Investor's Corner
Big Oil fights back against electric vehicle revolution, “EVs are not the silver bullet everyone is looking for”
The purveyors of old technologies have always done what they could to impede the adoption of new ones, not only by pointing out the drawbacks of the new products, but also by making their old products better. In the last days of the Age of Sail, shipbuilders crafted super-fast clipper ships, which shared the seas with steamships for many years. Typewriters steadily added high-tech features, evolving into stand-alone word processors before they were superseded by computers.
However, never in history has there been an industry as profitable, powerful and all-pervasive as the oil industry – an industry whose lifeblood is a soon-to-be-obsolete technology. Big Oil, supported by its allies in the auto industry and numerous national governments, is fighting the nascent electromobility revolution on several fronts. Its decades-long campaign to discredit the science of climate change, and its financial support of backwards-looking political figures, are well known. Now that EVs are emerging as an existential threat, industry players are also working to sow doubts about their viability in the public mind – the media churns out “EVs are a bust” articles on a daily basis, often employing quotes helpfully provided by auto industry trade groups and oil-friendly think tanks.
On a somewhat more constructive front, oil producers and automakers are working together to make legacy vehicles ever more fuel-efficient, hoping to delay demand for electric alternatives.
Oil giants including Exxon, BP and Shell are working with automakers such as Ford and Fiat Chrysler to create a new generation of super-slick engine lubricants in a quest to squeeze even more efficiency out of traditional engines. “It’s really important that we are able to squeeze the lemon,” Shell VP Andrew Hepher told the Wall Street Journal. “The combustion engine has still got a long way to run…Car makers are very, very heavily motivated to improve the economy of their fleet.” BP’s CEO Bob Dudley adds, “EVs are not the silver bullet everyone is looking for.”
Governments of petroleum-producing countries are also getting proactive about prolonging the reign of the ICE. The Persian Gulf state of Qatar, which has the world’s third-largest reserves of oil and natural gas, acquired 17 percent of Volkswagen’s voting rights in 2009, becoming the third-biggest investor in VW. “We are really committed to VW,” said VW supervisory board member Hessa Al Jaber. “They are taking steps to mitigate any future risks on emissions.”
A recent article in the Detroit Free Press reports that the Saudi national oil company, Aramco, came to the Detroit auto show for the first time ever this year, to spread the word about its cutting-edge research to improve legacy gas engines.
Above: Aramco cranks up the PR machine with a booth at the Detroit Auto Show (Youtube: aramcoservices)
“In an era of climate change concerns, battery electric vehicles have become a symbol of innovation, promising to disrupt the automotive industry,” said Ahmad Al Khowaiter, Aramco’s Chief Technology Officer. “Yet hidden in plain sight are some of the most disruptive technologies the industry has ever seen; and they happen to be new and improved internal combustion engines.”
“Ironically, as countries announce plans to phase out gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles in favor of battery electric vehicles, new fuels and engine designs are making internal combustion engines greener than ever, and far more efficient,” Al Khowaiter said.
Aramco has invested hundreds of millions in global R&D – it is the third-largest holder of oil industry patents, behind Exxon and Chevron. It has research facilities all over the world, including in Detroit and Houston, and works with researchers at Stanford, MIT and the University of Michigan.
“Public policy should be technology-agnostic,” Al Khowaiter said. “Neither the battery electric vehicle nor the internal combustion engine is the perfect solution in all scenarios; both are needed for a sustainable and affordable mobility future.”
Donald Runkle, a mechanical engineer who ran product engineering at GM, told the Free Press that fuel economy is increasing every day. “The combustion engine is not going away in the foreseeable future, not for 15 or 20 or 30 years. It has proven, and continues to prove, to be the low-cost approach to moving things. Yes, there will be electrification, adding batteries and all that. It just improves the overall efficiency of the internal combustion engine.”
Obviously, the oil and electricity camps disagree about the timeline for electrification. However, all seem to agree that any technology that reduces emissions is a good thing. Don Anair, Research Director for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Vehicles Program, acknowledged the conflicting/complementary goals. “We need an 80% or more reduction in oil use,” he told the Free Press. “No matter how you look at it, to address climate change, we can’t continue to power our transportation system with oil. We need to continue to improve emissions from conventional vehicles while we accelerate the transition toward electric vehicles powered by clean energy.”
===
Note: Article originally published on evannex.com by Charles Morris
Elon Musk
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.
Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”
He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”
Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”
That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.
While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.
The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.