How To Ban Diesel Exports

Large Red Tanker Ship Docks at an Oil Terminal

A ban on American crude or diesel exports isn’t going to improve energy security; if anything, it will reduce domestic production. The problem lies in geography.

Most U.S. production and refining is concentrated in places like Texas and Louisiana, which are quite far from the demand centers in California and the Northeast. So for crude, export bans would oversaturate producing regions and discourage drilling. For diesel, the bans are futile without expanding infrastructure and changing the transport systems.

Export bans only make sense if paired with major changes to accompany them.

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. And today I wanted to talk about something that has been in the news a lot of late, and that is bans on exports of energy products from the United States. There’s two topics here, one that’s old and one that’s new. The old one is about exporting crude in general, and the newer one is about diesel specifically. So let’s start with the older topic, then move to the newer. 

So here’s the problem. The United States is a physically large country, while places like Canada and China and Russia are larger, most of those countries are completely uninhabitable. Whereas the United States has a relatively broad population distribution across its entire territory. So a lot of internal American economic issues, especially when it comes to energy, are based on distribution. The mechanics of how we move things from A to B determines what our economic policy should be. And then whenever we deviate from that, we generate problems for ourselves. So start with oil. Obviously the bigger players are Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, a little bit of Alabama, a bunch out of North Dakota, some out of Colorado, little bit out of California, and then places like Ohio and the Appalachians, Pennsylvania. And that’s great because we’ve got people in all of those places. But our densest population footprints in places like the American Northeast or Florida or the bulk of California, are not proximate to where the energy is produced. So you need to pipe it, the crude, from wherever it’s produced to a refinery. In places like the American Gulf Coast, you get these natural concentrations because Texas is all one political unit. So they can build pipelines without too much of a problem. They don’t have to go to federal authorities for permits or anything like that for the most part. And so you get these huge concentrations of crude in places that may have people, but aren’t necessarily enough people to consume the crude. So Texas, for example, produces more than enough crude for not just Texas, but the entire American West Coast, which doesn’t have a lot. 

So when you start talking about a crude export ban, what you’re saying is we’re going to create these massive pools of oversaturation in certain markets. And when you do that, without the infrastructure in place to ship the crude easily to where the people live, then all you’ve done is really disincentivize the crude producers from producing. So if you were to do a crude oil export ban tomorrow and have no mitigating policies, you would see crude production in places like North Dakota and Texas fall off a cliff very, very quickly because they produce far more crude than they can use locally. We also don’t have enough refining capacity in the country as a whole to process everything that we produce. So the only way to then square the market is to reduce supply. And that means the United States goes from exporting somewhere between 20 and 25 million barrels a day, to probably something closer to 10 to 15 million barrels a day over a couple of years. 

And it would happen that fast, because the vast majority of American oil production these days comes from the shale fields, and most shale wells generate somewhere around 70% of their total output over the 25 year lifespan in the first 12 months. So it would happen very, very quick, and the result would be less energy security rather than more. 

Something similar happens with refining and diesel fuel. Again, there are some dense concentrations of refineries where we turn crude oil into fuels that we use with, again, the Texas-Louisiana section being the densest. We’ve got secondary centers that are roughly matched to demand in places like the Midwest. But when you look at California and especially the American Northeast and certainly Florida, there’s just nothing. And the United States decided a century ago, more than a century ago, to favor truck transport over train and especially ship. Even though they’re much more efficient, especially for the American geography, which means we have a large built in demand for diesel fuel. Even though our geography argues that we should be doing other things. Anyway, this all combines. So if we were to have a diesel ban tomorrow, again, you would have a catastrophic change in prices in Texas and Louisiana, where diesel prices would go through the floor because of oversaturation. And the only way to fix that is to reduce diesel runs. And all of a sudden, the United States has less diesel than it had before. 

Now, of course, the Trump administration, being the Trump administration, is now openly discussing how to make this happen, the diesel ban, specifically. The energy secretary, Chris Wright, is against it because he knows energy economics. And the Interior secretary, Doug Burger, is against it because it used to be the governor of North Dakota, one of the states that would be oversaturated. So he understands what’s going on. But every time that those two have tried to inject a little bit of economic rationality and reasonable forecasting into the white House, they’ve been slapped down and they will be on this situation to. Now does that mean that an oil export ban or a diesel ban are just uniformly bad ideas? No, no, no, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying if you think you can do a once and done policy and then move on, that is stupid because that will guarantee that the problem gets worse. And we reduce not just global supplies, but American supplies of these things. 

What you have to do is pair a ban, if that’s what you want to call it, with other things. So, for example, on the crude oil front, most of the crude that is produced by the US shale fields is super light and super sweet. It’s not viscous at all. It has very few contaminants. And that is not what the American Refining complex is designed for, because going back to the 1970s, we became convinced that the world had run out of this sort of light, sweet, crude. And so we started retooling our refineries to work on ever dirtier, ever thicker crude. Shale revolution came along in the mid 2000s, changed the math for the United States. But the refineries have been slow to shift because they’re the most advanced refineries in the world. And they spent 100s of billions of dollars getting ready for the world that then ultimately for the United States didn’t happen. So what happens is the United States exports the light, sweet stuff and imports heavy, dirty stuff. So if you want an oil export ban to mean something without damaging American energy security, you have to force the refineries to change what they do to use local crude. And if you do that, then all of a sudden we have the flow through that we need for fuels, and then it’s a distribution problem. 

If you want to look at the diesel situation, it’s somewhat similar. If we get these dense concentrations of supersaturation, the only way to fix that is to improve distribution. And that means product pipelines. Right now, we really only have one, the Colonial Pipeline that takes refined fuels from the Gulf Coast up to the American Northeast. And that’s it. Everything else is shipped by rail or more likely, truck. So what you have to do is build a nationwide distribution system, or maybe even mandate the creation of refineries in places where there aren’t concentrations of them. Or here’s a crazy idea maybe ship it by water and amend the interstate commerce act or the Jones Act so it’s easier to move stuff around the continental United States. 

Bans by themselves sound good. Because it means that the stuff will be trapped here, but it’s trapped in the wrong places. It’s still a distribution problem, and a distribution problem means you have to address the distribution system. And unless and until you do that, the conversation is just in the wrong place.

U.S. Sanctions on Iran Take a New Approach

Flags of the United States and Iran blending. Licensed by Envato Elements

The U.S. has just announced that it will remove any company or country caught servicing Iranian-owned aircraft from the U.S. dollar system. But these sanctions don’t target the IRGC or regime; instead, they impact everyday Iranians in the hope of stirring up a rebellion against the regime.

While regime change is unlikely, the effectiveness of these sanctions will largely depend upon Chinese adoption. Without Chinese goods, Iran would be in quite the pickle. And we might even find out China’s stance in the coming days, as Trump and Xi Jinping meet in Washington.

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. Today is the 22nd of September. You’ll be seeing this on the 23rd. The news today is the U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent, has just announced new sanctions on not specifically Iranian aircraft and airlines, but anyone who might do business with them. Basically, if an Iranian owned aircraft lands anywhere in the world, anyone who provides assistance with ticketing, with boarding, with air traffic control, with fuel, with maintenance, anything is immediately purged from the US dollar system. 

The intent is basically to deny all access. Now, this is not a sanction that is designed to pressure the regime because the regime can always, you know, jump on somebody else’s aircraft Chinese, Russian, whatever. And most of them don’t leave the country anyway because….they’re not nice people. This is about targeting the population. We’ve seen a lot of measures like this over the last couple of months, as the Trump administration has come to the conclusion that pretty much everything that can be sanctioned on Iran has been sanctioned for the better part of the last 40 years. And they’re coming up dry with efforts to find other ways to put pressure on Iran overall. So the theory now is let’s try to make life as difficult for the Iranian population as possible so that they will rebel and overthrow the government. That’s a very tall order. Not only has it failed so far this year, with several attempts, complete with the Iranian government killing several tens of thousands of their own people as a result. But the stack is really high. The Iranian military combined with the IRGC, which is the paramilitary arm of the government, has well over a million people under arms, and it’s not designed to invade their neighbors. It is designed to occupy their own country to prevent the various groups of Iran from rising up. Keep in mind that even after thousands of years of ethnic consolidation, only about 50% of the Iranian population is actually Persian. The rest is Kurds and Balochis and other things. So internal security has always been first and foremost the concern of the Iranian government and Persia before it going back to antiquity. We’ve only had a half a dozen regime changes in human history in this part of the world. And to trigger another one is going to be really, really difficult. 

We’ve seen lots of other measures that the US government has done in the last couple of months. My favorite one is graduate standardized testing. You can’t take the GRE in Iran anymore, but it gives you an idea of how few levers there are if you actually want to change the government. 

Anyway, the real open question here is whether or not every country in the world is going to agree to do this. So far, most companies and most countries have already signed on, maybe grudgingly. But the real outside question is, of course, China, which is the primary source for most of the manufactured goods that flow into Iran. Up to and including the parts that they need for their drones. 

Now let’s see, I’m recording this on the 22nd. You’re going to see it on the 23rd. On the 24th. Chairman Xi Jinping of China is going to actually be in Washington for bilateral talks with Trump. And the technical term for what’s going to happen here is a shit show. On the American side, the Trump administration has systematically gutted all of the institutions that helped the president make decisions. So whether it’s the CIA or the State Department or the NSC, their staff was gutted last year. They were never rebuilt. And so all of the normal things that the American president would get on economics and culture and the political maneuvering within China, he’s not getting. Keep in mind that this is not just a China thing. Over half of the world’s country don’t have an American ambassador right now. China does. But the point is that Trump is coming into this as the least informed president for any summit in American history, and that will obviously color what comes out of it. But don’t get overly excited because Xi is not in much of a better position. Because Xi purged all of these systems a decade ago and has been operating in the dark in most international affairs, basically just working off of propaganda. So we’re going to get two of the most powerful people in human history who are also among the least informed leaders in human history, trying to hash out the details when they don’t have any of the details in Washington in 48 hours. It’s going to be a delightful negotiation, which means that the Americans are roughly unaware of what’s going on in China. The Chinese are roughly unaware of what’s going on in the United States. And if you happen to be someone in the middle like Iran, you might just manage to slip through unnoticed because it’s not up to the teams, because there aren’t teams. It’s just these two really arrogant and increasingly isolated men, pretending that they know what’s going on. 

Wow. There’s going to be a show.

The AI Race: U.S. vs. China

The letters "AI" on a blue cyber background

The AI race is in full swing. China is chasing digital sovereignty, but there’s a glaring hole in that plan…it doesn’t have the advanced manufacturing capabilities to achieve it. Here’s the real kicker: nobody does.

China might be a bit more flexible with its ethics and data manipulation, but that means nothing without the advanced chipmaking equipment. China can produce less efficient chips, but has incredibly low yields on leading-edge chips. To produce the highest-level chips, there are roughly 65 countries involved in a complex supply chain.

Which means that not even the U.S. could go out and do this on its own (unless it underwent a 20+ year tech ecosystem rebuild). America’s real advantage in the AI race comes from the broad coalition of allied countries all working together to produce high-end semiconductors.

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from the top of little Castella, taking advantage of a break in the wind to answer a question from the Patreon crowd. Oh, by the way, that’s an ash mountain over there. And all of that is the Turner Ranch. Ted Turner, I guess, is a state, is a single largest landowner in the country. 

And that’s where he used to party. Anyway, the question is, is how is China’s artificial intelligence program coming along? They clearly don’t have any of the ethical restrictions that the United States has. And is that given them an edge? Is this something we need to worry about? Number one, I would argue that if you’re comparing the tech bro culture of Silicon Valley to China and the idea that one of them is morally superior, you need to do a little research. 

Silicon Valley, and especially the folks that are involved in AI, really don’t give a rat’s ass about your personal privacy and are perfectly willing to pillage your data in any possible form. In fact. Hey, I got a little visitor here. Hey, buddy. Yep. Never mind. He’s gone. Anyway, point being that if you are on Facebook or what is it now? Meta, whatever, any sort of social media whatsoever, all of your data is being mined actively in a way that the Chinese honestly sometimes have trouble keeping up with. And while the Chinese certainly do it with a little bit more flair, the AI Kings in the United States, the data kings in the United States have no problem getting all of the information that they need from you already. 

So the info influx really is not much of an issue. There used to be a moment when things had to be manually entered in, and the Chinese had an advantage of that for the numbers, but now AI has reached the point that it can self process. So again, that’s gone away too. So the structural issues really are not relevant. 

It really comes down to hardware. Now the Chinese are under export restrictions, so they cannot import the hardware that is necessary to make high end semiconductors, specifically the extreme ultraviolet machines that come from the Dutch company ASML. And without those, there’s no way they can make anything that’s really under seven nanometers reliably. That means that the reliant on importing chips and their export restrictions on anything coming out of the United States or Taiwan or Japan or Ireland, or any of the countries that make high end semiconductors, that limits them to approximately a 4 to 5 nanometer ceiling. Now, it’s not that those are bad chips at six nanometers. 

I mean, they’re fine, but if you want to do AI, it’s all about the number of computations you can crunch per chip and the power that takes per computation. And right now, in the rest of the world, the high end chips are in the 2 to 4 nanometer range, and we are now starting to get ships that were designed with coolant topography in mind. let me spell that out. What that means for an operational if you have a one gigawatt hyperscale data center, you probably have about a half a million GPUs on top of that. Lots of CPUs, lots of Dram, lots of Nand, different sorts of processing capacity, lots and lots of hardware. 

But the 500 GPUs or the core of it because large models. And when we’re talking about AI today, that’s what most people are discussing. Use those chips almost exclusively. And the better they are, the more computations, the more energy efficient per computation. The Chinese don’t have access to those 2 to 4 nanometer chips. Sometimes they can import some five and especially six nanometer chips. 

But they have made the decision that for sovereign control reasons, they don’t want to depend upon anyone’s imported chips. If they can make anything that’s even partially functional themselves really cool in. But there’s a middle ground. There’s a gray area because while the Chinese can’t import those high end chips in that high end equipment, they can still import a lot of equipment and a lot of gear. And they do that. They imported deep ultraviolet, DUV machines that are still pretty good and that are the basis for a lot more mature nodes. 

And they have used these to successfully make nodes as small as seven nanometers. Now I have to emphasize this. These chips kind of suck. They you generate about one third the computations per chip compared to what comes out of Asme and Taiwan. They generate about twice as much power, probably closer to three times as much power. Once you consider that the rest of the engineering of Chinese data centers, is that just that much worse? 

So you’re looking at overall one ninth efficiency compared to the leading edge stuff. On top of that, the yields for these seven nanometer chips is awful. It’s typically less than 30%. And as a rule, anywhere else in the world, any yield rate below 95% is something that wouldn’t be considered because it’s just such a massive waste of resources. 

China does the math differently, and they’re concerned with digital sovereignty and keeping them with the United States. But what it means is they need to build nine data centers for everyone in the United States in order to get an equal number of compute, and that is assuming the hardware can run the software that is required to do things like large language models. 

Bottom line, the Chinese are doing everything they can. They are sparing no horses, and they’re not even remotely close. They have tried over and over and over and over again for the last four years, to try to push past that seven nanometer limit, and they have succeeded in making a few emphasis on the word few chips, the meter level using technology. But it’s highly inefficient. And you’re talking about yields that are below 5%, nowhere near enough to supply a single data center, much less a raft of them. But before I laugh in their face, I have to say that the technology of AI is changing day by day, week by week, one by month, and the hardware is always two years behind. 

So I don’t want to rule it out there. Certainly motivated, if that’s the right phrase. But when it comes to the domestic manufacturing of the hardware that is required to do this, no, they’re just not even in the same game. Now, before anyone goes and toots America’s horn, the United States can’t make these chips either. Neither can Japan or Korea or Taiwan takes a team effort with 65 countries and 100,000 manufacturing supply chain steps and almost 10,000 companies. 

It really does take everyone. And if anyone is actually trying for real digital sovereignty, they’re going to fail unless they rebuild the entire tech ecosystem. And that is not something you do in less than 20 years. So are the Chinese going to fail at this by the rules of the game, as I understand them? Yeah. Are the Americans going to fail at this by my understanding of the rules of the game? 

Yeah, but the United States is part of a coalition of like minded countries that implement these technologies together. That’s how we do AI. And if the US decides to go it alone, it’ll be at best in China’s position.

The Diesel Shortage Hits America

Hand shown pumping diesel fuel with a Shell logo on nozzle

With Ukrainian attacks limiting Russian refining capacity and the Persian Gulf conflict restricting exports through Hormuz and the Red Sea, a diesel shortage is imminent.

While the U.S. should be able to weather this storm without issue, the poorly connected domestic distribution system will be a major source of problems. Unless the U.S. can move away from its heavy reliance on diesel trucks for shipping, the next 18 months will be full of shortages and rising transportation costs.

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from a drizzly Colorado today. We’re going to talk about diesel and what is almost certainly going to be diesel shortages in the United States, which is going to reverberate through the entire American economy for months. 

Okay. So on the front end, the approximate causes are two fold. Number one, we’ve got the Ukrainians basically taking out Russian refining capacity. Russia used to be the world’s largest exporter of diesel. And now it is a net importer pulling from the United States, India, South Korea, lots of places. That is not going to change anytime soon. Even if the Ukrainians were to stop attacking, the Russians no longer have the capacity to repair all of this infrastructure in a short period of time. And so they will probably be net importers at least through the remainder of the year, probably through the remainder of next year. And that assumes that Ukrainians stop attacking, which is highly unlikely. Number two, of course, is the Persian Gulf conflict. We now have the Saudis basically largely removed from oil markets. We’re probably near the very end of their ability to use pre-positioned crude on the Red sea to export that direction, because the pipeline has been taken offline. It’s a bypass pipeline that used to bring crude from the eastern part of the country, where the oil fields are to the western part of the country. That is not dependent on Hormuz, but it’s been bombed. So who knows how long that’s going to be offline, and it can always be bombed again. In addition, the Strait of Hormuz remains mostly closed. At the best, in the last three months, we’ve seen maybe 20 ships go through a day, down from what used to be about 150. And as of Wednesday, only three ships came through. So the ability of the Iranians to shut that on and off is pretty, pretty strict. And that means we’re looking at roughly 20 million barrels of crude that can’t get out. And that’s going to hit energy at every level, including diesel. 

Anyway in the United States, we’ve got a couple of things going on. First of all, it’s bringing this to my attention. So there have been a lot of social media posts in places like California and Texas of gas stations saying that they’re just out of diesel. I wouldn’t worry too much about that at the moment. Having weekly outages here and there. Throughout the country is a normal thing. And the number of outages is not of a number that suggests that it breaks from the norm. The problem is price, because now we’ve got this pressure in the international system, and every time somebody exports a cargo of diesel from anywhere in the world, everybody is trying to buy it. So that is putting upward pressure, even on domestic prices here in the United States, even though we are diesel exporters. But there’s also a regional breakdown issue. The Californians, for example, have closed most of the refineries. So the only way that they have to get diesel in is by ship. And that’s typically a Jones Act certified shipped from Texas. So in the United States, we’ve got this incredibly stupid law on the books that dates back to the 1920s, called the Jones Act, or the Interstate Commerce Act, which says that any cargo that is going to be transported between any two American ports has to be on a boat that is built in America, owned by an American, captained by an American, and crewed by Americans. And as a result, the cost of maritime transport in the United States is increased by a factor of five compared to the world average. Which is just idiotic. Anyway. So we’ve got that restriction. There’s only a limited number of Jones Act vessels, and they have to take the stuff all the way from the Gulf Coast, through Panama, on up to California. So the entire West Coast, California specific is facing what is about to be just astronomically high diesel prices. It’s not much better on the East Coast. They do have something called the Colonial Pipeline that goes from the Gulf Coast, Texas/Louisiana area and sends fuel directly into the American northeast. But the volume isn’t sufficient for the needs. So they also use Jones Act. Go further down the Atlantic coast into places like South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. You’re talking purely Jones Act or truck. Trucks use diesel, so you’re using the thing you’re running out of in order to ship the thing that you’re running out of to places that can’t make it themselves. In the middle, you’ve got the Rocky Mountains, the Mountain West and the Midwest, who for the most part produce most of the diesel that they need. And we’re not seeing any shortages there. And then, of course, the place with the surplus is the Gulf Coast, Texas, Louisiana. And that’s where most U.S. exports come from as well. The problem is these various regions are not linked together very well. There aren’t a lot of pieces of infrastructure like colonial, and so most of the stuff has to be shipped by truck or by train, both of which use diesel. 

All of that combined means regional shortages are pretty much guaranteed. And that’s before you get to the real problem. Because of the Jones Act, the United States a century ago made the unconscious decision to move away from water transport and even rail transport to truck transport. Now, trucks have certain advantages. They can go to places where you couldn’t run a rail line because it’s too steep, important in the mountain west, but they cost a lot more and trucks use diesel. So by ton mile, the majority of U.S. cargo is shipped by truck. You see the problem here? 

Nearly unique in the world, the United States has the best maritime transport system possible, but has instead opted for the most expensive transport system possible. Shipping things by water costs less than one tenth of shipping them by truck. And so we should be using our water network to the fullest extent, which would also minimize our diesel demand. Instead, we’ve done the opposite. And now with shortages on a global basis, guaranteed even in the United States, which is a net exporter, even in the United States, which is the largest net exporter of refined product, we’re going to be facing problems in our transport system, which will affect every single thing that has to be moved throughout the entire country for at least the next 18 months.

The Venezuela Oil Deal Is Just the Start

A chevron Gas sign against a dark night

The recent series of U.S.-Venezuela oil deals is not quite as significant as it was made out to be.

The main highlights are Chevron’s investment and the U.S. putting its stamp of approval on NABEP. While NABEP lacks much of what it takes to expand production, U.S. backing gives the company credibility to attract outside investment.

This is just the beginning of a long road to recovery, but it’s better than nothing.

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. Today we’re going to look at something that happened while I was away at Yosemite. The oil deals between the United States and Venezuela. There’s been a lot of hyperbolic conversation about them. The reality is much more muted. 

We’ve got three things. First of all, Chevron, which is an American company that never left Venezuela, has announced a series of investments with the aim of increasing output by 300,000 barrels over the next five years. This is probably the upper level of what Chevron can do. Not that Chevron’s not capable, but that the crude in Venezuela, as a rule, is very difficult to work with. You basically have three regions, one in the East that has some more conventional crude, one in the west around Maracaibo that’s heavy crude. And then down in the south in a place called the Orinoco Belt, where it’s super heavy, crude and is actually a physical solid at room temperature, and it has to be heated up and mixed with other liquids in order to be able to put into a pipeline. Anyway, Chevron has operations throughout the area. They’re basically taking the fields that they already have, putting in some more money and trying to increase recovery rates. So really not doing anything new. So 300,000, that’s about all you’re going to get. 

The second one is Americas Hunt Oil, which is taking over two small fields in the east of the country…that are small. And if they do really well, you know, maybe they’ll get 100,000 barrels out of that over ten years. Again, not very interesting. Remember, this is a country that at the height was producing 4 million barrels a day back in the 1980s and 1990s. And then Chavez and Maduro, it just…..until it fell into under a million barrels a day, where it is now. 

The third one. The third deal is the one that’s getting really interesting with a company called NABEP and NABEP is the successor that has been renamed a few times, for a firm that started operating back in the 20 tens that at the time was called Petrozamora, run by a guy by the name of Alejandro Betancourt López. This guy is somebody who is tightly affiliated with the Russian government. And when the United States put sanctions on the Chavez-Maduro regime, the Russians basically came in to do what they could. But Russian technology sucks in the type of fields that Venezuela has. So Betancourt was able to basically bring in a few people from outside the Russian sphere and actually operate a few fields. But then when you get to 2020, if you remember back to 2020, you know, Covid year, it was kind of rough in Venezuela as well because they had elections and it looked for a hot minute like this guy from the outside was going to take over. He never did. But Betancourt sided with him, and it came to light that he had also been embezzling a lot of money from the Venezuelan state oil company, and so he got kicked out of the country. And Petrozamora (fell apart) until it was only producing like 100,000, maybe even 50,000 barrels a day. Well, fast forward to calendar year 2023. And a woman by the name of Rodriguez, who is now the acting president of Venezuela, brought him back in because the oil sector in Venezuela had just tanked in the intervening three years and started bringing the company back. I think it produces about 200,000 barrels a day right now. Anyway, this new deal with the United States is with the successor to Petrozamora, with Betancourt personally. They’ve renamed the company NABEP, and they’re basically taking all of the Russian concessions and all of the Chinese concessions and giving them to this new company. Now, this new company does not have the staffing, much less the expertise and the volume and the drilling rigs that are necessary to operate all these fields. You probably need about 90 rigs to really make it all work. They’ve got two. In addition, the United States has taken a theoretical not not actual theoretical share in NABEP and has theoretically the ability to assign people to their board. And theoretically, if the U.S. Defense Department specifically wants to take the crude that NABEP produces, it gets rights of first refusal, the first 20% they get at a huge discount, basically production cost and the other 80% they can get at market costs. But all of this is in theory. Unless and until someone else comes in and provides the funding and the staffing and the equipment, NABEP really isn’t going to go anywhere. The point of this deal, however, is for the U.S. government to put a stamp of approval on this one firm so that others who are willing to take more risk can come in, invest in the firm, and then maybe turn it into something that can turn Venezuela’s oil fortunes around. It’s a necessary first step. I don’t begrudge the U.S. administration or the acting Venezuelan government for that. But there’s no money here. There’s no skill transfer here. There’s no equipment coming in at yet. The Chevron deal really is at the moment, the only one that matters at all. And that’s 300,000 barrels over five years. Not a big deal. 

But if if if if if if all of those things happen, then you are talking about the very, very beginning of a renaissance in Venezuela. You still have to change the laws, because right now foreign ownership is an issue. You still have to change the reparations route, because right now it’s not clear how the money gets to the investors. But at the very minimum, we now have at least one entity operating in Venezuela that actually has the right to develop fields, that isn’t the state. That is a step in the right direction. But let’s not get too crazy. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

The Geography of… Bear Attacks

A Grizzly bear running in a field

Everyone is always so worked up about bear attacks while I’m out backpacking. The problem is that people are referencing the rise in bear attacks in Japan, as if it’s the same here in the U.S. The reality is that unless you come across a grizzly without your bear spray, you’ll probably be just fine.

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from the Canadian Rockies in Alberta. Just out for a morning stroll. Today we’re going to do kind of a public service announcement slash question from the Patreon crowd. And it’s, do I worry about wild animals when I’m out backpacking for extended period of time, specifically bears, because there have been reports of hundreds of attacks of bears throughout Japan, especially in northern Japan this last year, which I think is more than what has happened in the decade previous. Short version is no, I don’t. And a couple of big reasons that separate the North American experience from the Japanese experience. 

So first, the physical human topography. In the United States, even in small towns, you tend to have an urban core surrounded by a suburban zone, surrounded by an exurban zone. And then outside of that, ranches and farms. That’s not the Japanese experience. Japan is a very rugged archipelago. So in many cases, the mountains come right down to the small enclave that is home to the urban zone. So the bears are used to being right up against the edge of human habitation, even in the best of times. Second, the Japanese physical footprint for humanity has evolved quite a bit in the last 30 years as their demographics have failed. Keep in mind that Japan, demographically, is the oldest society right now, with the highest proportion of senior citizens, and the population has been shrinking for the last 20 years. And as you age, you live differently. So, you know, your 20s. It’s all about hostel vacations. In your 30s, it’s all about single family homes so you can raise your kids in your 60s. It’s all about starting to downsize. And by the time you hit your 70s and 80s is where the population bulge in Japan is, you’re starting to need to live closer to one another in order to get services. And so the elderly tend to move out of the farms and the ranches and out of the exurbs and even out of the suburbs into the city core, where there’s a communal living facility where they can get assistance. And so what we have seen over the last 20 years is the steady abandonment of the outer edges and even kind of the outer core of a lot of urban zones throughout Japan. And that has left the bears with new territory to claim. Bears tend to be pretty territorial. Even if you relocate them a couple hundred miles, they’re likely just to run back within a week. 

So in the United States, when bears come across a human settlement, there’s progressively more noise and more activity and more alien environment. With all these artificial constructions and above all else, humans to scare them away. Human activity, whether it’s a car or some guy just yelling at them, that doesn’t happen in a lot of northern Japan anymore. This is the part of the country that has faced the steepest demographic crisis. A lot of young people have relocated to major cities like Osaka or Tokyo. And so the Outer Rim, which comes right up against the mountains, has been abandoned. And the bears, bit by bit, explore this new zone, claim it as their own. And so when they do run across a human, they don’t see the human as an alien environment. They see it as an intruder and attacks can happen. The bears also have no problem breaking into a house, and there’s been plenty of examples of bears breaking into find the pet food and then eating the pet to, that just doesn’t happen in the United States. In the United States, interactions between bears and humans have usually ended with the bear being scared off. Black bear, you basically make yourself big and loud and they run off. That doesn’t work as well with an Asian bear. Which brings us to the third thing. There’s different species. American black bears are basically big raccoons. They’re primarily scavengers. That’s why they call them trash pandas in Colorado. So if you keep your trash in your garage and you have a locked trash box, you only put it out the day that gets picked up, you’re more or less going to be fine. Oh yeah. Fun. Random fact black bears love baby diapers. Very strange. Anywho, the bears in Asia, in Japan are called Asian bears. Different species, a lot more aggressive. Making noise, especially in an area that they don’t feel threatened in, is more likely to trigger an attack than it is to make them run away. Of course, there are lots of different kinds of bears around the world, so, for example, the bear you should worry about in North America is the grizzly bear range starts in Wyoming and works north throughout the Canadian Rockies. They’re much bigger. They’re much more aggressive. They’re still omnivores, like all bears, but they’re perfectly capable of hunting. And if you come across a grizzly bear in the wild, the best thing is to stop, look down and slowly back away and just hope that it’s not interested in you. If you do get charged, don’t make yourself big and loud. That’ll just piss it off. Don’t shoot it with a gun. That’ll just piss it off more. I mean, these things are half a ton, the small ones, so that’s not going to stop at all. Your best bet is bear spray, which is basically a capsicum spray that stuns them because they’ve got really sensitive eyes and noses. Like I was saying earlier, the Grizzlies are Wyoming North, so there’s actually a really dense concentration of them right where I am right now. 

And, and I don’t have any bear spray on me. So, you know, maybe, maybe this is a good time to turn around.

Prize Courts Revived for Iran Seizures

A court gavel on marble stone

The U.S. military has been seizing Iranian shadow fleet vessels at the instruction of the Trump administration. But until now, they couldn’t do anything with that seized cargo. Fear not, the prize court system is here to save the day.

Prize courts have not really been used in over a century. So, setting them up takes some time to get the military, logistical, port, and legal infrastructure in line. Despite it being legally required for Congress to have declared war on Iran for prize law to apply, I wouldn’t expect anyone from Iran to show up to argue on behalf of the shadow fleet…

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from above. Barney Lake in the Hoover National Wilderness. Today, I want to talk about something that I saw in the news while I was on the plane to this trip, and that’s that the Trump administration is in the process of setting up a prize court, which is kind of cool. Prize court basically makes legal rulings on products that are seized by the US military, sold on behalf of the US government, and the proceeds go to the Treasury. And basically, they are getting ready to go after every aspect of Iran’s shadow fleet. And I find this fascinating. 

Okay, a couple things to keep in mind. Number one, a lot of people are going to say that. Why didn’t they do this earlier? Is this because the Trump administration is incompetent? Let’s put the incompetent thing to the side. On this issue, I’m going to side with the Trump administration. No one’s done this in a long time. Prize courts were set up. God. Maybe 1800s. The last time the US used them was in World War two against Japan and Germany. And really, the last time was really used was in the Spanish-American War, specifically the operations around in the Caribbean, around Cuba and Puerto Rico. So, there’s no one alive today who did any of the case law. So while the laws have been on the books for well over century, there’s no one with practical experience. 

So to make this work, you need three things. Number one, you need a military that has changed its training a little bit so it can land on ships in the open ocean, seize them, and then sail them somewhere else. That’s a lot harder than it sounds. Number two, you need a port that you can go to unload the cargo. And as we saw in the Indian Ocean, when the Trump administration grabbed a couple Iranian tankers, they kind of just sat there for two weeks because the order had been given from the top. But the military didn’t know what to do with these things. And the Indians were like, you know what? If you’re going to just start seizing things, you might seize hours so you can’t come here. Third, you need that court. You need a legal ruling to say that this is cargo that has been legally seized under U.S. law, so it can then be sold to someone else. And in the case of oil, that means you have to go to a port with a refinery. 

So this court, this prize court system is being set up in the Southern District, which includes Houston, because Houston is one of the world’s great petrochemical hubs. Now, there are a couple of things that you should probably be aware of. Number one, according to the law that was passed in the 1800s. You have to be at war. Not only has Congress not declared war on Iran, but the Trump administration, despite six months of hostilities, still hasn’t gone to Congress even for a temporary authorization. So a defendant could say you’re not at war. Therefore, prize court law doesn’t apply. Perfectly reasonable argument that they would probably carry the day. But number two, that argument will probably not be made because these are shadow vessels ultimately owned by the Iranians. And so the Iranians are not going to show up in a Houston court and submit to American jurisdiction because they be arrested on site. So basically, the US government will be arguing to an empty chair, and the judges will be like, well, you know, this is a little wobbly, but no one is standing up for the defense. So rule for the plaintiff. 

So this could mean that the rest of this year is going to get really interesting. And the only real loophole is Congress, for the reasons I’ve mentioned before. And the fact that it’s been six months still hasn’t gone to Congress. Anyway, that’s it for me. I’ll see you guys at the next lake, bye.

Project Vault Doesn’t Solve the Mineral Problem

Photo of rare earth minerals: praseodymium, cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, samarium, and gadolinium. Photo by Wikimedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element#/media/File:Rareearthoxides.jpg

Project Vault, the Trump administration’s initiative to stockpile critical minerals, is just a small step in the right direction. Sure, buying mineral-rich waste helps the U.S. build reserves, but it’s a classic case of giving the man a fish vs. teaching him how to fish.

If the U.S. really wanted to reduce its reliance on China and prepare for a world where access to critical minerals is scarcer, building out its own refining capacity should be the first step. And after that, the U.S. should begin strengthening relations with other countries that could help with supply issues in the meantime.

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. Today we’re taking a question from the Patreon crowd. Specifically, what do I think of Project Vault? Now, Project Vault is something that was set up by the Trump administration back in February with a couple billion dollars to purchase things like rare materials. Rare earths is the term that always gets tossed around, and it’s in there, but it’s just one of many getting the mining tailings that are rich in these materials and bringing back to the United States and building a stockpile $2 billion for that, which is a lot for basically what is mine waste. 

It’s an interesting step, and I’m not saying it’s not an unnecessary one. I’m actually kind of glad this happened, but it really doesn’t deal with the core problem. Key things to remember is that most of the materials that we need for the digital age, things like rare earths, for example, or gallium, are byproducts of other materials processing. So for example, you have a silver mine, you extract the silver. 

The waste is rich in things like rare earths, or you are doing aluminum smelting. And one of the byproducts is material that is rich in gallium. So getting those materials into the United States and concentration. Great idea. It’s only step one and not even the smart step. The smart step would just be to build the processing. The problem with the world faces right now is 70% on average of critical materials processing is done in China. 

And so basically what the US government is doing right now is buying waste product from Chinese processing and bringing it here, and it’s a step in the right direction. But, you know, honestly, just build the processing, because if we get into a position where the Chinese cut off supply or there’s other some sort of supply disruption, you then have to build the processing anyway, or ship those tailings back to China to be processed. 

I mean, even building a reserve of the finished product, the refined metals, does it really take us to far down the road because it’s still being done in China? Until you build that processing, the rest of it doesn’t really matter in terms of sourcing the raw materials. That’s really not that hard. And as we’ve seen with Project Fault, it is already filling up. 

But if you want to build a Chinese free system, there are three countries that you really need to focus on because they’ve got robust mining sectors. Number one Canada. So maybe stop calling it the 51st state. Number two Australia. And so maybe stop saying they’re not racist enough to be our friends. And number three is Brazil. And relations with Brazilians are probably at the worst since at least the 1970s. 

Right now, bottom line is, without a little bit of diplomacy to secure some of these things, the rest of it’s kind of a rounding error and just continues with the Chinese dependance that supposedly we want to break so badly. So yes, baby, step in the right direction. Maybe we take some bigger ones soon.

The End of U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Photo of a pumping station at sunset

The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was created in the 70s as a safeguard against major disruptions in oil imports. Well, those 700 million barrels were never used for its intended purpose.

As the U.S. became one of the world’s largest producers and exporters, the SPR was retasked. It’s been used a few dozen times by various presidents to influence oil prices and stabilize markets. But it was never made for that. The geologic makeup of the SPR caverns means that each time a drawdown occurs, the structures are weakened.

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. Today I wanted to talk about the American Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There’s been a lot of reports in the news that it’s nearing the end of its life, and it’s starting to break down, and there is some concern there. But let me explain why it was created the way it was, and how that’s inappropriate for the way we’ve actually used it. 

So it started back in the 1970s in the aftermath of the first Arab oil embargo. Congress legislated the creation of the reserve to hold 700 million barrels of crude, which, you know, we use about 20 million barrels a day. So that’s a couple of months of import cover, even in the worst case scenario. The thing is, over the course of the 80s and the 90s, when we saw our demand going up and our ability to produce go down, it became even more important. 

So we eventually filled it up pretty close to the max. But then we got into the 2000, we had the shale oil revolution, and by the time we got into the 2010s, the United States was a significant net exporter, and today we’re the world’s largest exporter of refined product. So how does the SPR fit into that? Well, not great. And part of it is geologic of all things. 

See, unlike most countries’ oil reserves which are held on the surface in tanks, which is corrosive to the tanks and the equipment and the crude starts to separate unless you stir it. So there’s a high maintenance cost. We don’t do it that way in the United States, down on the Gulf Coast, we have a unique geological feature, nearly unique, called salt domes, where you just have these massive salt caverns down below and salt and oil don’t mix. So it’s a really great barrier for keeping oil contained. So what we do is we drill down into the salt dome and we inject water, and that water dissolves some of the salt and makes the cavern bigger. Then we put another pipe in there, and we pump in the crude. And oil is lighter than water. So it rises to the top of the salt dome. And all you have to do in order to regulate the level of the oil is to pump in water, which pushes some crude out or pump in more crude, which pushes the water out because your pipes are there at different levels, tapping different things. 

Anyway, it’s a really clever thing and the maintenance cost is next to zero, but it has been a half century. And equipment does wear down, and especially since we’re not using it the way it was designed. You see, we designed it for big drawdowns in cases of a global and especially a national emergency, when we knew we were going to need hundreds of millions of barrels because we assumed that the Middle East was going to go offline and we were the world’s largest oil importer. 

Well, we never really used the system in that way. And every time you do a drawdown, big or small, you basically are putting more water into the cavern, which is dissolving more salt, which is overall weakening the overall system. So these caverns were only designed to be used five times total for big drawdowns. We’ve never really had a giant drawdown of that scale. What we’ve had are three dozen little drawdowns, which keeps putting water in and out, in and out and dissolving more and more salt. And we’ve now reached the point where the salt gnomes are starting to show signs of damage. And if we did a rapid drawdown again today, we’d probably have several of them break. So we’re at the end of the lifespan of the SPR and without significant re-engineering, which I’m not even sure is possible since so many of the pieces are geologic rather than mechanical. 

We’re probably going to be seeing the end of the reserve in the not too distant future unless we find new salt domes, establish a new system, or do what everybody else does and does those expensive above ground tanks. So we really are losing that tool. Now, this is not a disaster. Again, the United States is the world’s largest exporter of refined product and now the second largest exporter of raw crude. It’s not like this is something that we’ve needed, but it gives you an idea of where the break is, because this was designed for a national emergency for a country that was a major importer. Instead, in those three dozen drawdowns. Presidents not just Trump, also Biden, also Obama, Also W, use them to regulate oil markets and to try to influence prices. And that’s why there’s been 37 discrete drawdowns rather than the big five that the system was designed for. So we’ve gotten to the same place repeated usage is functionally ending the salt domes useful life span. But now we have a situation where we have to get all that crude out of there and put it on the market or store it some other way, because we’re simply not going to be able to maintain it in its current form. 

So either we have a new multibillion dollar project authorized by Congress to establish an entirely new reserve, or the United States has to do something else in order to regulate markets. That’s not something the United States government, historically speaking, has been a very good at. I think if you look back on the history of these 37 disbursements, you can argue that they didn’t do a good job of it either. But this tool is just about done.

Trade War Revival: Trump, Canada, and Tariffs

US and Canada Flags overlaid and flat | Licensed by Envato Elements

Crippling one of the world’s most deeply integrated manufacturing systems probably isn’t a great idea, but here we are again.

Trump has ensured that the trade war between Canada and the U.S. is alive and well, following the announcement of another series of tariffs. The U.S. isn’t just shooting itself in the foot; it’s shooting all of its closest friends’ feet in the process…

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. And the news is that between the 21st and the 22nd, at midnight, the United States kicked in 50% tariffs on a suite of Canadian goods, basically ensuring that the trade war between the Trump administration and Canada is alive and well. What this is what this isn’t first. What this isn’t. 

These weren’t NAFTA talks. Bilateral talks with Canadians on NAFTA, much less tri-level talks with the Mexicans have yet to begin. So the world’s deepest economic integration, the most successful supply chains humanity has ever put together are still in limbo. And now with the United States throwing a 50% tariff on top of that and saying flat out there are no plans for future negotiations. This really is getting into a no man’s land when it comes to the future of North American manufacturing. Keep in mind that the United States needs to at least double the size of its industrial plant simply to have access to the products it’s going to lose as the global really kicks in, especially in China. And doing that without our North American partners means we actually have to increase our industrial plant by the volume of theirs as well. 

At the same time, the Trump administration keeps changing policies. We’ve now had over 8500 tariff changes. This new batch adds a couple more hundred to that. And so no one who wants to invest in North American, and especially U.S. manufacturing, is going to do so because the rules of the game keep changing and they don’t even know who they can approach for partners. 

So one of the things that we’ve seen during the Trump administration is that industrial construction spending has dropped every single month of this administration, but one where there was a slight uptick, I think earlier in this year. This is certainly going to exacerbate that plan, because we’re now at the point where the business communities trust in the Trump administration has basically evaporated completely, and they will not start investing in new plant until such time as they know what the real rules of the game are. That will be on the other side of negotiations with Canada, on the other side of negotiations on whatever the next NAFTA is. And at this point, none of that has even started yet. So, if you were looking for the realization of the United States under the Trump administration, we now have 18 months of data indicating that we’ve gone screaming in the opposite direction. And we’re actually farther away from clarity now than we were in January of 2025. This is unambiguously horrible news for the U.S. economy long term, because it’s raising the very real possibility that not only will we not have the replacement product supply chains in place when the globalization really hits hard in the next couple of years, but we won’t even be able to be functional with where we were two years ago. And the industries that are hit hardest by that by far are agriculture, because their primary customers are Canada and Mexico, and automotive manufacturing because the average part that is in an American crafted vehicle crosses the border 5 or 6 times overall in in its manufacture going to Mexico and Canada. And anything going to Canada is now facing potentially compounding tariffs. And if you happen to be headquartered in Detroit and producing cars in Michigan or the northern tier of the Midwest, you’re talking about parts crossing maybe seven times. This is this is bad. Anyway. You look at it. 

One more thing. I’m going backpacking in Yosemite for the next few weeks and the next phase of this. I will not be here to talk with you about. In September, the Canadians have already promised that they’re going to announce reciprocal tariffs designed to pressure the Trump administration specifically. It is unclear what those tariffs will be on. In the past, when countries try to target political decision making, they go after things that are politically sensitive, specifically in areas that really matter to the political policymaker. I don’t know what that’s going to look like at present, but I have a real big doubt that it’s going to work. Trump has made it very clear over the last year that it doesn’t matter who he thinks his constituents are. He’s willing to do whatever he thinks his version of math supports. So, for example, the beef industry has been absolutely screaming for the last few weeks as Trump has been opening up their market to foreign imports and or an attempt to lower prices. So actually suppressing long term supply in the United States in order to give him a short term boost in preparation for the midterms. And none other than, say, the National Cattlemen’s Association has just been screaming bloody murder about how damaging that is for them in the country midterm. You’re seeing this across almost every economic sector. So the idea that that strategy is going to work is very unlikely. Second thing is the Canadians, if they do decide to target things like the manufacturing sector, that would really reverberate in places like Michigan and swing states. Two things to keep in mind. Number one. Trump’s a lame duck already. He doesn’t care about presidential elections, so that’s unlikely to work. And then second, three quarters of Canada’s exports come to the United States. Anything that they do that is real, that will cause structural damage in the United States is actually going to hurt them more.