Latest news with #pipelines
E&E News
8 hours ago
- Business
- E&E News
Two pipelines, one path: Will FERC approve both?
Two energy giants plan to build natural gas pipelines in the same place — setting the stage for a high-stakes squabble in the Southeast. Both Williams Cos. and Mountain Valley Pipeline are trying to lay new pipe along Williams' existing Transco line in southern Virginia and North Carolina to meet growing energy demand. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could approve both. But Williams has argued that its pipeline is big enough to handle all planned volumes of natural gas — prompting Mountain Valley to bristle at the implication that its Southgate project isn't necessary. Advertisement 'It seems as though Transco is attempting to undercut MVP Southgate,' Ian Heming, a natural gas analyst at East Daley Analytics, said in a recent interview. That is noteworthy in the world of energy permitting. While FERC is required to consider whether a pipeline is needed, the agency generally defines need as whether companies have committed to buying the gas the line would carry. Williams has cast a broader net, telling FERC in a short filing this month that the company could tack on Southgate's 'incremental' volumes by adding meter tubes and regulation at an existing station. The companies' push to build the pipelines comes as electricity demand across the United States is forecast to surge in the coming years. That includes the Southeast, where utilities are looking to build new fossil fuel plants to power a growing population and planned data centers. Both Williams' and Mountain Valley's projects cite that demand at the heart of their proposals. Both companies are proposing to build about 30 miles of pipe along Williams' massive Gulf-to-New York Transco gas pipeline system. Both pipelines — MVP Southgate and the Eden Loop segment of Williams' Southeast Supply Enhancement Project (SSEP) — would start at the same point near Chatham, Virginia, and end near Eden, North Carolina. FERC is planning to release environmental assessments of both projects this fall, with the review for Williams' SSEP slated for November and the analysis for MVP Southgate scheduled for October. What's not being considered is the interest of ratepayers, said Shelley Robbins, senior decarbonization manager at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. Her group doesn't think either pipeline is needed — and has safety concerns about plans to have the two lines repeatedly cross each other and the Transco main line. But Robbins said regulators don't seem to be looking at any advantages of building one pipe instead of two. 'In theory, that's cheaper,' Robbins said. But, she added, 'the utilities and the pipeline companies make money building big things.' Dueling projects Building both pipelines would create a 30-mile corridor with up to six high-pressure gas lines running next to each other. The Transco system already includes as many as four parallel pipelines in that area. The MVP Southgate project aims to move gas from the end of the main Mountain Valley pipeline — where it connects to Transco in Virginia — to Eden, North Carolina. Another company is building a 45-mile pipeline from that point east to a planned Duke Energy natural gas-fired power plant near Roxboro, North Carolina. FERC approved Southgate in 2020, but Mountain Valley submitted an application in February to amend the expansion project by shrinking the pipeline's length and increasing its diameter. The entire length of the proposed Southgate project now runs next to Williams' Transco pipeline. In total, Williams' Transco Southeast Supply Enhancement project would add approximately 55 miles of new pipe in two segments in parts of Virginia and North Carolina, as well as new compressor units. One 24-mile segment, the Salem Loop, cuts between the North Carolina cities of Winston-Salem and Greensboro. The other, the 30-mile Eden Loop, straddles the North Carolina-Virginia border and follows the same path of MVP Southgate. It's unclear if Williams will ultimately decide to expand the capacity of the Eden Loop. But the company is essentially arguing in its FERC filings that it has the ability to expand and then 'would be able to essentially hold its almost full monopoly on gas into North Carolina, and that's what its goal is here,' said Heming at East Daley Analytics. Mountain Valley, however, is asserting that the Southgate project would provide a needed redundancy to utilities that are supplying gas to North Carolina residents. 'The market has spoken, and shippers are asking for a pipeline alternative to Transco to support increased competition for transportation services in the region, and to provide critically needed natural gas pipeline capacity and diversity of supply to the region,' Mountain Valley told FERC in a July 11 letter. Mountain Valley included supportive comments from the Public Service Co. of North Carolina and Duke Energy, two utilities that have signed contracts for the project's full capacity. MVP Southgate spokesperson Shawn Day said the amended project gives North Carolina a diverse energy supply and resilience. 'While Transco may not like competition, the market does,' Day said in a statement. 'The vast majority of North Carolina's natural gas supply has historically been controlled by a single provider,' Day said. 'For years, the North Carolina Utilities Commission has recognized the state needs an additional interstate natural gas transmission provider to diversify the state's natural gas supply and promote competition.' Williams said it will continue to engage with parties like Mountain Valley to ensure the Southeast Supply Enhancement Project can deliver energy. 'We acknowledge that there is a market desire for a second interstate pipeline to bring supplies into North Carolina,' Williams said in an emailed statement. The company did not respond to subsequent questions for clarity on whether it believes the Southgate line is necessary. A demonstrated need? The Trump administration's pro-fossil-fuel agenda makes it more likely that FERC would green-light MVP Southgate and 'provide that redundant gas supply, rather than have it be integrated into Transco's Southeast Supply Enhancement,' Heming said. FERC, though, has stayed mum. Asked after last month's FERC meeting whether both pipelines are needed, Chair Mark Christie (R) said he couldn't comment because the applications for the two pipeline projects are still pending. 'The question of need under the Natural Gas Act is always a central question of any NGA application, so I can't talk about either one of them,' Christie said. FERC spokesperson Celeste Miller subsequently declined to comment on questions about the two pipeline projects. At least one environmental group, meanwhile, said both pipeline projects are unnecessary. 'We don't accept that there is a shown need for the projects, and it's part of this broader over-expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure to serve data centers and [artificial intelligence],' said Jessica Sims, Virginia field coordinator for the group Appalachian Voices. Sims, who was involved in the fight against the main Mountain Valley pipeline, said she hopes that neither project will get approved. 'I hope that the uniqueness of the co-located routes and the types of conversations that we're seeing in the docket would lead [FERC] to consider cumulative impacts in this circumstance,' Sims said.
CBC
5 days ago
- Politics
- CBC
Why Danielle Smith has eased off the 'Kill Bill C-69' language in the Carney era
Premier Danielle Smith wasn't doing anything politically revolutionary when she demanded the repeal of Ottawa's environmental assessments act during the federal election campaign. Then she demanded it again, many times, when the Conservatives who promised to do so lost and the Mark Carney Liberals won. It was a longstanding, years-old cry from Alberta leaders, ever since the moment that the Trudeau-era Bill C-69 — what former premier Jason Kenney dubbed the "no more pipelines act" — was first passed in 2019 (and became repealable). Then, a few weeks ago, Smith's tune began to change about the legislation that has been strongly contested by energy companies. Her rhetoric softened from urging the guillotine to a blade with more precision on the law now known as the Impact Assessment Act (IAA). Some revisions Since June, she's thrown in alternative recommendations. They include: " overhauling" in a June 17 comment; " substantially revised" in a July 2 reply to a reporter; and " repealing or amending" in a July 7 joint press conference with Ontario's premier — and the same dual-option language at Tuesday's announcement at the premier's summit. Smith put some rationale behind her refined stance in a mid-June interview on Rosemary Barton Live, when she expressed support for Carney's major bill to expedite project approvals, but reiterated her hopes he'd still address the IAA. "Let's be practical: the federal government has jurisdiction for linear projects that go cross-border … whether it's pipeline or whether it's transmission lines but … there's measures that they've put into the bill that are not technical, that are ideological and that don't really have any measurables around them and create confusion," Smith said. "So that's part of the reason why C-69 needs to be substantially revised." But Smith didn't explain her shift in tone that day, or otherwise. It was a quiet pivot after years of a provincial fight for the outright demise of legislation that became so notorious that protestors made Quentin Tarantino-style posters demanding "Kill Bill C-69." When asked about the moderated message, the premier's office wouldn't say there's been a change from her past language. But the revised tone that observers have noticed could be Alberta's premier offering a spirit of greater compromise, in line with Carney's own different direction than his Liberal predecessor Justin Trudeau. It could also be a reflection that the oil and gas companies don't actually want the Impact Assessment Act swept off the books. When the coalition of energy CEOs issued a "Build Canada now" open letter during the election campaign, it instead called on the IAA to be "overhauled and simplified." As much as the oil sector dislikes the federal law, businesses' opposition to full repeal boils down to this: scrapping the IAA means there's no environmental assessment law, and Parliament must start all over again. And if there's one thing the oil industry dislikes, it's uncertainty, said Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior fellow of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think-tank. "From the industry's perspective, that could much more likely be a nightmare than be a smooth path toward clarity on regulation," she said. "Everyone hates the idea of just going back and forth with a whole new federal environment assessment process after every election or after every government." Industry would prefer amendments that keep the basic system in place but alter the "project list" to remove from federal scrutiny proposed mines and resource developments wholly situated within provincial jurisdiction, said Exner-Pirot, who is also a special adviser to the Business Council of Canada. She believes the Smith government's harder stance was "for obviously political reasons," but that may also account for recently easing it. "I think they believe [Energy Minister Tim] Hodgson and Carney and they're giving them some extra leash." While the Carney government's new Building Canada Act would let the federal government bypass some review processes for projects deemed to be "nation-building," that has not eased the pressure it's faced to further neutralize the IAA. The Liberal government already did so last year, amending the bill to bring it into compliance with a Supreme Court ruling that found the bill unconstitutional — a court victory for Alberta after the province challenged the bill. Smith laid out several demands for further amendments to the IAA in a letter last October to Trudeau, and a month later Alberta brought another court challenge to strike down the updated law. In an email to CBC News, Smith spokesman Sam Blackett referred to the premier's letter last fall and said she "has consistently called for the repeal or significant overhaul of [the] federal Liberal government's bad laws," including C-69. The IAA aside, Alberta's premier has continued to demand straight repeal of other federal laws or policies, including the West Coast tanker ban and the carbon emissions cap on the oil and gas sector. Smith has said she's hoping for such changes when Parliament returns this fall from summer recess, and that it could help cool Albertans' lingering frustrations with Ottawa, as well as separatist sentiment. A brighter assessment The Carney government has not indicated it's about to significantly weaken existing climate and energy policies. Asked about potential IAA reforms, a federal spokesperson said the recently passed Bill C-5 will expedite "projects of national significance," and that Ottawa wants to strike deals to recognize provincial or Indigenous-led assessments as substitutes for federal ones. "Canadians know that we don't have to choose between rigorous impact assessments and building projects in our national interest — we can do both," said Keean Nembhard, press secretary to Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin, in an email. Were there to be additional revisions to the federal assessment act, that could provoke further pushback from the environmental and Indigenous groups the IAA was initially designed to cater to, with its enhancements to the review and consulting processes. There could be some concessions to Alberta, said Martin Olszynski, a University of Calgary law professor who was co-counsel for WWF Canada as intervenor in Alberta's IAA court challenge. And that might help explain Smith's call for amendments instead of repeal. "Symbolic pandering to your base apparently has limits when there are potentially concrete policy gains on the table," Olszynski told CBC News. Discarding the IAA remained part of federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's election platform this spring, and it's still in his rhetorical repertoire. Earlier this month, he told CBC Radio's The House he wants "the full repeal of C-69, the anti-pipeline and anti-energy law." Former oilsands executive Richard Masson deems the current law largely a failure at helping build anything. According to a recent analysis by the law firm Torys, no major project has been approved yet though the IAA process other than the Cedar LNG project, whose review was mostly done through British Columbia's provincial assessment process, substituting for the work of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. A spokesperson for the federal agency told CBC News that the 2024 amendments have narrowed the scope of the act, and that the agency has been "doing things differently to ensure all projects can be assessed in two years moving forward" — in line with a Liberal campaign promise. Despite his criticism, Masson agrees that scrapping the IAA runs counter to industry wishes to ensure predictability and avoid disruption. He credits Smith for finding a more nuanced position than before. "It's an example of figuring out what's possible, what has a chance of success," says Masson, an executive fellow at the University of Calgary School of Public Policy. "Otherwise we're just going to disappoint a lot of people pushing for something that can't be achieved." It's not, however, clear that substantial revision is in the cards either, for the bill that's long been disdained by Alberta political and business leaders alike. But now, at least, the oil executives and the pro-oil premier who champions them are singing the same tune.
CTV News
6 days ago
- Business
- CTV News
Saskatchewan joins Alberta-Ontario pipelines MOU
Saskatchewan joins Alberta-Ontario pipelines MOU The premiers of Saskatchewan, Ontario and Alberta signed a memorandum of understanding on pipleins on Tuesday.
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The 9 Most Important Oil & Gas Pipelines in the World
Pipelines are the unsung backbone of the global energy system–quietly moving billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of gas with unmatched efficiency, reliability, and scale. In the U.S., they handle nearly 70% of all petroleum shipments, or over 14 billion barrels annually, without the headlines or volatility of seaborne trade. What makes pipelines indispensable isn't just cost or carbon footprint; it's continuity. Cross-border systems like Russia's Druzhba and Canada's Keystone aren't just conduits; they are arteries of energy security, designed to bypass naval chokepoints and harden supply resilience. These corridors knit together producers and consumers across continents, often out of sight, but never out of play. Yet pipelines also create friction lines. Infrastructure that cuts across borders or bottlenecks (Strait of Hormuz, Suez Canal, Strait of Malacca) can become geopolitical flashpoints. Disruptions in these zones don't stay local. They echo globally in the form of price spikes, inventory swings, and rebalanced trade flows. Control over these assets is power. It brings not just throughput revenue, but strategic influence, something increasingly visible in cross-continental projects like the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline, where infrastructure is both a commercial instrument and a geopolitical wager. As nations race to secure demand and derisk supply, pipeline politics is once again front and center. Here are the 9 most geopolitically and economically significant oil and gas pipelines in the world: Druzhba Pipeline (Russia to Central Europe) Crude oil: up to 1.2–1.4 million barrels/day Ownership: Transneft (Russia) Source: EJAtlas The Druzhba Pipeline, also known as the 'Friendship Pipeline', remains one of the largest and most geopolitically sensitive crude transport corridors in the world. Completed in 1964 to link Soviet oil fields to Warsaw Pact markets, the system now stretches over 4,000 kilometers from Russia through Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, terminating in Germany. With a peak capacity of approximately 1.4 million barrels per day, the network is supported by a series of mainline and intermediary pumping stations and tank farms totaling roughly 1.5 million cubic meters in crude storage. Druzhba has outlived its Soviet political origins but not its strategic importance. It continues to anchor Russian crude flows into Central and Eastern Europe, even as war-related disruptions and EU diversification efforts steadily erode its reliability. Several branches have been repeatedly idled, rerouted, or mothballed due to physical sabotage, sanctions-related payment bottlenecks, and commercial realignment. As of late June 2025, pipeline flows remain fractured. Reuters reported on June 26 that U.S. crude inventories had posted another unexpected drawdown, helping to lift Brent and WTI benchmarks, despite Druzhba-linked volumes to Germany falling sharply as Kazakhstan cut June deliveries to just 160,000 tonnes. ESPO Pipeline (Russia to China and the Pacific) Crude oil: ~1.0 million barrels/day to China Ownership: Transneft and Rosneft Source: EJAtlas The ESPO (Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean) pipeline is a Russian crude oil pipeline system that transports oil from Eastern Siberia to the Asia-Pacific markets. It's operated by the Russian pipeline company Transneft. The pipeline consists of two main sections: the first connects Taishet to Skovorodino, and the second connects Skovorodino to an oil export terminal at Kozmino Bay on the Pacific coast. The Skovorodino branch extends through Mohe to Daqing, China. Construction of the pipeline commenced in April 2006, with the section between Taishet and Talakan launched in reverse to pump oil from the Alinsky deposit in 2008. The initial capacity of the pipeline was 600,000 barrels per day, which increased to 1,000,000 bpd in 2016 with plans to expand it further to 1,600,000 bpd by 2025. Nord Stream 1 & 2 (Russia to Germany) Natural gas: 110 bcm/year (combined), both pipelines now inactive Ownership: Gazprom + European energy firms Source: Euronews Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 are offshore natural gas pipelines that run from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea. The two 1,224-kilometre pipelines offer the most direct connection between Russia's vast gas reserves and Europe's energy-hungry markets. The twin pipelines have a combined capacity to transport 55 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas per year. Located in Western Siberia on the Yamal Peninsula, the Bovanenkovo oil and gas condensate deposit supplies the bulk of the gas transported by the Nord Stream Pipelines. Bovanenkovo has estimated gas reserves of up to 4.9 trillion cubic meters. Nord Stream 1 has been operational since 2011, while Nord Stream 2, though completed in 2021, never entered service. Both pipelines have been at the center of geopolitical debate regarding energy security and European dependence on Russian gas. In September 2022, explosions damaged three of the four pipelines, leading to significant gas leaks and raising questions about sabotage. Keystone Pipeline System (Canada to U.S.) Crude oil: ~590,000 barrels/day (existing system, excluding XL) Ownership: TC Energy Source: BBC The Keystone Pipeline System is a critical and politically charged component of North America's crude oil logistics network. Now operated by South Bow, a company spun off from TC Energy's liquids division, Keystone transports crude and bitumen from Alberta's oil sands deep into the U.S. refining heartland. Its core segments connect Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, and onward to key refining hubs in Illinois, Oklahoma, and the Gulf Coast. Phase I of the system stretches over 2,100 miles, delivering up to 590,000 barrels per day to Midwestern refineries. The broader network reaches as far as Port Arthur and Houston, Texas, integrating with the U.S. Gulf Coast's export and processing infrastructure. The controversial Keystone XL expansion, once planned to add 830,000 bpd in capacity, was canceled in 2021 following sustained regulatory and political opposition. Keystone has long stood at the intersection of energy strategy and environmental activism. Opponents argue that transporting diluted bitumen raises greater environmental and spill risks than conventional crude. Proponents counter that pipelines like Keystone enhance continental energy security, reduce reliance on seaborne imports, and support thousands of high-wage jobs in engineering, construction, and operations. BTC Pipeline (Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan) Crude oil: ~1.2 million barrels/day design capacity, ~600,000 actual Ownership: BP-led consortium Source: EBRD The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline is a 1,768-kilometer-long pipeline spanning three countries that transports crude oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. It connects Baku, Azerbaijan, to Ceyhan, Turkey, passing through Tbilisi, Georgia. The pipeline became operational on May 25, 2005. The first phase of the pipeline was built by the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline company (BTC Co) and became operational in June 2006. The Azerbaijan and Georgia sections of the pipeline are operated by BP Plc. (NYSE:BP) on behalf of its shareholders in BTC Co., while BOTAS International Limited (BIL) operates the third section. BTC originally had a throughput capacity of one million barrels per day, which BP has since expanded to 1.2 million barrels per day by using chemicals that reduce drag along the pipeline, thus allowing higher flow rates. Last year, 305 tankers lifted 29 million tonnes of crude oil from Ceyhan. TANAP (Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline) Natural gas: 16 bcm/year current, expandable to 31 bcm Ownership: SOCAR, BOTA?, BP, SGC Source: Azerbaijan Ministry of Energy The Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) pipeline system is located in Turkey, stretching from the Turkey-Georgia border to the Turkey-Greece border, linking the South Caucasus Pipeline (SCP) and the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). The 1,811 km natural gas pipeline transports natural gas extracted in Azerbaijan to Turkey and then to Europe. The first phase of the pipeline was commissioned in June 2018, while the second phase of the pipeline was completed in November 2019. Back in 2020, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan christened TANAP a 'regional peace project' before announcing that the pipeline had reached its maximum capacity of 32 billion cubic meters of gas annually. Iraq–Turkey Pipeline (ITP) Crude oil: ~500,000–600,000 barrels/day when operational Ownership: SOMO, Turkish Ministry of Energy Source: ZERGOGCOS Kirkuk-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline, also known as the Iraq–Turkey Crude Pipeline (ITP), is an operating oil pipeline that runs from the City of Kirkuk in northern Iraq to the Mediterranean terminal of Ceyhan in Turkey. The first phase of the 986-kilometer pipeline was completed in 1976, while the second parallel pipeline was completed in 1987. The pipeline system has a total capacity of 1.4 million bpd, effectively making Iraq the largest supplier of oil to Turkey while also providing an alternate route for the Middle Eastern producer to export its oil. Unfortunately, last year, Turkey suspended oil flows through the ITP after the ICC ordered the country to pay Iraq ~ $1.5 billion for past oil deliveries and to suspend export of crude oil from Kurdistan transported through ITP. The pivotal pipeline has now remained closed for two years. Trans Mountain Pipeline (Canada) Crude oil and products: expanded to ~890,000 barrels/day (from 300,000) Ownership: Government of Canada Source: Trans Mountain The Trans Mountain Pipeline is a Canadian pipeline system that carries crude and refined petroleum products from Edmonton, Alberta, to the coast of British Columbia, with delivery points in Kamloops, Sumas, and Burnaby. The Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX), which doubled the pipeline's capacity, became fully operational in May 2024 The expansion of TMX was intended to lower the Canadian oil industry's reliance on US-bound pipelines and American refiners, which forced Canadian producers to accept deeper discounts for their crude as well as leaving them exposed to oil price shocks. However, TMX is facing fresh challenges. While the project has successfully opened new export markets for Canadian crude oil, particularly to Asia, some companies are hesitant to pay the higher tolls associated with the project's cost overruns. This has resulted in utilization rates below initial forecasts, though the pipeline continues to provide significant economic benefits to Canada. China-Myanmar Oil and Gas Pipelines Crude oil: ~440,000 barrels/day Gas: ~12 bcm/year Ownership: CNPC Source: China Center The China-Myanmar Oil and Gas Pipelines are a strategic bypass best considered as China's engineered response to the so-called Malacca Dilemma. Stretching roughly 800 kilometers through Myanmar, the dual pipeline corridors allow Beijing to sidestep one of Asia's most vulnerable maritime chokepoints. Crude oil sourced from the Middle East and Africa is offloaded at Myanmar's Kyaukphyu port and piped directly into Yunnan Province, while a parallel gas line channels offshore natural gas to both China and domestic Myanmar markets. This inland route offers Beijing a rare overland alternative to the heavily patrolled Strait of Malacca, through which over 80% of China's oil imports have traditionally passed. More than just a hedge against naval disruption, the pipelines support four offtake stations within Myanmar, supplying local energy needs and reinforcing bilateral interdependence. For Myanmar's government, the project has also become a vital revenue stream, anchored by steady transit fees and infrastructure payments from China. The corridor illustrates the broader logic of China's Belt and Road energy playbook: diversify routes, secure inland access, and extend regional leverage through fixed infrastructure. In an era of exposed sea lanes and shifting alliances, few links are as subtly significant. By Alex Kimani for More Top Reads From this article on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
19-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Sable Offshore (SOC) Climbs 11.8% on Las Flores Legal Win
We recently published . Sable Offshore Corp. (NYSE:SOC) is one of this week's top performers. Sable Offshore rallied for a second day on Friday, adding 11.82 percent to close at $31.69 apiece as investor sentiment repositioned portfolios amid reports that it was nearing the restart of its Las Flores pipelines. Roth Capital in a market note earlier this week claimed that Sable Offshore Corp. (NYSE:SOC) was set to receive in the 'very near future' the final affirmative ruling in relation to the restart of its Las Flores pipelines. News reports also added that the court decision allowed Sable Offshore Corp. (NYSE:SOC) to move forward with certain preparatory steps for restarting the pipelines, but prohibited the actual restart pending the receipt of a signed notice of compliance. Connected to the Santa Ynez offshore platforms, the Las Flores pipelines have been subject to legal and environmental scrutiny since 2015 that led to a temporary shutdown. Aerial view of an oil & gas refinery, showcasing the scale of operations. Upon commercial operations, Sable Offshore Corp. (NYSE:SOC) is expected to ride the booming AI wave, an industry heavily hungry for more energy sources to power demand. While we acknowledge the potential of SOC as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
