Refining in the 21st Century Part 2
Part 2: Where do we go from here….
“It is far better to foresee even without certainty than not to foresee at all.” Henri Poincare
It is very important to ponder the implications discussed in Part 1. There is quite a bit of uncertainty but one should not give up the process of predicting. The very process of forecasting can gain you immense knowledge even when you fail miserably. Forecasting takes time and humility. Very similar to wine if you keep at it – like I have been – it will be much better over time. And like a good cellar – having a consultant, like myself, guiding you through the process, your wine will come out better and require less aging.
Subsidies are being removed in many regions with the intent of going to market based pricing. However monetary policy has not changed and will not likely in the near future. I believe we will continue to be priced in the $100/bbl range plus or minus $20/bbl. There is a chance with economic destabilization, prices may fall somewhat; but I suspect it will be temporary as printing becomes the only acceptable way to avoid pain.
Given this new elevated pricing of $100/bbl, we expect to see healthy absolute margin with the return on feedstock falling to around 16-18% rate of return. This, coupled with lower requirements of refining complexity, should allow many smaller refiners to prosper.
There is no doubt that there is a systematic issue with DOE/EIA models of the petroleum market – see below graph. The model wants to revert back to an historical level of absolute margin forgetting the business/economics side. The risk is not commensurate with a 5% return if we use the crack spread as a guide to returns. The AEO 2010 was wrong and I suspect the final AEO 2013 will be wrong. Being wrong is inevitable, but the level of error is too large to be acceptable. They have not learned from their errors which is key component in successful forecasting. Question everything! You drive your model not the other way around. Common business understanding would likely lead a model to produce a retirement cycle when returns fell below 10%, and then a rebound in returns as the market responds to loss of refining capability. Hopefully oil pundits stay away from this type of modeling.
As noted in the previous blog, there are some very interesting inter-relationships worth pondering for the future. I have given a general assessment of the future and even though I believe in knowledge sharing, there is a pragmatic side of me that requires me to hold back some information in order to balance my business side. If you were to send me an email with a business email and a description of your business role I will offer an additional write ups with graphs detailing a “base” case projection.
It is quite intentional to see that part 2 is much briefer than part 1. As a forecaster, one should spend a lot more time understanding the past and the inputs going into your model. The forecast stands on the past understanding and is the marginal output of all your work.
Your Pragmatic Energy Analyst,
614-356-0484
Refining in the 21st Century Part 1 Cont’d
“He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.” Albert Einstein
I am sorry for those anxiously awaiting the continuation of Refining in the 21st century. I have been very busy for which I am very grateful for. I hope you have taken the time to reflect on what was discussed in the previous blog. A pause goes a long way in allowing us to process. Without further ado…..Part 1 cont’d.
Now that the new paradigm has been set for oil, there are many inter-relationship that have changed. Of recent ,the EIA has shifted its reference fuel to Brent. This is a very reasonable shift as the center of demand is no longer the US but the growing Asia region. As an aside note, all the years I was at Purvin & Gertz, we never really believed WTI represented an appropriate benchmark for USGC. The better benchmark was LLS. However the financial market was too fixed to WTI to be able to change the benchmark. Currently you can see the reason why WTI can fail as a USGC benchmark. With the spread to LLS blowing up as pressure from Canada and shale oil have practically filled the center of the US; and with limited access to the USGC from Cushing WTI, it has decoupled to say the least against LLS – see chart below.
In the long run, this is one of the less costly economic arbitrages to solve via pipelines. In fact there is a pipeline reversal occurring this year along with an expansion. However the future markets continue to show a large spread with 2014 spread still above $5/bbl. A pipeline from Cushing to USGC should be able to produce reasonable economic return for $2/bbl with the past demonstrating much less.
Also many don’t understand a very important policy choice, that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 1075 (P.L. 94-163, ECPA) which directs the President to restrict the export of crude oil. The US is in a very unique position given the shale revolution not only increased natural gas production, but also significant liquids production. This policy decision should lead to some strong US refining outlooks.
When we examine the refining world as I discussed previously, it is very highly dependent on the feedstock. There is so much to cover in understanding refining economics that I will write this section requiring some basic understanding of refining. Basics include crude oil quality and the difference between hydroskimming, cracker, and coker. Also an understanding of why refiners chose various crudes. I have spent days teaching the basics to clients who are brand new in the refining business. In fact one of my first international task was a course on refining to PDVSA. I have built some of the most sophisticated models for crude evaluations for both buying and selling. I believe the Kuwait Petroleum Company still uses the model we worked up for them at Purvin & Gertz. Nonetheless refining is not a simple discussion without some basic understanding.
With the paradigm shift of higher prices allowed the spread of products to widen. It is only natural to think margins should move as percentages instead of absolutes. If your feedstock cost you $10 and your margin is $1 your return is 10%. If your feedstock is $20 and you still only obtained a dollar margin your return not drops down to 5%. This is likely going to hamper your ability to get financing and potentially put you out of business as your weighted average capital cost is above that unless you are regulated entity. This should be no different in the refining industry. The absolute value of the margin spread will be forever much larger than historical view until the feedstock falls back down. The proper view for refining margin is to view it as return on feedstock as seen below.
A return of 16-18% will likely suffice in the USGC to keep the industry going. WTI and LLS will converge to produce a return at that level. If we looked at it on an absolute basis – see below, it would suggest that refining margins will have much to fall in this $100/bbl environment, which is not the case.
The second most significant change in refining was the underlying belief in the increasing lower API and higher sulfur crudes – figure below. This made the refining strategy focus on technology and those that can process the more complex crudes would win over the simple refiners.
This came at a cost in both technology and variable cost. However the shale revolution has changed that paradigm. The liquids being discovered within the shale did not increase in API and also has lower sulfur. This caused those who embarked on the above strategy a mismatch. The light/heavy differential is not as wide enough for the increase cost these refiners now have compared to the simpler configurations. This will likely not alter the long-term requirement of the crack spread to produce 16-18% return on feedstock, but it will impact inter-refinery competition and the strategy used to manage a refinery. Once again my services would include helping you review your refinery and from crude selection to refinery optimization.
In Part 2 we will discuss where the markets will go from here. If you review what we have covered you will likely have a good idea already where the markets will go. Critical thinking is key in the forecasting business. I have had good fortune in my career to build that skill set. Please do consider All Energy Consulting for your energy consulting needs.
Your Very Grateful Energy Consultant,
614-356-0484
Refining in the 21st Century Part 1
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” – Søren Kierkegaard
This is my thoughts on refining and where it is likely to go from here. Why would/should you care to listen to me? I had the fortune to work at the beginning of my career at Purvin & Gertz Inc. I had a great boss, Ken Miller, who unselfishly gave me his 30 years of experience in rather a short time period. My 15 minutes of fame was used up early in my career. I had the call of my lifetime when the oil markets collapsed in 1998.
Months ahead I was at my desk managing the firms World Supply/Demand balances. With my boss gone, a reporter, Beth Belton, from the USA Today called. I discussed my concerns at that time and was quoted that “It was very possible there will be a price collapse to $10/bbl.” As the cards turned out the market collapsed and in fact hit $8/bbl. At that level you might as well burn oil rather than refine it. This is important to understand if you want to understand refining. The value of petroleum products becomes very dependent on the price of the feedstock. If the feedstock becomes too low the products can only be valued so much. As the feedstock price rise, so will the ability of the product price rise. Many forecasters still fail to account for this simple concept. I still see many forecasts try to revert to old absolute value refining margins in face of this current $100/bbl environment. This is no longer your grandfathers’ market. We have moved into a new world in understanding the dynamics of petroleum market.
Part 1. How we got here
I plan not to cover the history of oil as presented so well in The Prize by Daniel Yergin, but to unearth the recent shift in oil price.
The sudden rise in crude oil prices in 2005 has been poorly explained in my estimates – see below. The crude oil markets are no different than any other commodity or goods other than its vast uses and requirements in modern day living. The rule of economics of supply/demand and price interaction applies. If we don’t understand the past we will likely not understand the future. There were two major forces to produce our current price regime. The most talked about is the enormous demand of the developing countries. However people stop there and make the assumption that the growth in those regions should explains the paradigm shift we see in prices. They don’t take the time to explain how exactly the growth in those areas could cause such a high price response.
If we pause and take a look back at the spike in 1979, we see the market acted rationally. There was a supply shocked placed onto the market amounting around 4.5 million b/d. Annual prices moved up almost 3X in four years resulting in the first annual drop in world oil demand for three consecutive years (3% annum drop per year from 1979-1982). The market, then, entered into its new $20/bbl paradigm. The market had a few spikes with the Gulf War and other Middle East related issues, but overall the market was range bound. The growth from the 1980 to 1990 was around 0.7% per year. From 1990 to 2001 we saw demand rise by 2% per year – yet the price rise was relatively stable. Table below presents the change in demand in key areas.
Combined this with the price chart you get a fascinating picture. Within 4 years from 2001 to 2005, prices had more than doubled and by 2007 prices had moved up larger than the spike from 1977 to 1980. If you recall the previous rise resulted in 3 years of decline in demand, in this case nothing of the sort happened. World oil demand continued to grow. The reason for this is obvious if you examined the regions of strong growth. China, India, and the Middle East represent over 80% of the demand increase from 2001 to 2011. Each of these areas heavily subsidized the price of petroleum products for their citizens. To remove any regional issues you can look at Mexico in the Other OECD category. Mexico continued their demand growth in face of significantly higher prices while both US and Canadian growth declined. Mexico was able to do this because of the subsidies supplied by the Mexican government to its citizen.
The cure for high prices is high prices, but when the majority of the growth of oil demand does not see high prices; this causes an exponential price response. The demand response was shifted to the baseload demand in other regions. This is how the demand growth of the other regions impacted our price so significantly. It really is a trade issue. However for some reason this has escaped most of the pundits and the government officials. For the regions which exports oil, this was their bonanza. They got the rest of the world in essence to pay for their internal subsidies. Countries like China and India, they made a bet that the cost of the subsidy represented enough value for maintaining growth and civil obedience.
The “free” market countries basically got taken for a ride. One could say those who are subsidizing pay for it, but the question is who is getting paid and who really pays. I believe without this discussion and issue being brought to the forefront, many pundits misforecasted their outlook. People expected an economic response to pull price back down, but it never came. By itself one would think prices this extreme (nearly 4X that of the previous price level) should start modifying behavior and planning. However, demand and subsidies by itself cannot rationalize the extreme new price regime. It is the second reason that people fail to even consider to be a part of this historic price rise – Monetary Policy.
The chart above clearly shows the rise in US money supply began a new path in 1998 and accelerated in 2001. This was all done under the Greenspan’s thinking that we could avoid a recession through monetary policy, known as the Greenspan Put. It started in late 1998 while Greenspan initiated his first experiment by lowering rates to help recapitalize Long-Term Capital Management L.P. (LTCM). Many have deemed this a success in the early 2000’s and for that Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers graced the cover of Time magazine.
However no good deed goes unpunished. As I have noted several times on my blog, spending what you don’t have, always will feel good in the moment. If you can spend without a credit limit you would probably be happy for the next 30 days before the bill comes. In the case of government spending, they never were forced to pay the bill – yet. The US is riding a credit card bill that has a perpetual moving due date with low interest. When you increase debt you are in essence borrowing from the future growth. In fact when you think about it, monetary policy is subsidization but in a more obfuscated form. Society does not really see the true cost until much later. Is there any difference to that and ignoring climate change? (for a future discussion).
The new trajectory in essence has further discounted the value of the currency as compared to the expected value. At some level the market begins to realize this issue as excess money cause asset values to rise, such as commodities. As a consequence many have suggested to blame traders for the run up in prices, partially true but more symptomatic as excess money usually tries to find a home. I ran multiple regressions from demand to population but no variable by itself produces a better correlation than money supply to the price of oil. If we take the former trajectory of money supply and compare it where we are now, the monetary impact would be 40%. This would in effect suggest without monetary impact the price of oil would be more in the range of $60/bbl vs. $100/bbl. This price still represents a strong price rise of over 2X from 2001 prices. Remember the 1979 issue saw a price rise of 2.6, but in seven years the new price regime settled at 2X. The combination of demand growth with subsidies for the growing regions along with monetary policy has given us our current landscape and both of these factors allows us to understand our current situation with our past.
Part 1 will be continued as we talk about the refining side of the picture and then move on to Part 2 where I plan to cover where we are going. I look forward to your comments and feedback. Please do consider All Energy Consulting for your energy consulting needs. I offer a unique blend of Oil, Gas, Coal, Power, and Renewable Experience. I have been blessed to have a very dynamic career, allowing me to continually grow which is perfectly situated to help your company not to be static in this ever changing world. I can offer my own forecast, or better yet, help you develop one, including many scenarios.
Your Energy Consultant,
614-356-0484
“How you gather, manage, and use information will determine whether you win or lose.” Bill Gates
AEO 2013 Early Release – Arbitrage Remains
The EIA released an early release of the AEO 2013 in December. I have been so busy, I haven’t got a chance to note some of the changes (Once again, not complaining but very grateful). As I mentioned in my previous blog of the AEO 2012 release, the first thing I like to look at is the relationship changes.
In this release, it looks like the arbitrage remains for someone to capitalize on the difference between natural gas and diesel. They did narrow the spread relative to last year which I believe is directionally correct. The difference continues to be large on the scale of over $15/mmbtu in the next decade plus. The propane difference is over $10/mmbtu. With this spread premium, one really needs to question the science and economics of Gas to Liquids (GTL). GTL is possible, though costly, as proven by Shells Qatar Pearl facility. With the economics presented from Shell, you would need your input price below a dollar to make the project worth its large capital cost ($19 billion) and the associated market risk.
The opportunities exist for Shell to learn from this large venture to see if they could lower the cost and/or improve the yield or perhaps, Shell technology is just not the way to go. This could be a worthy consideration for research from the US government and universities. GTL could be the game changer which would bolt on perfectly with the game changer shale gas. I have spent much of my time as Chemical Engineering examining this area. The cost is what I believe really shifted the spread to be so large; $19 billion for 1.6 bcf/d of conversion is incredible. Perhaps. Shell is scaring the competitors away from researching this?
Jumping to the next relationship, Gas – Coal; we see they have narrowed the spread more in this year’s AEO 2013. Essentially they have lowered the gas price relative to last year by around $1/mmbtu. I cannot agree with their 2014-2017 outlook. I believe they have gone too far down. If you look at the balance, it would not make sense that 2015 gas demand in the power sector would be lower than it was projected in 2013 with lower gas prices in 2015. I understand as new gas units come into the power stack, you get an improvement in efficiency for gas units.
However, at the same time, we do have a retiring coal fleet plus the “must-run” coal plants to manage the safety of the coal piles will be going away over time. I believe it is possible to see gas demand higher than in 2012, even with higher gas price. For the very reason that coal units were running more than economically reasonable to manage inventories, under coal contracts which were contracted years back. To the coal industry own doing, the coal contracts were shortened to be no greater than 5 years. This would mean many coal contracts are in negotiation at the lowest need time period for coal generators. I suspect as much as coal generators over bought in the contracts over the past 5 years, they will under buy now. Coal “must-run” units to manage inventory will be a thing of the past over the next 5 years. I will take the bullish position on coal spot prices.
As a commodity forecaster for many years, when the general equilibrium fancy models catches up to your outlook, you know that you now have to take a difference stance. I believe gas prices in the AEO 2013 are too low now. This belief is driven from the fundamentals of economic demand creation from low gas price in both the industrial and power sector. I believe coal prices in the spot market will be stronger than most think, as the most likely outcome is under-contracted coal volumes.
I hope to have more time to review the final report which is expected to be released in the spring. Does the report come sooner now since Punxsutawney Phil saw no shadow and predicts an early spring?
Please do consider All Energy Consulting for your energy consulting needs from forecasting to planning to actually doing hands on work in creating models, we are here for our clients.
Your Energy Consultant,
614-356-0484
Macroeconomic Impacts of LNG Exports from the United States – Review
Macroeconomic Impacts of LNG Exports from the United States report done by NERA for the EIA brings to mind my saying- It is better to know what questions to ask than to have all the answers. There are many wise sayings that are very similar. One missing from that list is “It is better to ask some of the questions than to know all of the answers.” James Thurber.
There are several issues I could comment on in the report, but many are already discussed by the several commentators . A good acquaintance of mine, Carlton Buford, does a fine job highlighting his concerns with point 4 resonating with my response. However, as I discussed above, the report should have asked a bigger question beyond energy markets impact.
I will agree with the overall conclusions of the report – exporting LNG will benefit the country to some extent. However, this should never have been the goal or the premise of the report. NERA cannot be faulted in terms of answering the question. However, as a consultants, there is somewhat a responsibility to address the clients’ real concerns.
I directly addressed this issue with another consultant’s report done on renewables about green jobs, where I discussed with the author about not addressing net jobs. The author told me they did not do it, because they were not asked to. In both of these reports, someone at the consulting companies should have brought up the real issue to each of these clients. A true consultant will make sure their client is asking the right question before setting out and answering the question asked. The real concern for LNG is whether exporting LNG is the BEST option for the country in terms of maximizing the economic potential for the US. This question is not just an economic study to impact the energy markets, but it should be about getting the US back onto the path of economic prosperity.
Even if natural gas prices were to minimally changed, as the report indicated, the next question should be:” Will the US be better benefited from consuming its own resources knowing it is a net consumer of most products?”. This question was not addressed in the report. It is the crucial benchmark of deciding to export. It does not take a massive model to understand the holistic value of using your own resource. If you know you will have to consume products which are made from the natural resources that you have available; could you not economically increase the internal value of your system by using the resource to produce what you plan to consume? Perhaps if the outside system can more effectively produce a good above and beyond the cost of shipping both the goods and resources to make it –the outside system could be a better option economically.
This then leads to the question:” why can they produce/manufactures goods we need with our resources more effectively? labor policies, subsidies, etc.. “. Is there a better way for us to produce and manufacture products in this country versus outsourcing? In addition, simple economics typically do not cover the social economic issues at hand. As I mentioned in my previous blog – Energy Independence Misguided Focus – the value of manufacturing a good goes beyond the simple economics of making the product. Manufacturing offers a level of social economic stability while still giving people the opportunity to aspire if they so wish. We need to make sure we take this into account. Many countries do value being able to keep their people at work. They know social unrest is likely when mass amounts of people sit around. I will further address this issue in my next blog.
The report fails to address the root of the issue which the leaders of this country should be asking and thinking about – how best to maximize the US economic well-being using the resources available. I will contend we should do what we can to offer incentives to use our resource locally first and foremost. If our ineptness to do the right thing by restructuring our society to allow for manufacturing continues, I would then support the exportation of LNG through a strategic approach. First, there is an obvious US outlet for LNG. Right now Puerto Rico – one of the poorest regions in the US – has to purchase LNG at oil related prices. This brings to mind the technical concerns of LNG vessel. Will the LNG vessels be US flagged vessels – none so far? If not given the Jones Act, the US territories could not even benefit from the liquefaction facilities.
The largest deficiency in the report, as many of the others have commentated, is not considering the chess move made by the largest exporter of LNG – Qatar. This would be akin to forecasting oil markets with no consideration of Saudi Arabia – do we not remember the 70’s oil crisis or 1998 when Saudi Arabia showed the rest of OPEC what it meant to take market share? The plain fact is the cost of natural gas in Qatar is likely below or near $0.50/mmbtu. In the US, even with greater shale development, the cost will still be greater than $2/mmbtu. Even if we subtract some value for liquids, development cost may approach $1/mmbtu, still twice as large as Qatar. Who in their right mind can see grounds to compete with Qatar without some internal subsidy/incentive or it being a niche play? Unless foreign money is financing the projects, I would be skeptical on the extent of LNG exports vs. the report’s conclusions in terms of the economic value to the US.
It is not an either/or issue in terms of export LNG versus using it domestically, but the report was done as if LNG exporting was the only issue. Ultimately a portfolio option with more of the portfolio balance to what will add value is the best approach. If the goal is to maximize the US economy, domestic uses of resources should be the number one priority, LNG exports should be examined in the context of first supporting the US territories, and only after those issues are resolved we should examine the exportation of our resources. I am optimistic that our consumption levels are high enough to support the use of all our domestic resources. Plus, I anticipate that we can become a net exporter of products, keeping further margins in supplying products to the world.
As with everything I put out, this analysis was done given the current construct that exist today. There are many levers that could change my mind to believe LNG exportation is the BEST path for this country; but at this time I believe it is best to maximize our natural gas resources first. States in the US will also benefit from this message – e.g. Ohio. I would not let your resources easily leave the boundaries of your system if you are to maximize your potential economic value. Whoever advised the Houston Mayor, Anise Parker, was wrong in her response. Houston could significantly gain more, if more industrial and manufacturing complexes were built near and around Houston than a few liquefaction facilities. The same can be said for comments made by Senator Jake Corman and State Representative Matthew E. Baker.
In order to right the economic ship of the United States, we must find better ways to use our resources be it fossil, renewables, or human capital. Perhaps beyond the scope of the Department of Energy, but the real issue at hand is to transform our economy back into a balance economy with a strong producing/manufacturing sector. The DOE does have the capability to jump start the sector by continuing to signal there will be cost effective resources for some time to come and support the use of our resources domestically. A strong and vibrate manufacturing sector will go a long way in creating a more stable and prosperous society. It will not make everyone wealthy, but it will allow those who are willing and capable the pursuit of happiness.
We really need to apply some common sense when dealing with complicated issues. Huge models allow one to bias and obfuscate the truth through manipulation of inputs and relationships. Models do have value – being a modeler myself – but the models should never drive the outcome; they are there to enhance the understanding. Ultimately, someone needs to be accountable for the decision and not use models as their excuse for making a decision.
Please do consider All Energy Consulting for your energy consulting needs. We ALWAYS have our client’s best interest in mind. We know the questions to ask and can help find the right answers to them.
Your Energy Analyst,
614-356-0484
Energy Independence Misguided Focus
A recent article posted in the NY Times by Michael Levi highlights my past concerns about Energy Independence talk. Amazingly enough I wrote about Energy Independence last December – http://allenergyconsulting.com/blog/2011/12/15/energy-independence-really/
I want to fine tune my message.
I do see Michael’s perspective in being concerned that we are mistaken about being energy independent as allowing the US to be ambivalent to the worlds energy markets. Clearly, the energy markets are global and will likely to be in the distant future. The theme I think Michael leaves out is the real message politicians and the like need to focus on, versus the concept of being energy independent – that is being productive with the resources we have.
I disagree with many about allowing exports of natural gas. If we are under full employment and the economy is humming along perhaps I could change my mind. However, since this is not the case, we need to think long and hard about why we can’t use our resources in a productive manner. The focus needs to be on stimulating manufacturing. We need to grow America to regain some of what we have lost over the last 30 years.
I like to note, manufacturing is not a path to riches for people, but it is a path to productivity and opportunity. What we have in this country is binary thought. If the working class can’t get a standard of living that allows 40-60K in income plus benefits, we shall accept nothing. It is no doubt a global economy for better or for worse. I have a very contentious thought about wealth which I mulled around with and discussed at bars with my most educated friends. I believe wealth is just like mass. It cannot be created or destroyed. There is a finite wealth in this world. Wealth is discrete globally and when one does better the other will have to do worse.
Let me define wealth more generally than just buying power, but also influence, and the ability to make others act. I believe my thesis holds water when you think about global economic growth. China and much of Asia, at one time, was thought as “third” world; they have grown to become an economic power.
With my thesis in place, the US and Europeans have slowly lost some ground to them holding the economic wealth in balance. The direct impact is the shift in “lower” end jobs in manufacturing. Time would eventually not allow a person making $60K plus benefit with the sole purpose to screw in 4 bolts to be able to compete with people in Asia, making less than $1 dollar a day. Likewise, let me not focus just on the lower income case. CEO’s in the US who do not add value but perpetuate the same concepts and ideas from previous CEO’s that are increasingly making more money than past CEO is also unsustainable. The competing landscape and the wealth balance that will occur, will produce sacrifices to allow others in the world to rise. In a holistic way and perhaps Altruistic – people living in such low standards of living for prolong time becomes inhumane and the sacrifices made from the developed regions have promoted a better lifestyle for them.
However as I point out to my kids that nothing in life is free. The sacrifices have been real and have been exaggerated by the binary thought – all or nothing. In order to balance wealth so that there is reasonable living standards for the masses, the developed country will need to reduce the standards of living, as their standards must compete with the other parts of the world standards. Alternatively one can be stubborn and go with the nothing attitude and live off the state, but this will lead to a very unstable society. I go back to my first point the value of manufacturing is not wealth building. The value comes from volume of employment it can produce. The ability to give masses something to do from 8 to 5 Monday thru Friday. Without this there will be trouble.
The US needs to innovate and take advantage of the abundant resources by creating efficient process to produce things the world uses from fertilizers to plastics to even vehicles. The abundant energy along with sacrifices from the top can ease the lowering of standard of living for the masses as parity is met with the rest of the world. Once again, let me stress both the low paying and high paying jobs. Both tails of the economic spectrum will have to sacrifice; a message that no politician can give since they need funding (high income) and volumes of vote (low income).
Happiness is not derived from money, but money is a requirement in today’s society. In addition, happiness does not come from consuming. We need to move off the binary thoughts and allow compromise. The US should move away from consumerism and regain our productivity focus. Letting any of our resources be exported is giving up on the American dream without fighting for it.
I wish all a safe and Happy Holiday. God bless this country and may we make the right choices.
Please do consider All Energy Consulting for all your energy consulting needs.
Your Energy Consultant,
614-356-0484
