Bold Business Logo

We Have What We Need to Solve Our Energy Issues–Why Aren’t We Doing It?

As of mid-2020, the price of oil has more than doubled. As of late, oil has hovered around $100 a barrel, and consumers are feeling at the pump. In light of this, one might assume that the U.S. was unable to produce the amount of oil it needs. But amazingly, that’s not the case. In 2020, the U.S. produced roughly 18.4 million barrels of oil per day. At the same time, U.S. consumptions rates were only 18.1 million barrels per day. Despite this, the country still imported nearly 8 million barrels from abroad that year. Since 2018, the U.S. has been the world’s largest oil and natural gas producer in the world. But by the looks of things today, you might have never guessed that based on current energy issues in the U.S.

Since 1973, America has had the goal of attaining energy independence. President Nixon launched Project Independence that year with the objective of solving energy issues in the U.S. by 1980. But that objective was not achieved, and every administration since has been similarly unsuccessful. This obviously begs the question as to why. In short, three major issues can be identified that prevent us from being energy self-sufficient today. These include failed policy planning, a risk-averse oil industry, and misguided green directives. If the U.S. wishes to become truly energy independent, each of these need to be addressed.

Poor Energy Policy Planning Spanning Decades

While several national energy policies have contributed to energy issues in the U.S., two major ones are of primary important. The first policy issue is one of neglect, with several administrations failing to prepare the country for energy independence. In the U.S. today, most of the crude oil produced is described as light and sweet. Light crude is generally easier to refine, and sweet has less sulfur content, which also requires less processing.

However, that was not always the case. Previously, U.S. crude was heavy and non-sweet, as is the oil that comes from Saudi Arabia today. As such, refineries were constructed to handle this type of crude and were never updated along the way. That means refining U.S. crude is more expensive and takes longer that crude imported from elsewhere. Thus, despite adequate domestic oil production, the U.S. finds itself still importing it because of related refinery costs.

The second policy that has contributed significantly to energy issues in the U.S. involves import and export policies. In 2015, Congress lifted the ban on oil exports from domestic oil producers. The same was true for U.S. companies wanting to export natural gas. (Bold has discussed how the exporting of natural gas could revolutionize the future of energy–read it here.)  While this invites incentives for greater energy production, it also exposed domestic producers to international markets. On the one hand, this allowed U.S. oil companies to target countries that had higher oil prices. But at the same time, foreign producers gained greater access to U.S. markets. Because “lifting costs,” costs associated with getting oil out of the ground, were less in other nations, imports grew. In essence, it became cheaper to import oil than it was to produce it. This has greatly contributed to our continued lack of energy independence and exposed us to international market volatilities.

A Risk-Averse Oil Industry

America’s recent leadership in oil production in recent years has been the result of one major development: fracking. Short for hydrofracturing, fracking refers to the ability to extract oil and natural gas from rock formations. U.S. oil producers enjoyed a tremendous boom as fracking grew substantially over the last decade. But unlike typical drilling, fracking is a process that’s more expensive and requires longer times of production. Indeed, this helped the U.S. gain ground in its energy independence efforts. However, the inability for fracking rigs and production to adjust production quickly has contributed to current energy issues in the U.S. Repeated busts related to fracking investments have made oil producers leery of aggressively investing in these pursuits.

Someone making a budget infographic
Energy independence is within our grasp, but we’re ignoring the solutions that are right in front of us.

In past years, as international oil prices would rise, oil producers would invest heavily in fracking enterprises. But once completed, overproduction of oil would create global world surpluses that would drive oil prices down. As such, many oil companies never realized a return on their investments. That resulted in a consolidation of the domestic U.S. fracking industry. It also caused major financial losses that took investors with them. Understanding this, domestic oil companies today are risk-averse when it comes to investments to ramp up production. Most are content keeping their shareholders happy rather than risking another financial setback. This, too, has contributed greatly to the energy issues in the U.S.

Misdirected Green Initiatives

There’s little question that the future depends on the development of renewable energy sources. Investments in green energy is certainly needed, and efforts to combat climate change pursued. But these issues are global issues, not national ones alone. If countries around the globe are producing and consuming oil, there’s no advantage to energy policies that suppress domestic production. Roughly 35% of the energy consumption in the U.S. today comes from oil. This cannot be suddenly replaced with renewable energy options. These are long-term objectives that require us to meet our own energy needs in the short-term. In fact, being energy independent now would provide valuable resources to invest in green directives for the future. But instead, we’re allowing green directives today create energy issues in the U.S. that could hurt us later.

Other green initiatives are also hurting our capacity to be energy independent today. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing is an increasing trend that encourages investments in green companies. Again, this is a positive aspect of companies that respect corporate social responsibility. But it is also taking investments away from companies in oil and natural gas that need financial supports currently. If these green directives are to continue, then additional safeguards must be established to guarantee energy independence today. Failing to appreciate these impacts and allowing green movements too much influence will only worsen energy issues.

Realizing Energy Independence

Other nations treat energy independence as a national security issue. To solve its own energy issues, the U.S. will need to do the same.

In the short term, that means supporting the oil industry while dialing back some of the more aggressive green directives. It also means stockpiling oil supplies so market volatilities can be better managed. And it requires establishing oil industry supports and incentives to boost oil production domestically. National policies can be established that make it easier and less risky for fracking projects to advance. Access to land, equipment leases, and supplies can also be improved through government subsidy proposals. We are a long way from energy independence today because of the decisions and circumstances occurring over the past decades. But by treating energy issues in the U.S. as national security priorities, this can rapidly change.

 

Want to control your cost efficiency and protect your bottom line? Bold Business can help.

Elon Musk and Twitter: Divorced Before They Were Even Married?

The ink is barely dry on the agreement signed by both Twitter and Elon Musk. Musk’s deal to purchase Twitter for roughly $44 billion was finalized only in April of this year. But by May, Musk was already raising concerns, placing the agreement on hold. Claiming Twitter was not providing adequate transparency of agreed-upon information, Musk tapped on the brakes. But seemingly, Twitter responded, providing Musk’s legal team with vast data regarding the company’s 500 million tweets a day. So, it seemed all was going well and back on track, at least until this past week. Now, Musk is backing out on the deal completely, and Twitter plans to take him to court. Forget the honeymoon… it seems Musk and Twitter are going straight to their divorce attorneys.

(Musk’s interest in Twitter was a good thing–read why in this Bold story!)

While no one knows how things will unfold from here, a few scenarios seem most plausible. It’s definitely worth noting that the price of Twitter shares has fallen substantially since April. They are currently trading around $37 a share, which is far less that the purchase price of $54.20 a share. The drop in the price of Twitter shares is certainly a motivating factor for Musk to walk away. Going through with Musk’s deal as it was originally constructed will cost him dearly. But at the same time, walking away from the agreement will have tremendous effects on current shareholders and employees. Therefore, determining the best course of action requires looking at the current situation from all sides.

“[Twitter] would much rather have the $54.20 without a court fight, but it’s worth fighting over. [A selling share price of] $54.20 seems like an unbelievable deal for Twitter. So there is a lot that they could sacrifice that would still make it worth it in the end if they got to force Musk to close.” – Ann Lipton, Business Law Professor at Tulane University Law School

Twitter – A Scorned Bride-to-Be

From Twitter’s perspective, allowing Musk’s deal to go unpunished is simply not an option. Let’s back-track a bit. At the time of the original proposal, the price of Twitter shares was much higher than $54.20. In fact, Twitter shares were trading above $70 most of 2021. Therefore, when Musk first negotiated the merger agreement, Twitter believed it was making some sacrifices. But because the agreement awarded Twitter’s shareholders a locked-in share purchase price in a volatile market, it made logical sense. Of course, Musk’s deal is even more attractive now that the price of Twitter shares is around $37.

The saving grace for Twitter is specific performance clauses in Elon Musk’s deal. The agreement that both parties signed requires that either must pay $1 billion should they break the contract. That means that Twitter at a minimum should be able to recoup this amount, even if it requires going to court. But this would hardly satisfy the board’s fiduciary duty to its shareholders. Shareholders expect a buyout at a $54.20 price of Twitter shares. A fine of $1 billion would hardly ease shareholder pain since shares have fallen about $20 below this amount. For this reason, expect Twitter to go full-court press when it comes to Musk’s deal. Their pride and reputation is at stake, and taking a passive approach is not an option.

“Sometimes Twitter has ignored Mr. Musk’s requests, sometimes it has rejected them for reasons that appear to be unjustified, and sometimes it has claimed to comply while giving Mr. Musk incomplete or unusable information.” – Mike Ringler, Attorney for Elon Musk

Elon Musk – A Groom with Nervous Feet

When Musk’s deal was first pursued, it took everyone by surprise. Musk is already the world’s richest man for his accomplishments at SpaceX and Tesla. Why would he want to pursue a social media company? But then again, it’s Musk, a well-known mercurial persona who’s seemingly not averse to any risk. Whatever his reasons may be, Musk pursued Twitter and offered a deal that Twitter couldn’t refuse. At the time, it seemed a bit of a win-win, given the price of Twitter shares at the time. But then things changed.

Someone using Twitter like a champ
The next time you use Twitter, think of Elon Musk’s deal, and the marriage that never was.

After spending some time with Twitter, Musk began to worry that his valuation of the company was excessive. The price of Twitter shares began to drop along with other tech stocks. Inflationary pressures and his potential takeover of the company drive down investor value perceptions. Musk then demanded greater disclosure from Twitter about its spam and bot accounts. Twitter has always publicized these represent less than 5% of all accounts, and they granted Musk’s team greater access. But the degree of transparency wasn’t to Musk’s satisfaction. In both instances, Twitter simply doesn’t look as attractive to Musk anymore. And because of that, he would prefer to walk away from the altar altogether.

“His engagement with Twitter took a severe toll on the company. Employees, advertisers and the market at large cannot have conviction in a company whose path is unknowable and which will now go to court to complete a transaction with a bad-faith actor.” Jason Goldman, Member of Twitter’s Founding Team

Twitter Employees – The Forgotten Children

As with any nasty breakup, there is secondary damage. In the case of Musk’s deal, that damage appears to be on Twitter’s employees themselves. When Musk first signed the merger agreement, his position on remote work and employees in general had many worried. Some left immediately while others have been let go in an effort to streamline costs. But now that Musk wants to walk away, and the price of Twitter shares have fallen, pressures are even greater. Morale at Twitter is at an all-time low, and no one sees the future as bright. Regardless of whether reconciliation occurs or not, some damage has already been done.

(Did you know remote work will soon be a legal requirement in the Netherlands?)

Predicting what will happen next is certainly difficult to say the least. For Twitter, they must save face and perform their fiduciary duty to investors. That will likely mean taking Musk to court or renegotiating a new deal. A $1 billion termination fee is simply not enough in this regard. For Musk, he may have little choice but to proceed with the deal if a court rules accordingly. But it is likely his current tactics are part of a larger plan to renegotiate current terms with Twitter. If a purchase is forced without renegotiations, Musk’s enthusiasm for the company isn’t likely to be impressive. And this doesn’t bode well for the company or its employees. Time will tell what the final outcome will be. But like most breakups and divorces, it’s probably going to get pretty nasty.

 

Want to control your cost efficiency and protect your bottom line? Bold Business can help.

AI Progress Update: They’ve Gotten Really, Really Smart

Over the course of the last decade, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have become commonplace. Businesses today must invest in AI tools if they wish to stay competitive. This is particularly true in marketing and customer service. But these represent the more basic applications of AI that hardly reflect the tremendous made in the field as of late. Today, AI foundational models are entering a new era of development that is nothing short of mind-blowing. This is why investors and researchers alike see the future of AI as the real game-changer of the century.

In the last five years, there have been some pretty significant developments that ushered in current AI models. Certainly, AI and ML were already making an impact on daily lives prior to this. But quietly, some interesting discoveries led to a paradigm shift in how AI systems operated. These new systems are referred to as AI foundational models because they are significantly more flexible. And by adding more and more parameters to these systems, their capabilities are expanding at an exponential rate. Because of this, it’s worth taking a look at what the future of AI will look like in the coming years.

“AI foundation models are an emerging paradigm for building AI systems that lead to an unprecedented level of homogenization: a single model serving as the basis for a wide range of downstream applications.” – Percy Liang, Computer Science Professor, Stanford University

What Are AI Foundational Models?

In order to take a peek at the future of AI, we must first go back a bit to examine the historical landscape. In the early days, initial systems were best described as neural networks. All machine learning systems are based on neural networks, which mimic how brain cells interact. Using tiny chips called graphic processing units, or GPUs, virtual “neurons” could be connected into networks. And based on weights given different neural connections, machine learning could occur. By the late 2000s, computing power and GPUs had advanced enough that large neural networks could be formed. And the magnitude of these networks is what created the groundwork for the future of AI today.

Early AI models began to perform some pretty amazing tasks. Text translation, voice recognition, and facial recognition are some of the initial innovations these systems performed. These systems were designed to perform sequential tasks that allowed trail-and-error through structured pathways. But in 2017, computer scientists at Google and the University of Toronto made quite the discovery. By taking away these sequential restraints, AI systems could learn through pattern recognition. No longer did AI models simply deal with text, but now they engaged in deep learning through images, video, and more. These new models, which are termed AI foundational models, are highly flexible, adaptable and capable of self-learning.

(Did you know Toronto is the newest tech town on the block? Read more in this Bold story!)

“AI models used to be very speculative and artisanal, but now they have become predictable to develop. AI is moving into its industrial age.” – Jack Clark, Co-founder of Anthropic

The Industrialized Future of AI

With the introduction of AI foundational models, things have moved at a pretty fast pace since. The design of these new AI systems has expanded their capabilities with some now writing programming code and even poetry. But pattern recognition designs weren’t the only major discovery as of late. AI system designers have also learned that parameters an AI system has, the more robust it becomes. In essence, parameters are additional coefficients that AI systems can apply to their calculations. It used to be believed that there was little to gain after a certain number of parameters were added. But as it turns out, this is not the case. For this reason, the most advanced AI foundational models today have trillions of parameters.

A robot teaching a class on conceptual mathematics
The future of AI is upon us, and it involves some really deep thinking and computing.

These developments have been rapid. Four years ago, the most advanced AI system, Google’s BERT, had 110 million parameters. Today, the more advanced AI foundational models have roughly a trillion parameters. And currently, Graphcore is actively developing its Good AI model, named after Jack Good, fellow WWII codebreaker of Alan Turing. It will boast around 500 trillion parameters and currently represents the future of AI. Without a doubt, such AI systems will be able to markedly accelerate their learning. But at the same time, these developments have standardized AI system development. In other words, system designs have become much less creative and much more industrialized. This is why 80% of today’s AI development is being invested in the creation of ever-more-powerful AI foundational models.

“Covid has taught us that exponentials move very quickly. Imagine if someone at Google builds an AI that can build better AI’s, and then that better AI builds an even better AI—and it can go really quickly.” – Connor Leahy, Lead executive at Eleuther

Forging Into the Unknown

Today, AI foundational models are being used for a variety of activities. Recent developments have witnessed the use of AI in healthcare and in business mergers and acquisitions. More advanced applications are occurring as well at companies like Meta, Alphabet, and Facebook. And there’s little doubt that states and national security departments are tapping int the future of AI as well. The computing power and potential of these AI foundational models are highly attractive, which is why many recommend greater caution. Equipped with massive data and enormous learning capacities, such systems pose a variety of threats ranging from economic to political. And of course, some still believe the potential for sentient conversion of AI exists.

Despite these potential risks, investments are pouring into the future of AI. Last year alone, venture capitalists invested $115 billion in various AI companies. At the same time, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta and even Tesla have made AI foundational models a priority. Even China have stated the future of AI is a priority for them as well. All of these developments and the rapid increase in AI system capabilities paint a highly dynamic picture. It appears that the race for advanced AI systems is on. But it remains unclear if the future of AI with these systems will ultimately be better or worse for humanity.

 

Want to control your cost efficiency and protect your bottom line? Bold Business can help.

How can we help?

Bold Business
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.