Suchergebnisse

The former Attorney General disagrees with me on whether state and local government climate change lawsuits belong in federal court.

From EIA, and BEA NIPA: Source: EIA via Forbes. Per WSJ, we're pumping so much that parts of Texas are buckling and swelling. And here's the US net exports of petroleum goods (in $) from NIPA. Figure 1: US Net exports of petroleum goods, in bn. $, SAAR (blue, left scale), and as share of […]

Petroleum bye products.

8/16/1933: President Roosevelt adopts the Code of Fair Competition for the Governance of the Petroleum Industry. The Supreme Court declared those codes unconstitutional in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935).

The Houthis targeted the USS Carney, struck a British petroleum tanker, and forced two merchant marine vessels to turn away from the Bab Al Mandeb Strait.
The post Houthis attack U.S. warship, strike British tanker first appeared on FDD's Long War Journal.

New York City Council Member James Gennaro has introduced a bill banning the the sale or distribution of laundry or dishwasher detergent pods and laundry sheets that contain polyvinyl alcohol, a petroleum-based plastic film that holds detergents. Those who violate the ban would face a fine of $400 for a first violation. The fine would…

The rising domestic demand for oil raises China's concern with energy security. As part of a plan of economic reforms, the country has been increasing its strategic petroleum reserves, as well as opening its markets and internationalising its currency, the renminbi. Ding Chen and Umar Muhammad Gummi write that an international renminbi helps China’s oil … Continued

For good reason, China's election interference has sparked outrage in Canada. But China's ability to sway a broad spectrum of Canadian voters is far weaker than the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producer's (CAPP) foreign-funded political interference. Most oil and gas companies in Canada are foreign-owned and funded, and they use a loophole to fund election activities. This loophole must be closed.

Of all people, Joe's got the magic touch with petroleum?The endless number of foiled speculators attests to the difficulty of realizing the old adage about how to make money--buy low, sell high. Let's face it: ever-changing markets often result in us doing quite the opposite, and not making money in the process. Now, whenever we are asked to think about who are the least savvy market participants, we often identify governments--or more specifically, government officials. Not being keen market watchers with limited skin in the game--it's taxpayer money they are officially dealing with, not theirs--this sentiment is understandable. Well lo and behold: Quartz is now touting President Joe Biden's timely release from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) as the "oil trade of the year." In retrospect, his release at the near-top of the oil market a few months ago helped ease oil prices. Now that oil prices have come down quite a bit, the SPR is now being refilled. Yes, Biden is buying low after selling high:Instead, it appears the US government made the oil trade of the year:
Releasing 180 million barrels of crude from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve between March and the end of this year in an effort to blunt the
effect of rising prices, the US government appears to have made about $4 billion, as prices have fallen dramatically over the course of the year.Selling when crude oil prices were high, the US captured billions in
value. By one widely-used measure, the price of crude oil in Texas
peaked at about $124 a barrel in March, and the average price during the
SPR sales period was about $96; today that oil costs just $73 per
barrel. These are paper profits, to be sure: The
US is still aiming to refill the reserve, and prices may rise as it
does so. On Dec. 16, the Department of Energy put out a request
to purchase 3 million new barrels of crude, after releasing about 200
million barrels in 2022. There are currently about 382 million barrels
still in reserve.
His genial manner has caused Joe Biden to be underestimated throughout his life. Can he now be called a market player as well in his eighth decade? T. Boone Pickens, eat your heart out.

A wind of change is sweeping in the last stronghold of European petrostates: Norway. The recent decision rendered on January 18, 2024, by the District Court of Oslo in the North Sea Fields Case may testify to the demise of what was once called the Norwegian paradox, referring to Norway's dual role as a climate leader internationally while maintaining a significant reliance on fossil fuels domestically. Despite advocating for climate action on the global stage, Norway remains the largest per capita exporter of CO2 emissions, due to its substantial petroleum industry.

Scott Lincicome


We often discuss how "Buy America" laws increase federal project costs by requiring pricier American‐​made materials, but from tiny Brookport, Illinois comes a humorous/​sad reminder that the protectionist law costs time and taxpayer money even when it's waived:
Brookport City Council approved an increase in the bid for the sewer project of $51,274.50 to Mid West Petroleum during its monthly meeting on Tuesday, July 11.
While the engineers were waiting for a waiver of the Build America, Buy America Act in Washington D.C., parts for the international pumps had increased in cost. The pumps chosen as the best equipment for the city's needs are not manufactured in the U.S., so a waiver was needed. The total awarded amount is now $1,760,424.50.
The approved construction loan for the sewer project passed last month was amended to add $714,000 because of construction overruns.

For more on Buy America laws (and why they should be repealed), check out my recent column on the subject.

In a matter of days, ExxonMobil will complete its $60 billion acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources, which is one of the concerns that have made drilling for shale in the Permian basin a highly lucrative endeavor for American energy. However, before you conclude that it's a tribute to American ingenuity, there's a twist here that may surprise you involving a host of foreign actors.Pioneer's founder Scott Sheffield is being named by the US Federal Trade Commission in attempting to coordinate--that is, collude--with OPEC+ on the pricing of energy products. Aside from the company he wishes to keep being rather dodgy sorts including Russia's Putin, there are free market principles being violated here that are more pertinents to the FTC's mission. So, the FTC is advising ExxonMobil that its purchase of Pioneer will only push through if the combined entity does not have Sheffield as a board member or an adviser:
Scott Sheffield, founder and longtime CEO of a leading
American oil producer, attempted to collude with OPEC and its allies to
inflate prices, federal regulators alleged on Thursday. The Federal Trade Commission said Sheffield, then CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources, exchanged hundreds of text messages discussing
pricing, production and oil market dynamics with officials at the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, the oil
cartel led by Saudi Arabia.



Regulators say Sheffield
used WhatsApp conversations, in-person meetings and public statements
to try to "align oil production" in the Permian Basin in Texas with that
of OPEC and OPEC+, the wider group that includes Russia. "Mr. Sheffield's communications were designed to pad Pioneer's bottom
line — as well as those of oil companies in OPEC and OPEC+ member states
— at the expense of US households and businesses," the FTC complaint
said.  With no charges being made, Sheffield and the firms involves have decided not to contest the FTC's prohibition of his involvement. From a political angle, prosecuting a pillar of the US energy at a time of historically elevated oil prices doesn't seem to me like a winning election strategy. So, the FTC is just making a slap on the wrist for what would otherwise be a massive case of collusion. Also remember that the US is friendly with several unsavory regimes within OPEC. Still, it would've been interesting if it'd have gone to trial to learn how this guy worked with the likes of Venezuela's Maduro and other characters to screw US consumers in the interests of greater (unwarranted) profits. Me? I try to use the least of the dastardly substance as possible to avoid enriching these kinds of folks.

The New York Times picked September 11th as an opportune day to publish an essay praising "President Joe Biden and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia exchang[ing] a warm handshake" at last week's G20 summit, and celebrating the possibility of the U.S. giving formal security guarantees to Riyadh in exchange for Saudi Arabia establishing diplomatic ties with Israel.
Plenty is missing from the essay, including any discussion of how a security commitment might compel U.S. soldiers to fight on behalf of Saudi Arabia, a country whose de facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman, was responsible for ordering the operation that killed Washington Post columnist Jamal Khahoshoggi and has overseen a brutal war in Yemen. The U.S. government also continues to withhold an unredacted memo detailing ties between 9/11 hijackers and Saudi Arabia.
But perhaps even more noticeably, the Times failed to acknowledge the potential financial conflicts of interest between the essay writer's employer and the essay's arguments for security guarantees that would be highly beneficial to Saudi Arabia.
Those potential conflicts, first flagged by journalist Adam Johnson, lie in the fact that the author, Hussein Ibish, is an employee at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, a group founded in 2015. "To its credit, the organization acknowledges that its sole sources of funding so far have been a think tank in Abu Dhabi and the Saudi Embassy in Washington, though it is looking for private sector support 'to further diversify funding,'" reported Julian Pecquet for Al Monitor at the time.
Little more has been revealed about the institute's funding but the website does acknowledge corporate sponsors, suggesting a degree of success in diversifying its funding but also posing further potential financial conflicts of interest. The "Corporate Circle" includes: Raytheon, the world's second largest weapons manufacturer; the Saudi state owned petroleum and natural gas company, Aramco; Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a registered foreign agent of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund and the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and General Electric, which has billions of dollars of projects in Saudi Arabia.
The Institute, where Ibish is a full time employee, revealed that it "...has received financial support from a wide variety of individual donors and governments, in addition to grants received from a number of different private and educational foundations," according to its most recent financial disclosures.
The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington did not respond to questions about which foreign governments have funded the organization, how much the organization has received from its "Corporate Circle," or whether the organization believes that funding from companies with a financial interest in Saudi Arabia pose a potential conflict of interest that readers of Ibish's essay should have been made aware.
RS asked the Times whether contributors are asked to supply any information about potential conflicts of interest between their funding and the subject matter on which they are providing analysis and whether the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington's funding posed a potential conflict of interest of which readers should have been made aware.
"Dr. Ibish's place of employment is clearly indicated in the guest essay you linked as well as his past publications in The New York Times," said Charlie Stadtlander, the Times's director of external communications for Newsroom and Opinion.
While it's unclear whether that conforms with the Times's current ethics guidelines, the newspaper's public editor took issue with the lack of transparency when think tank employees are quoted as sources or contribute op-eds to the newspaper back in 2014.
"These days, with lobbyists coming under more public criticism, some like to use a 'surrogate' — like a supposedly neutral person from a think tank — to promote an idea that they can then email-blast out or have their client endorse in a press release," wrote Margaret Sullivan, who served as public editor from 2012 to 2016. "The Times can't let itself be used in that way.""For its readers to evaluate ideas, they need to know where they're coming from — and who might be paying for them," she added.

Last month, Foreign Policy published a report that stirred the debate on U.S. Middle East policy. It claimed "the Biden administration is reconsidering its priorities" in Syria and may conduct "a full withdrawal of U.S. troops." Now, legacy media is debating the future of American involvement in Syria. Missing from this discussion is the suffering that involvement has caused.Writing for the New York Times, retired general Kenneth McKenzie warns "it's not time for our troops to leave" Syria. Mere talk of a withdrawal (let alone actually withdrawing), he argues, is "seriously damaging to U.S. interests." It "gives hope to Tehran" that Iran might rival American influence in the Middle East — which is bad, supposedly. Why Iran has less of a right to influence its own region than people thousands of miles away is unclear.McKenzie also argues that American troops must remain to "secure the prisons holding ISIS fighters." Without boots on the ground, militants might escape and the Islamist group could "rejuvenate itself." McKenzie doesn't believe the Syrian government could prevent prison breaks on its own, or even with Russian and Iranian support.This argument is highly speculative. If the Americans leave, imprisoned ISIS fighters might escape. And, if enough do, they might rebuild their organization into a force too formidable for Syrian forces to handle. Multiple unlikely contingencies must materialize to even warrant taking this reasoning seriously.But McKenzie's claim suffers a more fundamental problem. It confuses the cause for the antidote. Everyone from Noam Chomsky to Rand Paul knows American intervention created the conditions that allowed ISIS to grow. Bombing Arab nations to smithereens, toppling their leaders, and starving governments through sanctions and outright theft generated a power vacuum. As did deploying troops indefinitely, which prevented states like Syria from maintaining territorial integrity and establishing the mechanisms for self-governance.McKenzie believes the Syrian government is simply too weak to quell the increasingly small threat an ISIS in retreat poses. Assuming he's correct, it's worth asking why that's the case. The facts again point to American intervention.Nearly 13 years into its ongoing civil war, Syria is in tatters. Once a middle-income nation with respectable living standards, it's now the poorest country on Earth. More than 90% of Syrians live below the international poverty line of $1.90 per day. Their paychecks are worthless, with the Syrian pound losing virtually all of its relative value since the war began.It's not all America's fault. The Syrian government undoubtedly bears significant blame for the humanitarian crisis. But American sanctions hamstring it from improving matters. The infamous Caesar Act targets anyone who "engages in a significant transaction" with the Syrian government. Signed into law by Donald Trump, this heinous policy effectively precludes the international community from helping Syria rebuild.A bipartisan but overwhelmingly Democratic coalition of lawmakers recently voted against slapping new sanctions on Syria. Unfortunately, for every one of them, there were 12 supporters of the legislation. Dubbed the Assad Regime Anti-Normalization Act, it would extend the sunset of the Caesar sanctions by eight years. The bill would also expand the list of proscribed transactions.But there's more. Years ago, with America's blessing, Turkish-backed militias stole capital from over 1,000 factories in the city of Aleppo alone. This assault on the productive forces of Syria's industrial hub left its economy in tatters. But that's not all the United States and its allies stole. America's occupying troops routinely commandeer Syrian wheat and petroleum. Trump admitted as much, saying that soldiers "were staying in Syria to secure oil resources."The Syrian state is starving. More American intervention isn't what Syria needs. It needs the United States' boot off of its neck.In these discussions of states and militants, we mustn't lose sight of what matters most: the people. American militarism in Syria has wrought dire human costs. It has helped to plunge Syrians into the depths of unimaginable despair. Over 80% of them are food-insecure and a similar proportion lack sustained access to electricity. Many enjoy just one hour of it per day. Without electricity, you can't refrigerate food and it rots. That causes shortages. People have taken to eating out of the garbage.McKenzie seems to care little about this immense suffering. And why would he? His job as a general was to project American military might, whatever the costs, a position he apparently continues as a guest writer for The New York Times.

Daniel Raisbeck


Less than a year ago, I wrote of the almost certain regret that awaited the prosperous, urban, multiple‐​degree‐​holding types who voted for Gustavo Petro, Colombia's Chavista president. They thought they had supported a Nordic‐​style social democrat—failing to notice that they had helped to elect a tropical socialist who, given his past as a guerrilla group member and Hugo Chávez supporter, was also a potential autocrat. Caveat emptor (or rather suffragator) indeed. But I never thought that voter's remorse would set in so quickly. Or so extremely.
According to poll data from June 1, 2023, only 26 percent of Colombian citizens approved of Petro's performance as president. And this was before the scandal that shook the country's political scene last Sunday evening, when Semana magazine released a series of WhatsApp audio files sent by Armando Benedetti, Petro's former ambassador in Caracas, to Laura Sarabia, the president's former chief of staff.
Among the least bombastic revelations is Benedetti's claim that Alfonso Prada, Petro's former interior minister, "stole the whole ministry with his wife." This implies massive levels of corruption around Petro, who came to power with an anti‐​corruption agenda (quite cynically given his disreputable political alliances). Prada proceeded to sue Benedetti for libel.
Petro's dwindling number of supporters may dismiss this as a politician's petty slander against a rival in the cabinet. Far more concerning for them—and for Petro—is Benedetti's matter‐​of‐​fact assertion to Sarabia that he himself obtained COP $15 billion (around USD $3.58 million at today's exchange rate) for Petro's 2022 presidential campaign, during which he served as the former candidate's right‐​hand‐​man and main political handler. Petro's campaign did not officially report any donation nearly as large. Its declared funds consisted mostly a series of bank loans, which were meant to be paid with the "reimbursement" sum that the Colombian state guarantees to candidates for each vote received in an election.
In many countries, an insider's admission of how millions of undeclared dollars flowed into the president's campaign coffers would bring down the government. Alas, Colombia is not one of them. This is not due to a lack of unashamedly corrupt presidents; as I wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal, the opposite has been the case. Rather, since the 1950's, the Colombian elite's idiosyncratic approach to presidential corruption has followed the maxim, attributed to journalist Hernando Santos (1922–1999), that the trouble with overthrowing a president is that he may fall upon those doing the toppling.
Already in Petro's case, the three‐​member House of Representatives commission created to investigate Benedetti's statements includes two members of the president's own party. The enquiry will be a charade, which is a pity since the source of the undeclared campaign money is as important as the sum itself. In an interview, Benedetti told Semana that the money "did not come from entrepreneurs," meaning the legal business community. Suspicion has fallen on the Marxist guerrilla groups and other drug trafficking organizations, but also on the Venezuelan regime of Nicolás Maduro. Anonymous, the hacker group, claims that Maduro financed "part of the campaign of the current president of Colombia," but has not published evidence hitherto.
What is certain is that, in regional terms, the Maduro regime has been the principal beneficiary of Petro's election. To begin with, Colombia recognized Maduro's presidency after a three‐​and‐​a‐​half‐​year hiatus, and Petro himself has met Maduro four times since his inauguration. His government, which opposes any future hydrocarbon exploration in Colombia despite dwindling reserves, has promoted the idea of importing Venezuelan natural gas.
While Petro wages a political war against Colombia's key petroleum industry—crude oil has been the country's main legal export for decades—he lobbied President Joe Biden to end American sanctions against the Maduro regime. This would imply renewed Venezuelan oil exports to the U.S. market (even if socialism devastated Venezuela's oil industry well beyond immediate or even medium term repair). Petro's "shoot yourself in the foot / prosper‐​thy‐​neighbor" policy is devoid of any rationality. Unless, of course, Colombia's increasingly authoritarian president is somehow subject to the Venezuelan tyrant.
Petro's eco‐​fanatical crusade against the hydrocarbon industry is but one example of how his government is bent on destroying the few areas of the Colombian economy that are functional. Other examples include his plans to put the state in charge of centralized funding for the healthcare and pension systems, both of which are efficient—although certainly not perfect—thanks to private sector involvement and some degree of consumer choice. Where things are already problematic, Petro's policies would make them worse. For instance, he wants to make a rigid, overregulated labor market even less flexible and more hostile to businesses.
Then there is the matter of rising insecurity, an old problem that, until recently, appeared mostly solved, only to resurface dangerously in the last year. Under Petro, illegal armed groups have expanded their power as they launch constant, deadly attacks against the armed forces and police. It all brings to mind the dark era of the late 1990's, when Colombia was on the verge of becoming a failed state as it came under siege from the FARC guerrillas, which are still up in arms despite the much‐​touted "peace" agreement of 2016.
Usually, a crisis in government breeds economic instability. Under Colombia's current government, however, the opposite has been the case. Since the Benedetti scandal broke, the peso rallied to reach its highest value against the dollar since mid‐​2022, when Petro was about to win the presidential election. In October, two months after he took office, the peso reached an all‐​time low against the dollar. Amid the current political turmoil, forward‐​looking markets are anticipating the failure of Petro's legislative initiatives in health care, pensions, and labor law. Which is to say, there is speculation that Colombia's institutional framework has already survived Petro's statist onslaught. The weaker his position, the thinking goes, the less likely it is that non‐​leftist parties will lend him their support, which he needs to obtain congressional majorities.
I fear, however, that markets may be getting ahead of themselves. The Colombian congress is minimally ideological and highly transactional. There is still a good chance that, issue by issue, Petro's government can negotiate just enough votes to have his "reforms" approved, in which case only the courts will stand in the way of his agenda.
Not that Petro is respectful of any check or balance. This week, he propounded the theory that, since he was elected, his government represents "the will of the people," meaning that any opposition to his political project—including from the news media—is part of an illegitimate, "soft coup." The onslaught, in other words, is far from over.
In my view, the worst part about Petro's election victory is that, at this time last year, Colombia was in need of radical reforms. Above all, a chronically sluggish economy required budget discipline, public spending cuts, drastic debt reduction, a strong currency (ideally through dollarization), far lower taxes, labor market deregulation, subsoil privatization, school choice, and an end to non‐​tariff barriers. By electing Petro, however, voters decided to do precisely the opposite on all fronts. As warned, most already regret it.