OPEC Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais said finger-pointing and misrepresenting the actions of OPEC and OPEC+ was “counterproductive.”
Anton Petrus | Moment | Getty Images
Oil producer group OPEC on Thursday lashed out at the International Energy Agency, saying the world’s leading energy authority should be “very careful” about undermining industry investments.
OPEC Secretary General Haitham al-Ghais said finger-pointing and misrepresenting the actions of OPEC and OPEC+ was “counterproductive.” He added that the influential group of 23 oil-exporting exporting nations was not targeting oil prices, but instead focusing on market fundamentals.
OPEC said that its comments came in response to fresh criticism from the IEA, without providing further details.
In a Bloomberg TV interview on Wednesday, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol used similar language in warning OPEC about boosting oil prices.
Birol said that the energy alliance, led by Saudi Arabia, should be “very careful” with its production policy, warning that the group’s short-term and medium-term interests appeared to be contradictory. He added that higher crude prices and upward inflationary pressures would result in a weaker global economy, with low-income nations likely to be disproportionately affected.
“The IEA knows very well that there are a confluence of factors that impact markets. The knock-on effects of COVID-19, monetary policies, stock movements, algorithm trading, commodity trading advisors and SPR releases (coordinated or uncoordinated), geopolitics, to name a few,” Al-Ghais said.
Blaming oil for higher inflation was “erroneous and technically incorrect as there are many other factors causing inflation,” he added.
Surprise output cuts
Earlier this month, the Paris-based energy agency said surprise oil output cuts from OPEC+ risked exacerbating a projected supply deficit and could scupper an economic recovery.
Several OPEC+ members announced on April 2 that they were set to tighten global production by an additional 1.16 million barrels per day until the end of the year.
The decision, which the White House criticized, was said to have been made as part of an independent initiative unlinked to broader OPEC+ policy.
The cuts add to Russia’s existing plans to trim 500,000 barrels per day of its production from March until at least the end of the year. It means the combined voluntary cuts of OPEC+ members will be in excess of 1.6 million barrels per day.
“Other energy markets have been far more volatile,” al-Ghais said, “with oil markets less so, mainly due to the stabilizing role of OPEC and the OPEC+ group.”
“If anything will lead to future volatility” he added, “it is the IEA’s repeated calls to stop investing in oil, knowing that all data-driven outlooks envisage the need for more of this precious commodity to fuel global economic growth and prosperity in the decades to come, especially in the developing world.”
Fraught relationship
The relationship between OPEC and the IEA has been increasingly fraught in recent years, with Birol repeatedly criticizing the pace at which the producers’ alliance increased its output rates, as it unwound the drastic production cuts it implemented in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The IEA’s condemnations aligned with views held by some consumer nations — most vocally the U.S. — that stressed the strain of high energy prices on consumer households.
The IEA had served as one of the so-called secondary sources whose production data the OPEC+ group used to benchmark the internal compliance rate of its members with their respective output obligations. OPEC removed the IEA as a secondary source in March last year, with OPEC+ delegates at the time citing concerns over the accuracy of IEA production estimates.
In a February interview with Energy Aspects, Saudi Arabia oil minister and OPEC+ chair, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, faulted the IEA’s initial predictions of a 3 million barrels per day loss of Russian crude and oil products for a U.S. decision to release volumes from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
“Fairly and squarely, the IEA was responsible for it. Because of the, you know, screaming and scaring that they have done, on how much Russia will lose in terms of its production,” he said.
OPEC and the IEA have also diverged in their approach to global decarbonization. The IEA has repeatedly said the pathway to net-zero emissions requires massive declines in the use of oil, gas and coal and warned in a landmark report in 2021 that there is no place for new fossil fuel projects if the world is to stave off the worst of what the climate crisis has in store. The IEA declined to respond to the OPEC secretary’s comments on Thursday.
The burning of fossil fuels is the chief driver of the climate emergency.
By contrast, OPEC+ ministers and officials have repeatedly championed a strategy of dual investment in hydrocarbon and renewable projects, to avoid energy shortages while green resources are insufficient to fully meet consumer demand worldwide.
— CNBC’s Ruxandra Iordache contributed to this report.
Senate Republicans are threatening to hike taxes on clean energy projects and abruptly phase out credits that have supported the industry’s expansion in the latest version of President Donald Trump‘s big spending bill.
The measures, if enacted, would jeopardize hundreds of thousands of construction jobs, hurt the electric grid, and potentially raise electricity prices for consumers, trade groups warn.
The Senate GOP released a draft of the massive domestic spending bill over the weekend that imposes a new tax on renewable energy projects if they source components from foreign entities of concern, which basically means China. The bill also phases out the two most important tax credits for wind and solar power projects that enter service after 2027.
Republicans are racing to pass Trump’s domestic spending legislation by a self-imposed Friday deadline. The Senate is voting Monday on amendments to the latest version of the bill.
The tax on wind and solar projects surprised the renewable energy industry and feels punitive, said John Hensley, senior vice president for market analysis at the American Clean Power Association. It would increase the industry’s burden by an estimated $4 billion to $7 billion, he said.
“At the end of the day, it’s a new tax in a package that is designed to reduce the tax burden of companies across the American economy,” Hensley said. The tax hits any wind and solar project that enters service after 2027 and exceeds certain thresholds for how many components are sourced from China.
This combined with the abrupt elimination of the investment tax credit and electricity production tax credit after 2027 threatens to eliminate 300 gigawatts of wind and solar projects over the next 10 years, which is equivalent to about $450 billion worth of infrastructure investment, Hensley said.
“It is going to take a huge chunk of the development pipeline and either eliminate it completely or certainly push it down the road,” Hensley said. This will increase electricity prices for consumers and potentially strain the electric grid, he said.
The construction industry has warned that nearly 2 million jobs in the building trades are at risk if the energy tax credits are terminated and other measures in budget bill are implemented. Those credits have supported a boom in clean power installations and clean technology manufacturing.
“If enacted, this stands to be the biggest job-killing bill in the history of this country,” said Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, in a statement. “Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects.”
The Senate legislation is moving toward a “worst case outcome for solar and wind,” Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco told clients in a Sunday note.
Trump’s former advisor Elon Musk slammed the Senate legislation over the weekend.
“The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,” The Tesla CEO posted on X. “Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.”
Is Nissan raising the red flag? Nissan is cutting about 15% of its workforce and is now asking suppliers for more time to make payments.
Nissan starts job cuts, asks supplier to delay payments
As part of its recovery plan, Nissan announced in May that it plans to cut 20,000 jobs, or around 15% of its global workforce. It’s also closing several factories to free up cash and reduce costs.
Nissan said it will begin talks with employees at its Sunderland plant in the UK this week about voluntary retirement opportunities. The company is aiming to lay off around 250 workers.
The Sunderland plant is the largest employer in the city with around 6,000 workers and is critical piece to Nissan’s comeback. Nissan will build its next-gen electric vehicles at the facility, including the new LEAF, Juke, and Qashqai.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
According to several emails and company documents (via Reuters), Nissan is also working with its suppliers to for more time to make payments.
The new Nissan LEAF (Source: Nissan)
“They could choose to be paid immediately or opt for a later payment,” Nissan said. The company explained in a statement to Reuters that it had incentivized some of its suppliers in Europe and the UK to accept more flexible payment terms, at no extra cost.
The emails show that the move would free up cash for the first quarter (April to June), similar to its request before the end of the financial year.
Nissan N7 electric sedan (Source: Dongfeng Nissan)
One employee said in an email to co-workers that Nissan was asking suppliers “again” to delay payments. The emails, viewed by Reuters, were exchanged between Nissan workers in Europe and the United Kingdom.
Nissan is taking immediate action as part of its recovery plan, aiming to turn things around, the company said in a statement.
The new Nissan Micra EV (Source: Nissan)
“While we are taking these actions, we aim for sufficient liquidity to weather the costs of the turnaround actions and redeem bond maturities,” the company said.
Nissan didn’t comment on the internal discussions, but the emails did reveal it gave suppliers two options. They could either delay payments at a higher interest rate, or HSBC would make the payment, and Nissan would repay the bank with interest.
Nissan’s upcoming lineup for the US, including the new LEAF EV and “Adventure Focused” SUV (Source: Nissan)
The company had 2.2 trillion yen ($15.2 billion) in cash and equivalents at the end of March, but it has around 700 billion yen ($4.9 billion) in debt that’s due later this year.
As part of Re:Nissan, the Japanese automaker’s recovery plan, Nissan looks to cut costs by 250 billion yen. By fiscal year 2026, it plans to return to profitability.
Electrek’s Take
With an aging vehicle lineup and a wave of new low-cost rivals from China, like BYD, Nissan is quickly falling behind.
Nissan is launching several new electric and hybrid vehicles over the next few years, including the next-gen LEAF, which is expected to help boost sales.
In China, the world’s largest EV market, Nissan’s first dedicated electric sedan, the N7, is off to a hot start with over 20,000 orders in 50 days.
The N7 will play a role in Nissan’s recovery efforts as it plans to export it to overseas markets. It will be one of nine new energy vehicles, including EVs and PHEVs, that Nissan plans to launch in China.
Can Nissan turn things around? Or will it continue falling behind the pack? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Elon Musk said just a few weeks ago that betting on Tesla delivering its promised Robotaxi in June is a “money-making opportunity,” and yet, those who listened to him just lost big.
A fan of Musk lost $50,000 betting on Tesla Robotaxi.
With the rise in prediction markets, you can bet on virtually everything these days.
Sites like Polymarket have about a dozen prediction markets related to Tesla, where anyone can bet on events such as Tesla delivering its robotaxi service.
Less than two weeks ago, the market gave Tesla only a 14% chance of launching the service, and Musk called it a “money-making opportunity.”
At the time, less than $500,000 was traded on this market, but Musk made it way more popular.
Now, over $7 million has been traded on this market, and while Tesla claims to have launched its Robotaxi service on June 22nd, the market currently gives Tesla less than 1% chance today, with less than a day left in June.
Each prediction market has clear “resolution” rules and Musk evidently didn’t read them before suggesting there was money to be made betting “yes”:
This market will resolve to “Yes” if Tesla publicly launches a fully driverless taxi service by June 30, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, it will resolve to “No.”
Any service that allows a member of the general public to summon and ride in a Tesla vehicle operating without any human—onboard or remote—actively controlling the vehicle will count. A human may be present in the vehicle or monitoring remotely for emergency intervention, but they must not be physically positioned to take control (for example, no safety driver in the driver’s seat) and must not actively steer, brake, accelerate, or otherwise drive the car under normal operation.
A program that is restricted to Tesla employees, invite-only testers, closed-beta participants, factory self-delivery features, or the mere release of Full Self-Driving software for private owner-drivers will not qualify. Regulatory permits or approvals, press demonstrations, and prototype unveilings without live public ridership likewise will not count toward resolution.
This market’s resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
There are a few things in the resolution that disqualify what Tesla launched on June 22nd. First off, there’s a human inside the vehicle ready to take control with their finger on a kill switch. We have already seen interventions from the in-car Tesla supervisor, who are still very much necessary.
Secondly, the resolution requires a launch that is not restricted to an invite-only basis, which is currently the case.
The level of remote operations could also prove challenging to confirm, and it is part of the resolution.
Electrek found someone who lost $50,000 following Musk’s “money-making opportunity”:
Someone else has lost $28,000 and is now betting another $27,000 that Tesla will achieve this by the end of July.
Currently, Polymarket‘s odds only put a 21% chance of Tesla delivering on the service based on the previously mentioned resolution before August:
With Polymarket, users are not really “betting” on an outcome, but they are trying to beat the current odds by buying shares in “yes” or “no”, which they can sell to other users before the end of the timeline.
Electrek’s Take
It’s quite amusing that Musk was so confident people would believe in his Robotaxi that he didn’t bother to investigate what other people think an actual robotaxi service would entail, like in the Polymarket resolution.
Historically speaking, you are way better off betting against whatever timeline Musk claims about self-driving. He has been consistently wrong about it for a decade now.
Polymarket even has a market about Tesla launching unsupervised self-driving in California this year. I threw some money in that one because California has much stricter regulations when it comes to self-driving, and it requires a lot of testing before being deployed, as described in the resolution.
I doubt Tesla can go through that this year, but it’s not impossible.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.