Generic Hero BannerGeneric Hero Banner
Latest market news

US limits Venezuela debt loophole to Western IOCs

  • Market: Crude oil, Oil products
  • 19/02/20

The Venezuelan government that US sanctions aim to topple is sustaining crude exports and partially replenishing fuel supplies through a debt loophole that is now an exclusive perk of Western oil companies.

In its most aggressive escalation of Venezuela sanctions to date, the US imposed sanctions on the oil trading arm of Russian state-controlled Rosneft and its chief executive and Rosneft board member Didier Casimiro, accusing the firm of "skirting sanctions" and reaping "extraordinary profits" from its oil-backed debt.

The White House is hoping to pressure Moscow into abandoning Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro to allow for free elections this year. But so far the Kremlin is showing no sign of easing its resistance to the US regime-change policy.

Geneva-based Rosneft Trading became the top Venezuelan crude lifter after the US levied oil sanctions on the Opec country just over one year ago. Its loadings do not breach US sanctions, which have no direct secondary component except for companies that use the US financial system. But Washington says it is using an August 2019 executive order "embargoing" sales of Venezuelan property to target Rosneft Trading since it is the main conduit for Venezuelan exports.

The Venezuelan cargoes that Rosneft picks up go toward servicing billions of dollars in debt that the Russian firm extended to Venezuelan state-owned PdV before the US imposed financial sanctions on Venezuela in 2017. As of third quarter 2019, Rosneft said it was still owed $800mn, and PdV said last year that it expected to pay off the full debt by March 2020.

With the new sanctions, Rosneft Trading could still lift Venezuelan cargoes, but it might struggle to resell whatever it cannot place in its partially owned Indian refining system Nayara, once a wind-down period expires on 20 May.

"Anyone outside the United States engaging in any action, any activity with (Rosneft Trading or Casimiro), whether it involves Venezuelan crude or non-Venezuelan activity, runs the risk of being sanctioned themselves," US special Venezuela envoy Elliott Abrams said yesterday.

Trafigura, which is among the companies that trades with Rosneft, says it "will comply with the requirements of these latest rules within the wind-down timeline that has been set by the general license."

Even Nayara is sounding cautious. The Mumbai-based refiner says "it complies with all relevant and applicable US sanctions and we reaffirm our commitment to this position following the recent announcements."

Although the sanctions target is Rosneft Trading, not its Moscow-based parent company, some wary market participants could sidestep the Russian enterprise altogether, but its coveted Urals crude business will likely keep others on its side.

Rosneft says the new US sanctions are an "arbitrary" vehicle to lock the company out of competition with its Western peers.

In contrast to Rosneft, Western oil companies are still lifting Venezuelan crude as debt payment, although these PdV obligations are related to joint upstream ventures, rather than outstanding financial credit.

The most prominent case is Repsol. The Spanish company regularly takes Venezuelan crude to its refineries at home in exchange for PdV's offtake of the oil and gas that it still produces inside Venezuela.

In his briefing, Abrams said Repsol "has always been in compliance with US laws and US sanctions in all its activities," but anticipated "more conversations" that would lead to a change in its future activities.

Italy's Eni, which is Repsol's 50pc partner at Venezuela's Perla offshore natural gas field, has begun similar, if less frequent, loadings of Venezuelan oil in exchange for its production.

The most controversial Western lifter of Venezuelan cargoes is Chevron. The US major has been hanging onto its extensive Venezuelan operations through a string of oil sanctions waivers, the latest of which lapses on 22 April.

The California-based company is PdV's most coveted partner in terms of technology and resources. PdV's PetroPiar joint venture with Chevron recently restarted heavy crude upgrading operations, allowing the firm to market its own share of the resulting synthetic crude, although the sanctions do not allow the oil into US refineries that used to absorb most of Venezuela's exports.

Notably, Chevron says the proceeds from its loadings are used for the maintenance of its joint venture operations, as permitted under its successive waivers.

Rosneft also has upstream assets inside Venezuela, and these are not affected by the new sanctions.

Trickle of resentment

The greatest near-term impact of the new sanctions may be felt at the pump. While shortages are widespread across Venezuela, some fuel as well as diluent has been trickling in, mainly through Rosneft but also Repsol that returns products to Venezuela to compensate for any overage in the debt value of the crude.

From the election-colored perspective of the White House, the Western oil companies are helping to maintain Venezuela's oil industry in anticipation of reconstruction under a future democratic government, an aspiration of Florida's Latino voters. But for some hawkish members of the US-backed political opposition, the loophole for companies from countries that do not recognize the Maduro government — and the US push for Venezuelan elections without forcibly removing Maduro first — are starting to sow resentment.


Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
11/04/25

Mexico suspends Valero fuel import permits

Mexico suspends Valero fuel import permits

Mexico City, 11 April (Argus) — Mexico's tax authority SAT on 9 April suspended US refiner Valero's fuel import permits, the company said today. The company did not specify why its import license was suspended. "Valero is addressing each administrative observation noted in the suspension to clarify the issues. Additionally, [authorities] mistakenly stated that the company does not have valid import permits, which is incorrect since the permits are valid through 2038," the company said. When consulted, Valero told Argus it has no further information to share at this time. In Mexico, Valero holds gasoline, diesel and jet fuel import permits valid through 2038. The company is one of only a handful of private-sector companies with such permits. Shell, Marathon and ExxonMobil hold permits to import only gasoline and diesel. Valero is the leading private fuel importer in Mexico. On 9 April, its sales accounted for 10pc of Mexico's gasoline and diesel demand, according to the company. Private-sector companies started importing fuel into Mexico in 2016 after the market opened to more competition, but under former president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's administration, the energy ministry (Sener) cancelled dozens of fuel import permits. Valero is cooperating with the Mexican government and has recently joined a voluntary price cap agreement to keep regular gasoline below Ps24/l ($4.45/USG), the company said, adding that it "implements rigorous traceability and security controls throughout its supply chain." The company stores fuel at four private-sector terminals in Mexico, with over 4mn bl of capacity. The company is also expected to start storing fuel at the new 1.1mn bl OTM terminal in Altamira, Tamaulipas, in the near future. By Cas Biekmann Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Find out more
News

Opec+ overproducers cast doubt on compensation pledges


11/04/25
News
11/04/25

Opec+ overproducers cast doubt on compensation pledges

Output is set to rise in the coming months, with Kazakhstan and Iraq unlikely to live up to commitments to rein in production, writes Aydin Calik London, 11 April (Argus) — The Opec+ alliance's planned production increases in April and May should, in theory, be offset by pledges to compensate for past overproduction, particularly by Kazakhstan and Iraq. But there are few signs that either country will significantly reduce output in the coming weeks. If anything, Kazakhstan has signalled that production will continue at or near record levels of around 1.8mn b/d , putting it some 300,000 b/d above its Opec+ target. Opec+ members subject to targets cut output by 90,000 b/d to 33.93mn b/d in March, according to Argus estimates, but this was still 80,000 b/d above the group's collective crude production target of 33.85mn b/d. The decision by a core group of eight Opec+ members to accelerate the return of 2.2mn b/d of production cuts is a key reason for the recent slide in oil prices, alongside US tariff announcements. But Opec+ has stressed that its implied output increase of 137,000 b/d for April and another 411,000 b/d in May should be cancelled out by compensation-related cuts of 249,000 b/d for April and 309,000 b/d in May. In reality, this is unlikely to happen — the group's output is set to rise. Kazakhstan is the main reason why Opec+ has exceeded its target over the past two months. Kazakh production has surged following a major output increase at the Chevron-led Tengiz field in January — part of the field's future growth project (FGP). Tengiz production rose to a record 901,000 b/d in March, compared with previous levels of 600,000-660,000 b/d. The increase came several months earlier than anticipated, Kazakh officials say, and they have subsequently asked international oil companies that operate Tengiz and the Kashagan oil field to reduce output. But the answer has so far been negative. "Unfortunately, we have not yet agreed with them to the reduction, because for them it is a very challenging action, especially Chevron, [which] spent $50bn on the FGP project. They told us it's not possible for them to reduce [output]," deputy energy minister Alibek Zhamauov said this week. Kazakhstan will try to reduce production from smaller fields operated by domestic producers such as state-controlled Kazmunaigaz, Zhamauov said. But any decrease from these fields will not be enough to offset the rise from Tengiz. Target practice Iraq's output dipped below its 4mn b/d target in March at 3.98mn b/d, but this was still well above the country's effective target of 3.88mn b/d under its compensation plan. If Iraq's past production record is anything to go by, its output is unlikely to fall much further in the months ahead. While Kazakhstan and Iraq are unlikely to see much change in their production, members such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE are set to drive the alliance's output higher. The biggest increase is expected from Saudi Arabia, which will see its 8.98mn b/d target rise by 222,000 b/d by May, offset only marginally by its compensation plans. Riyadh has already signalled that it is preparing to increase production after state-controlled Saudi Aramco cut the official formula price of its May-loading crude exports. The largest cut was for buyers in Asia-Pacific, Saudi Arabia's biggest market. Formula prices can indicate intentions on output, as producers fine-tune how affordable their crude is for marginal refiners. The second-largest production increase is set to come from the UAE, which has long been eager to raise output . The UAE will see its target rise by 103,000 b/d by May, which will also only be offset marginally by its compensation plan. Russia is also scheduled to deliver a significant production increase over the next two months, with its target rising by 105,000 b/d. But all of this increase will be cancelled out if the country sticks to its compensation plan. Opec+ crude production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Opec 9 21.22 21.36 21.23 -0.01 Non-Opec 9 12.71 12.66 12.62 0.09 Total Opec+ 18 33.93 34.02 33.85 0.08 *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable Opec wellhead production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Saudi Arabia 8.98 8.93 8.98 0.00 Iraq 3.98 4.05 4.00 -0.02 Kuwait 2.42 2.43 2.41 0.01 UAE 2.91 2.93 2.91 -0.00 Algeria 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.01 Nigeria 1.49 1.58 1.50 -0.01 Congo (Brazzaville) 0.26 0.24 0.28 -0.02 Gabon 0.20 0.22 0.17 0.03 Equatorial Guinea 0.06 0.06 0.07 -0.01 Opec 9 21.22 21.36 21.23 -0.01 Iran 3.34 3.38 na na Libya 1.36 1.39 na na Venezuela 0.87 0.84 na na Total Opec 12^ 26.79 26.97 na na *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable ^Iran, Libya and Venezuela are exempt from production targets Non-Opec crude production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Russia 8.97 8.96 8.98 -0.01 Oman 0.75 0.75 0.76 -0.01 Azerbaijan 0.47 0.47 0.55 -0.08 Kazakhstan 1.79 1.76 1.47 0.32 Malaysia 0.36 0.36 0.40 -0.04 Bahrain 0.18 0.18 0.20 -0.02 Brunei 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.02 Sudan 0.02 0.02 0.06 -0.04 South Sudan 0.07 0.07 0.12 -0.05 Total non-Opec 12.71 12.66 12.62 0.09 *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism


11/04/25
News
11/04/25

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — International shipping organisations and market participants mostly support the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism approved today at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, but some raised concerns. The structure approved by the IMO establishes that ships must reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. Emissions above this target will be charged at $380/tCO2e. The levels defined by the approved regulation are achievable, according to a market participant, who said the gradually increasing targets may allow the market to properly adapt to the transition. The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) secretary general Guy Platten said the sector is already investing billions of dollars in 'green' technology, so the agreement gives certainty that sustainable marine fuels producers need. "The world's governments have now come forward with a comprehensive agreement which, although not perfect in every respect, we very much hope will be formally adopted later this year," he said. The European Shipowners (ECSA) secretary general Sotiris Raptis agreed the draft "is not perfect", but he celebrated progress towards a net zero emissions target, saying "it is a good starting point for further work" and pointing out that it may ensure the necessary investment in production of clean fuels. During a press briefing, IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said ships operating in international waters will be obliged to comply with the regulations after adoption, despite the US' refusal to engage with the discussions . Adoption of the pricing mechanism will be discussed and voted on in October. Offering a counterview, the Global Maritime Forum said the agreed measures may not be strong enough to reach IMO targets. "The GHG intensity targets create uncertainty as to whether the strategy's emissions reduction checkpoints for 2030 and 2040 will be met," it said. "As currently designed, measures are unlikely to be sufficient to incentivise the rapid development of e-fuels such as e-ammonia or e-methanol , which will be needed in the long run due to their scalability and emission reduction potential." It said that failure to invest in these fuels would put at risk the target of at least 5pc zero- and near-zero emission fuel use by 2030 and the industry's entire 2050 net-zero goal. The World Shipping Council's vice president Bryan Wood-Thomas praised the agreement and said one benefit of it is the pricing system that is "more aggressive" if a vessel fails to meet the GHG intensity standard. "But you also have a fee system that gives investors more confidence in actual revenue [from using cleaner fuels]," he said. The Brazilian representative told Argus the fact that some countries thought the agreement was too ambitious while others indicated it was not ambitious enough show the group may have reached a balance that can be possible to comply. About the Brazilian position, the representative said the country "was never against an agreement". "We were only against some aspects of the agreement, and we think that the membership has heard our concerns, and that's why we ended up pretty happy with the results", he said. Brazil voted in favour of the agreement today. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Madeleine Jenkins, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'


11/04/25
News
11/04/25

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting. Argus Media spoke to ministerial adviser and Finland's head representative at the IMO delegation talks, Anita Irmeli, on the sidelines of the London MEPC meeting. What is your initial reaction to the text? We are happy and satisfied about the content of the agreed text, so far. But we need to be careful. This week, all member states were able to vote. But in October, when adaption will take place, only those states which are parties to Marpol Annex VI will be able to vote if indeed a vote is called for, and that changes the situation a little bit. Here when we were voting, a minority was enough — 40 votes. But if or when we vote in October, then we need two thirds of those party to Marpol Annex VI to be in favour of the text. Will enthusiasm for the decision today remain by October? I'm pretty sure it will. But you never know what will happen between now and and the next six months. What is the effect of the decision on FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS? Both FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS have a review clause. This review clause states that if we are ambitious enough at the IMO, then the EU can review or amend the regulation. So of course, it is very important that we first consider if the approved Marpol amendments are ambitious enough to meet EU standards. Only after that evaluation, which won't be until well after October, can we consider these possible changes. Do you think the EU will be able to adopt these the text as it stands today? My personal view is that we can perhaps incorporate this text under FuelEU Maritime, but it may be more challenging for the EU ETS, where shipping is now included. What was the impact of US President Donald Trump's letter on the proceedings? EU states were not impacted, but it's difficult to say what the impact was on other states. By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism


11/04/25
News
11/04/25

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, pending an adoption vote at the next MEPC in October. The proposal passed by a majority vote, with 63 nations in favor including EU states, the UK, China and India, and 16 members opposed, including Mideast Gulf states, Russia, and Venezuela. The US was absent from the MEPC 83 meeting, and 24 member states abstained. The proposal was accompanied by an amendment to implement the regulation, which was approved for circulation ahead of an anticipated adoption at the October MEPC. Approval was not unanimous, which is rare. If adoption is approved in October at a vote that will require a two-thirds majority, the maritime industry will become the first transport sector to implement internationally mandated targets to reduce GHG emissions. The text says ships must initially reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 ( see table ) against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. This gradually tightens to 30pc by 2035. The text defines a "direct compliance target", that starts at 17pc for 2028 and grows to 43pc by 2035. The pricing mechanism establishes a levy for excessive emissions at $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) for ships compliant with the minimum 'base' target, called Tier 2. For ships in Tier 1 — those compliant with the base target but that still have emission levels higher than the direct compliance target — the price was set at $100/tCO2e. Over-compliant vessels will receive 'surplus units' equal to their positive compliance balance, expressed in tCO2e, valid for two years after emission. Ships then will be able to use the surplus units in the following reporting periods; transfer to other vessels as a credit; or voluntarily cancel as a mitigation contribution. IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said while it would have been more preferable to have a unanimous outcome, this outcome is a good result nonetheless. "We work on consensus, not unanimity," he said. "We demonstrated that we will continue to work as an organization despite the concerns." Looking at the MEPC session in October, Dominguez said: "Different member states have different positions, and there is time for us to remain in the process and address those concerns, including those that were against and those that were expecting more." Dominguez said the regulation is set to come into force in 2027, with first revenues collected in 2028 of an estimated $11bn-13bn. Dominguez also said there is a clause within the regulation that ensures a review at least every five years. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara IMO GHG reduction targets Year Base Target Direct Compliance Target 2028 4% 17% 2029 6% 19% 2030 8% 21% 2031 12% 25% 2032 17% 30% 2033 21% 34% 2034 26% 39% 2035 30% 43% Source: IMO Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Generic Hero Banner

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more