> 0:13:08.760
<v Speaker 3>Some projects will move forward, but it will you know,

0:13:08.840 --> 0:13:12.640
<v Speaker 3>inhibit some and I do expect some stricter emissions criteria

0:13:13.760 --> 0:13:16.880
<v Speaker 3>and regulations. Obviously, if Trump wins, it's going to be

0:13:17.280 --> 0:13:19.839
<v Speaker 3>a lot more favorable for LNG. I think one of

0:13:19.880 --> 0:13:22.960
<v Speaker 3>the first things he does will be to stop the pause.

0:13:23.040 --> 0:13:26.440
<v Speaker 3>I think will try to expedite some of those authorizations

0:13:26.679 --> 0:13:31.440
<v Speaker 3>or extensions. But you know, I think ultimately even that

0:13:31.559 --> 0:13:33.240
<v Speaker 3>it will take a few months to address. He has

0:13:33.280 --> 0:13:37.160
<v Speaker 3>to get a new Energy secretary, maybe take a look

0:13:37.160 --> 0:13:41.280
<v Speaker 3>at Ferk. The Energy Department's already understaff, so I think

0:13:41.320 --> 0:13:44.280
<v Speaker 3>even that's going to continue to pressure the administration along

0:13:44.320 --> 0:13:48.240
<v Speaker 3>with you know, activists appealing everything. So the bottom line

0:13:48.280 --> 0:13:50.719
<v Speaker 3>is we're looking at delays of over a year and

0:13:51.040 --> 0:13:54.559
<v Speaker 3>higher costs for many of these projects regardless of who

0:13:54.600 --> 0:13:57.280
<v Speaker 3>comes in. But ultimately Trump would be more favorable for

0:13:58.000 --> 0:14:02.320
<v Speaker 3>LERG and beneficiaries and you know winners and losers of this.

0:14:02.360 --> 0:14:04.760
<v Speaker 3>So who are the beneficiaries? The first thing that comes

0:14:04.760 --> 0:14:10.360
<v Speaker 3>to mind are the international exporters and competitors through most

0:14:10.520 --> 0:14:14.040
<v Speaker 3>mostly through three q this year of LNG contract signed

0:14:14.080 --> 0:14:17.720
<v Speaker 3>firm or tentative, the US comprised about twenty three percent,

0:14:18.400 --> 0:14:21.120
<v Speaker 3>but that compares to forty three percent last year, so

0:14:21.160 --> 0:14:24.720
<v Speaker 3>it just goes to show that there's less interest. And

0:14:25.120 --> 0:14:27.880
<v Speaker 3>the majority of that twenty three percent were tentative deals,

0:14:27.920 --> 0:14:30.640
<v Speaker 3>not firm deals. So you still have to you know

0:14:30.680 --> 0:14:32.560
<v Speaker 3>that those are heads of agreement that you would have

0:14:32.600 --> 0:14:36.720
<v Speaker 3>to turn into a sale and purchase agreement. So obviously

0:14:37.400 --> 0:14:43.320
<v Speaker 3>when I say international competitors Qatar, Oman UAE, we saw

0:14:43.400 --> 0:14:46.560
<v Speaker 3>a final investment decision taken on a UAE project this year.

0:14:47.200 --> 0:14:50.280
<v Speaker 3>Other beneficiaries Mexico and Canada, they have that advantage the

0:14:50.280 --> 0:14:54.160
<v Speaker 3>don't have to go through the Panama Canal. See more

0:14:54.200 --> 0:14:59.520
<v Speaker 3>contracts signed with them as well. Other beneficiaries US projects

0:14:59.520 --> 0:15:03.080
<v Speaker 3>that are already operational. If it comes to it, the

0:15:03.120 --> 0:15:08.200
<v Speaker 3>scarcity value of those assets right, but also de bottlenecking

0:15:08.400 --> 0:15:11.720
<v Speaker 3>is an opportunity for growth without going through the extremely

0:15:11.800 --> 0:15:16.120
<v Speaker 3>lengthy regulatory process. So for example, Shaner, the nameplate capacity

0:15:16.160 --> 0:15:17.560
<v Speaker 3>of each of their trains was four and a half

0:15:17.600 --> 0:15:20.520
<v Speaker 3>million tons. They've already found a way to extend that

0:15:20.560 --> 0:15:24.560
<v Speaker 3>to five point one million tons a year, so you know,

0:15:24.640 --> 0:15:28.760
<v Speaker 3>other projects could do that. I say this with a caveat,

0:15:28.560 --> 0:15:34.320
<v Speaker 3>but proposed projects with that already have export authorizations to

0:15:34.360 --> 0:15:37.760
<v Speaker 3>non FDA countries. They have a leg up on projects

0:15:37.760 --> 0:15:40.640
<v Speaker 3>that don't, obviously, But at the same time, many of

0:15:40.680 --> 0:15:45.040
<v Speaker 3>those expire in twenty twenty six, twenty twenty seven, and

0:15:45.120 --> 0:15:47.920
<v Speaker 3>it takes four years to build a project, so you know,

0:15:48.000 --> 0:15:51.120
<v Speaker 3>naturally you're going to many of these projects are waiting

0:15:51.160 --> 0:15:54.200
<v Speaker 3>for more clarification. They don't want to invest billions take

0:15:54.200 --> 0:15:57.280
<v Speaker 3>a final investment decision without an extension, so probably won't

0:15:57.320 --> 0:16:02.080
<v Speaker 3>see those decisions until after the inaugura is age inauguration

0:16:03.840 --> 0:16:06.800
<v Speaker 3>losers of this, you know, I just said it. Obviously,

0:16:06.880 --> 0:16:09.800
<v Speaker 3>the proposed projects with with that lack the non FTA

0:16:09.960 --> 0:16:14.520
<v Speaker 3>export authorizations, you're already behind. Even if they do eventually

0:16:14.600 --> 0:16:17.120
<v Speaker 3>get one, they may be so far behind with other

0:16:17.200 --> 0:16:20.680
<v Speaker 3>projects in the US or globally that are moving forward,

0:16:20.720 --> 0:16:23.960
<v Speaker 3>and there's a lack of demand there because realistically not

0:16:24.040 --> 0:16:25.960
<v Speaker 3>all these projects are going to get built anyway, and

0:16:26.000 --> 0:16:30.160
<v Speaker 3>I think that this freeze reduces that that number even further.

0:16:30.840 --> 0:16:33.720
<v Speaker 3>And another loser of this is is the US's reputation

0:16:33.840 --> 0:16:39.040
<v Speaker 3>as a reliable LNG provider. You know, financial backers could

0:16:39.080 --> 0:16:43.880
<v Speaker 3>become hesitant counterparties, maybe even trying to get out of

0:16:43.880 --> 0:16:47.520
<v Speaker 3>of certain contracts. And realistically a lot of this we've

0:16:47.520 --> 0:16:49.760
<v Speaker 3>seen it with the contracts signed this year. You're pushing

0:16:50.760 --> 0:16:53.200
<v Speaker 3>demand and opportunities to other countries, and you could push

0:16:53.240 --> 0:16:56.800
<v Speaker 3>it the countries that don't support your agenda, like Russia.

0:16:56.920 --> 0:17:00.240
<v Speaker 3>So definitely, the US's reputation is so right.

0:17:01.560 --> 0:17:04.960
<v Speaker 1>You know, you mentioned you know, you mentioned the courts earlier,

0:17:05.680 --> 0:17:08.680
<v Speaker 1>and so one of the questions that we have is

0:17:08.680 --> 0:17:13.119
<v Speaker 1>is that, you know, the Biden administration's freeze isn't just

0:17:13.160 --> 0:17:16.679
<v Speaker 1>a risk to US liquid natural gas, but what about

0:17:16.720 --> 0:17:20.720
<v Speaker 1>the DC Appeals Court overturning the Furk approvals of those

0:17:20.720 --> 0:17:24.120
<v Speaker 1>two LNG projects, And how does it impact your outlook?

0:17:24.240 --> 0:17:25.679
<v Speaker 1>And you know, I would just say to those of

0:17:25.720 --> 0:17:29.600
<v Speaker 1>you who are listening right now, the courts are changing

0:17:29.680 --> 0:17:32.320
<v Speaker 1>fairly quickly in the United States, and so this is

0:17:32.359 --> 0:17:34.920
<v Speaker 1>an area that I think is really important especially if

0:17:34.920 --> 0:17:38.160
<v Speaker 1>you're not in in the US, just to understand, because

0:17:38.200 --> 0:17:40.600
<v Speaker 1>the courts are beginning because of what's known as the

0:17:40.680 --> 0:17:43.879
<v Speaker 1>Chevron Difference and major questions doctrine, courts are going to

0:17:43.920 --> 0:17:49.080
<v Speaker 1>be increasingly involved in regulations. So just that being sided telling,

0:17:49.160 --> 0:17:50.719
<v Speaker 1>can you just give your thoughts on what's happening over

0:17:50.760 --> 0:17:51.680
<v Speaker 1>the DC Appeals Court.

0:17:52.960 --> 0:17:55.640
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, what's going on with the appeals court is it's

0:17:55.640 --> 0:17:58.920
<v Speaker 3>a slippery slope and it's it's unprecedented. I think activists

0:17:58.920 --> 0:18:01.240
<v Speaker 3>and environmentalists kind of found a loophole in a way

0:18:01.280 --> 0:18:04.760
<v Speaker 3>to get some wins and it's it's really empowered them

0:18:04.800 --> 0:18:07.400
<v Speaker 3>and I think other projects may suffer the same fate.

0:18:07.520 --> 0:18:12.360
<v Speaker 3>So what happened was two lergy projects next decades, Rio

0:18:12.440 --> 0:18:15.760
<v Speaker 3>Grande and Texas Energy, both in Brownsville. They had their

0:18:15.800 --> 0:18:23.400
<v Speaker 3>first certificate overturned on on environmental grounds. Also, Commonwealth Energy

0:18:24.240 --> 0:18:26.920
<v Speaker 3>had it not it's not as extreme as what happened

0:18:26.920 --> 0:18:29.200
<v Speaker 3>with the other two projects, but they had THEIRS sent

0:18:29.320 --> 0:18:33.440
<v Speaker 3>back to them to reassess also the climate impact of Commonwealth.

0:18:34.160 --> 0:18:37.640
<v Speaker 3>And then Williams had the trans Co Expansion project regional

0:18:37.840 --> 0:18:41.720
<v Speaker 3>energy access up in the Northeast. They had their FIRK

0:18:41.800 --> 0:18:45.680
<v Speaker 3>certificate overturned as well, so they're dealing with a similar,

0:18:46.240 --> 0:18:50.800
<v Speaker 3>similar issue. It's all on environmental grounds and essentially, you know,

0:18:50.840 --> 0:18:55.000
<v Speaker 3>if we use next decade as a as a case study,

0:18:55.040 --> 0:18:57.239
<v Speaker 3>you know, they had to they recently just submitted an

0:18:57.280 --> 0:19:00.680
<v Speaker 3>appeal and they can continue construction their in the appeals

0:19:00.720 --> 0:19:03.080
<v Speaker 3>process and make take months. It could take a year.

0:19:04.400 --> 0:19:08.080
<v Speaker 3>There's a decent chance that the appeal is denied and

0:19:08.119 --> 0:19:10.720
<v Speaker 3>then it could go to the Supreme Court. It could

0:19:10.720 --> 0:19:13.320
<v Speaker 3>take years. But this is a project, you know, it's

0:19:13.359 --> 0:19:16.440
<v Speaker 3>alarming for for other projects. What is this to stop

0:19:16.480 --> 0:19:19.879
<v Speaker 3>from other other projects even that have crossed those lines

0:19:19.880 --> 0:19:23.400
<v Speaker 3>and are under construction to be halted. So this one

0:19:23.440 --> 0:19:27.080
<v Speaker 3>will be following very closely. You know, if if construction

0:19:27.200 --> 0:19:31.080
<v Speaker 3>is halted, it could be devastating. I could hurt other projects.

0:19:31.200 --> 0:19:34.320
<v Speaker 3>Venture Global CP two project has a has a target

0:19:34.320 --> 0:19:39.040
<v Speaker 3>on its back. I wouldn't be surprised if that suffered

0:19:39.600 --> 0:19:43.119
<v Speaker 3>a similar fate as the other two. So you know,

0:19:43.480 --> 0:19:46.240
<v Speaker 3>Rio Grand has to go undergo. They have to submit

0:19:46.280 --> 0:19:50.320
<v Speaker 3>a new environmental impact study, a new public comment period,

0:19:51.000 --> 0:19:53.000
<v Speaker 3>so they have to jump through all these hoops that

0:19:53.040 --> 0:19:58.879
<v Speaker 3>they've you know, to keep the project going. But again

0:19:59.080 --> 0:20:01.640
<v Speaker 3>it just it. It's a lot of risk on all

0:20:01.880 --> 0:20:06.399
<v Speaker 3>energy infrastructure projects. So whether it's permitting reform or just

0:20:06.600 --> 0:20:10.919
<v Speaker 3>tightening up and giving clarity to the industry in general

0:20:10.960 --> 0:20:14.159
<v Speaker 3>as to you know, at what point does a permit

0:20:14.200 --> 0:20:17.040
<v Speaker 3>become unappealable? You know, we have to speed up the process.

0:20:17.720 --> 0:20:20.840
<v Speaker 3>When can it not no longer be challenged? Because this

0:20:20.920 --> 0:20:23.560
<v Speaker 3>is this is definitely a significant issue, and I'm not sure,

0:20:24.400 --> 0:20:27.480
<v Speaker 3>you know, I think Trump, if he was elected, would

0:20:27.520 --> 0:20:31.720
<v Speaker 3>put more energy into addressing this. But regardless of who

0:20:31.880 --> 0:20:34.200
<v Speaker 3>gets in, I'm you know, this is an important topic

0:20:34.200 --> 0:20:35.159
<v Speaker 3>that has to be fixed.

0:20:35.600 --> 0:20:37.920
<v Speaker 1>So one my last question I have for you is

0:20:38.280 --> 0:20:41.200
<v Speaker 1>this is a little bit more about midstream and energy infrastructure.

0:20:41.680 --> 0:20:45.000
<v Speaker 1>How would how does your outlook for that piece look

0:20:45.480 --> 0:20:48.399
<v Speaker 1>under a Harris administration versus a Trump administration?

0:20:50.080 --> 0:20:52.520
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I will you and I have spoken about this

0:20:52.600 --> 0:20:54.840
<v Speaker 3>previously at a at a high level, and I'll defer

0:20:54.920 --> 0:20:57.919
<v Speaker 3>to some of my colleagues. I think ultimately whoever wins

0:20:57.960 --> 0:21:02.680
<v Speaker 3>doesn't in fact impact production too much oil and gas production.

0:21:02.840 --> 0:21:07.720
<v Speaker 3>But this LNG, you know, the freeze, the appeals court,

0:21:07.760 --> 0:21:11.520
<v Speaker 3>everything affecting that is. This election is is big because

0:21:11.600 --> 0:21:17.200
<v Speaker 3>if Trump is is elected, then I think he you know, again,

0:21:17.280 --> 0:21:21.760
<v Speaker 3>puts a lot of energy into dialing back the freeze,

0:21:21.880 --> 0:21:24.359
<v Speaker 3>basically getting rid of it and trying to expedite you know,

0:21:24.480 --> 0:21:30.240
<v Speaker 3>export authorizations and getting these projects to move forward. Whereas Harris,

0:21:30.880 --> 0:21:35.320
<v Speaker 3>I think ultimately there's results, but more strict criteria. So

0:21:35.320 --> 0:21:38.520
<v Speaker 3>that's the LNG issue right as far as midstream, it's

0:21:38.560 --> 0:21:42.919
<v Speaker 3>just a lot of there's a regulatory red tape. I

0:21:42.960 --> 0:21:46.040
<v Speaker 3>think if Trump wins, he's going to try to deregulate.

0:21:46.119 --> 0:21:51.240
<v Speaker 3>He may get some wins on you know, lightening up

0:21:52.040 --> 0:21:57.480
<v Speaker 3>like making air emissions quality you know, less impactful to

0:21:57.560 --> 0:22:02.359
<v Speaker 3>this sector, speeding up omitting, things like that, but something

0:22:02.400 --> 0:22:06.560
<v Speaker 3>that significantly moves the needle I don't foresee. You know,

0:22:06.640 --> 0:22:09.960
<v Speaker 3>Texas and Louisiana are the most friendly jurisdictions, and luckily

0:22:10.000 --> 0:22:13.679
<v Speaker 3>for the sector, that's where LNG exports and exports in

0:22:13.720 --> 0:22:18.679
<v Speaker 3>general are are mostly you know concentrated. But you have Appalachia,

0:22:18.720 --> 0:22:21.760
<v Speaker 3>for example, where there's a ton of gas and you know,

0:22:22.119 --> 0:22:24.240
<v Speaker 3>you just can't build infrastructure there to get it out,

0:22:24.240 --> 0:22:27.080
<v Speaker 3>So it's gonna limit growth there. It's gonna limit expansion

0:22:27.200 --> 0:22:30.320
<v Speaker 3>of of the MP's, which I'm sure Vince will talk

0:22:30.359 --> 0:22:33.560
<v Speaker 3>about So I think regardless of who gets elected, there's

0:22:33.640 --> 0:22:37.640
<v Speaker 3>going to continue to be pressure. But if Trump gets elected,

0:22:38.280 --> 0:22:41.200
<v Speaker 3>there may be some some small wins that help out

0:22:41.240 --> 0:22:42.479
<v Speaker 3>the industry.

0:22:43.160 --> 0:22:44.680
<v Speaker 1>Well, it sounds good, and I think that's a good

0:22:44.720 --> 0:22:48.080
<v Speaker 1>segue to go to Vin Vince. You know, Vince, when

0:22:48.080 --> 0:22:50.359
<v Speaker 1>we ask for questions, which I'm you know, making up.

0:22:50.400 --> 0:22:51.600
<v Speaker 1>Of course I got them in a viance.

0:22:51.640 --> 0:22:52.520
<v Speaker 4>But when we.

0:22:52.359 --> 0:22:55.560
<v Speaker 1>Asked for questions, Vince sent over his note and let

0:22:55.560 --> 0:22:58.240
<v Speaker 1>me just read the headline. The headline says, forget elections.

0:22:58.800 --> 0:23:01.560
<v Speaker 1>Politics doesn't affect energy in the long run. Now that

0:23:01.640 --> 0:23:06.040
<v Speaker 1>pains me as a Washingtonian vance but I don't disagree

0:23:06.040 --> 0:23:09.800
<v Speaker 1>with you. But what does history tell us about the

0:23:10.000 --> 0:23:13.600
<v Speaker 1>energy equity performance and the political party that is in

0:23:13.640 --> 0:23:14.240
<v Speaker 1>the White House.

0:23:15.160 --> 0:23:18.520
<v Speaker 2>Good morning, and thanks for having this. I really appreciate it.

0:23:18.880 --> 0:23:22.679
<v Speaker 2>So just full disclosure before we start this off. I

0:23:22.720 --> 0:23:25.560
<v Speaker 2>am a hugger, not a fighter. I hug the fifty

0:23:25.640 --> 0:23:28.800
<v Speaker 2>yard line. Politically, I am a registered independent. I have

0:23:28.880 --> 0:23:31.399
<v Speaker 2>no skin in this game. It's just the facts for me.

0:23:32.040 --> 0:23:37.280
<v Speaker 2>And when I take a look at equity performance over time,

0:23:37.800 --> 0:23:42.440
<v Speaker 2>it's really about technological advances and it's really about the

0:23:42.560 --> 0:23:48.080
<v Speaker 2>interplay between that demand and supply on a more global basis.

0:23:48.560 --> 0:23:51.640
<v Speaker 2>So let's take a look at since the nots. Let's

0:23:51.680 --> 0:23:54.359
<v Speaker 2>take a look at since the two thousand election, and

0:23:55.040 --> 0:23:58.520
<v Speaker 2>let's roll forward right. So, during a period where we

0:23:58.680 --> 0:24:05.320
<v Speaker 2>had more restrictive production, where we didn't have that technological breakthrough.

0:24:05.880 --> 0:24:10.760
<v Speaker 2>This was obviously during that commodity supercycle where that demand

0:24:10.920 --> 0:24:15.760
<v Speaker 2>was relatively high, but that supply of hydro carbon was restricted.

0:24:17.880 --> 0:24:22.320
<v Speaker 2>Energy equities did fairly well. When we go to this

0:24:22.480 --> 0:24:29.080
<v Speaker 2>period of drill, baby drill, that's when things become a

0:24:29.080 --> 0:24:33.400
<v Speaker 2>little murkier because you had more supply enter the market.

0:24:33.720 --> 0:24:40.280
<v Speaker 2>It's interesting that production oil bottomed in two thousand and

0:24:40.320 --> 0:24:45.399
<v Speaker 2>eight and natural gas production bottomed in two thousand and five,

0:24:46.359 --> 0:24:51.520
<v Speaker 2>and from that point on we saw a rise in

0:24:52.240 --> 0:24:56.280
<v Speaker 2>the output of both hydrocarbons. And during that administration, Nathan

0:24:56.320 --> 0:24:58.200
<v Speaker 2>who was the president after two.

0:24:58.080 --> 0:25:02.679
<v Speaker 1>Thousand and eight, President Obama.

0:25:02.640 --> 0:25:06.800
<v Speaker 2>So for those eight years, we continued to reach new

0:25:06.920 --> 0:25:12.240
<v Speaker 2>highs in both oil output and natural gas output. And

0:25:12.280 --> 0:25:16.119
<v Speaker 2>if you remember, during the budget negotiation process, there were

0:25:16.200 --> 0:25:20.280
<v Speaker 2>these funny little things called intangible drilling credits that were

0:25:20.280 --> 0:25:26.800
<v Speaker 2>being negotiated, and those intangible drilling credits are they provide

0:25:27.960 --> 0:25:34.159
<v Speaker 2>energy companies with the tax credits to move more molecules

0:25:34.200 --> 0:25:37.760
<v Speaker 2>from the ground and enable more production. And every year

0:25:37.800 --> 0:25:40.680
<v Speaker 2>in the budget they were removed and every year they

0:25:40.680 --> 0:25:44.639
<v Speaker 2>were put back in, and you have that production increase

0:25:44.880 --> 0:25:49.080
<v Speaker 2>every year to new highs. And this was during a

0:25:49.160 --> 0:25:52.480
<v Speaker 2>Democrat sitting in the White House. And sure enough what

0:25:52.560 --> 0:25:57.440
<v Speaker 2>happened to prices. Prices came down, but also equity performance

0:25:57.520 --> 0:26:00.639
<v Speaker 2>came down. So whenever we have this view of drill,

0:26:00.720 --> 0:26:05.800
<v Speaker 2>baby drill, it's not exactly positive for the investor because

0:26:05.800 --> 0:26:09.880
<v Speaker 2>you have wider balances if you don't have that demand pickup.

0:26:10.320 --> 0:26:14.760
<v Speaker 2>And during that time, which you also had was a

0:26:14.920 --> 0:26:19.960
<v Speaker 2>decline in the growth rate of that demand, especially from

0:26:19.640 --> 0:26:25.200
<v Speaker 2>the after effects of that commodity supercycle. But overall, what

0:26:25.560 --> 0:26:31.000
<v Speaker 2>was the key ingredient for this increase in oil and

0:26:31.040 --> 0:26:37.080
<v Speaker 2>gas production. It was technological innovation. It was unconventional drilling.

0:26:37.160 --> 0:26:42.400
<v Speaker 2>It was horizontal drilling, attacking the molecule under the ground

0:26:42.760 --> 0:26:46.919
<v Speaker 2>in a different way to move more of that molecule

0:26:47.080 --> 0:26:50.400
<v Speaker 2>above the ground. It had nothing to do with politics.

0:26:50.520 --> 0:26:53.080
<v Speaker 2>It had nothing to do with who was in the

0:26:53.080 --> 0:26:56.960
<v Speaker 2>White House, who was in the legislature. It was really

0:26:57.000 --> 0:27:00.720
<v Speaker 2>about the innovation in those rooms of the oil and

0:27:00.760 --> 0:27:05.800
<v Speaker 2>gas companies coming up with different ways to produce, and

0:27:05.880 --> 0:27:10.520
<v Speaker 2>that what that's what really needs to be understood more

0:27:10.840 --> 0:27:14.119
<v Speaker 2>more fully is that over the long run, if the

0:27:14.200 --> 0:27:17.159
<v Speaker 2>innovation of the oil and gas companies that is moving

0:27:17.240 --> 0:27:21.320
<v Speaker 2>more molecules out of the ground, that is helping society

0:27:21.440 --> 0:27:23.960
<v Speaker 2>more broadly, especially on the natural gas side. But we'll

0:27:23.960 --> 0:27:30.800
<v Speaker 2>get into that much later on. So equity performance when

0:27:31.600 --> 0:27:36.880
<v Speaker 2>supply was much more restrictive did well. When you had

0:27:37.040 --> 0:27:42.000
<v Speaker 2>more supply come out, you saw performance of let's call

0:27:42.040 --> 0:27:45.119
<v Speaker 2>it the general industry. And we looked at the XCEL,

0:27:45.359 --> 0:27:50.280
<v Speaker 2>which is the energy ETF that performance that were there

0:27:50.400 --> 0:27:56.440
<v Speaker 2>was under performance both relative to the SMP and relative

0:27:56.480 --> 0:28:01.720
<v Speaker 2>to other sectors that had more technol logical innovation during

0:28:01.760 --> 0:28:05.879
<v Speaker 2>that time, like the technology ETF or the healthcare ETF.

0:28:06.000 --> 0:28:10.520
<v Speaker 2>So pay attention to the long run technological innovations, not

0:28:10.640 --> 0:28:12.520
<v Speaker 2>so much who inhabits the White House.

0:28:13.119 --> 0:28:16.480
<v Speaker 1>Does the White House and who has the White House?

0:28:16.520 --> 0:28:20.359
<v Speaker 1>Does that have an impact on oil gas production or prices.

0:28:21.080 --> 0:28:26.280
<v Speaker 2>So keep in mind that the voters in Texas, the

0:28:26.400 --> 0:28:31.800
<v Speaker 2>voters in Oklahoma, the voters in Arkansas, those producing states,

0:28:32.119 --> 0:28:36.680
<v Speaker 2>But you also have those who consume the hydrocarbon as well,

0:28:36.720 --> 0:28:41.240
<v Speaker 2>and those who produce the hydrocarbon. Those who consume the hydrocarbon,

0:28:41.280 --> 0:28:44.440
<v Speaker 2>they're also voters as well, so they also key in

0:28:44.600 --> 0:28:49.360
<v Speaker 2>on the price at the pump, and that is a

0:28:49.520 --> 0:28:54.880
<v Speaker 2>very important issue for so many people across the political divide.

0:28:55.320 --> 0:29:00.960
<v Speaker 2>So the idea that we have more output is good

0:29:02.040 --> 0:29:07.040
<v Speaker 2>for society in general, but in this particular environment right now,

0:29:07.760 --> 0:29:12.320
<v Speaker 2>we have a more modulated output growth for both oil

0:29:12.360 --> 0:29:16.680
<v Speaker 2>and gas. The investor community is telling the oil companies,

0:29:17.080 --> 0:29:20.880
<v Speaker 2>we want less of the stuff, and we want that

0:29:21.000 --> 0:29:23.440
<v Speaker 2>excess cash back to us. So stop putting it in

0:29:23.520 --> 0:29:28.240
<v Speaker 2>the ground, stop putting the capital on the ground, give

0:29:28.240 --> 0:29:32.360
<v Speaker 2>it back to us, and let's level off the degree

0:29:32.400 --> 0:29:36.120
<v Speaker 2>of output. We don't want to see the high levels

0:29:36.160 --> 0:29:39.960
<v Speaker 2>of production growth that we saw in the early part

0:29:40.640 --> 0:29:43.200
<v Speaker 2>of the two thousands. We want that to be much

0:29:43.240 --> 0:29:47.720
<v Speaker 2>more modulated. And because it's much more modulated, we probably

0:29:47.880 --> 0:29:58.240
<v Speaker 2>have higher prices for both crude and also for gas

0:29:58.320 --> 0:30:03.479
<v Speaker 2>for on road transport as well. The natural gas story

0:30:03.600 --> 0:30:07.880
<v Speaker 2>is somewhat different, but it plays along those same lines

0:30:07.920 --> 0:30:14.240
<v Speaker 2>that we have significant levels of storage. Output growth has

0:30:14.320 --> 0:30:18.320
<v Speaker 2>been steady, and that demand side of the equation because

0:30:18.360 --> 0:30:23.840
<v Speaker 2>of seasonal cyclical factors, is keeping that gas price historically low,

0:30:24.000 --> 0:30:28.480
<v Speaker 2>natural gas price historically low, and that's also helpful for

0:30:28.640 --> 0:30:30.400
<v Speaker 2>the consumers on so many levels.

0:30:31.360 --> 0:30:33.239
<v Speaker 1>You know, the last question I wanted to ask you

0:30:33.360 --> 0:30:36.760
<v Speaker 1>was about regional issues, because you know, Vincent, I hope

0:30:36.760 --> 0:30:38.840
<v Speaker 1>you're okay with me saying this. You know, you're coming

0:30:38.840 --> 0:30:42.400
<v Speaker 1>to us from the greater Philadelphia area, which you know,

0:30:42.520 --> 0:30:44.240
<v Speaker 1>my I actually saw a tweet the other day that

0:30:44.640 --> 0:30:49.160
<v Speaker 1>the NBC affiliate in Philadelphia had thirty six adverts between

0:30:49.200 --> 0:30:52.240
<v Speaker 1>five am and seven am, specifically geared towards both the

0:30:52.280 --> 0:30:56.280
<v Speaker 1>Pennsylvania Center race and the national race. So obviously you're

0:30:56.360 --> 0:30:59.000
<v Speaker 1>one of the you know, one hundred thousand or so

0:30:59.120 --> 0:31:02.040
<v Speaker 1>Americans that may ultimately decide who the next president is

0:31:02.080 --> 0:31:05.000
<v Speaker 1>amongst those seven swing states. You know, what are the

0:31:05.040 --> 0:31:07.360
<v Speaker 1>regional issues that we should be thinking about in terms

0:31:07.400 --> 0:31:09.800
<v Speaker 1>of the energy sector as the production moves forward?

0:31:10.440 --> 0:31:15.280
<v Speaker 2>Right, So, it's really not so much about what's happening

0:31:15.320 --> 0:31:18.640
<v Speaker 2>at the well site. It's really about how we get

0:31:18.680 --> 0:31:23.360
<v Speaker 2>that molecule from the well site from the production site

0:31:23.400 --> 0:31:26.280
<v Speaker 2>to the consumption site. And that's more of an issue

0:31:26.280 --> 0:31:31.160
<v Speaker 2>of the infrastructure and the transportation issues. In places that

0:31:31.200 --> 0:31:37.560
<v Speaker 2>are much more energy friendly to investors, like Texas, infrastructure

0:31:37.760 --> 0:31:42.800
<v Speaker 2>development infrastructure investment could be much easier, but even those

0:31:42.920 --> 0:31:48.440
<v Speaker 2>areas have had some difficulty bringing infrastructure. On the matter

0:31:48.520 --> 0:31:52.800
<v Speaker 2>Horn pipeline down in Texas that is slowly ramping up.

0:31:53.040 --> 0:32:00.560
<v Speaker 2>That'll help prices as well for the producers. Right now,

0:32:00.680 --> 0:32:06.880
<v Speaker 2>WAHA prices are negative, so that is a disincentive. With

0:32:07.080 --> 0:32:11.640
<v Speaker 2>Mattterhorn coming online, that should be helpful for the producers

0:32:12.080 --> 0:32:18.440
<v Speaker 2>to move additional molecules from the producing areas into the

0:32:18.480 --> 0:32:24.320
<v Speaker 2>consumption areas. Places like New York, Pennsylvania, places along the

0:32:24.360 --> 0:32:29.040
<v Speaker 2>Northeast and the Middle Atlantic, they will always be somewhat

0:32:29.080 --> 0:32:34.440
<v Speaker 2>more difficult to build infrastructure, and a lot of times

0:32:34.480 --> 0:32:38.840
<v Speaker 2>it's really the civic backlash, the civic organizations that want

0:32:38.840 --> 0:32:43.680
<v Speaker 2>to prevent that degree of investment. Unfortunately, when you prevent

0:32:44.440 --> 0:32:47.080
<v Speaker 2>molecules from getting where they need to be and you

0:32:47.160 --> 0:32:53.360
<v Speaker 2>restrict that, your price prices for utilities, prices for the

0:32:54.200 --> 0:33:00.560
<v Speaker 2>underlying natural gas that can spike as well, especially when

0:33:00.560 --> 0:33:04.920
<v Speaker 2>you have periods of a deep, deep cold, similar to

0:33:04.960 --> 0:33:09.080
<v Speaker 2>what we saw in places like New England over the years,

0:33:09.240 --> 0:33:13.320
<v Speaker 2>where those molecules can't get to what to where they

0:33:13.400 --> 0:33:15.800
<v Speaker 2>need to be and you still have to import from

0:33:15.840 --> 0:33:19.880
<v Speaker 2>overseas when you're just a few states away. Great. Actually,

0:33:19.920 --> 0:33:22.920
<v Speaker 2>the infrastructure side that is going to be the driver

0:33:24.560 --> 0:33:26.440
<v Speaker 2>for the ultimate price to the consumer.

0:33:27.440 --> 0:33:29.680
<v Speaker 1>Oh that's great. So thank you very much for that.

0:33:29.720 --> 0:33:31.600
<v Speaker 1>And you know, so we're going to take the conversation

0:33:31.720 --> 0:33:35.040
<v Speaker 1>Will now, and you mentioned Vince drill baby drill, And

0:33:35.080 --> 0:33:37.080
<v Speaker 1>that's one of the biggest questions that we get here

0:33:37.120 --> 0:33:39.480
<v Speaker 1>in Washington, is this idea of drill baby drill. You know,

0:33:39.520 --> 0:33:43.680
<v Speaker 1>President Trump says drill baby drill. So Will, my first

0:33:43.760 --> 0:33:47.560
<v Speaker 1>question to you is what does drill baby drill actually

0:33:47.640 --> 0:33:51.000
<v Speaker 1>mean and more specifically, what does it mean policy wise

0:33:51.000 --> 0:33:53.120
<v Speaker 1>for upstream sector versus the status quo.

0:33:54.480 --> 0:33:57.120
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, thank you very much, Nathan. So it's actually a

0:33:57.160 --> 0:34:00.960
<v Speaker 4>very tricky question to answer because I think, as sometimes

0:34:01.000 --> 0:34:05.920
<v Speaker 4>with former President Trump, it's you know, can be ambiguous

0:34:05.920 --> 0:34:09.200
<v Speaker 4>as to know exactly what the policy specifics he is

0:34:09.239 --> 0:34:13.080
<v Speaker 4>referring to. But we can take an educated guess, and

0:34:13.160 --> 0:34:15.719
<v Speaker 4>I think the best place to start and start doing

0:34:15.719 --> 0:34:18.839
<v Speaker 4>that is to look at at what the Biden administration

0:34:18.920 --> 0:34:22.799
<v Speaker 4>has done over the last four years and see the

0:34:22.840 --> 0:34:27.720
<v Speaker 4>ability for a prospective Trump administration to roll that back,

0:34:28.200 --> 0:34:33.520
<v Speaker 4>and so I think probably the clearest element of what

0:34:33.520 --> 0:34:36.400
<v Speaker 4>would be a drill baby drill policy would be a

0:34:37.280 --> 0:34:41.479
<v Speaker 4>rollback of the federal oil and gas leasing auction pace.

0:34:41.560 --> 0:34:49.560
<v Speaker 4>So Biden has has instituted a very slow pace of leasings.

0:34:49.960 --> 0:34:52.840
<v Speaker 4>He's proposed only three oil and gas lead sales in

0:34:52.840 --> 0:34:55.919
<v Speaker 4>the Gulf of Mexico for twenty twenty five, in twenty

0:34:55.920 --> 0:34:59.399
<v Speaker 4>twenty seven and twenty twenty nine, and obviously there's none

0:34:59.400 --> 0:35:04.200
<v Speaker 4>at all in the Atlantic, Pacific or Alaskan waters. I

0:35:04.239 --> 0:35:06.919
<v Speaker 4>think it's important here to note as well that this

0:35:07.000 --> 0:35:10.120
<v Speaker 4>is the lowest number of oil and gas leases that

0:35:10.160 --> 0:35:14.680
<v Speaker 4>the Biden administration can offer in order to enable a

0:35:15.120 --> 0:35:19.120
<v Speaker 4>corresponding amount of offshore wind leases as well, which is

0:35:19.160 --> 0:35:23.600
<v Speaker 4>determined by the Inflation Production Act. So the current program

0:35:23.680 --> 0:35:27.600
<v Speaker 4>under the Biden administration is a pretty big drop compared

0:35:27.640 --> 0:35:33.160
<v Speaker 4>to the previous Trump administration, which had forty seven lease

0:35:33.200 --> 0:35:35.719
<v Speaker 4>sales off all the coastal areas of the US. So

0:35:36.120 --> 0:35:38.080
<v Speaker 4>I think it's safe to say that a drill baby

0:35:38.200 --> 0:35:45.439
<v Speaker 4>drill policy would likely comprise a big acceleration in lease

0:35:45.480 --> 0:35:50.120
<v Speaker 4>sale activity. Further onto that, we also think there could

0:35:50.200 --> 0:35:55.680
<v Speaker 4>be swift action by a prospective Trump presidency to remove

0:35:55.719 --> 0:36:00.960
<v Speaker 4>restrictions placed on some of the leasing auctions which the

0:36:01.000 --> 0:36:06.160
<v Speaker 4>Biden administration did. So this could include something like executive

0:36:06.200 --> 0:36:10.360
<v Speaker 4>actions for the BOEM the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

0:36:11.000 --> 0:36:15.600
<v Speaker 4>to conduct newly sales to the maximum extent permitted, and

0:36:15.640 --> 0:36:20.200
<v Speaker 4>so this could potentially be on an accelerated quarterly schedule,

0:36:20.719 --> 0:36:25.120
<v Speaker 4>and and in new areas which which haven't been previously

0:36:25.200 --> 0:36:31.440
<v Speaker 4>leased before. I think one special policy area really stands

0:36:31.440 --> 0:36:34.560
<v Speaker 4>out with drill Baby Drill, and this is Alaska. And

0:36:35.280 --> 0:36:39.839
<v Speaker 4>some listeners might might recall that this was a big

0:36:39.880 --> 0:36:43.680
<v Speaker 4>focus of the Biden administration to restrict oil and gas

0:36:43.719 --> 0:36:49.600
<v Speaker 4>development and exploration activity. So specifically, the Biden administration directed

0:36:49.880 --> 0:36:53.600
<v Speaker 4>the Department of the Interior to cancel multiple and war

0:36:53.760 --> 0:36:56.760
<v Speaker 4>leases in twenty twenty three. This is the Arctic National

0:36:56.800 --> 0:37:02.919
<v Speaker 4>Wildlife Refuge, and so we think that a drill Baby

0:37:03.000 --> 0:37:08.760
<v Speaker 4>Drill would likely start reopening Alaska. There's about thirteen million

0:37:08.800 --> 0:37:12.480
<v Speaker 4>acres of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska that the

0:37:12.480 --> 0:37:16.200
<v Speaker 4>Biden administration barred from development, so we think that could

0:37:16.239 --> 0:37:20.200
<v Speaker 4>also come back. But I think what's the impact here

0:37:21.760 --> 0:37:26.680
<v Speaker 4>with Alaska specifically, I personally think that this is somewhat

0:37:26.680 --> 0:37:29.440
<v Speaker 4>of a poison chalice for most oil and gas companies.

0:37:30.280 --> 0:37:34.720
<v Speaker 4>We've actually seen an exit and divestment from many major

0:37:34.840 --> 0:37:38.520
<v Speaker 4>companies over the last few years. Some quite recently we've

0:37:38.560 --> 0:37:43.960
<v Speaker 4>seen any shell BP all exit their activity, and this

0:37:44.040 --> 0:37:48.160
<v Speaker 4>is largely due to what we think is it's quite

0:37:48.239 --> 0:37:53.239
<v Speaker 4>clearly ecological risk, environmental risk, but also increasing reputational risk

0:37:54.040 --> 0:37:59.800
<v Speaker 4>given given the upside on resource, given the very limited

0:38:00.040 --> 0:38:03.799
<v Speaker 4>annual operating window that you actually have in Alaska offshore,

0:38:04.280 --> 0:38:08.399
<v Speaker 4>and of course a what you're facing a multi year

0:38:08.480 --> 0:38:13.120
<v Speaker 4>payback period for a relatively high risk project, and ongoing

0:38:13.160 --> 0:38:18.160
<v Speaker 4>reputational risk from the public markets and investors. So we

0:38:18.200 --> 0:38:22.600
<v Speaker 4>think that Alaska's probably won't factor in for many of

0:38:22.600 --> 0:38:26.640
<v Speaker 4>the larger companies. But of course BP sold on all

0:38:26.680 --> 0:38:30.560
<v Speaker 4>of their North Slope development and Alaska portfolio to Hillcore,

0:38:31.280 --> 0:38:34.480
<v Speaker 4>which is one of the largest private companies in the US,

0:38:34.520 --> 0:38:38.960
<v Speaker 4>and so that would probably be be a key beneficiary

0:38:39.000 --> 0:38:42.040
<v Speaker 4>of a policy like this. So essentially it boils down

0:38:42.080 --> 0:38:46.000
<v Speaker 4>to where the offshore leasing will be. The pace of

0:38:46.040 --> 0:38:49.680
<v Speaker 4>the offshore leasing and Alaska are the three major areas.

0:38:50.400 --> 0:38:53.000
<v Speaker 4>So I would just finally note that I would be

0:38:53.040 --> 0:38:57.080
<v Speaker 4>surprised if a new President Trump would would open up

0:38:57.160 --> 0:38:59.520
<v Speaker 4>offshore leasing off the coast of Florida.

0:39:00.440 --> 0:39:03.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, we've heard, you know, we've heard Florida governor, you know,

0:39:04.200 --> 0:39:07.399
<v Speaker 1>the Florida local politicians speak out against that as well.

0:39:07.440 --> 0:39:10.200
<v Speaker 1>I mean, so obviously a lot, a lot can be

0:39:10.239 --> 0:39:11.759
<v Speaker 1>said there. You know, one of the things that we're

0:39:11.800 --> 0:39:15.120
<v Speaker 1>going to ask about is fracking, because we hear fracking.

0:39:16.360 --> 0:39:19.160
<v Speaker 1>I would argue it's part of the election cycle, but

0:39:19.200 --> 0:39:21.359
<v Speaker 1>we've had it. It's probably not as big as we've

0:39:21.400 --> 0:39:24.160
<v Speaker 1>seen in other years, certainly in the state of Pennsylvania.

0:39:24.200 --> 0:39:28.000
<v Speaker 1>It's important. But you know, Vice President Harris is always,

0:39:28.080 --> 0:39:31.760
<v Speaker 1>you know, I think historically indicated an opposition of fracking.

0:39:32.400 --> 0:39:34.239
<v Speaker 1>You know, what's the outlook for this in the event

0:39:34.239 --> 0:39:35.160
<v Speaker 1>of her winning the election.

0:39:36.640 --> 0:39:41.560
<v Speaker 4>So I think that fracking has has been quite effectively

0:39:41.880 --> 0:39:45.839
<v Speaker 4>been dealt with by by the Harris administration here. Obviously,

0:39:45.920 --> 0:39:49.920
<v Speaker 4>she she's made some historical comments that she was in

0:39:49.960 --> 0:39:53.440
<v Speaker 4>favor of banning it, but I think she the campaign anyway,

0:39:53.480 --> 0:39:57.919
<v Speaker 4>has been pretty clear for very obvious reasons that that

0:39:57.920 --> 0:40:01.480
<v Speaker 4>that fracking would be untouched and is a very you know,

0:40:01.719 --> 0:40:04.440
<v Speaker 4>is a major core component of the US oil and

0:40:04.440 --> 0:40:08.879
<v Speaker 4>gas industry and has been invaluable in in driving oil

0:40:08.920 --> 0:40:12.480
<v Speaker 4>and gas production to to record highs for UH for

0:40:12.560 --> 0:40:16.560
<v Speaker 4>the country. So I I think the the key part

0:40:16.600 --> 0:40:20.279
<v Speaker 4>here is is that for for Harris, as as it

0:40:20.360 --> 0:40:24.800
<v Speaker 4>relates to two energy policy tracking will will almost certainly

0:40:24.960 --> 0:40:30.479
<v Speaker 4>remain untouched. But the e p a's rules, I think

0:40:30.640 --> 0:40:34.560
<v Speaker 4>are there are probably the area that is most important

0:40:34.560 --> 0:40:38.520
<v Speaker 4>for for a prospective Harris administration. There are key methane

0:40:38.880 --> 0:40:44.520
<v Speaker 4>fees and uh and and restrictions that that were included

0:40:44.600 --> 0:40:49.600
<v Speaker 4>in the Inflation Production Act. These these include the the

0:40:49.640 --> 0:40:53.400
<v Speaker 4>Methane and Emissions Reduction Program. There's a waste emissions charge

0:40:53.400 --> 0:40:58.120
<v Speaker 4>as well, which applies to certain emissions above above thresholds

0:40:58.680 --> 0:41:02.719
<v Speaker 4>for oil and gas operations, and and of course increased

0:41:03.040 --> 0:41:09.160
<v Speaker 4>reporting requirements. There's elimination of routine flaring uh and and

0:41:09.160 --> 0:41:14.000
<v Speaker 4>and increased monitoring requirements as well. So so some sort

0:41:14.000 --> 0:41:16.880
<v Speaker 4>of variations of these under the RA could be you know,

0:41:17.480 --> 0:41:20.160
<v Speaker 4>could it could be set status quo even but but

0:41:20.160 --> 0:41:23.480
<v Speaker 4>but it could even be strengthened as well. So I

0:41:24.080 --> 0:41:28.359
<v Speaker 4>do think that the fracking is has played a lot

0:41:28.440 --> 0:41:31.480
<v Speaker 4>less of a role than it has maybe in previous campaigns,

0:41:31.480 --> 0:41:36.040
<v Speaker 4>and I think given the how important Pennsylvania is and

0:41:36.040 --> 0:41:40.319
<v Speaker 4>and the Marcellus there is, uh it, maybe that's that's unsurprising.

0:41:40.920 --> 0:41:43.400
<v Speaker 1>So moving out of Pennsylvania and then thinking more on

0:41:43.440 --> 0:41:47.680
<v Speaker 1>a global stage, you know, let's talk about OPEK. What

0:41:47.840 --> 0:41:51.080
<v Speaker 1>is the potential outlook for OPEC plus in its strategic

0:41:51.200 --> 0:41:54.719
<v Speaker 1>position under a Harris presidency versus the Trump presidency.

0:41:56.120 --> 0:41:59.320
<v Speaker 4>So so for Harris once again, it's almost certainly the

0:41:59.480 --> 0:42:04.920
<v Speaker 4>status quo and sore. Where we are currently with OPEK

0:42:05.160 --> 0:42:09.480
<v Speaker 4>is that there are significant production cuts being instituted by

0:42:09.600 --> 0:42:12.040
<v Speaker 4>by OPEC plus at the moment in order to try

0:42:12.080 --> 0:42:16.840
<v Speaker 4>and stabilize and support global pricing. We've just seen today

0:42:16.920 --> 0:42:20.839
<v Speaker 4>that a pretty big move down in oil prices as

0:42:20.880 --> 0:42:25.640
<v Speaker 4>a geopolitical risk premium is fading now given there was

0:42:25.680 --> 0:42:30.040
<v Speaker 4>some concern that Israel would retaliate on Iranian oil facilities,

0:42:30.239 --> 0:42:34.360
<v Speaker 4>that looks like it's that that risk vector is dissipating

0:42:34.400 --> 0:42:36.320
<v Speaker 4>at the moment. So we're seeing a lot of pressure

0:42:36.360 --> 0:42:41.200
<v Speaker 4>on oil prices, we're all. And this comes alongside you know,

0:42:41.239 --> 0:42:45.800
<v Speaker 4>pretty soft demand data out of China as well. So overall,

0:42:45.920 --> 0:42:49.319
<v Speaker 4>this this paints a pretty bearish picture into next year

0:42:49.920 --> 0:42:53.520
<v Speaker 4>for oil pricing. And on top of that, it's very

0:42:53.520 --> 0:42:58.640
<v Speaker 4>clear that OPEC plus is getting increasingly uncomfortable with their

0:42:58.719 --> 0:43:02.000
<v Speaker 4>level of cuts. And so we think there's going to

0:43:02.040 --> 0:43:04.920
<v Speaker 4>become We're going to see some renewed urgency from members

0:43:04.960 --> 0:43:09.279
<v Speaker 4>to UH to start tapering these cuts. And and you know,

0:43:10.000 --> 0:43:12.319
<v Speaker 4>there's not much room for extra OPEC barrels in the

0:43:12.360 --> 0:43:15.080
<v Speaker 4>market right now. UH and and so so we see

0:43:15.080 --> 0:43:18.960
<v Speaker 4>this as a potential downside catalyst for pricing. How this

0:43:19.040 --> 0:43:23.359
<v Speaker 4>relates to to the U S election, Well, once again,

0:43:23.400 --> 0:43:26.520
<v Speaker 4>it's sort of tricky tricky to tell with with with Trump,

0:43:26.520 --> 0:43:28.799
<v Speaker 4>but we can look back into his first into his

0:43:28.800 --> 0:43:32.480
<v Speaker 4>first term to to see where where he might go.

0:43:33.080 --> 0:43:36.080
<v Speaker 4>And in his first administration he needed a habit of

0:43:36.120 --> 0:43:40.399
<v Speaker 4>pressuring OPEC to do his bidding. And though in which

0:43:40.440 --> 0:43:44.240
<v Speaker 4>direction remains remains to be seen, really because because because

0:43:44.239 --> 0:43:46.960
<v Speaker 4>he actually did both, and I think it's import I

0:43:47.000 --> 0:43:50.000
<v Speaker 4>think the reason why is and it's important to touch

0:43:50.080 --> 0:43:52.680
<v Speaker 4>on this is that there exists sort of a clear

0:43:52.760 --> 0:43:57.560
<v Speaker 4>tension I think between a protecting the US energy complex

0:43:58.080 --> 0:44:02.040
<v Speaker 4>with you know, with supporting high price higher prices. And

0:44:02.080 --> 0:44:06.800
<v Speaker 4>then also there's a very clear benefit to political benefit

0:44:06.840 --> 0:44:10.520
<v Speaker 4>to having low energy prices and particularly low gasoline prices

0:44:11.000 --> 0:44:14.799
<v Speaker 4>for for American consumers. So I wouldn't be surprised to

0:44:14.840 --> 0:44:19.040
<v Speaker 4>see that sort of ebb and flow throughout throughout a

0:44:19.080 --> 0:44:23.399
<v Speaker 4>potential Trump presidency, which which might sort of ramp up

0:44:24.400 --> 0:44:30.600
<v Speaker 4>during times where, uh, maybe the mid terms, you could

0:44:30.640 --> 0:44:34.160
<v Speaker 4>see more pressure on more barrels into the market from OPEC.

0:44:34.880 --> 0:44:39.520
<v Speaker 1>Right, So let's let's turn over to Brett. Brett, biofuels

0:44:40.880 --> 0:44:44.200
<v Speaker 1>very important, very policy dependent. I'm reading this as if

0:44:44.200 --> 0:44:46.680
<v Speaker 1>I know that, but actually that's what the question said, So,

0:44:47.200 --> 0:44:50.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, very policy dependent, but they have bipartisans support

0:44:51.360 --> 0:44:53.879
<v Speaker 1>as such. How do you think the election is going

0:44:53.920 --> 0:44:58.919
<v Speaker 1>to out to sway shape the biofuels industry and does

0:44:58.960 --> 0:45:01.800
<v Speaker 1>President Trump repre he sent a dramatic change to altering

0:45:01.800 --> 0:45:03.480
<v Speaker 1>the existing policy landscape.

0:45:04.239 --> 0:45:08.319
<v Speaker 5>Thanks Nathan. There's two key federal policies that drive biofields

0:45:08.320 --> 0:45:10.640
<v Speaker 5>in the US, so it's important to think about the

0:45:10.640 --> 0:45:13.160
<v Speaker 5>election and the context of these two. The first is

0:45:13.200 --> 0:45:17.040
<v Speaker 5>the Renewable Fuel Standard, which sets biofueld mandate here domestically,

0:45:17.520 --> 0:45:19.960
<v Speaker 5>and there is second are tax credits that now have

0:45:20.040 --> 0:45:23.120
<v Speaker 5>been bundled and included in the inflation Reduction Act. The

0:45:23.200 --> 0:45:26.040
<v Speaker 5>former has been in place for almost two decades now

0:45:26.400 --> 0:45:29.960
<v Speaker 5>and volumes have been set out until twenty twenty five. However,

0:45:30.280 --> 0:45:33.560
<v Speaker 5>after twenty twenty two, the EPA has more authority and

0:45:33.640 --> 0:45:37.560
<v Speaker 5>setting mandates going forward, so change an the EPA administrator

0:45:37.760 --> 0:45:40.440
<v Speaker 5>who's appointed by the President could alter the approach to

0:45:40.480 --> 0:45:44.320
<v Speaker 5>twenty twenty six mandate. Then, outside of appeal to the IRA,

0:45:44.719 --> 0:45:46.960
<v Speaker 5>which I know Nathan, you and your team have done

0:45:46.960 --> 0:45:50.640
<v Speaker 5>a lot of work on discussing the likelihood of that,

0:45:50.880 --> 0:45:53.600
<v Speaker 5>there are tax credits that are still awaiting official guidelines.

0:45:54.040 --> 0:45:58.120
<v Speaker 5>So one of the pressing priorities for the biofuels industry

0:45:58.360 --> 0:46:00.760
<v Speaker 5>is a tax code forty five Z within the Inflation

0:46:00.840 --> 0:46:04.880
<v Speaker 5>Reduction Act, which takes effect January first. The lack of

0:46:04.960 --> 0:46:09.839
<v Speaker 5>formalized carbon intensity calculations leaves room for post election adjustments,

0:46:10.239 --> 0:46:13.600
<v Speaker 5>so this is something of a particular note or a

0:46:13.600 --> 0:46:17.080
<v Speaker 5>lot of folks are tracking with the outcome of next Tuesday.

0:46:17.360 --> 0:46:20.920
<v Speaker 5>While we believe biofuel policy is broadly durable regardless of

0:46:21.000 --> 0:46:25.640
<v Speaker 5>who is elected, feet sucks election specific pathway targets and

0:46:25.880 --> 0:46:29.399
<v Speaker 5>how imports are included in these policies are at hand.

0:46:30.800 --> 0:46:34.680
<v Speaker 5>Then the question on how Trump specifically could alter the

0:46:34.760 --> 0:46:37.920
<v Speaker 5>existing policy landscape. I think there's five things to consider.

0:46:38.719 --> 0:46:41.560
<v Speaker 5>The first of which, again is an IRA repeal, because

0:46:41.760 --> 0:46:46.680
<v Speaker 5>it's one of those two key policies that biofuel the

0:46:46.680 --> 0:46:50.400
<v Speaker 5>biocule industry depends on. A wholesale repeal would obviously be

0:46:50.440 --> 0:46:53.960
<v Speaker 5>negative for the renewable fuels industry. Another one that you

0:46:54.320 --> 0:46:57.680
<v Speaker 5>touched on at the top with tariffs. The second is

0:46:57.760 --> 0:47:02.200
<v Speaker 5>promote US agriculture, third of which is small refinery exemptions,

0:47:02.280 --> 0:47:07.440
<v Speaker 5>and the last is how the president or Trump in

0:47:07.480 --> 0:47:10.719
<v Speaker 5>this case would support evs. But just going into each

0:47:10.760 --> 0:47:15.759
<v Speaker 5>of them briefly, the IRA repeal, the note that the

0:47:15.760 --> 0:47:19.319
<v Speaker 5>policy team Nathan yu All put out assigns a ten

0:47:19.360 --> 0:47:22.560
<v Speaker 5>percent chance of a full repeal, so again it's not

0:47:22.600 --> 0:47:25.080
<v Speaker 5>necessarily in our base case. One thing to note and

0:47:25.920 --> 0:47:30.400
<v Speaker 5>a partial repeal is energy or clean energy specific credits,

0:47:30.400 --> 0:47:32.560
<v Speaker 5>which I'm sure Rob will get into, and a bit

0:47:32.640 --> 0:47:36.880
<v Speaker 5>have been called out specifically as sources of potential funding

0:47:37.160 --> 0:47:41.560
<v Speaker 5>as they consider, you know, new tax bills or things

0:47:41.640 --> 0:47:46.800
<v Speaker 5>under Trump presidency. The second of which tariffs, So tariffs

0:47:46.800 --> 0:47:49.719
<v Speaker 5>could make it harder for US domestically to meet obligations,

0:47:50.400 --> 0:47:54.040
<v Speaker 5>which could make some of these credit prices jump and

0:47:54.120 --> 0:47:59.240
<v Speaker 5>then tariffs has a particular impact on the sourcing of feedstocks.

0:47:59.400 --> 0:48:03.480
<v Speaker 5>The reason as there's been an uptick the past year

0:48:03.560 --> 0:48:09.239
<v Speaker 5>of using China based use cooking oil to make some

0:48:09.280 --> 0:48:11.839
<v Speaker 5>of the biofuels, and the reason being is that use

0:48:11.920 --> 0:48:14.600
<v Speaker 5>cooking oil has a carbon intensity advantage, so you get

0:48:14.719 --> 0:48:18.360
<v Speaker 5>more credits. If there are broad tariffs on Chinese goods,

0:48:19.160 --> 0:48:23.439
<v Speaker 5>this would limit the amount of Chinese uko into into

0:48:23.440 --> 0:48:27.319
<v Speaker 5>the US, would force bio fuels producers to rely more

0:48:27.400 --> 0:48:33.400
<v Speaker 5>on domestic based feedstuck. The next one of how it

0:48:33.440 --> 0:48:37.279
<v Speaker 5>could how a Trump presidency could promote US agriculture, so

0:48:37.400 --> 0:48:41.000
<v Speaker 5>aside from the tariffs which I mentioned, have the potential

0:48:41.040 --> 0:48:45.839
<v Speaker 5>impact to promote domestic feedsuck usage policy in general could

0:48:45.840 --> 0:48:50.719
<v Speaker 5>cater to US agriculture. So of the top five states

0:48:51.040 --> 0:48:55.719
<v Speaker 5>that we've looked at, from corn production, solviean production by

0:48:55.800 --> 0:49:00.960
<v Speaker 5>cross capacity, ethanol production, renewal, diesel, biodiesel the key components

0:49:01.000 --> 0:49:05.760
<v Speaker 5>of biofuels in general. From market participants, seventy seven percent

0:49:05.760 --> 0:49:07.960
<v Speaker 5>of those were won by the GOP in twenty twenty.

0:49:08.200 --> 0:49:11.640
<v Speaker 5>So if you exclude Texas and Louisiana not necessarily who

0:49:11.640 --> 0:49:15.520
<v Speaker 5>you'd consider ag specific state. The other eight states total

0:49:15.560 --> 0:49:20.960
<v Speaker 5>fifty eight electoral votes, so under Trump presidency, policy could

0:49:21.440 --> 0:49:26.319
<v Speaker 5>lean a little bit more towards the agricultural base. The

0:49:26.360 --> 0:49:30.240
<v Speaker 5>next is small refinery exemptions. So this is something where

0:49:30.680 --> 0:49:35.640
<v Speaker 5>in setting the policies you essentially could remove the obligated

0:49:35.800 --> 0:49:40.600
<v Speaker 5>fuel within that by removing small refiners from those mandates.

0:49:40.640 --> 0:49:45.040
<v Speaker 5>This is something that under Trump's previous presidency in twenty

0:49:45.080 --> 0:49:49.000
<v Speaker 5>seventeen that were the most small refinery exemptions granted in

0:49:49.040 --> 0:49:52.000
<v Speaker 5>any year. The one thing that we like to note

0:49:52.000 --> 0:49:55.400
<v Speaker 5>with that too is exemptions don't necessarily mean that there

0:49:55.400 --> 0:49:58.560
<v Speaker 5>will be less biofueld demand if they're included in the

0:49:58.600 --> 0:50:02.799
<v Speaker 5>planning process ahead of So this becomes more of an

0:50:02.840 --> 0:50:05.280
<v Speaker 5>issue when they set the twenty twenty six com mandate,

0:50:05.640 --> 0:50:10.279
<v Speaker 5>But anything retroactive would reduce the amount of obligations or

0:50:10.320 --> 0:50:13.319
<v Speaker 5>the demand for biofueld so to speak. The last part

0:50:13.320 --> 0:50:17.200
<v Speaker 5>on a Trump presidency is any slower ed adoption in

0:50:17.239 --> 0:50:21.479
<v Speaker 5>the form of policy actually preserves the biofuel addressable market,

0:50:21.560 --> 0:50:24.120
<v Speaker 5>which would be supportive for biofields in general.

0:50:25.320 --> 0:50:29.799
<v Speaker 1>So, thinking you mentioned about President Trump, thinking about Vice

0:50:29.840 --> 0:50:33.200
<v Speaker 1>President Harris, are there major differences between her views and

0:50:33.239 --> 0:50:37.719
<v Speaker 1>President Biden's views, especially when it comes to decarbonizing transportation.

0:50:37.800 --> 0:50:42.200
<v Speaker 5>For example, Yeah, under a Harris presidency, we kind of

0:50:42.239 --> 0:50:45.640
<v Speaker 5>see a status quo or an acceleration of decarbonization effort.

0:50:45.760 --> 0:50:50.000
<v Speaker 5>So a policy expansion may favor a carbon intensity based approach.

0:50:50.680 --> 0:50:53.640
<v Speaker 5>This is the model of the four state based programs

0:50:53.680 --> 0:50:56.040
<v Speaker 5>in the US that we didn't touch on that have

0:50:56.120 --> 0:50:58.799
<v Speaker 5>passed low carbon Fuel Centers, all of which were won

0:50:58.880 --> 0:51:02.479
<v Speaker 5>by the deer in twenty twenty Democratic states. The IRA

0:51:02.719 --> 0:51:06.319
<v Speaker 5>tax credit actually includes some of these attributes, so we

0:51:06.320 --> 0:51:12.080
<v Speaker 5>can see further expansion of this. Under these schemes, fuels

0:51:12.160 --> 0:51:15.200
<v Speaker 5>without blend restrictions that are generated from waste based speed

0:51:15.200 --> 0:51:19.680
<v Speaker 5>stocks are the most advantaged. And then any extension of

0:51:19.800 --> 0:51:24.320
<v Speaker 5>EV policy support is an overhang longer term renewable fuels

0:51:24.320 --> 0:51:28.080
<v Speaker 5>and could steer policy more towards sustainable aviation fuel or

0:51:28.120 --> 0:51:31.960
<v Speaker 5>other hard to abate transportation sectors.

0:51:32.000 --> 0:51:35.440
<v Speaker 1>Great, so let's you mentioned IRA. Let's turn it to

0:51:35.520 --> 0:51:39.080
<v Speaker 1>Rob Barnett. IRA very important to his renewable stocks that

0:51:39.160 --> 0:51:42.440
<v Speaker 1>he covers. You know, the policy team says a ten

0:51:42.440 --> 0:51:46.040
<v Speaker 1>percent chance of repeal. We don't want to look we

0:51:46.080 --> 0:51:48.560
<v Speaker 1>can have an entire webinar on that one. But if

0:51:48.600 --> 0:51:51.880
<v Speaker 1>you think about your sector, help us understand what's at

0:51:51.960 --> 0:51:55.319
<v Speaker 1>risk in the election. How does President Trump or Vice

0:51:55.320 --> 0:51:58.280
<v Speaker 1>President Harris have a meaningful impact on win and solar?

0:51:58.320 --> 0:51:59.080
<v Speaker 1>Are they relevant?

0:52:00.640 --> 0:52:02.520
<v Speaker 6>Well, you know, I want to take it back to

0:52:03.120 --> 0:52:06.480
<v Speaker 6>what Vince said here at the start of the call

0:52:06.719 --> 0:52:10.719
<v Speaker 6>in that let's let's rewind and look a little bit

0:52:10.719 --> 0:52:15.759
<v Speaker 6>at history here, and you know, I think it's it's

0:52:15.760 --> 0:52:17.760
<v Speaker 6>probably will become as a little bit of a surprise.

0:52:17.800 --> 0:52:20.960
<v Speaker 6>But if you look at the solar stocks, they're down

0:52:21.680 --> 0:52:26.520
<v Speaker 6>just a tremendous amount under the Biden administration. The MAC

0:52:26.680 --> 0:52:31.880
<v Speaker 6>Global Solar Index has declined about sixty seven percent since

0:52:32.080 --> 0:52:37.000
<v Speaker 6>Biden was sworn in, same index up about four x

0:52:37.440 --> 0:52:42.160
<v Speaker 6>under Trump. So we've had a precipitous decline under Biden

0:52:42.280 --> 0:52:47.000
<v Speaker 6>and a massive rally under the trumpet prior Trump administration

0:52:47.120 --> 0:52:49.759
<v Speaker 6>for solar stocks, I think, you know, if you were

0:52:49.800 --> 0:52:53.520
<v Speaker 6>only paying attention to policy, you'd probably think the opposite

0:52:53.680 --> 0:52:58.200
<v Speaker 6>would be true, because there's been so much positive, sort

0:52:58.239 --> 0:53:03.120
<v Speaker 6>of almost moral cheerlyaing under the bind administration. There is

0:53:03.160 --> 0:53:07.360
<v Speaker 6>the IRA things like that, and so you know, my

0:53:07.560 --> 0:53:13.680
<v Speaker 6>general sense is that the wind and solar industry probably

0:53:13.800 --> 0:53:18.440
<v Speaker 6>chugs along no matter who the president is. Will you

0:53:18.480 --> 0:53:23.000
<v Speaker 6>get slightly more favorable terms under a Harris presidency than

0:53:23.000 --> 0:53:24.000
<v Speaker 6>a Trump presidency?

0:53:24.280 --> 0:53:24.799
<v Speaker 5>I think so.

0:53:25.920 --> 0:53:30.840
<v Speaker 6>But if you look at all of the capacity editions

0:53:31.160 --> 0:53:35.360
<v Speaker 6>that are anticipated to come online this year in the

0:53:35.440 --> 0:53:39.880
<v Speaker 6>United States, ninety four percent of them are wind or solar,

0:53:40.360 --> 0:53:43.920
<v Speaker 6>and they're remaining a little bit mostly gas. So we

0:53:44.560 --> 0:53:47.560
<v Speaker 6>live in a world where all the folks in utility

0:53:47.640 --> 0:53:51.399
<v Speaker 6>land are basically installing wind or solar with a little

0:53:51.440 --> 0:53:54.919
<v Speaker 6>bit of gas to go alongside it. I really don't

0:53:54.920 --> 0:53:59.680
<v Speaker 6>see that paradigm shifting depending independent of who the president is.

0:54:00.719 --> 0:54:04.920
<v Speaker 6>We are roughly installing about forty gigawatts of solar a

0:54:05.040 --> 0:54:09.400
<v Speaker 6>year in the US. Potentially that figure goes up to

0:54:09.440 --> 0:54:13.359
<v Speaker 6>eighty gigawatts a year by say twenty thirty. Will it

0:54:13.680 --> 0:54:16.359
<v Speaker 6>move in that direction independent of who the president is.

0:54:17.480 --> 0:54:22.640
<v Speaker 6>Probably it's going to trend up independent of whether IRA

0:54:23.040 --> 0:54:25.239
<v Speaker 6>even stays or not. And of course, if you're a

0:54:25.280 --> 0:54:29.560
<v Speaker 6>manufacturer and you are producing in the US, you want

0:54:29.560 --> 0:54:32.000
<v Speaker 6>the IRA to say why, you'd be irrational not to

0:54:32.120 --> 0:54:37.239
<v Speaker 6>want to keep it. But I think that the sort

0:54:37.280 --> 0:54:43.719
<v Speaker 6>of general trend of more renewable power flowing into the

0:54:43.840 --> 0:54:47.359
<v Speaker 6>electric power landscape is sort of an unstoppable force at

0:54:47.360 --> 0:54:47.920
<v Speaker 6>this point.

0:54:48.480 --> 0:54:50.439
<v Speaker 1>But when it comes to the IRA, just to set

0:54:50.480 --> 0:54:53.320
<v Speaker 1>the scene for everybody, I mean, if President Trump wins,

0:54:54.480 --> 0:54:56.560
<v Speaker 1>or even if Vice President Harris wins, and they want

0:54:56.560 --> 0:54:59.360
<v Speaker 1>to extend the Trump air tax cuts, the entire package

0:54:59.360 --> 0:55:02.600
<v Speaker 1>from twenty seven team is around six trillion plus just

0:55:02.680 --> 0:55:05.640
<v Speaker 1>the individual tax cuts are around three point five trillion.

0:55:05.680 --> 0:55:07.600
<v Speaker 1>Now the IRA is around five hundred billion, So it's

0:55:07.640 --> 0:55:10.560
<v Speaker 1>not going to get you there. But you know, if

0:55:10.600 --> 0:55:13.880
<v Speaker 1>they decide to start chipping away at the IRA. In

0:55:13.920 --> 0:55:17.520
<v Speaker 1>your scenario analysis where you go from repeal and so forth,

0:55:17.560 --> 0:55:21.040
<v Speaker 1>what does it mean for the US clean energy manufacturers?

0:55:22.719 --> 0:55:26.560
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, so I think repeal would be very meaningful for

0:55:26.640 --> 0:55:32.080
<v Speaker 6>any of the companies that have expanded their US manufactured footprint.

0:55:31.920 --> 0:55:34.560
<v Speaker 6>At First Solar to the extent that we have a

0:55:34.680 --> 0:55:39.800
<v Speaker 6>national champion of solar module makers is probably First Solar,

0:55:40.800 --> 0:55:45.600
<v Speaker 6>and they've expanded, They've got additional facilities even under construction

0:55:45.719 --> 0:55:49.480
<v Speaker 6>as we speak, and right now they're running at about

0:55:49.480 --> 0:55:53.839
<v Speaker 6>a forty five percent adjusted gross margin, that is when

0:55:53.880 --> 0:55:59.080
<v Speaker 6>you include the forty five x manufacturing tax provision that's

0:55:59.120 --> 0:56:02.040
<v Speaker 6>within the IRA. If you get rid of that, I

0:56:02.080 --> 0:56:04.880
<v Speaker 6>think they fall to, you know, a much more humble

0:56:05.560 --> 0:56:08.920
<v Speaker 6>and a twenty twenty five percent gross margin business. And

0:56:09.000 --> 0:56:13.000
<v Speaker 6>so you know, and this is every company that's in

0:56:13.040 --> 0:56:17.120
<v Speaker 6>the US, whether you are domiciled in the US or

0:56:17.160 --> 0:56:20.640
<v Speaker 6>a foreign entity that's built manufacturing facilities in the US,

0:56:20.920 --> 0:56:23.640
<v Speaker 6>you get to take advantage of this credit if you're

0:56:23.680 --> 0:56:26.160
<v Speaker 6>made here so or if you're making your modules in

0:56:26.200 --> 0:56:29.680
<v Speaker 6>the US, and so you know, generally, the US has

0:56:29.760 --> 0:56:34.200
<v Speaker 6>given a very nice subsidy to encourage not just a

0:56:34.239 --> 0:56:38.040
<v Speaker 6>solar demand, which which I've already mentioned is strong, but

0:56:38.160 --> 0:56:40.680
<v Speaker 6>to say don't don't import the modules, make them here

0:56:40.719 --> 0:56:43.279
<v Speaker 6>in the US. And I think if you get rid

0:56:43.320 --> 0:56:48.000
<v Speaker 6>of these provisions, it's a it's a very difficult operating

0:56:48.120 --> 0:56:51.200
<v Speaker 6>environment for a lot of the folks who have built

0:56:51.200 --> 0:56:56.520
<v Speaker 6>out cap X are built manufacturing facilities here as as

0:56:56.600 --> 0:56:59.160
<v Speaker 6>as you've noted, and as we often like to discuss,

0:56:59.560 --> 0:57:05.320
<v Speaker 6>all of those facilities are in red states and red districts.

0:57:05.440 --> 0:57:09.560
<v Speaker 6>So if you go and you yank some of the

0:57:09.560 --> 0:57:13.360
<v Speaker 6>manufacturing provisions within the IRA, you might render some of

0:57:13.400 --> 0:57:18.040
<v Speaker 6>these manufacturing facilities no longer competitive. Because I will tell

0:57:18.040 --> 0:57:22.360
<v Speaker 6>you the global solar business is a tough one. Chinese

0:57:22.440 --> 0:57:25.760
<v Speaker 6>players can do modules for way cheaper than we can

0:57:25.800 --> 0:57:28.080
<v Speaker 6>do them here in the US, and so you open

0:57:28.120 --> 0:57:31.840
<v Speaker 6>these guys potentially up to global competition if you get

0:57:31.920 --> 0:57:35.960
<v Speaker 6>rid of the IRA, which would possibly be quite painful

0:57:36.000 --> 0:57:36.760
<v Speaker 6>for some of the players.

0:57:37.080 --> 0:57:39.320
<v Speaker 1>But could tariffs make up for some of that? Like

0:57:39.360 --> 0:57:41.000
<v Speaker 1>if President Trump were to come in or even Vice

0:57:41.080 --> 0:57:43.560
<v Speaker 1>President Harris, I mean, on our matrix, we have a

0:57:43.560 --> 0:57:46.000
<v Speaker 1>seventy percent chance of new tariffs coming no matter who

0:57:46.080 --> 0:57:49.360
<v Speaker 1>wins the presidency. Can tariffs make up for some of

0:57:49.400 --> 0:57:51.280
<v Speaker 1>the changes to the renewable tax incentives?

0:57:53.040 --> 0:57:56.840
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, tariffs certainly don't hurt, and I think it would

0:57:56.960 --> 0:58:02.120
<v Speaker 6>probably be very difficult to get the same outcome that

0:58:02.240 --> 0:58:07.320
<v Speaker 6>we've seen with tariffs only uh that that being said,

0:58:07.320 --> 0:58:10.200
<v Speaker 6>I mean the IRA has been if you like clean

0:58:10.320 --> 0:58:13.960
<v Speaker 6>energy manufacturing in the US, or or if you like

0:58:14.040 --> 0:58:16.520
<v Speaker 6>chips manufacturing, right, you know you've got the chipsack, You've

0:58:16.520 --> 0:58:19.440
<v Speaker 6>got the IRA. They've they've really really helped get some

0:58:19.480 --> 0:58:22.000
<v Speaker 6>of these businesses up and running in the US. Could

0:58:22.360 --> 0:58:24.960
<v Speaker 6>could tariffs help keep it going if you got rid

0:58:25.040 --> 0:58:29.600
<v Speaker 6>of the underlying support structure? I'm not saying possibly that

0:58:29.720 --> 0:58:33.200
<v Speaker 6>they would, they don't hurt to give you a sense.

0:58:33.320 --> 0:58:37.680
<v Speaker 6>I mean, tariffs are a bit complicated mathematically to characterize

0:58:37.760 --> 0:58:44.160
<v Speaker 6>because they are they're often applied uh at two individual importers,

0:58:44.240 --> 0:58:50.280
<v Speaker 6>individual companies that are in the business, but globally solar modules,

0:58:51.240 --> 0:58:54.200
<v Speaker 6>you can buy a solar module wholesale for about tens

0:58:54.200 --> 0:58:57.479
<v Speaker 6>and a want in the US, you're going to pay

0:58:57.520 --> 0:59:01.120
<v Speaker 6>anywhere from the best best case scenario, maybe you can

0:59:01.120 --> 0:59:03.120
<v Speaker 6>get one for twenty cents a whit, but maybe up

0:59:03.160 --> 0:59:06.280
<v Speaker 6>to sixty cents a while. There's a big range, and

0:59:06.360 --> 0:59:10.600
<v Speaker 6>so in the US the consumers ultimately paying a higher price.

0:59:11.200 --> 0:59:14.680
<v Speaker 6>And largely that is because if you've got a ten

0:59:14.760 --> 0:59:18.000
<v Speaker 6>cent panel coming in from China, you're probably going to

0:59:18.080 --> 0:59:22.080
<v Speaker 6>pay one hundred percent ish tariff. So you get that

0:59:22.160 --> 0:59:25.080
<v Speaker 6>ten cent, you're gonna be much closer to twenty cents

0:59:25.120 --> 0:59:28.200
<v Speaker 6>a walt what the consumer would pay, and possibly even

0:59:28.240 --> 0:59:32.200
<v Speaker 6>higher depending on which specific tariffs you get hit with.

0:59:32.400 --> 0:59:35.840
<v Speaker 1>So I think that tariffs can help.

0:59:35.920 --> 0:59:39.720
<v Speaker 6>They certainly, and so that gives a US manufacturer the

0:59:39.840 --> 0:59:46.880
<v Speaker 6>ability to you know, produce at a different cost basis

0:59:46.920 --> 0:59:50.600
<v Speaker 6>than than competitors in China. But I think it's probably

0:59:50.640 --> 0:59:52.439
<v Speaker 6>still a difficult story with tariff only.

0:59:53.160 --> 0:59:53.440
<v Speaker 2>Great.

0:59:53.600 --> 0:59:56.200
<v Speaker 1>Thanks Rob. So at this point I see where at

0:59:56.200 --> 0:59:57.640
<v Speaker 1>the end of the hour. So I want to say

0:59:57.640 --> 1:00:00.440
<v Speaker 1>thank you everybody for attending. We really appreciate you sticking

1:00:00.480 --> 1:00:04.040
<v Speaker 1>with us. Just to highlight two research notes that we

1:00:04.160 --> 1:00:07.800
<v Speaker 1>that we would like to point out. One, the Energy

1:00:07.800 --> 1:00:11.280
<v Speaker 1>team has a very comprehensive report on the i RA

1:00:11.680 --> 1:00:13.680
<v Speaker 1>and on energy and the elections.

1:00:14.280 --> 1:00:14.400
<v Speaker 3>Uh.

1:00:14.560 --> 1:00:17.680
<v Speaker 1>Secondly, uh, you know, we have put in a poll

1:00:17.760 --> 1:00:19.560
<v Speaker 1>question if you'd like to be added to our analyst

1:00:19.640 --> 1:00:22.640
<v Speaker 1>distribution list. I think every single analyst here has their

1:00:22.640 --> 1:00:25.640
<v Speaker 1>own distribution list. And then finally there's a deep Dive,

1:00:25.720 --> 1:00:28.680
<v Speaker 1>what we call a deep dive, a very comprehensive report

1:00:28.760 --> 1:00:32.480
<v Speaker 1>on energy and artificial intelligence usage that we would love

1:00:32.520 --> 1:00:34.760
<v Speaker 1>to get a copy into you. But again, thank you

1:00:34.840 --> 1:00:37.080
<v Speaker 1>very much for attending, Thank you very much for listening,

1:00:37.160 --> 1:00:38.720
<v Speaker 1>and we wish you a great week. Thank you