Tuesday, April 22, 2025

 

U.S. Counters Iran Talks with Saudi Nuclear Deal Strategy

  • Following talks with Iran on reviving the nuclear deal, the U.S. began parallel discussions with Saudi Arabia.

  • A U.S.-Saudi nuclear deal would reverse Riyadh’s drift toward China, undercutting Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative and its growing influence in the Middle East.

  • The move signals a broader U.S. strategy to reassert dominance in the region through deep energy, infrastructure, and nuclear cooperation.

Just one day after U.S. negotiators met their Iranian counterparts in Oman to discuss drawing up a new nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), Energy Secretary Chris Wright flew into Saudi Arabia to talk about a nuclear deal with the Kingdom as well. Such a deal with Riyadh would place enormous pressure on its historical religious, political and military enemy Tehran to reach an agreement on its own nuclear energy programme with the U.S. sooner rather than later. It would also be pivotal in reversing the decade-long drift of Saudi Arabia away from the U.S. sphere of influence and into that of China. Moreover, if both sides of this diplomatic play successfully bring both Tehran and Riyadh under Washington’s influence, the Middle East could be lost to China for decades to come and effectively end its multi-generational global power-grab project the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI).

The scale and scope of last week’s discussions between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are similar to those that have been seen for years between the Kingdom and China and, as such, can be regarded as a straight replacement option of Washington for Beijing for Saudi Arabia. The Department of Energy discussed working toward a U.S.-Saudi nuclear power agreement as part of a multi-layered memorandum of understanding across multiple energy fields that the two countries are now negotiating. These include deep and broad co-operation on oil and gas, petrochemicals, carbon management, hydrogen technologies, electricity, renewables, and nuclear energy. They also incorporate new deals on infrastructure supporting these developments and on financing to support their swift rollout. “Although [Energy Secretary] Wright stressed that safeguards will be in place to ensure that Saudi’s nuclear programme won’t lead to the development of nuclear weapons, it’s clear to Iranians that such safeguards can just as easily be loosened and that the threat of nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia has suddenly become very real, which is exactly what Washington intended,” a senior energy industry source who has worked closely with Iran’s Petroleum Ministry exclusively told OilPrice.com last week. “The mood has shifted in Tehran following this [U.S.-Saudi Arabia announcement] and they’re [Iran’s leadership] very focused now on getting something done here [on a new nuclear deal],” he added.

Providing Saudi Arabia with a nuclear energy programme was also included in the raft of agreements signed between Riyadh and Beijing since the end of the 2014-2016 Oil Price War that was started by the Kingdom but which ended in economic and political disaster for it, as analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order. It was at that point that then-Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) pushed the idea of an initial public offering of Saudi Aramco, which could raise a lot of money and boost Saudi Arabia’s reputation in the global financial markets, which would help with further offerings. However, his assurances to senior Saudis that the IPO would raise at least UD$100 billion for a 5% stake fell flat as the offering was seen as toxic by many big investors in the West. It was then that China made the face-saving offer to MbS that it buy the entire 5% stake in a private placement. Although the deal was ultimately refused by the senior Saudis, MbS has reportedly never forgotten Beijing’s offer of assistance. For China the offer made perfect sense, as a deeper relationship with Saudi Arabia would give it preferential access to its big oil reserves and production. It would also give Beijing indirect influence over oil prices, as the Kingdom was still the de facto head of global oil cartel OPEC. Later, with the addition of major oil producer Russia to an expanded OPEC+ group, Beijing believed Riyadh could exert a moderating influence over any moves by Moscow to move oil prices in a sustained direction that China did not want. An additional benefit to Beijing was Saudi Arabia’s position as a leader in the Islamic world, which could be used by China to extend its influence further across the Middle East and beyond, including through the BRI. As the world’s oil supply is a zero-sum game, a further benefit for China was that its gain in any of these respects would be the loss of the U.S., its key superpower rival.

By 2022, the China-Saudi Arabia relationship had developed to such an extraordinary degree that Saudi Aramco’s chief executive officer, Amin Nasser said that: “Ensuring the continuing security of China’s energy needs remains our highest priority - not just for the next five years but for the next 50 and beyond.” In December’s first China-Arab States Summit and the first China-Gulf Cooperation Council Summit, plus tangential meetings with other Arab states around the same time, 34 agreements were signed between Chinese and Saudi companies covering a huge array of sectors, including, energy, technology, security, science and technology, aerospace, banking, and infrastructure, among many others. But it was President Xi Jinping himself who identified two ‘priority areas’ for the new relationship between China and the Arab states, including Saudi Arabia. These were the transition to using China’s renminbi (RMB) currency in oil and gas deals done between the and bringing Chinese nuclear technology to them, as also detailed in my  latest book on the new global oil market order. This was all to be done within the context of “forging a deeper strategic cooperation in a region where U.S. dominance is showing signs of retreat,” according to China’s state media.

Implicit in China’s proposals was also the potential for Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear weapons, which Beijing believed would – when added to the same threat from Iran – necessitate heavy military involvement of the U.S. on the ground in the Middle East, a senior source in the European Union’s energy security complex exclusively told OilPrice.com at the time. Beijing was certain that such involvement would last years, bogging down U.S. forces in unwinnable wars which would allow China to consolidate its own military, economic, and political primacy in the Asia Pacific region. Indeed, just before Christmas 2021, news emerged that U.S. intelligence agencies had found that Saudi Arabia was manufacturing its own ballistic missiles with the help of China, while also continuing to provide extensive assistance to Iran’s own nuclear weapons ambitions. Little if any influence could consistently be brought on Saudi Arabia by the government of former U.S. President Joe Biden, given the personal animosity between him and many of the senior Saudis. Biden’s starting point was made clear in broad terms on 2 October 2020 when he said that any presidency of his would seek to: “Reassess our relationship with the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia], end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, and make sure America does not check its values at the door to sell arms or buy oil.” Specifically regarding MbS during the same speech – which marked the second anniversary of the murder of expatriate Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi that according even to the CIA was carried out on the personal orders of the Crown Prince – Biden appeared to endorse the CIA’s findings. He said: “Two years ago, Saudi operatives, reportedly acting at the direction of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, murdered and dismembered Saudi dissident, journalist, and US resident Jamal Khashoggi…His offense – for which he paid with his life – was criticising the policies of his government.”

On the other hand, President Donald Trump’s ability to influence the Saudis appears to be much greater, based on three key reasons. First, he has flattered MbS, saying “I have so much respect [for him].” Second, he wields the most power of any person on the planet, and the Saudis respect power. And third, he is unpredictable. As it now stands, U.S. Energy Secretary Wright stated last week that he is optimistic about seeing a wide-ranging co-operation agreement – including nuclear energy – secured with Saudi Arabia in a matter of months.

By Simon Watkins for Oilprice.com

Trump Tariffs Reshape MENA Oilfield Services

  • US tariffs have disrupted global oilfield supply chains, leading to increased costs and prompting shifts in sourcing strategies.

  • Regional MENA oilfield service companies are benefiting from these disruptions due to their localized supply chains and proximity to clients, offering shorter lead times and competitive pricing.

  • Local content programs in the MENA region, such as Saudi Arabia's IKTVA and the UAE's ICV, have been validated and strengthened by the global trade shifts, encouraging more domestic manufacturing and service capacity.

The Trump administration’s tariff regime, intended to boost US manufacturing and inflict punitive damage on Chinese manufacturing, has disrupted multiple industrial supply chains into the US with cascading effects across other regions. For the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region’s oilfield services (OFS) sector, the effects are indirect but may be significant if unmitigated by national oil companies (NOCs) and OFS suppliers. With the US turning more inward, these companies can pivot sourcing to take advantage of foreign sources looking for new customers – in particular China – and strengthening local supplier output. By taking strategic action to alter procurement patterns, operators and service companies can expand capacity and avoid inflated operational costs. 

Taking advantage of US tariffs

The US has rolled out a portfolio of tariffs, but the most impactful to oil and gas industry are revisions to steel duties which have eliminated country-based quotas and exemptions and reciprocal tariffs which impose at minimum 10% general import tariffs and up to 125% for China. These new fees have disrupted sourcing of key materials including OCTG, line pipe, mud pumps, drill pipe, and artificial lift systems, leading marginal cost increases in some categories but also dramatically higher premiums in others. US E&Ps and suppliers have responded by shifting sourcing to lower tariff nations like India, ramping up existing domestic capacity, and stockpiling during windows of lower rates. In most cases where additional costs are unlikely to be absorbed by customers, US weighted service companies will feel pressure on margins, causing them to increasingly deploy resources into international markets.

What hurts US companies in this case can benefit the MENA region as Asian pipe mills free up productive capacity and Chinese part suppliers go seeking new customers. Regional OFS players such as TAQA (Industrialization & Energy Services Co.), NESR, ADES, and Arabian Drilling are uniquely positioned to benefit from these supply crunches and pricing bottlenecks currently affecting global providers. One key advantage lies in their localized supply chains and maintenance operations, which are inherently more resilient and flexible compared to the globally dispersed procurement and manufacturing networks of international competitors. While global suppliers face increased exposure to geopolitical tensions, shipping delays, and trade conflicts across continents, regional players can more effectively navigate these challenges due to their proximity to major clients and ability to guarantee last-mile delivery.

This advantage also enables them to offer shorter lead times for delivering equipment and services, helping to avoid delays that could cause non-productive time and cost overruns on high-value projects and drilling campaigns. The proximity to the end-user, and shorter lead times (if local capacity constraints are not an issue), could lead to more profitable call-out contracts which typically replace underperforming competitors, up to 20%–50% more profitable than legacy sourcing agreements.

Operators gaining leverage

This is good news for MENA-based operators who stand to benefit from these market shifts by securing more competitive pricing, both domestic and foreign, partly offsetting the top-line impact of oil price declines. Reduced pricing has become a theme across the MENA OFS landscape, prompting several lump sum turnkey (LSTK) contracts to be tendered. Notable examples include those awarded to Sinopec and SLB in Kuwait this year, as well as a potential 80-well campaign announced by the Jordanian Ministry of Energy.

Furthermore, UAE NOC ADNOC has steadily expanded the use of integrated service contracts, growing from 35% in 2022 to 47% across its onshore and offshore assets this year. Saudi Aramco is also increasing the utilization of this model, with 14% of active rigs currently operating under integrated service contracts, signaling a regional shift toward more efficient and cost-effective operations in the OFS sector.

Importantly, not all OFS players have been negatively impacted by the tariffs. The Middle Eastern rig market has remained relatively cushioned, as shown by Saudi Aramco’s Jafurah field, which is continuing its planned rig ramp up with approximately 50 rigs. Further supporting this trend, in April 2025, rig supplier ADES confirmed a ten-year, $291 million contract with Aramco for a jack-up rig, a reversal from the suspensions seen this time last year.

Local content programs bear fruit

Arguably the most significant impact has been the boost to regional localization frameworks. Trumpian tariffs indirectly validated the industrial policies of governments like Saudi Arabia’s In-Kingdom Total Value Add (IKTVA) and the UAE’s In-Country Value (ICV) programs - both designed to increase domestic content in energy sector procurement.

In 2018, Saudi Aramco embedded localization metrics into tender evaluations through IKTVA. Multinational players like Baker Hughes and Schlumberger, which set up high-value manufacturing centers in Dhahran Techno Valley and King Salman Energy Park (SPARK), received preferential scoring and early visibility into bid pipelines. These global firms often partnered with local players such as Zamil Offshore, and TAQA (through subcontract awards) - established Saudi entities with IKTVA credentials - to strengthen their domestic value-add. TAQA has also ramped up local rig refurbishment and directional drilling services to capitalize on Aramco’s drive for localized upstream support.

In the same year, ADNOC’s ICV program shifted procurement policies to strengthen local supplies and suppliers which also encouraged international firms to localize their manufacturing and maintenance, illustrated by Halliburton’s decision to establish a cementing additives plant in Abu Dhabi’s ICAD II industrial zone. The result is a shifting competitive landscape: companies with regional repair, assembly, or R&D capacity are now structurally advantaged in NOC bidding processes.

In summary, US tariffs have disrupted the oilfield supply chain leading to higher costs to operators in some categories and margin pressure on OFS companies. This will open up spare capacity in China and among other Asian suppliers which may lead to better pricing for MENA companies. Regional service providers stand to benefit with more insulation against global trade disruptions, and local content programs will further demonstrate the value of local manufacturing and service capacity.

By Amr Mahmoud, Senior Analyst – Middle East and North Africa Supply Chain Research at Rystad Energy

 

Iraq’s Oil Embargo Was Never Just About Oil

  • The oil dispute between Baghdad and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) is fundamentally about sovereignty, not oil.

  • Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court and the proposed Unified Oil Law have cemented Baghdad’s control over oil revenues, ending the KRI’s ability to export independently.

  • Turkey’s new pipeline plans bypassing Kurdistan, aligned with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, reflect wider geopolitical shifts and efforts to marginalize Western influence in the region.

It is sometimes difficult in the multi-dimensional world of Middle Eastern geopolitics to see the bigger picture, and this has certainly been true for many looking at the ongoing conflict between the south and the north of Iraq. The most notable superficial manifestation of this in recent times has centred on the continued embargo of independent oil sales from the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) in the north by the Federal Government of Iraq (FGI) in the south. However, this dispute has never fundamentally been about oil. It is instead about sovereignty. The south wants to end the semblance of this that the north still has and simply subsume it into a unified Iraq. Depriving the Kurdistan region its primary source of financing – money from independent oil sales – through multiple earlier legal challenges and latterly through the embargo is solely a means to this end. Everything else is just fluff. Last week’s new that Turkey wants new pipelines that would carry oil and natural gas from Iraq’s south – bypassing the north – is the latest confirmation of Baghdad’s ultimate objective.

Many appear to think that the genesis of the oil embargo imposed on 25 March 2023 was a breakdown in the 2014 agreement between the south and the north focused on the south paying the north a certain amount of its budget each month in return for a certain level of oil pumped in the south then being sent in return. Specifically, the original deal involved the Kurdistan region exporting up to 550,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil from its own fields and Kirkuk via the Federal Government of Iraq’s State Organization for Marketing of Oil (SOMO). In return, Baghdad would send 17% of the federal budget after sovereign expenses (around US$500 million at that time) per month in budget payments to the Kurdistan region. This deal was agreed to by the south under intense pressure from the U.S. which had secretly promised the Kurds that they would finally gain full independence once their Peshmerga army had defeated Islamic State in Iraq, as analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order. In reality, the deal was always designed by Baghdad to fail. To that end, from the very earliest phase of the deal the Federal Government accused the Kurds of continuing to sell oil independently, which it viewed as illegal. As a result, Baghdad felt empowered to withhold large portions of Kurdistan’s due budget payments at will.

The Iraqi Constitution helped Baghdad enormously in this context, having been drawn up in 2005 in such a way as to give no legal clarity on which side – the FGI or the KRI – had the rights over oil in the Kurdistan region. Iraq Constitution was unclear on the issue of which authority had power over the disputed oil flows. According to the KRG, it has authority under Articles 112 and 115 of the Iraq Constitution to man­age oil and gas in the Kurdistan Region extracted from fields that were not in production in 2005 -- the year that the Constitution was adopted by referendum. In addition, the KRG maintains that Article 115 states: “All powers not stipulated in the exclusive powers of the federal government belong to the authorities of the regions and governorates that are not organised in a region.” As such, the KRG maintains that, as relevant powers are not otherwise stipulated in the Constitution, it has the authority to sell and receive revenue from its oil and gas exports. Additionally, it argues the Con­stitution provides that, should a dispute arise, priority shall be given to the law of the regions and governorates. However, the FGI maintains that under Article 111 of the Constitution oil and gas are under the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.

That said, the true genesis of the current dispute between the two sides has nothing to do with the 2014 deal. In fact, it began on 23 April 2013 when Kurdistan’s regional government passed a bill that would allow it to independently export crude oil from its fields and those of Kirkuk if Baghdad failed to pay its share of oil revenues and exploration costs. A corollary bill to create an oil exploration and production company separate from the FGI in Baghdad and a sovereign wealth fund to take in all energy revenue was approved at the same time by the KRG’s cabinet under then-Prime Minister (and now President) Nechirvan Barzani. At that point, the KRI was producing around 350,000 bpd – out of a total 3.3 million bpd across Iraq -- and planned to increase this to 1 million bpd by the end of 2015. In sum, the KRG intended the 2013 bill to give the KRI complete financial independence from the rest of Iraq as a precursor to total political independence shortly thereafter. The next phase after independent oil sales were assured by the KRI was a planned referendum on independence, as also thoroughly detailed in my latest book on the new global oil market order. The FGI correctly saw this as an existential threat to its future, given the U.S.’s promise to the Kurds regarding the defeat of Islamic State.

It was against this backdrop that a series of legal rulings by Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court (FSC) on 21 February 2024 underlined that the planned New Oil Law being worked on at that time by the government of Iraq in Baghdad would be the final agent of change aimed at ending any semblance of independence for Iraqi Kurdistan. To begin with, the FSC ruled that the Kurdistan region was compelled to turn over “all oil and non-oil revenues” to Baghdad. This marked the end of any meaningful debate over whether the KRI could count on continuing independent oil sales unimpeded by Baghdad. Iraq Prime Minister, Mohammed Al-Sudani, then clearly stated that the new Unified Oil Law – run in every respect out of Baghdad - will govern all oil and gas production and investments in both Iraq and its semi-autonomous Kurdistan region and will constitute “a strong factor for Iraq’s unity”. Around the same time, a senior energy source who works very closely with Iran’s Petroleum Ministry exclusively told OilPrice.com, a very high-ranking official from the Kremlin said at a meeting with senior government figures from Iran that: “By keeping the West out of energy deals in Iraq, the end of Western hegemony in the Middle East will become the decisive chapter in the West’s final demise.”

Russia’s own key superpower sponsor, China, is also set to benefit from such a unification of Iraq. As it stands even now, more than a third of all Iraq’s proven oil and gas reserves and over two-thirds of its current production are managed by Chinese companies, according to industry figures. More specifically, Chinese firms combined have direct shares in around 24 billion barrels of reserves and are responsible for the production of around 3.0 million bpd. However, Turkey’s plan for new pipelines that bypass the Kurdistan region will also neatly augment Beijing’s broader multi-generational global power-grab plan, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The new pipelines would tie into Iraq’s Strategic Development Road programme aimed at creating a seamless transport corridor running from Iraq’s flagship deepwater Al Faw Grand Port (due to be finished in 2025) in its key oil export hub of Basra in the Persian Gulf, all the way through several of its biggest oil and gas fields, and finally into Fishkabur on the Iraqi border with Turkey. From here, it will extend via road and railway links into the rest of Europe. The planned integration of the SDR with China’s BRI infrastructure would represent an alternative final part of the transport jigsaw that would see a direct land route from Xi’an into Europe. It could also function as the final alternative route in the maritime transport corridor, running from Quanzhou to Colombo in Sri Lanka and then up to Basra rather than continuing past Yemen and through the Red Sea and Suez Canal into the Mediterranean. An added geopolitical advantage for China is that Iraq’s new SDR should also be quicker and less costly than the route favoured by its key global rival, the U.S., and beginning in its key regional rival, India – that is, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor.

By Simon Watkins for Oilprice.com

 

China’s Oil Supertankers Face $5.2-Million Fee per U.S. Port Call

  • The U.S. is introducing fees on operators of China-built vessels calling at U.S. ports.

  • These fees could reach up to $5.2 million per call for large supertankers.

  • The U.S. Trade Representative states the move aims to address Chinese dominance and bolster the U.S. shipbuilding industry.

The U.S. move to penalize China-built and China-owned vessels calling at U.S. ports could lead to an oil supertanker made in China and operated by a Chinese company facing a fee of up to $5.2 million per call at a U.S. port, shipbrokers have estimated.

The U.S. last week announced fees on vessel owners and operators of China based on net tonnage per U.S. voyage. The previous proposal was a per-port-entry fee of up to $1.5 million on Chinese-built vessels, and up to a $1 million per-port-entry fee on any vessel (Chinese-built or non-Chinese-built) for operators that have any Chinese-built vessels in their fleet or orderbook.

Now, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) plans to impose fees on operators of Chinese-built ships based on net tonnage or containers, increasing incrementally over the following years.

Commenting on the new USTR move, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said, “Ships and shipping are vital to American economic security and the free flow of commerce.”

“The Trump administration’s actions will begin to reverse Chinese dominance, address threats to the U.S. supply chain, and send a demand signal for U.S.-built ships,” Greer added.

Under the new plan, the fee on a China-made China-operated supertanker could reach up to $5.2 million per call because of the large tonnage of the supertankers compared to smaller oil tankers, according to the research arm of Arrow Shipbroking Group cited by Bloomberg.

The previous per-call only fee would have charged up to $3.5 million for a tanker to call at a U.S. port.

Oil traders have already started to avoid hiring tankers built in China amid concerns that port fees could be coming for Chinese vessels at U.S. ports as part of a plan by President Donald Trump to revitalize the American shipbuilding industry. Oil traders and charterers that are booking vessels to call, load, or discharge cargoes at U.S. ports are seeking vessels not built in China, market sources told Bloomberg earlier this month.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

 

Musk's Political Involvement Weighs on Tesla




  • Tesla will hold a company update alongside its Q1 2025 earnings call, where investors expect to hear about affordable EV plans and robotaxi developments.
  • Tesla's first quarter earnings are projected to decline, with sales facing challenges and concerns growing over profit margins and the impact of trade tariffs.
  • Elon Musk's political involvement is affecting Tesla's brand perception and potentially its customer base, adding to the challenges the company faces.

Tesla has set its Q1 2025 earnings call for Tuesday, April 22, at 4:30 p.m. CT / 5:30 p.m. ET. As usual, the event will be livestreamed, with a recording available later on Tesla’s website. The Q1 Update Letter will be released after markets close that same day.

This quarter, as multiple Tesla blogs like Teslarati have pointed out, Tesla is also adding a new element: a “Company Update.”

For the first time, the term appeared in both its vehicle delivery report and on the company’s official X account.

“In addition to posting first quarter results, Tesla management will hold a live company update and question and answer webcast that day,” the company stated.

Speculation is growing that Tesla may use the update to reveal more about its upcoming projects, particularly the affordable EVs teased in its Q4 2024 report: “Plans for new vehicles, including more affordable models, remain on track for start of production in the first half of 2025...”

Tesla’s Q1 2025 earnings are expected to show a 4.4% decline in profit to $0.43 per share, with revenue holding steady at $21.45 billion, according to FactSet.

Analyst estimates range from $0.30 to $0.51 per share, but consensus has dropped over 40% since late 2024. Piper Sandler warned the results will “likely underwhelm,” with margins “probably trending near multiyear lows.”

There's five things in particular investors will be looking for in this upcoming report and/or update, IBD noted this weekend.

Investor focus is shifting to Tesla’s promised robotaxi rollout. Musk has said paid rides would begin in Austin this June, but his past claims about autonomy have repeatedly fallen short. The latest FSD update shows modest progress, but it's still far from viable as a robotaxi platform.

The Cybercab—unveiled last year as a two-seater without a steering wheel—is supposed to launch before 2027 at under $30,000.

However, Reuters recently reported that Trump’s 145% tariff on Chinese goods has halted key parts shipments, possibly delaying both the Cybercab and Semi. The Cybercab’s cost-saving “unboxed” manufacturing method also remains unproven.

Tesla’s long-teased affordable EV. Reports suggest the first lower-cost option may just be a simplified Model Y, possibly arriving in 2025 or 2026. 

Vehicle sales for Q1 fell 13% year-over-year to 336,681. Growth is expected to stagnate this year, with consensus forecasting a modest 3% increase in deliveries, though some analysts now expect fewer sales than in 2024.

China sales rose slightly but remain low-margin, while U.S. and European demand has been hit by Musk’s controversial public profile.

While Tesla’s exposure to Trump’s tariffs is limited compared to other automakers, it still relies on Chinese suppliers for battery components, including CATL and BYD. Investors will be watching for updates on how Tesla plans to respond to trade tensions and cost pressures.

Musk’s political involvement is also on watch. He has been rumored to be finishing his work with DOGE by May and people are watching for a potential full-time return to Tesla.

IBD adds that a March YouGov/Yahoo News poll found 67% of U.S. adults wouldn’t consider a Tesla, with 37% citing Musk as the reason. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, a longtime bull, cut his Tesla price target by 40%, calling the situation a “perfect storm” and estimating Tesla has lost at least 10% of its future customer base—potentially more than 20% in Europe.

Demonstrations at dealerships and reports of vandalism continue. Musk is reportedly planning to leave his White House role, but no timeline has been confirmed. Investors will be listening for any update on his level of involvement moving forward.

By Zerohedge.com 


Tesla bull Ives warns of ‘code red’ if Musk sticks with DOGE






By Bloomberg News 
April 21, 2025 


Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said Elon Musk should step back from his controversial work at the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency and re-focus his attention on Tesla Inc., adding the electric-vehicle maker faces a “code red” moment as it prepares to report first-quarter earnings Tuesday.

“Musk needs to leave the government, take a major step back on DOGE, and get back to being CEO of Tesla full-time,” Ives wrote in a report to clients Sunday. “Tesla is Musk and Musk is Tesla....and anyone that thinks the brand damage Musk has inflicted is not a real thing, spend some time speaking to car buyers in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. You will think differently after those discussions.”

Two weeks ago, Ives slashed his price target for Tesla’s stock by 43%, citing a brand crisis created by Musk and U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade policies. Ives’ biggest concern has been the potential for Tesla to get caught up in the backlash against Trump’s tariff policies in China, where the company generated more than a fifth of its revenue last year. Musk has also become the face of Trump’s efforts to slash the size and scope of the federal government, infuriating progressive consumers who are a key client base for the leading American electric vehicle maker.

“Tesla has unfortunately become a political symbol globally of the Trump Administration/DOGE,” wrote Ives. He then ticked off several points: Tesla’s stock has been crushed since inauguration, the company’s first-quarter delivery numbers were terrible and protests against Tesla continue. Tesla faces “potentially 15%-20% permanent demand destruction for future Tesla buyers due to the brand damage Musk has created with DOGE,” according to Ives.

Tesla shares have fallen 43% since Jan. 17. When the company reports earnings Tuesday, it will face questions about volume sales for 2025, progress on autonomous driving and plans for a robotaxi network, and how tariffs will impact profitability. Looming over everything is Musk’s role in the White House.

Musk, the world’s richest person, is a special government employee, a classification for temporary federal hires who are only supposed to work 130 days out of the year in their roles. Musk is expected to step back from his role once his 130-day period has lapsed, people familiar with the matter said earlier this month.


Ives said he remains bullish on Tesla, maintaining an outperform rating and calling it one of the “most disruptive technology companies on the globe over the coming years.” Yet he said Tesla needs its “most important asset” — Musk — back at the company full time.

“We view this as a fork in the road time: if Musk leaves the White House there will be permanent brand damage, but Tesla will have its most important asset and strategic thinker back as full time CEO,” wrote Ives. “If Musk chooses to stay with the Trump White House, it could change the future of Tesla/brand damage will grow.”

Dana Hull, Bloomberg News

©2025 Bloomberg L.P.


 

IEA Warns of Unresolved Global Energy Security Threats

Global energy supply is still in danger of shocks, the International Energy Agency’s chief has warned ahead of a political gathering to discuss energy matters in London.

The “lessons from Ukraine have not yet been fully understood,” Fatih Birol said, as quoted by the Financial Times, noting the “three golden rules” for energy security. These include diversification of energy supply, political stability to motivate long-term energy investments, and global cooperation.

Despite these golden rules, Europe and the UK have struggled to ensure their energy supply security, suggesting the three are easier said than done. Now, Trump’s tariff offense is further complicating the situation by affecting the last “golden rule” on cooperation. Per Birol, the tariff war will also affect demand for oil and gas, although he did not elaborate on the direction in which demand would be affected.

Political leaders are gathering in London this week to discuss energy security with energy industry representatives. These include both oil and gas majors such as Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, TotalEnergies, Eni, and Equinor, as well as alternative energy producers, namely Danish wind turbine leaders Ørsted and Vestas. Power suppliers, including French EDF, Italian Enel, and British Octopus, will also attend the gathering.

“We are going to look at traditional energy security risks, such as [the loss] of oil and gas, but also emerging risks such as supply chain [disruption] and [the loss of] critical minerals,” the IEA’s Birol said.

Speaking of critical minerals, the FT noted in its report that Chinese companies were going to be absent from the gathering. “We invited China, but unfortunately they were not able to accept due to calendar reasons,” Birol, whose IEA co-organized the event with the British government, said. “We wish everybody was at the table, but the countries attending the meeting make up three-quarters of the world’s GDP, which in my view is not bad at all.”

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

 

TotalEnergies to Restructure Antwerp Petrochemical Operations Amid Green Shift

TotalEnergies (NYSE: TTE) will cease operations at one of its two steam crackers at the Antwerp platform by the end of 2027 in response to shifting market dynamics and surplus ethylene production in Europe. Simultaneously, the company is advancing green hydrogen, battery storage, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) initiatives to reinforce its leadership in decarbonization and industrial resilience.

Strategic Pivot to Strengthen Efficiency and Cut Emissions

The Antwerp site, in operation for over 75 years, remains TotalEnergies’ most efficient integrated refining and petrochemical platform in Europe. Under pressure from petrochemical overcapacity and an evolving energy landscape, the company plans to shut down its older steam cracker, which has lost a major third-party ethylene off-take agreement. The cracker’s output was not integrated with TotalEnergies' downstream operations, unlike its more modern counterpart that serves facilities in both Antwerp and Feluy.

Crucially, the shutdown is not expected to lead to job losses. All 253 affected employees will be offered internal transfers or retirement packages, with consultations beginning in late April in compliance with Belgian labor laws.

Green Hydrogen and SAF Projects Position Site for Long-Term Relevance

As part of its energy transition strategy, TotalEnergies is investing heavily in low-carbon technologies at the Antwerp site. The company will utilize 130 MW of capacity from Air Liquide’s planned 200 MW electrolyzer to generate 15,000 tons of green hydrogen annually. This hydrogen, produced using electricity from the OranjeWind offshore wind farm, is expected to cut CO? emissions at the site by up to 150,000 tons per year by 2027. This aligns with European Union RED III targets for renewable transport energy.

In addition, the platform will begin producing 50,000 tons of SAF annually via coprocessing starting in 2025, helping aviation clients reduce their emissions in line with global net-zero goals.

Grid Support and Electrification: A Model for Industrial Decarbonization

To support Belgium’s energy transition and grid stability, TotalEnergies commissioned a 25 MW/75 MWh battery storage system in Antwerp—the largest in its European portfolio. This project helps offset renewable intermittency and represents a growing role for battery technology in industrial settings.

The company is also progressing with electrification of its refining processes to reduce reliance on fossil-based inputs and further shrink its carbon footprint.

Market Context and Sector Implications

TotalEnergies’ move to consolidate petrochemical production reflects a wider trend in Europe, where aging infrastructure and weakening margins are prompting refiners to streamline operations. The strategic repositioning of Antwerp—blending green hydrogen, SAF, and renewables-backed grid services—signals how legacy assets are being adapted to meet climate goals and economic headwinds simultaneously.

This announcement marks a clear pivot from commodity petrochemicals toward value-added, integrated, and sustainable energy solutions.