ReportWire

Tag: Oil and Gas

  • U.S. tanker approached by Iranian gunboats in Strait of Hormuz, security firm says

    [ad_1]

    Dubai — British maritime security firm Vanguard Tech said Tuesday that a U.S.-flagged tanker was approached by Iranian gunboats, which threatened to board the vessel, in the Strait of Hormuz, before continuing on its way under military escort. The incident comes amid a tense standoff between the U.S. and Iran, and just days ahead of expected negotiations.

    The Stena Imperative was approached by three pairs of small armed boats belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps while transiting the Strait of Hormuz, approximately 16 nautical miles north of Oman’s coast, the company said.

    The gunboats hailed the tanker by radio, ordering the captain, “to stop the engines and prepare to be boarded,” but the ship increased speed and maintained course, the firm added, stressing that it never entered Iranian territorial waters.

    “The vessel is now being escorted by a U.S. warship,” Vanguard Tech said.

    The U.S.-flagged tanker was still on course for its destination in Bahrain on Tuesday afternoon, scheduled to arrive at the port Sitrah on Feb. 5, information from the MarineTraffic website showed.

    The U.S. tanker Stena Imperative is seen in a Feb. 4, 2024 file photo. 

    MarineTraffic.com/V. Tonic


    The British maritime security agency UKMTO had reported the incident earlier, without specifying the nationality of the ship nor of the boats that approached it, saying only that it had been “hailed on VHF by numerous small armed vessels,” but ignored the request to stop and “continued on its planned route.”

    “Authorities are investigating,” UKMTO said in its statement, warning all vessels in the Strait of Hormuz “to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity.”  

    The Strait of Hormuz is a key passage for global transport of oil and liquefied natural gas, and it has been the scene of several incidents in the past amid tension between Iran and the West. 

    Iran’s Fars news agency, which is closely linked to the Revolutionary Guards, cited unnamed government officials on Tuesday as denying the report by Vanguard Tech, claiming a vessel was intercepted after it entered Iran’s territorial waters without permission.

    Strait of Hormuz, waterway between Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, map

    A map shows the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, with Iran to the north and the UAE and Oman exclave Musandam to the south.

    Getty/iStockphoto


    Tracking data from MarineTraffic showed the Imperative remained within Oman’s maritime economic zone as it traversed the Strait.

    A senior Iranian official from the Revolutionary Guards threatened last week to block passage of the Strait in the event of a U.S. attack, and the Guards also held military exercises over the weekend in the strategic waterway.

    President Trump has threatened repeatedly that he could launch a new military strike on Iran over the country’s brutal suppression of recent protests, or if it declines to negotiate a new deal on its nuclear program.  

    Speaking to CBS News last week, Mr. Trump said “I have had” conversations with Iran in the last few days, and “I am planning” to have more.

    Mr. Trump said that, in those conversations, he “told them two things. No. 1, no nuclear. And No. 2, stop killing protesters. They’re killing them by the thousands.”

    At least 10 U.S. warships — including an aircraft carrier and at least five destroyers — were heading toward Iran’s coastal waters as of last week, a deployment Mr. Trump has called an “armada,” which he said he hopes he doesn’t need to use.

    U.S. and Iranian officials are expected to hold talks at the end of this week.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump says Venezuela stole American oil. Here’s what really happened.

    [ad_1]

    When President Trump announced the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife on Saturday, he justified the military operation in part by framing it as a move to recover assets that he claims had been stolen from U.S. companies. 

    “Venezuela unilaterally seized and sold American oil, American assets and American platforms, costing us billions and billions of dollars,” Mr. Trump said. “This constituted one of the largest thefts of American property in the history of our country.”

    Who owns Venezuela’s oil?

    The president’s focus on Venezuela’s oil is now raising questions about American energy companies’ activities in the country, as well as whether U.S. oil giants might now work to revive its floundering petroleum industry. Venezuela’s constitution states that the nation owns all mineral and hydrocarbon deposits — its oil and natural gas reserves — within its own territory, including those that lie beneath the country’s seabed. 

    Mr. Trump “talks about them taking our oil — the oil itself was never ‘our oil’,” Samantha Gross, director of the energy security and climate initiative at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, told CBS News, adding that the nation’s vast crude reserves “belong to the government of Venezuela.”

    What’s also true, however, is that U.S. oil companies had contractual agreements with Venezuela to extract, process and transport its oil, as well as to share in the revenue from oil sales.

    Mr. Trump’s claims of theft reflect actions by then-Venezuela leader Hugo Chávez to nationalize the nation’s energy sector in 2007 and to confiscate the production assets of Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips after they left the country, Gross said. 

    Those seizures have led to years of lawsuits and efforts by the companies to recoup their losses. While a World Bank arbitration panel has ruled in favor of the oil companies, the money has yet to be recovered. 

    “It is beyond question that there are a number of U.S. companies and others out there who have claims against Venezuela that have been trying to get those claims satisfied for many years,” Ted Posner, a partner at law firm Baker Botts and a former assistant general counsel for international affairs at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, told CBS News.

    The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.  

    Oil industry executives met on Friday afternoon at the White House with Mr. Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright to discuss Venezuela. Representatives from Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips attended, including ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance. 

    “ConocoPhillips continues to monitor developments in Venezuela and their potential implications for global energy supply and stability,” the company said in a statement prior to the meeting.

    Said a Chevron spokesperson after the meeting on Friday: “For more than a century, Chevron has been a part of Venezuela’s past. We remain committed to its present. And we stand ready to help it build a better future while strengthening U.S. energy and regional security.”

    Exxon didn’t respond to requests for comment.

    Chávez’s power play — and corruption

    Venezuela’s government has a long history of nationalizing its oil sector, with state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., or PDVSA, taking over the industry in the 1970s. Exxon and other foreign oil companies continued to operate in the country by signing contracts to provide technical assistance and other expertise to PDVSA. 

    In the 1990s, Exxon and other large petroleum companies were invited by then-Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez to return in an effort to develop the oil reserves in the Orinoco River Basin, according to “Energy in the Americas,” a book published by the University of Calgary Press.

    But in 2003, Chávez fired thousands of PDVSA workers after they went on strike. Four years later, he expanded the nationalization push by requiring foreign companies to give majority ownership of their ventures to PDVSA. Exxon and ConocoPhillips failed to strike a deal with Venezuela, while BP, Houston-based Chevron, Norway’s Statoil and France’s Total signed pacts giving majority stakes to PDVSA, allowing them to remain, Reuters reported in 2007. 

    “Some agreed, and some did not, and assets were expropriated,” Gross said.

    Amid widespread corruption under Chávez, as journalist Anne Appelbaum noted in a 2024 book, hundreds of billions of dollars were siphoned off from PDVSA and other Venezuelan companies and subsequently disappeared into private bank accounts around the world. 

    A 2017 investigation by U.S. and Portuguese authorities found that PDVSA executives had funneled millions of dollars into Portugal’s Banco Espirito Santo. 

    Venezuela owes billions to Big Oil

    Chávez’s strong-arm tactics led to efforts by Exxon and ConocoPhillips to seek compensation for their assets, with Exxon claiming it had lost $16.6 billion due to the nationalization campaign. A World Bank arbitration panel in 2014 awarded the company one-tenth of what it had sought, but that same body later annulled most of that award.

    In a separate case, an international tribunal ruled that Venezuela owed $8.7 billion to ConocoPhillips in compensation for the 2007 seizure of its assets. 

    Other industries also had their assets taken away under Chávez’s 14-year reign, and companies have filed at least 60 arbitration claims against Venezuela since the 2000s, according to Luisa Palacios, an adjunct senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

    “The value of these liabilities is estimated at $20 to $30 billion or about 10% to 15% of the almost $200 billion in international debt obligations Venezuela owes,” she said in an article this week published by Columbia.  

    “Venezuela could pay off these claims by inviting investors back to the country,” she noted. “That could be done through debt-for-equity swaps or by linking future oil production to repayment of current debts. However, restructuring the country’s foreign obligations will likely be needed for Venezuela to fully realize its oil potential.”

    U.S. wasting no time

    Venezuela’s oil reserves are estimated to be the world’s largest, with more than 303 billion barrels. That represents about 17% of the world’s total oil supply, according to OPEC data.

    But Venezuela’s crude oil production has plunged, with the industry today pumping 800,000 to 1 million barrels per day, down from more than 3 million per day in the early 2000s. That output has nosedived due to chronic underinvestment, government mismanagement, and the impact of U.S. and international sanctions.

    On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the U.S. will export between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil from Venezuela, which will be sold at “market rates,” with revenue used “in a way that benefits the Venezuelan people.”

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Venezuela’s interim government had agreed to release the oil.

    Although Mr. Trump is pushing U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela following Maduro’s capture, they may need assurances before committing to new ventures, Gross said.

    “The political situation in Venezuela is really uncertain right now. Before a company is going to realistically invest a lot of money, they will want a stable political situation,” she added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How the situation in Venezuela could affect gas prices

    [ad_1]

    A new analysis finds that the average price of gas in the U.S. is expected to fall to its lowest level since 2020 this year. While the yearly average will fall under $3, GasBuddy notes that there is some expected fluctuation throughout the year due to seasonal demand, weather and geopolitics. Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, joins “The Daily Report” to break down the report and discuss what the military raid in Venezuela may mean for gas prices.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gas prices this year could be the lowest since 2020, new forecast predicts

    [ad_1]

    The average price of gas around the U.S. this year is expected to dip to $2.97 per gallon, down 13 cents from 2025 — that would be the lowest level since 2020, according to a new analysis by GasBuddy.

    At the end of 2025, average U.S. prices at the pump dipped below $3, with GasBuddy citing strong refinery output, lower oil prices, robust crude production and softer seasonal demand as the main reasons behind the decline.

    “It’s not a return to ultra-cheap fuel, but for the first time in a long time, the wind is clearly behind drivers’ backs,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a statement.

    Expect a rise, then a dip

    While prices are expected to average below $3 in 2026, GasBuddy says drivers should expect some volatility throughout the year due to seasonal demand, weather and geopolitical risks. 

    The company, whose app helps drivers save money on fuel, predicts gas prices will edge up to around $3.20 between spring and early summer before falling to an average of $2.83 after June. 

    That would mirror normal seasonal fluctuations. Gas prices tend to rise in the spring and fall in the winter, when fuel demand typically weakens. 

    What will prices be in my state?

    To be sure, the price you see at the pump depends on where you live. For example, prices on the Gulf Coast and South are expected to stay well under $3 for the year, while prices in California, the Northeast and cities like Chicago could be higher, according to GasBuddy.

    GasBuddy projects households will spend an average of $2,083 on gas in 2026, down slightly from last year.

    Drivers of diesel-powered cars are also expected to see some relief. Diesel prices are forecast to average $3.55 nationally this year, down from $3.62 in 2025, according to GasBuddy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russia, China and Iran condemn U.S. action in Venezuela

    [ad_1]

    Russia, China and Iran have all publicly condemned the U.S. action in Venezuela. CBS News producer Leigh Kiniry has the latest.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Face the Nation: Cotton, Himes, Van Hollen

    [ad_1]

    Missed the second half of the show? Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Tom Cotton, Rep. Jim Himes and Sen. Chris Van Hollen join.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tony Dokoupil: Maduro capture was daring demonstration of American power

    [ad_1]


    Tony Dokoupil: Maduro capture was daring demonstration of American power – CBS News









































    Watch CBS News



    President Trump announced the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who landed in U.S. custody in New York on Saturday.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Facing high home heating bills this winter? These tips can help you save money.

    [ad_1]

    Rising energy costs are adding to the affordability issues facing millions of U.S. consumers, with nonprofit group PowerLines recently estimating that more than 100 million Americans could see heftier bills this year because of rate hikes. 

    The average household is expected to pay an average of $995 on home heating this winter, a 9.2% increase from last year, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association (NEADA). Those who use electricity for heating were projected to see an even steeper jump of 12.2%, with the average bill swelling from $1,090 to $1,233, the group found.

    “Millions of households are being pushed deeper into utility debt and closer to shutoffs simply because they cannot afford to keep their homes warm,” Mark Wolfe, executive director of NEADA, said in a statement. 

    So what recourse do Americans have, knowing comfort comes at a cost? Here are some tips on how to save money on your utility bill:

    Get a home energy audit. An inspector can help you detect where cold air might be seeping into your house and recommend energy efficiency improvements. Audits are performed by certified home energy auditors, according to energystar.gov. Look to local government agencies or your utility company for home energy assessment tips.

    Tackle obvious leaks. Justin Castronova, a lead inspector at First Choice Inspectors in Illinois, told CBS News consumer correspondent Ash-har Quraishi that the best place to start is with doors and windows. Castronova recommends using caulk to seal gaps, maintaining weather stripping for doors and windows, and using spray foam around electrical outlets (make sure to turn off your power first).

    Invest in energy-efficient appliances. That can save you from $10 to $50 a month, depending on the size of the appliance and how many you have, Castronova said.

    Insulate your home. This will ensure the envelope of your home is fortified against the cold weather. Energy Star, an energy-efficiency program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, has a handy DIY guide on how to get started.

    Look into state, federal and nonprofit assistance programs. For example, the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program provides financial assistance to low-income households to weather-proof their homes and even deal with energy-related home repairs. The best way to find out what you qualify for is to call 211, which connects people with health and human services resources. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Picture from 2024 Ukraine drone attack on Russia gas plant falsely shared as recent

    [ad_1]

    Ukraine has stepped up its attacks on oil and gas facilities in Russia, with one strike hitting the major Orenburg gas processing plant in southern Russia on October 19, 2025. But an image of firefighters battling a massive blaze shared online was in fact taken more than a year ago in the Kursk region.

    “Fire at Russia’s gas processing plant following Ukraine’s drone attack on October 19, 2025,” reads a Thai-language Facebook post published on the day.

    An image attached to it — shared on a page with over 4,600 followers — shows several firefighters battling a massive blaze.

    Screenshot of the false post, taken on October 24, 2025

    The Orenburg gas processing plant, run by Russia’s Gazprom, was forced to stop refining gas from neighbouring Kazakhstan’s large oil and gas field, according to Kazakh authorities, after being hit by a Ukrainian drone on October 19 (archived link).

    Russian strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure in recent weeks left thousands without electricity, while Ukraine intensified its attack on Russia’s western border regions, as well as its oil and gas facilities, in return (archived link).

    The image has also been shared alongside similar claims in English, Chinese and Persian.

    But it was taken in Russia’s Kursk region in early 2024.

    A combination of reverse image and keyword searches on Google led to a video showing the same scene at the seventh-second mark uploaded to The Telegraph’s YouTube channel on February 15, 2024 (archived link).

    <span>Screenshot comparison of the false post (left) and The Telegraph's YouTube video (right)</span>

    Screenshot comparison of the false post (left) and The Telegraph’s YouTube video (right)

    The clip — titled “Ukrainian drone strike hits Russian oil depot in Kursk” — shows flames erupting from the building as thick black smoke billows into the sky.

    AFP distributed the same visual as a frame from a video shared on Kursk governor Roman Starovoyt’s official Telegram account on February 15 (archived link).

    <span>Screenshot comparison of the false post (left) and the image credited to the government of Kursk distributed by AFP (right)</span>

    Screenshot comparison of the false post (left) and the image credited to the government of Kursk distributed by AFP (right)

    Its caption says it shows firefighters working to extinguish a fire after “a night-time Ukrainian drone attack set ablaze a Russian oil depot in the Kursk region”.

    More of AFP’s fact-check reports on the Russia-Ukraine war can be found here.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump administration aims to auction offshore oil leases along U.S. coastlines that have been off-limits for decades

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration is proposing to auction offshore oil drilling leases across new portions of the U.S. coast as soon as 2026, according to internal Department of Interior draft documents viewed by CBS News.

    New leases would include waters off New England, the Carolinas and California.  

    Offshore oil leases are common along the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana, as well as parts of Alaska, but there are currently no active oil leases on the Atlantic coast, and California has not had a new oil lease since 1984. 

    This comes as the Department of Interior formally announced plans this week to reopen 1.56 million aces in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas leasing, reversing a Biden administration decision to limit oil drilling in the Arctic

    That decision drew a strong rebuke from Democrats, including Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, who accused the administration of rewarding the fossil fuel industry for its support of the president. “This decision is not about energy dominance—it’s about donor dominance,” Markey said in a statement. “The Trump administration must immediately reverse its shortsighted decision. The Arctic Refuge is not for sale.” 

    The Department of Interior is assessing new oil leases as part of the National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, which issues oil leases in five-year increments. The Biden administration set the previous plan and had the fewest leases on record, with only three.  

    Offshore oil platform in California’s Santa Barbara Channel.

    Marli Miller/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images


    Documents reviewed by CBS News included assessments of whether state governments favored offshore drilling, and indicated that the states opposed it. The documents also included potential dates for leasing each tract of seafloor.  

    If the plan is approved by the Interior secretary and moves forward, California could see lease sales as soon as 2027 and the Beaufort Sea in Alaska, which includes the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, could see lease sales as early as 2026. Under the terms of the lease, a company would then have five to 10 years, depending on the water depth in the area, to explore and develop oil and gas production. 

    The Trump administration opened a public comment period in April for a new five-year gas leasing policy. Lawmakers from both parties voiced concerns about offshore drilling, including members of Congress and state governors, and the process drew more than 34,000 comments. 

    Governors Josh Stein (D, North Carolina) and Henry McMaster (R, South Carolina), issued a joint statement opposing the idea, saying there has been broad bipartisan consensus against offshore drilling because of, “the risks that these activities pose to the economy and environment of our states.” 

    In a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in June, McMaster wrote, “Every coastal municipality in South Carolina has passed a resolution opposing oil and gas exploration activities offshore. I stand firmly with them. We simply cannot afford to accept the risk of the adverse environmental impact attendant to offshore drilling.”  

    CBS News reached out to McMaster for comment, but his office did not respond.

    Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican who is running for governor of South Carolina, issued a similar letter to Burgum, writing, “In South Carolina, there is widespread bipartisan agreement in opposing offshore drilling off the coast of our state.” 

    The Trump administration tried to open new offshore oil leases during his first term, but backtracked when Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina lawmakers from both parties criticized the effort. The Trump administration instituted bans on offshore drilling in waters surrounding those states shortly before the 2020 election. The current iteration of the plan does not include offshore oil leases off Florida’s coast, but it is unclear whether those bans will continue off the Carolinas.  

    CBS News reached out to the White House and Department of Interior for more information about the plans. A White House spokesperson declined to comment on ongoing policy discussions. 

    The Biden administration issued a record low number of offshore oil leases, and withdrew 625 million acres along the Pacific, Atlantic and Alaska coasts from offshore oil development. The Trump administration rescinded those Biden withdrawals, and a federal court in Louisiana ruled this month that the Biden withdrawals were illegal.  

    Offshore oil leases have been unpopular for decades. Congress had a moratorium preventing drilling on both coasts and the eastern Gulf from 1981 to 2008, and President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order preventing offshore drilling which stood until 2008, when his son lifted the order.  

    The Obama administration had once considered opening the Atlantic coast to offshore oil leases but changed its stance following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf. 

    The Department of Interior is expected to publish its first proposal on the subject in the coming weeks. There will be two additional comment periods before a final plan is proposed and implemented. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russia suffers new sanctions squeeze as EU follows Trump

    [ad_1]

    The European Union (EU) has approved its 19th sanctions package against Russia, including on its lucrative gas sector for the first time and its “shadow fleet”, to heap pressure on Moscow to end its war on Ukraine.

    The approval comes a day after the Trump administration imposed fresh sanctions on Russia’s two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, also seeking to crank the pressure on Moscow to make peace.

    A proposed summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, intended to bring peace in Ukraine closer, was postponed when it became clear the Kremlin would not agree to a ceasefire.

    “We’re keeping the pressure high on the aggressor,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in a post on X.

    “For the first time we are hitting Russia’s gas sector – the heart of its war economy. We will not relent until the people of Ukraine have a just and lasting peace.”

    This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Oil Workers Face an Uncertain Future in the State’s Energy Transition

    [ad_1]

    Thirty years ago, Willie Cruz was shocked when he learned the Southern California oil refinery where he worked was shutting down.

    Cruz, now a 61-year-old living in Arizona, had spent five years working in the environmental department when Powerine Oil Company said it would close the plant in Santa Fe Springs, southeast of Los Angeles.

    Cruz feared getting laid off again if he stayed in the industry. He decided to look into respiratory therapy, in part because he’s asthmatic. A federal job training program paid for his schooling.

    “I thought it was pretty cool, you know — go from polluting to helping, right?” Cruz said.

    Now he’s advising his son, Wilfredo Cruz, as the Phillips 66 refinery in Los Angeles where the 37-year-old has worked for 12 years plans to close by the end of the month.

    Thousands — perhaps tens of thousands — of workers could lose jobs in the coming years as California tries to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. Energy company Valero said earlier this year it would close a refinery in the Bay Area.

    California’s leading Democrats are grappling with how to confront lost jobs and high gas prices that the oil industry says are the result of the state’s climate policies.

    State energy regulators are negotiating to keep the Valero plant open and recently backed off a proposal to penalize oil companies for high profits, while Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation to speed oil well permitting in the Central Valley. That action came after years of Newsom declaring he was “taking on big oil.”

    That inconsistent messaging has left the industry’s workers unsure of what the future holds.

    Refinery closures

    California was the eighth-largest crude oil producer in the nation in 2024, down from being the third-largest in 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The Valero and Phillips 66 refineries set to close account for roughly 18 percent of California’s refining capacity, according to state energy regulators. They both produce jet fuel, gas and diesel.

    The Phillips 66 refinery will start shutting down this month and end active fuel production at the end of 2025, the company said. The closure is based on multiple factors and “in response to market dynamics,” Phillips 66 said.

    The announcement came after Newsom signed a law last year aimed at preventing gas price spikes that allows energy regulators to require that refineries keep a certain amount of fuel on hand to avoid shortages when they go offline for maintenance. But the company said its decision was unrelated to the law.

    Phillips 66 said it is “committed to treating all our refinery workers fairly and respectfully throughout this process.”

    Valero announced plans to “idle, restructure or cease refining operations” at its refinery in the Bay Area city of Benicia by the end of April. The company didn’t respond to emails seeking comment on the status of its plans.

    Valero pays about $7.7 million annually in taxes to the city, making up around 13 percent of Benicia’s revenues, City Manager Mario Giuliani said.

    “It’s a significant and seismic impact to the city,” he said of the planned closure.

    Forty-six oil refineries in California closed between 2018 and 2024, according to the state’s Employment Development Department. The fossil fuel industry employs roughly 94,000 people in the state, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

    One study estimated that the state would lose nearly 58,000 workers in the oil and gas industries between 2021 and 2030. About 56 percent of those workers will have to find new jobs because they are not retiring, according to the 2021 report by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

    Supporting displaced workers

    Lawmakers approved the Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Fund in 2022 to help workers receive career training and connect with job opportunities. The state has since awarded nearly $30 million overall to several groups to help workers across the state — from oil-rich Kern County to Contra Costa County in the Bay Area.

    But the funding is set to run out in 2027, and state lawmakers wrapped up their work for the year without an agreement on whether to extend it.

    Newsom spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said the governor is committed to supporting displaced oil workers “and affected communities in transitioning into new and emerging jobs and economic opportunities.”

    Newsom approved $20 million in the state’s 2022-2023 budget for a pilot program to train workers in the industry who’ve lost their jobs to plug abandoned oil wells in Kern and Los Angeles counties.

    California needs a clear plan for workers who will lose jobs because of the state’s energy transition, said Faraz Rizvi, the policy and campaign manager at the Asian Pacific Environmental Network.

    “We’re in solidarity with workers who have been displaced and who are looking for a relief to ensure that they’re able to find work that is important for their communities,” Rizvi said.

    But Jodie Muller, president and CEO of the Western States Petroleum Association, said the state can protect jobs by changing its climate policies.

    “The extremists fighting to close California refineries should explain why they are OK with destroying some of the best blue-collar jobs out there — because we certainly are not,” she said in a statement.

    Life as an oil worker

    For many workers, the industry offers an opportunity to earn a living wage without a college degree.

    Wilfredo Cruz was attracted in part by the paycheck. After more than a decade, he makes a base salary of $118,000 a year as a pipe fitter at the Phillips 66 refinery.

    But there are downsides.

    Every day when Cruz gets home from work, he showers immediately to try to shield his son from exposure to any harmful chemicals. He also never lets the 2-year-old ride in the car he takes to work.

    Now he’s enrolled in an online cybersecurity training course, schooling paid for by the state program that’s set to expire in the next couple of years.

    “There’s not really a real clear plan to be able to get workers from this oil industry into these new fields,” he said. “So, you feel kind of forgotten.”

    Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • How Southern California’s refinery fire could impact gas prices statewide

    [ad_1]

    Investigators are searching for the cause of a major fire at a Southern California refinery following an explosion. The impacts of this fire are expected to present yet another strain on the state’s fuel supply. Analysts say it’s possible that people who buy gas in California could see the impacts in fuel prices.

    On Thursday, towering flames could be seen above the El Segundo Chevron refinery after an explosion and then a fire, which Chevron said began at a processing unit near the southeast corner of the refinery. Neighbors recounted feeling a shaking at the time, like an earthquake, and seeing the sky light up orange.

    By Friday morning, the fire had been extinguished, but investigators are still working to determine the cause. Chevron also said that all refinery personnel and contractors were accounted for and that no injuries were reported.

    The El Segundo refinery produces around 17% of the state’s crude oil capacity, according to the California Energy Commission. The impacts of this fire could be felt across California in terms of gas prices.

    Matt McClain, a petroleum analyst with GasBuddy.com said that the extent of the fire and what exactly was damaged will determine just how much this fire impacts gas prices.

    McClain estimates the immediate impact on prices could be, “anywhere from 15 to 30 cents a gallon, 25 cents a gallon, somewhere in that neighborhood.”

    “And, we’re gonna leave a little asterisk besides that because it’s still an unfolding situation on the extent of the damage,” he continued.

    Doug Johnson, a AAA Northern California Spokesperson, said in a statement, “Events that slow or stop gasoline production can prompt increased bidding for available gasoline supplies.”

    “Pipeline disruptions, planned or unplanned refinery maintenance or refinery shutdown may cause prices to increase, especially the longer they remain offline,” Johnson continued.

    News of potentially higher prices at the pump is hard to swallow for California drivers, who already face high gas prices.

    “Everything’s getting more expensive; it just kind of blows, but what can you do?” said Kevin Ma of Walnut Creek.

    Gas prices in California could go even higher next year, when Benicia’s Valero refinery is slated to close.

    [ad_2]

    Alyssa Goard

    Source link

  • What oil CEOs really think about Trump’s management of the oil sector: ‘Those who can are running for the exits’ | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Oil companies may have President Donald Trump cheering them on from the bully pulpit. But in the oil patch, the mood is anything but celebratory.

    New data on Wednesday from the Dallas Fed Energy Survey,  which polled oil and gas executives at 139 firms across Texas, northern Louisiana and southern New Mexico in mid-September, shows oil and gas activity slipped again in the third quarter of 2025, weighed down by soaring costs, policy uncertainty, and the chaos of new tariffs.

    The survey’s broadest measure of business conditions, the business activity index, came in at –6.5, marking the second consecutive quarter of contraction.

    The outlook was even gloomier. The company outlook index plunged to –17.6 from –6.4, while more than 44% of firms said uncertainty remains elevated. Production of both oil and natural gas ticked lower, while costs for everything from drilling to equipment leasing surged.

    ‘The noise and chaos is deafening

    Executives were blunt in the anonymous comments that come out with the survey each quarter.

    “The uncertainty from the administration’s policies has put a damper on all investment in the oilpatch,” one wrote. “Those who can are running for the exits.”

    Another added that “the administration’s tariffs, particularly on steel and aluminum at fifty percent, are increasing our cost of business.”

    For exploration and production firms, finding and development costs doubled this quarter, while lease operating expenses also jumped sharply.

    Oilfield services firms reported their margins are still deeply negative, with one describing the sector as “bleeding.”

    The tariffs are cutting deep: operators said higher costs for tubular steel, heavy material, and imported components are making wells uneconomic.

    “Tariffs continue to increase the cost of production. We are suffering from a combination of increased cost due to tariffs and downward pricing pressure from end users,” one services executive said.

    A grim investment climate

    That mix of weak prices and high costs has throttled capital spending. The survey found capital expenditures are falling sharply, with the index dropping to –11.6 from –3.0.

    One operator emphasized that the uncertainty from regulatory policy was putting a damper on the spending.

    “Day-to-day changes to energy policy is no way for us to win as a country,” the operator said. “Investors avoid investing in energy because of the volatility … and the ‘stroke of pen’ risk that the federal government wields.”

    The gloom is reflected in price expectations. Respondents now see West Texas Intermediate crude ending 2025 at just $63 a barrel,  barely above where it traded during the survey period. Two years out, the consensus rises modestly to $69, and to $77 five years from now, levels many independents say are too low to justify new drilling.

    The shale dream frays

    A decade ago, U.S. shale was hailed as the world’s most dynamic energy engine. Now, industry insiders describe it as broken, even as Trump removes tax credits for renewables.

    “The collapse of capital availability has fueled consolidation by the majors, pushing out independents and entrepreneurs who once defined the shale revolution,” one respondent said. “In their place, a handful of giants now dominate but at the cost of enormous job loss and the destruction of the innovative, risk-taking culture that made the U.S. shale industry great.”

    Others warned that the sector is being whipsawed by politics from both parties.

    “The sword being wielded against the renewables industry right now will likely boomerang back in 3.5 years against traditional energy,” one said, pointing to methane penalties and permitting fights that could return with a vengeance.

    While Trump insists domestic drilling will fuel an American energy renaissance, the very policies his administration is pushing are raising costs, curbing investment, and leaving many operators sitting on their hands.

    “The oil industry is once again going to lose valuable employees,” one executive lamented. “Drilling is going to disappear.”

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Eva Roytburg

    Source link

  • Which form of energy is the cheapest? CBS News asked the experts to find out.

    [ad_1]

    The emergence of renewable energy like wind and solar as a viable alternative to oil, gas and other fossil fuels has raised critical questions about which form of power offers the best value today — a debate made all the more urgent by the ravages of climate change.

    In the U.S., where energy policy has been shaped by politics for more than a century, the battle continues to play out at the highest levels of government. Former President Biden delivered one of the biggest endorsements of renewable energy in the form of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which offered tax credits and rebates to businesses, organizations and households that invest in solar, wind and geothermal technologies. 

    By contrast, President Trump has been a staunch supporter of the oil and gas industry. During his inauguration speech in January, he reaffirmed his commitment to fossil fuel production, saying, “We will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet. That will help to do it.”

    Within six months of taking office, Mr. Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” into law, which phases out clean energy tax incentives while simultaneously expanding tax breaks for the oil and gas industries. Separately, his administration has pared back offshore wind leasing and made it more difficult for clean energy projects to qualify for federal dollars. 

    On the global trade front, Mr. Trump has issued a flurry of tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners, which experts say will translate into higher costs for energy projects that rely on imports. The White House is pushing these policies amid concerns over rising U.S. energy prices, with average electricity costs up 5.5% from a year ago, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    To get to the bottom of which form of energy is the cheapest, CBS News analyzed the cost to produce coal, gas, nuclear, wind and solar energy, including the impact of tax incentives, tariffs and other factors.

    Determining the cheapest form of energy

    Multiple criteria come into play in trying to assess the cheapest form of energy. These include consumers’ monthly costs; the cost to produce energy; and the potential social cost energy production can have on a community’s health and the environment. External factors like tax incentives and fluctuations in the economy also can affect the price it costs to heat and cool our homes.

    CBS News set out to answer the question using what’s called the Levelized Cost of Energy, or LCOE, a commonly cited benchmark for wholesale energy costs. LCOE is the price that a power-generating facility must receive for its electricity to cover all its expenses — including capital, equipment, maintenance and other financing costs — over the lifespan of a project. 

    A 2025 LCOE report from investment bank Lazard shows the cost to produce energy without any government subsidies and how that changes when you layer in other factors, such as tax subsidies provided under the Inflation Reduction Act.

         

    Yet while LCOE calculations are widely used, they don’t offer a full picture when it comes to evaluating the cost and value of energy, experts told CBS News. Other factors, such as interest rates and federal regulations, can also have a major impact on the cost of building and operating energy infrastructure. 

    LCOE also doesn’t account for the value a given form of energy delivers. For example, because solar and wind are affected by the weather, they tend to be less consistent than oil and gas, meaning a backup source of energy may be necessary.

    “You have to talk about, what is the additional cost of balancing that production from a resource that doesn’t produce all the time?” Severin Borenstein, faculty director of the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, told CBS News.

    How tax subsidies factor in

    The U.S. government has a long history of using tax subsidies to encourage energy production. Oil and gas companies have benefited from such support for more than a century. By comparison, only in recent decades have renewable energy projects drawn a larger share of federal dollars.

    Lazard’s report shows how the LCOE for renewable energy fluctuates when you account for certain provisions of the IRA aimed at lowering the cost of developing clean energy projects. Those include the investment tax credit (ITC), production tax credit (PTC) and energy community bonus, which increases the value of the ITC and PTC by 10% for projects in certain areas. 

    Lazard’s calculations assume these credits will be in place for 10 years. Notably, however, the Republican-backed “big, beautiful bill” signed into law by Mr. Trump this summer is slated to phase out those credits over the next two years.

    Although Lazard examines how the IRA affects renewable energy prices, it doesn’t factor in any government subsidies flowing to the oil and gas industry, which vary widely and can be difficult to assess.

    The Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a bipartisan nonprofit research group, estimates that direct U.S. subsidies to the fossil fuel industry amount to at least $20 billion per year. However, the FracTracker Alliance, a nonprofit focused on the impact of fossil fuels, says the industry receives an estimated $760 billion annually in government subsidies and tax breaks.

    More benefits will go to the oil and gas industries under the “big, beautiful bill.” A June report from the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the legislation will funnel nearly $18 billion in tax incentives to the oil and gas industry over the next 10 years. 

    Oil and gas companies have lauded the new law as a win for the industry. Sunil Mathew, chief financial officer of Occidental Petroleum, said during a recent company earnings call that the measure “will provide significant cash tax benefits to Oxy.” He expects the law will save Occidental $700 million to $800 million in “cash taxes” by the end of next year.

    How do tariffs factor into energy production costs?

    Mr. Trump’s tariffs are also projected to alter the cost it takes to fund energy projects in the U.S. To gauge the impact of tariffs on energy costs, CBS News turned to a model created by global data and analytics company Wood Mackenzie. 

    In the following chart, dark green indicates a scenario in which the U.S. hasn’t applied any country-level tariffs, but still maintains levies on copper, steel and aluminum imports; the medium shade of green represents current baseline tariffs imposed by the U.S. since Mr. Trump resumed office in January through August 7; and the light green indicates if trade relations with a U.S. economic partner is likely to worsen or deteriorate.

    As depicted, U.S. tariffs are projected to hit battery storage production the hardest. Chris Seiple, vice chairman of the power and renewables group at Wood Mackenzie, noted that while some energy equipment is produced domestically, other tech, such as battery cells, mostly comes from abroad, making them more susceptible to tariffs.

    “The vast majority of our battery cells come from China,” he said. “And so the cost of a battery project is going to go up by a certain percentage.”

    This could lead to what Seiple described as a “whack-a-mole” effect, in which over time companies move their manufacturing to non-tariffed countries to avoid an additional financial burden. 

    What is the cheapest form of energy?

    Given these multiple and interconnected factors, what ends up being the cheapest form of energy to produce? 

    According to Lazard, renewables remain the most cost-competitive form of generating and distributing energy. Onshore wind, which runs from $37 to $86 per megawatt-hour ($/MWh), is the most affordable on a baseline level and when tax subsidies are included.

    Utility scale solar — what most people think of when they hear about solar energy — is the next most cost-effective approach, with costs ranging from $38 to $78 per megawatt-hour.

    Fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources are more expensive to generate. Coal costs $71 to $173 per megawatt-hour; gas costs $48 to $109; and U.S. nuclear costs $141 to $220, Lazard found. 

    The main reasons for these differences in cost? Experts told CBS News that while the capital cost for renewable projects is steep, the expense of operating and maintaining such facilities tends to be lower than that associated with fossil fuel production. 

    “Wind and solar you basically do all the investment up front, and then it operates — not quite for free — but at extremely low operating costs per kilowatt hour,” Borenstein said. 

    With fossil fuels, the cost of oil, gas and coal — which can be volatile — is another key factor. 

    “For a natural gas-fired power plant, you have to buy the natural gas,” he explained. “And likewise, a coal-fired power plant, you have to buy the coal. And so the price… is going to fluctuate.” 

    Experts who spoke with CBS News agreed that renewable energy ends up being the most competitive when it comes to costs. Rob Gramlich, president of Grid Strategies, a Washington, D.C. consulting firm, concurred that solar and wind are the cheapest to run. Natural gas is the most affordable source of backup energy, which is necessary to make sure power is available around the clock, he said. 

    Seiple said if you need a small amount of inexpensive electricity, solar is the way to go. It’s “low cost to build, it can be deployed quickly and modularly, the fuel is free and not volatile in price, and the ongoing maintenance costs are minimal,” he said. “And if the U.S. didn’t penalize it with tariffs, it would be even lower cost.”

    Despite such advantages for renewable energy, experts say the U.S. shouldn’t put all of its eggs in one basket. Multiple sources told CBS News that what’s needed is a diversity of energy options that can meet the country’s rising demand for electricity. Taking certain forms of energy out of the mix would compromise the system as a whole, they note.

    “There is no one cheapest form that you can run the whole system on, and in fact, it depends on combining them in ways to [get] the cheapest possible cost,” Borenstein said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • World’s first commercial carbon storage facility begins operations, injecting CO2 deep under North Sea seabed

    [ad_1]

    Oslo —The world’s first commercial service offering carbon storage off Norway’s coast has carried out its inaugural CO2 injection into the North Sea seabed, the Northern Lights consortium operating the site said Monday.

    The project by Northern Lights, which is led by oil giants Equinor, Shell and TotalEnergies, involves transporting and burying CO2 captured at smokestacks across Europe. The aim is to prevent the emissions from being released into the atmosphere, and thereby help halt climate change.

    “We now injected and stored the very first CO2 safely in the reservoir,” Northern Lights’ managing director Tim Heijn said in a statement. “Our ships, facilities and wells are now in operation.”

    In concrete terms, after the CO2 is captured, it is liquified and transported by ship to the Oygarden terminal near Bergen on Norway’s western coast.

    The liquefied CO2 (LCO2) carrier Northern Pioneer of Northern Lights is pictured at Akershuskaia, Oslo, June 17, 2025 in connection with the international high-level conference on carbon management.

    STIAN LYSBERG SOLUM/NTB/AFP/Getty


    It is then transferred into large tanks before being injected through a 68-mile pipeline into the seabed, at a depth of around 1.6 miles, for permanent storage.

    Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has been listed as a climate tool by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), especially for reducing the CO2 footprint of industries such as cement and steel that are difficult to decarbonize.

    The first CO2 injection into the Northern Lights geological reservoir was from Germany’s Heidelberg Materials cement plant in Brevik in southeastern Norway.

    But CCS technology is complex, controversial and costly.

    Without financial assistance, it is currently more profitable for industries to purchase “pollution permits” on the European carbon market than to pay for capturing, transporting and storing their CO2.

    norway-carbon-capture-storage-2225345169.jpg

    The Northern Lights carbon storage site in Øygarden, Norway, is seen on May 28, 2025.

    The Washington Post/Getty


    Northern Lights has so far signed just three commercial contracts in Europe. One is with a Yara ammonia plant in the Netherlands, another with two of Orsted’s biofuel plants in Denmark, and the third with a Stockholm Exergi thermal power plant in Sweden.

    Largely financed by the Norwegian state, Northern Lights has an annual CO2 storage capacity of 1.7 million tons, which is expected to increase to 5.5 million tons by the end of the decade.

    While efforts such as Northern Lights are focused on capturing carbon directly from the most highly-polluting sources — industrial smoke stacks — there have also been efforts launched to capture the gas from the ambient air, an even more controversial methodology.

    Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University professor of environmental engineering, told CBS News earlier this year that he was dubious of the motivations for and the efficacy of both kinds of carbon capture, and he said bluntly that “direct air capture is not a real solution. We do not have time to waste with this useless technology.”

    Jacobson thinks direct air capture, in particular, is a boondoggle, and more effort should be focused on switching to clean energy sources.

    Currently, the U.S. gets about 60% of its electricity from fossil fuels.

    “You have to think about who’s proposing this technology,” Jacobson said. “Who stands to benefit from carbon capture and direct air capture? It’s the fossil-fuel companies.”

    “They’re just saying, ‘Well, we’re extracting as much CO2 as we’re emitting. Therefore, we should be allowed to keep polluting, keep mining,” Jacobson told CBS News, adding that his stance has not made him popular among many in the energy sector.

    “Oh, yeah, diesel people hate me, gasoline people hate me, ethanol people hate me, nuclear people hate me, coal people hate me. They do, because I’m telling the truth,” he said. “We don’t need any of these technologies.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Air pollution from oil and gas causes 90,000 premature US deaths each year, says new study

    [ad_1]

    Air pollution from oil and gas causes more than 90,000 premature deaths and sickens hundreds of thousands of people across the US each year, a new study shows, with disproportionately high impacts on communities of color.

    More than 10,000 annual pre-term births are attributable to fine particulate matter from oil and gas, the authors found, also linking 216,000 annual childhood-onset asthma cases to the sector’s nitrogen dioxide emissions and 1,610 annual lifetime cancer cases to its hazardous air pollutants.

    The highest number of impacts are seen in California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, while the per-capita incidences are highest in New Jersey, Washington DC, New York, California and Maryland.

    Related: Trump-fueled gas boom has Gulf coast communities on edge: ‘We will keep fighting’

    The analysis by researchers at University College London and the Stockholm Environment Institute is the first to examine the health impacts – and unequal health burdens – caused by every stage of the oil and gas supply chain, from exploration to end use.

    “We’ve long known that these communities are exposed to such levels of inequitable exposure as well as health burden,” said Karn Vohra, a postdoctoral research fellow in geography at University College London, who led the paper. “We were able to just put numbers to what that looks like.”

    While Indigenous and Hispanic populations are most affected by pollution from exploration, extraction, transportation and storage, Black and Asian populations are most affected by emissions from processing, refining, manufacturing, distribution and usage.

    Though the latter set of activities is responsible for less air pollution overall than the former, the study shows they cause the most unequal health burden, with impacts concentrated in majority-Black areas including southern Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” and eastern Texas.

    “What makes the study so valuable is how it dissects health impacts across the whole life cycle of oil and gas – from where it comes out of the ground to where it is combusted,” Timothy Donaghy, research director for the environmental group Greenpeace USA and author of previous research on the racially uneven burdens of fossil fuel pollution. “As many studies have found before, these health burdens are not shared equally – a prime example of fossil fuel racism in action.”

    For the analysis, published in Science Advances on Friday, the authors developed an inventory of each stage of oil and gas production and use, with data from the federal government and the University of Colorado Boulder. They plugged that data into a computer model to track pollution from each source, and used epidemiological and health data to track the adverse impacts of those emissions.

    These disproportionate impacts are not inexplicable; rather, they are attributable to historic policies such as redlining – a discriminatory mortgage appraisal practice used after the Great Depression by the US government – and high rates of permitting for oil and gas processing plants in close proximity to Black communities.

    Oil and gas are responsible for a major share of all air pollution-attributable health impacts in the US, the authors also found: one in five pre-term births and adult deaths linked to fine particulate pollution are from the sector, the authors found, while a stunning 90% of new childhood asthma cases tied to nitrogen dioxide pollution are from oil and gas.

    The study is based on data from 2017, the most recent year of complete data available. Between that year and 2023, US oil and gas production has increased by 40% and consumption by 8%, meaning the estimates are probably highly conservative.

    The research comes as the Trump administration works to boost fossil fuel production and suppress renewable energy production.

    “Given the reckless deregulation being pushed by Trump’s EPA and the president’s call to ‘drill, baby, drill’, this new study should be a flashing red warning light for the nation,” said Donaghy.

    Eloise Marais, a University College London professor of geography and study co-author, said she hoped the study was “picked up by the kinds of community leaders and advocacy groups that are pushing for exposure to cleaner air”.

    “If there was a move away from reliance on oil and gas, we would experience the climate change benefits 50, 100, 200 years from today because the greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere so long,” she said. “But communities would experience the health benefits immediately.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Too much doom and gloom’: OPEC chief is bullish on oil demand despite extended production cuts

    ‘Too much doom and gloom’: OPEC chief is bullish on oil demand despite extended production cuts

    [ad_1]

    The head of oil producer alliance OPEC brushed off forecasts of dwindling crude demand in the coming year, saying there was too much pessimism in the market — despite the group extending production cuts just one day prior in an attempt to shore up prices amid subdued global consumption.

    “Well, for OPEC, we have demand growth this year at 1.9 million barrels a day,” OPEC Secretary-General Haitham Al Ghais told CNBC’s Dan Murphy Monday at the Adipec energy conference in Abu Dhabi.

    “Now some people might say this is on the high side, but other independent analysts, researchers in the market have it at similar levels,” he said. “Some have it at [what] we believe [are] very low levels. We’re still quite robust on demand.”

    “I think there’s a bit too much doom and gloom and pessimism in terms of the demand outlook by some corners in the market, in terms of analysts and research, but we believe, still, our numbers are in line with many other independents,” Al Ghais said.

    OPEC is not going to release all the oil production that they stopped to balance the price, Eni CEO says

    The Vienna-based oil producer group in mid-October downwardly revised its projections for oil demand growth in the near-term, forecasting growth of 1.93 million barrels a day this year and 1.64 million barrels a day in 2025. This compared to previous forecasts of 2.03 million and 1.74 million barrels a day, respectively.

    While the outlook figure was trimmed, it’s still dramatically higher than that of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, which sees global oil demand increasing by roughly 900,000 barrels per day this year and close to 1 million barrels per day in 2025.

    “We have lowered down our demand numbers, to be fair, in the last couple of months, by about 100,000 to 200,000 barrels a day,” Al Ghais said. “Nevertheless, we remain at 1.9 [million] and this is higher than the historical average, the pre-pandemic and even the post-pandemic recovery rate, which was around 1.2 million barrels per day.”

    The forecasts come amid a slowing Chinese economy, which has significantly hit oil demand and abundant global supply. China is the world’s largest crude importer and the second-largest crude consumer, after the United States.

    When asked about concerns over China’s economic trajectory, the OPEC chief replied: “We have China growing at 0.6 million barrels a day this year … I think the outliers who are looking at China growing at 0.1 [million barrels a day] or hardly any growth, are the outliers. We are not the outliers.”

    He added that the group is “seeing some very positive numbers coming out of the U.S. economy” and that it sees “good signs in the petrochemical industry, aviation sector.”

    OPEC+ is ‘very realistic’ on oil demand, Dan Yergin says

    Numerous economists expect China’s economic growth to remain relatively weak in 2025 despite recent stimulus measures implemented by Beijing. The measures announced in late September failed to elicit a strong reaction from markets, while slowed growth since the Covid-19 pandemic and increasing adoption of electric vehicles has slashed oil demand in the world’s second-largest economy.

    The comments came just one day after OPEC+ member countries agreed to delay a planned December output increase by one month, causing U.S. crude futures to jump over 2%. West Texas Intermediate was up 2.24% to $71.73 per barrel and international benchmark Brent crude rose 2.17% to $75.27 by 12 p.m. in London.

    “This is not the first time we delayed the increase, which is supposed to be phased in gradually … This is just a continuation of our policy of making sure that we’re very attentive to the market,” Al Ghais said, adding that there is more to be seen and deliberated before the next ministerial meeting on Dec. 1.

    “This is nothing unusual that has not been, let’s say, part of the modus operandi of OPEC+ since our agreement has been in place,” he said.

    OPEC+, which consists of OPEC member states and several producer countries outside the organization, has implemented a series of cuts and extensions of them since late 2022 amid rising supply around the world in an effort to shore up the market.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CNBC Daily Open: Bullish sentiment and broadening rally – markets are in a good place

    CNBC Daily Open: Bullish sentiment and broadening rally – markets are in a good place

    [ad_1]

    Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on April 5, 2024.

    Spencer Platt | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    This report is from today’s CNBC Daily Open, our international markets newsletter. CNBC Daily Open brings investors up to speed on everything they need to know, no matter where they are. Like what you see? You can subscribe here.

    What you need to know today

    Breather from rally
    U.S. markets fell Tuesday, weighed down by a
    drop in semiconductor stocks and a 8.1% slide in UnitedHealth. Asia-Pacific stocks were mostly lower Wednesday. Asian chip stocks, like Tokyo Electron and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, retreated on news of ASML’s disappointing forecast and reports of the U.S. possibly imposing export controls on AI chips.

    ASML slumps
    Shares of semiconductor equipment manufacturer ASML plunged 16% on a downbeat earnings report. For 2025, the Netherlands-based company thinks net sales will come in at the lower half of its previous projection. ASML missed expectations on net bookings by 3 billion euros for the September quarter, though net sales beat expectations.

    Better than ChatGPT
    Alibaba updated its artificial-intelligence translation tool, based on a model called Marco MT, on Wednesday. The Chinese e-commerce giant said its product performs better than those by Google and DeepL, according to an assessment by benchmarking tool FLoRes. Fifteen languages are supported by Alibaba’s AI-powered translation tool.

    Banks beat expectations
    Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup beat earnings and revenue estimates for their third quarter. Goldman was the standout performer: Its profit jumped 45% from a year earlier. Year on year, Bank of America experienced a 12% drop in net income and Citigroup’s net income fell 8.6%.

    [PRO] Repositioning for slower rate cuts
    September’s strong jobs report and higher-than-expected inflation reading mean that the U.S. Federal Reserve is unlikely to repeat its jumbo 50-basis-point rate cut at its November meeting. Here’s how strategists are repositioning in view of changing rate cut expectations.

    The bottom line

    Despite markets falling Tuesday, there’s still plenty to like about their current state.

    Weighed down by ASML’s 16% dive and a report by Bloomberg on potential AI-chip export controls, semiconductor stocks like Nvidia and AMD fell 4.7% and 5.2% respectively. That gave the VanEck Semiconductor ETF its worst day since Sept. 3. As a result, the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite lost 1.01%.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which just yesterday was basking in its accomplishment at closing above the 43,000 level for the first time, fell 0.75% to dip into the 42,000 territory again. UnitedHealth’s 8.1% drop dragged down the Dow.

    Last, the S&P 500 retreated 0.76%.

    Still, investors are the most bullish in four years, according to the October BofA Global Fund Manager Survey. They’re also optimistic about the economy: 74% investors believe the U.S. will avoid a recession.

    Anticipation of more rate cuts by the U.S. Federal Reserve and hopes that Beijing will unleash more stimulus to boost its economy are driving up investor sentiment, according to Michael Hartnett, an investment strategist at BofA.

    Indeed, San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly, who’s a member of the Federal Open Market Committee this year, noted that the central bank is “a long way from where [rates are] likely to settle.” That means “the decisions that are really in front of us are ones about how quickly to adjust towards that level” – not whether to keep rates high in light of how strong recent economic data has been.

    Another positive sign for markets is how the S&P and Dow hit all-time highs on Monday, but the Nasdaq was still a few percentage points away from its peak. “This subtle divergence is technical evidence that the market has been moving away from the Magnificent Seven mega-caps,” wrote Piper Sandler’s chief market technician Craig Johnson.

    – CNBC’s Jeff Cox, Samantha Subin, Yun Li, Lisa Kailai Han and Alex Harring contributed to this story.    

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • CNBC Daily Open: Bullish sentiment and broadening rally – plenty to like about markets

    CNBC Daily Open: Bullish sentiment and broadening rally – plenty to like about markets

    [ad_1]

    Traders work on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City, U.S., May 17, 2024. 

    Brendan McDermid | Reuters

    This report is from today’s CNBC Daily Open, our international markets newsletter. CNBC Daily Open brings investors up to speed on everything they need to know, no matter where they are. Like what you see? You can subscribe here.

    What you need to know today

    Breather from rally
    U.S. markets fell Tuesday, weighed down by a
    drop in semiconductor stocks and a 8.1% slide in UnitedHealth. The pan-European Stoxx 600 index lost 0.8% as sectors diverged in performance. Tech stocks fell 6.36%, while telecoms stocks rose 1.97%. Separately, euro zone industrial production increased 1.8% between July and August, according to Eurostat.

    Banks beat expectations
    Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup beat earnings and revenue estimates for their third quarter. Goldman was the standout performer: Its profit jumped 45% from a year earlier. Year on year, Bank of America experienced a 12% drop in net income and Citigroup’s net income fell 8.6%.

    ASML slumps
    Shares of semiconductor equipment manufacturer ASML plunged 16% on a downbeat earnings report. For 2025, the Netherlands-based company thinks net sales will come in at the lower half of its previous projection. ASML missed expectations on net bookings by 3 billion euros for the September quarter, though net sales beat expectations.

    Israel might not hit oil facilities
    After Israel reportedly told the U.S. it’s not planning to strike Iran’s oil facilities, prices for both West Texas Intermediate and Brent futures fell more than 4%. Earlier this week, OPEC cut its forecast for daily oil demand growth in 2024 to 1.9 million barrels per day from 2 million bpd. That was the third consecutive time this year it’s lowered expectations.

    [PRO] S&P 500 at 6,400?
    Stocks seem unstoppable. Two years into a bull market, the S&P 500 has been constantly hitting new closing highs. History suggests the bull tends to stall, or at least trip on itself, in its third year. But UBS thinks the S&P can buck the trend in 2025 and soar to 6,400, implying an upside of 10% from Tuesday’s close.

    The bottom line

    Despite markets falling Tuesday, there’s still plenty to like about their current state.

    Weighed down by ASML’s 16% dive and a report by Bloomberg on potential AI-chip export controls, semiconductor stocks like Nvidia and AMD fell 4.7% and 5.2% respectively. That gave the VanEck Semiconductor ETF its worst day since Sept. 3. As a result, the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite lost 1.01%.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which just yesterday was basking in its accomplishment at closing above the 43,000 level for the first time, fell 0.75% to dip into the 42,000 territory again. UnitedHealth’s 8.1% drop dragged down the Dow.

    Last, the S&P 500 retreated 0.76%.

    Still, investors are the most bullish in four years, according to the October BofA Global Fund Manager Survey. They’re also optimistic about the economy: 74% investors believe the U.S. will avoid a recession.

    Anticipation of more rate cuts by the U.S. Federal Reserve and hopes that Beijing will unleash more stimulus to boost its economy are driving up investor sentiment, according to Michael Hartnett, an investment strategist at BofA.

    Indeed, San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly, who’s a member of the Federal Open Market Committee this year, noted that the central bank is “a long way from where [rates are] likely to settle.” That means “the decisions that are really in front of us are ones about how quickly to adjust towards that level” – not whether to keep rates high in light of how strong recent economic data has been.

    Another positive sign for markets is how the S&P and Dow hit all-time highs on Monday, but the Nasdaq was still a few percentage points away from its peak. “This subtle divergence is technical evidence that the market has been moving away from the Magnificent Seven mega-caps,” wrote Piper Sandler’s chief market technician Craig Johnson.

    – CNBC’s Jeff Cox, Samantha Subin, Yun Li, Lisa Kailai Han and Alex Harring contributed to this story.  

    Correction: An earlier version of this report misstated the day of U.S. stock movement.  

    [ad_2]
    Source link