ReportWire

Tag: oil drilling

  • Fact-checking Trump on U.S. oil investment in Venezuela

    [ad_1]

    One thing President Donald Trump has consistently promised after the U.S. ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is private U.S. investment in the country’s underproductive oil fields.

    “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said Jan. 3 in a Mar-a-Lago press conference.

    He reiterated that Jan. 4 to reporters on Air Force One, saying, “We’re going to have to have big investments by the oil companies to bring back the infrastructure. The oil companies are ready to go.”

    Are they? It’s less certain than Trump makes it sound.

    When reporters sought concrete details about investments, Trump declined to offer them. Speaking on ABC’s “This Week” on Jan. 4, Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump, saying he expects “dramatic interest from Western companies,” without offering specifics. 

    When contacted for comment, the White House told PolitiFact the administration has had conversations with multiple oil companies, without naming any. “All of our oil companies are ready and willing to make big investments in Venezuela that will rebuild their oil infrastructure,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said.

    The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s leading trade association, said in a statement to PolitiFact that the group is “closely watching” developments. 

    “Globally, energy companies make investment decisions based on stability, the rule of law, market forces, and long-term operational considerations,” the statement said.

    A ConocoPhillips spokesperson gave a similar response, according to media reports, saying the company “is monitoring developments” but that it would be “premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments.”

    Experts told PolitiFact there is ample reason for caution about a surge of new private investment in Venezuelan oil infrastructure. While Venezuela’s oil reserves are the world’s largest, obstacles include high up-front costs for building out infrastructure, limited profit potential amid today’s low oil prices and continuing concerns about political stability.

    “I do not see a compelling business case for any U.S.-based company to invest billions of dollars over years to decades to try to turn a profit in Venezuelan oil,” said Hugh Daigle, a professor with the University of Texas at Austin’s petroleum and geosystems engineering department.

    Patrick De Haan, the head of petroleum analysis with GasBuddy, a gasoline price app, said the uncertainty over Venezuela’s governance is likely to worry oil companies.

    “Oil companies probably aren’t chomping at the bit to invest billions of dollars and take their chances until there’s clarity in the Venezuelan regime,” De Haan said. “I don’t believe there will be beyond a negligible impact from the situation, potentially for years, and even then, only if things go very right.”

    What would be the upsides of oil industry investment in Venezuela?

    U.S. companies such as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips exited Venezuela after Hugo Chávez, Maduro’s predecessor, moved to nationalize the oil industry in 2007. Chevron is the only major U.S. oil company that has been consistently producing oil in Venezuela in recent years.

    How Venezuela’s nationalized, and in some cases internationally sanctioned, oil resources are opened will determine who benefits, said Kenneth Gillingham, a Yale University professor of environmental and energy economics.

    If the market were opened only to the biggest U.S. oil corporations, those companies would mainly benefit, but their gains would be more limited if the market also were opened to companies based outside the U.S., Gillingham said. U.S. motorists could benefit from increased production pushing prices lower, but those gains would depend heavily on global market factors.

    Some oil companies could be attracted to Venezuela because it would allow them to diversify their investments, said Skip York, a fellow at Rice University’s Center for Energy Studies. 

    Compared with crude oil in many countries, Venezuelan crude is relatively heavy. That means it takes longer to extract, but once the wells are in place, they can keep producing for longer periods of time. 

    The U.S. generally doesn’t produce heavy crude from its own deposits, but a portion of the U.S. refinery sector is specifically built to handle it. So having a steady supply of heavy Venezuelan crude could keep these refineries operational. Rubio cited this opportunity on “This Week.”

    If Venezuela returns to political and economic stability, York said, “one could expect returns of 15% to 20%, which could be competitive with other development opportunities.”

    Obstacles remain for U.S. oil companies 

    Oil experts cited several challenges to achieving large profits from Venezuelan reserves:

    The up-front cost of improving infrastructure will be significant. “The Venezuelan oil industry has been nationalized for many decades now and has suffered from a lack of investment, both foreign and domestic,” Daigle said. New investment would be needed to keep facilities and operations up to date, with no certainty of payback. 

    Venezuela’s political situation remains unsettled. “Not many companies are going to rush to go into an environment where there’s not stability,” Ali Moshiri, who headed Chevron’s operations in Venezuela until 2017 and now runs a private oil company with interests there, told The New York Times

    At a minimum, Venezuela would need a new petroleum law framework, York said. Even after all the legal and financial issues have been resolved, he said, it would take “years to refurbish infrastructure and drill new wells.”

    Oil prices are low. High up-front infrastructure costs and risks from political instability could be justified financially if oil prices were high enough. But prices are relatively low. Since Trump became president, crude oil’s price per barrel has fallen by about one-quarter.

    “With oil (prices) near multi-year lows, oil companies likely won’t be running to spend money in Venezuela that could further erode oil prices,” De Haan said.

    The reluctance to spend significantly to expand production can already be seen domestically in declining industry efforts to drill new U.S. wells. A weekly count of oil rigs in use in the U.S. shows a 16% decline since their most recent peak in April.

    If companies aren’t eager to spend on drilling in the U.S., with its established infrastructure and relative political stability, it’s not clear that they would go all in on Venezuela. 

    The long-term importance of oil depends on the future of electric vehicles. “If we continue using lots of oil and oil prices stay high, then it is likely that new entrants in Venezuela would recoup their investments over time,” Gillingham said. “However, if electric vehicles continue to come down in price and really take off, in the U.S. and globally, this will keep a lid on oil prices and make it less likely that the investment costs will be recouped.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DeSantis says Trump’s oil drilling could ‘weaken’ environment, military training

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Shutterstock

    Gov. Ron DeSantis warned Friday that President Donald Trump’s push to drill off the Florida coast could “weaken” environmental protections and interfere with military training.

    DeSantis referred to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s plan to reinvigorate oil drilling off of Florida and Southern California for the first time in decades. The federal government has not allowed drilling in federal waters in the eastern Gulf since 1995 because of oil spill concerns, the AP reported.

    “We supported the 2020 decision that the Trump administration made at the time, we worked very closely with them. I thought it was very thoughtful policy in 2020,” DeSantis said during an unrelated Crystal River press conference Friday morning.

    “Now what the Interior Department is proposing to do is really to go back off that policy, and I think that would weaken protections that we worked very hard to establish offshore.”

    Those protections reflect environmental fears of damaging Florida’s coastlines and marine life and the military’s ability to train in the Panhandle. Florida has multiple military bases in Panama City and Pensacola.

    “[The military says] it’s really important to be able to have that access to be able to do key training,” the governor continued. “We hope that they double down on the 2020 policy and not push ahead with what Interior wants to do now.”

    This is one of the rarer instances of DeSantis breaking with Trump since the 2024 elections. The tension between the two ahead of and throughout the presidential primary had been replaced with a quieter complacency. Both Trump and DeSantis have been tightly aligned on most conservative issues, especially immigration, while public disagreement has stayed at a muted minimum.

    ‘Dead on arrival’

    According to the Associated Press, the proposal targets six offshore lease sales between 2027 and 2030 along the California coast. It would also spur drilling at least 100 miles offshore of Florida in South-Central Gulf region and compel more than 20 lease sales off the Alaskan coast.

    Backlash has been swift in all targeted states. In Florida, DeSantis became the latest Republican to add his voice to join a bipartisan outcry at the plan, joining lawmakers like U.S. Sen. Ashley Moody and U.S. Rep. Jimmy Patronis. U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, a leading Trump ally, helped persuade the president in 2018 to drop a similar offshore plan when he served as governor.

    Trump agreed at the time to maintain a drilling moratorium until 2032. Earlier this month, Scott and Moody co-sponsored legislation to codify that moratorium.

    In 2010, the Gulf was rocked by a massive oil spill caused by an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform. Eleven men were killed, the rig began to sink, and a catastrophic oil leak sprouted from the well, NOAA reported. It would take three months to cap the spill, allowing roughly 134 million gallons of oil to seep into the ocean in the largest such spill in the nation’s history.

    Politicos aren’t the only ones concerned about the new proposal.

    Sierra Club Florida called the plan “unacceptable” and potentially detrimental to both the state’s environment and the economy.

    “President Trump and his administration may be eager to hand out blank checks to oil and gas companies, but it will not be at Florida’s expense,” Javier Estevez, the group’s political and legislative director, said in a written statement. “We refuse to allow our coastal economies, quality of life, and irreplaceable natural resources to be sacrificed for corporate profit.

    “Any such proposal is dead on arrival, and we will work tirelessly to ensure our coasts are protected.”

    Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Contact Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com. Follow Florida Phoenix on Facebook and Twitter.


    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook Bluesky | Or sign up for our RSS Feed


    U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick was indicted for allegedly stealing $5M and laundering it toward her 2021 congressional campaign

    This is one of the rarer instances of DeSantis breaking with Trump since the 2024 elections

    In Florida, maliciously disturbing a religious gathering is a first-degree misdemeanor, or a third-degree felony with hate crime enhancement



    [ad_2]

    Livia Caputo, Florida Phoenix
    Source link
  • After half a century of grievances, veterans’ housing demands on West L.A. VA campus go to trial

    After half a century of grievances, veterans’ housing demands on West L.A. VA campus go to trial

    [ad_1]

    After months of hearings, a federal judge last month ruled that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs discriminates against homeless veterans whose disability compensation makes them ineligible for housing being constructed on its West Los Angeles campus.

    U.S. District Judge David O. Carter had earlier found that the VA has a fiduciary duty to use the 388-acre campus primarily for housing and healthcare for disabled veterans, casting doubt on the legality of leases that have turned over portions of it for sports facilities, oil drilling and two parking lots.

    Neither ruling, however, gave any indication of what remedies, if any, the VA might face. That question will be at issue in a non-jury trial starting Tuesday in downtown federal court, the culmination of more than a decade of legal battles — and half a century of grievances — over the veterans’ land.

    In a brief filed last month, attorneys for the veterans asked Carter to issue an order requiring the VA to provide nearly 4,000 units of permanent supportive housing on the campus. That would be an addition of 2,740 units to the 1,215 already in planning or under construction under the terms of a prior lawsuit. They also are asking for the construction of 1,000 shelter beds.

    They further ask the judge to enjoin the VA from contracting with developers whose funding sources impose restrictive income limits that bar veterans with disability compensation. If granted, such an order could have a national impact on VA housing construction that relies on third-party developers.

    The brief is less specific about the leases to UCLA and the neighboring Brentwood School for athletic facilities and the oil and parking operations. It asks Carter to find the leases invalid but does not say whether they should be nullified or renegotiated to better serve veterans.

    American flags decorate tents at an encampment of homeless veterans along San Vicente Boulevard in Brentwood, Calif., on July 4, 2020.

    (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

    Justice Department lawyers representing the VA argue in an opposing brief that Carter should not order more housing or issue an injunction because the remedy sought is unnecessary and unfeasible and would place an undue burden on the VA.

    The lawsuit, filed last November by 14 veterans and since made a class action, reprised an earlier lawsuit that challenged the leases and asserted an unmet need for permanent housing. In a 2015 settlement, the VA agreed to develop a master plan for the campus. A draft master plan, completed in 2016, called for 1,200 units of housing on the campus in new and rehabilitated buildings with a commitment to complete more than 770 units by the end of 2022. Only 54 of those units were completed by the deadline, and only 233 are currently open.

    The new lawsuit, filed by Public Counsel, the Inner City Law Center and law firms Brown Goldstein & Levy LLP and Robins Kaplan LLP, alleges that the VA has reneged on the settlement agreement.

    The plaintiff’s lead counsel, Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, said in a hearing last year that the new case was necessary because he had erred by not demanding court monitoring of the 2015 settlement.

    “The phrase ‘homeless veteran’ should be an American oxymoron,” the complaint said. “But this is the cruel truth—the federal government consistently refuses to keep its word and take meaningful actions to bring the abomination of veteran homelessness to an end.”

    The controversy over housing dates back to the Vietnam War era.

    The West Los Angeles campus, formally called the Pacific Branch of the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, was established as a home for Civil War veterans on land donated in 1888 by Sen. John P. Jones and his business partner, the socialite and businesswoman Arcadia Bandini Stearns de Baker, scion of a landowning family going back to the mission era. After World War I, the campus “gradually evolved from institutional housing to medical care that allowed Veterans to reintegrate into civilian society,” according to a history on the VA website.

    As many as 4,000 veterans lived on the property in the early 20th Century, but the transformation of the campus into a medical center continued after World War II, as advances in battlefield medical care resulted in greater survival rates with more serious injuries. By 1962, the West L.A. VA Medical Center was the largest in the country, with more than 6,000 patients and 4,500 staff.

    But in the late 1960s, residential use declined. Then, following the 1971 Sylmar earthquake, the Wadsworth Hospital building was judged seismically unsound and demolished. To make room for a temporary hospital during its reconstruction, the roughly 1,000 remaining residents of the Old Soldiers Home were abruptly evicted. Only about half relocated to other VA facilities, and, after the new hospital opened, the old buildings were left to deteriorate.

    Carter ruled in December that the 1888 deed of 300 acres dedicated to the “establishment, construction and permanent maintenance of a branch of said National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers” created a charitable trust and that Congress, in adopting the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016, assumed enforceable fiduciary duties to use the land to benefit veterans.

    In May, Carter certified the case as a class action representing all homeless veterans with serious mental illness or traumatic brain injuries who reside in Los Angeles County and a subclass of all class members whose income (including veterans’ disability benefits) exceeds 50% of the area’s median income.

    Last month, Carter issued a partial summary judgment in favor of the veterans, finding that the VA discriminates against veterans whose disability compensation makes them ineligible for housing built by developers whose funding sources come with income limits.

    “Those who gave the most cannot receive the least,” he wrote.

    In the pretrial brief, Rosenbaum argued that the lack of adequate housing at the VA forces veterans with serious mental illness or traumatic brain injury toward institutionalization.

    “Homeless veterans with serious mental illness and traumatic brain injury who lack permanent supportive housing experience an institutional circuit of temporary housing, emergency departments, psychiatric institutions, and jails in order to receive healthcare, including mental healthcare, services,” he wrote.

    To support their case for more housing, the plaintiffs intend to present testimony from three prominent Angelenos. Developer and former Police Commissioner Steve Soboroff will testify that he has identified space on the campus for an additional 4,000 units. Jonathan Sherin, former director of the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, and Benjamin Henwood, director of the Center for Homelessness, Housing and Health Equity Research at the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, will testify on the mental health impacts of homelessness.

    The government’s opposing brief argued that the 2022 update of the master plan provides for a “supportive, integrated community” with services, amenities and recreational, cultural and open spaces.

    The plaintiffs’ demand would impose an undue burden, the government argued, by requiring the VA to build approximately 40 buildings, to obtain a new environmental report clearances for historic preservation and to extend utilities into new areas of the campus.

    It cited several improvements the VA has made to its services and changes to the income requirements that make 97% of homeless veterans eligible for federal housing vouchers.

    It also argued that housing a majority of veterans with serious mental illness or traumatic brain injury on the campus would “segregate them from the broader community and would likely result in their stigmatization based on their disabilities.”

    Carter has not yet ruled on the validity of the leases, which reserve limited time for veterans to use the athletic facilities and generate income from the oil and parking operations for VA operations.

    Rosenbaum cited a 2021 report by the VA’s Office of Inspector General concluding that seven of the VA’s land-use leases, including those with the Brentwood School and the oil and parking operators, failed to comply with the West Los Angeles Leasing Act and that seven and a half years after the earlier settlement, no supportive housing had yet been completed.

    Lawyers representing Bridgeland Resources LLC intervened in the case and filed a brief in which they argue that the 2017 lease under which the company uses a portion of the VA property to slant drill into a West Los Angeles oil field complies with the West Los Angeles Leasing Act because it provides a 2.5% royalty to the Disabled American Veterans Los Angeles Chapter “solely for the purpose of providing transportation to Veterans on and around the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System Campus.” If that lease were invalidated, they said, earlier leases would then take effect, allowing Bridgeland to expand its operation.

    Rosenbaum said those earlier leases also would be invalid.

    Neither UCLA nor Brentwood School have had lawyers present or sought to intervene. Spokespeople for UCLA and the Brentwood School declined to comment.

    Times researcher Scott Wilson contributed to this article.

    [ad_2]

    Doug Smith

    Source link