Venezuela opposition rejects talks on US sanctions
Venezuela's opposition aligned with Juan Guaido will continue to demand significant political reforms before supporting any US plans to lift oil sanctions on the South American country as a way to ease supply concerns.
"The US cannot just walk back foreign policy [sanctions], just like that," an oil and energy adviser to Venezuelan politician Juan Guaido told Argus. The group considers the 2018 re-election of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro fraudulent, a position backed by the US. The opposition believe lifting the sanctions would only support keeping Maduro in power, although they said earlier this year they could be open to some gradual easing.
Guaido's allies would condition any deal on free, fair and verifiable elections, the adviser said.
Maduro's vice president Delcy Rodriguez earlier this week said that dialogue efforts are being "reformatted," but declined to elaborate.
The US has not even confirmed if lifting oil sanctions is on the table, but US diplomats visited Caracas on 5 March for the first meeting with President Nicolas Maduro since President Joe Biden took office.
US academic Ryan Berg, who covers Venezuela for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank in Washington, DC, believes that future talks are on the table, with plans for a potential meeting in Trinidad and Tobago.
"They established contact back in March … parts of the Biden administration want to continue that dialogue," Berg said.
The opposition — which controls US refiner Citgo — might not participate in initial talks, he believes. They object to the possible location, accusing Trinidad and Tobago of mistreating Venezuelan migrants found in its waters.
"Go ahead and meet, but the other thing [the opposition] can do is upset the table and assume a harder stance," the Guaido energy adviser said.
Venezuela could send up to 400,000 b/d to the US if sanctions were lifted, PdV officials have said, while Maduro said output could hit 2mn b/d by the end of 2022. Venezuela's production now stands at roughly 600,000-700,000 b/d, based on independent estimates.
Related news posts
US Supreme Court ends 'deference' to regulators
US Supreme Court ends 'deference' to regulators
Washington, 28 June (Argus) — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority, in one of its most significant rulings in years, has thrown out a landmark, 40-year-old precedent under which courts have offered federal agencies significant leeway in deciding how to regulate the energy sector and other industries. In a 6-3 ruling that marks a major blow to President Joe Biden's administration, the court's conservatives overturned its 1984 ruling Chevron v. NRDC that for decades has served as a cornerstone for how judges should review the legality of federal regulations when a statute is not clear. But chief justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said experience has shown the precedent is "unworkable" and became an "impediment, rather than an aid" for courts to analyze what a specific law requires. "All that remains of Chevron is a decaying husk with bold pretensions," the opinion said. For decades, under what is now known as Chevron deference, courts were first required to review if a law was clear and if not, to defer to an agency's interpretation so long as the government's reading was reasonable. But the court's majority said the landmark precedent has become a source of unpredictability, allowing any ambiguity in a law to be a "license authorizing an agency to change positions as much as it likes." Roberts wrote that the federal courts can no longer defer to an agency's interpretation "simply because" a law is ambiguous. "Chevron is overruled," Roberts writes. "Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority." The court's ruling, named Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimando, focuses on lawsuits from herring fishers who opposed a rule that could require them to pay about $710 per day for an at-sea observer to verify compliance with regional catch limits. The US Commerce Department said it believes it interpreted the law correctly, but the fishers said the "best interpretation" of the statute was that it did not apply to herring fishers. The court's three liberal justices dissented from the ruling, which they said will likely result in "large-scale disruptions" by putting federal judges in the position of having to rule on the merits of a variety of scientific and technical judgments, without the benefit of expertise that regulators have developed over the course of decades. Overturning Chevron will put courts "at the apex" of policy decisions on every conceivable topic, including climate change, health care, finance, transportation, artificial intelligence and other issues where courts lack specific expertise, judge Elena Kagan wrote. "In every sphere of current or future federal regulations, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role," Kagan wrote. The Supreme Court for years has been chipping away at the importance of Chevron deference, such as a 2022 ruling where it created the "major questions doctrine" to invalidate a greenhouse gas emission rule limits for power plants. That doctrine attempts to prohibit agencies from resolving issues that have "vast economic and political significance" without clear direction from the US Congress. That has led regulators to be hesitant in relying on Chevron to defend their regulations in court. The Supreme Court last cited the precedent in 2016. The ruling comes a day after the Supreme Court's conservatives, in another 6-3 ruling , dramatically curtailed the ability of the US Securities and Exchange Commission — and likely many other federal agencies — to use in-house tribunals to impose civil penalties. The court ruled those enforcement cases instead need to be filed as jury trials. That change is expected to curtail enforcement of securities fraud, since court cases are more resource-intensive. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Libya’s oil minister asks PM to clarify who's in charge
Libya’s oil minister asks PM to clarify who's in charge
London, 28 June (Argus) — Libya's sidelined oil minister Mohamed Oun has called on Tripoli-based prime minister Abdelhamid Dbeibeh to clarify who is in charge of the ministry. The question of who runs the oil ministry has been unclear since Oun returned to work on 28 May after a temporary suspension was lifted by a state watchdog. During his absence, Oun was replaced by oil ministry undersecretary Khalifa Rajab Abdulsadek, who represented Libya at the latest Opec+ meeting on 2 June. Dbeibeh has continued to recognise Abdulsadek as oil minister since Oun's return to work. In a lengthy statement defending his record, Oun complained that Dbeibeh has cut off all communication with him and that it is impossible to carry out his duties under such conditions. "The presence of a legitimate minister and an illegal minister" is creating confusion in the sector, Oun added. Dbiebeh was seen as a key player behind the initial removal of Oun. Argus understands that Oun's suspension was part of an attempt to clear the way for state-owned NOC to move ahead with key oil and gas projects the he opposed. But the move received pushback from powerful figures including the head of Libya's presidential council and the country's central bank governor, leading to Oun's suspension being lifted. "I don't expect this issue to be resolved any time soon. Dbiebeh is unlikely to want to get into a fight given his weakening position over the past few weeks," Jalel Harchaoui, a Libya specialist at the UK's Royal United Services Institute, told Argus . Although the position of oil minister in Libya has been largely relegated to a nominal role — and much less powerful than the chairman of NOC — Oun has successfully used his role to galvanise public opinion against deals and policies promoted by the government and NOC. Libya remains politically fragmented, with rival governments based in the east and west of the country, and control of Libya's oil sector is coveted by a wide array of factions tussling for power. The north African country produces just above 1.2mn b/d of crude and wants to boost this to around 2mn b/d, but this will only be possible if it can advance long-stalled projects. By Aydin Calik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Biden, Trump trade attacks in presidential debate
Biden, Trump trade attacks in presidential debate
Washington, 28 June (Argus) — The first presidential debate of the 2024 election drew out few new details on energy policy, as President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump hammered each other on issues such as inflation and the state of the US economy. The debate, held in Georgia on Thursday without a live audience, marked the first time Biden and Trump have shared a stage since their last debate in 2020. Biden, who is trailing Trump in many polls, at times struggled to clearly articulate his policy positions — or even to be heard — while Trump repeatedly sought to blame Biden for issues such as high inflation and the outbreak of military conflicts in Ukraine and Israel. "He has not done a good job," Trump said. "And inflation is killing our country. It is absolutely killing us." The substance of the debate was largely overshadowed by the candidates' inability to dispel voters' concerns about them. Needing to put to rest worries about his age, the 81-year-old Biden often appeared feeble and confused. Trump refused to acknowledge he lost the last election and continued to defend the mob that attacked the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. Biden throughout the debate defended his record on the economy, while focusing many of his attacks on Trump's personal conduct, including Trump's conviction on 34 counts in a case involving alleged hush money payments to an adult film star. Biden also criticized Trump's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, which Biden said ultimately contributed to high inflation. "He didn't do much at all," Biden said. "By the time he left, things were in chaos." The debate repeatedly focused on federal tax policy, particularly a range of tax cuts enacted during Trump's presidency that are set to expire in 2025. A key provision of that tax package cut the top corporate tax rate to 21pc from 35pc. Biden said he would make the tax system more fair by increasing taxes on the wealthy, while arguing that Trump's policies would result in higher inflation and additional costs for consumers. Trump has said he would extend the expiring tax cuts, which are expected to cost $4 trillion over a decade, in addition to seeking deeper tax cuts and a 10pc tariff on all imports. Trump said he rejected the findings of many independent economists that such a tariff would drive up prices for consumers and add to inflation. "It's just going to cause countries that have been ripping us off for years — like China and many others, in all fairness to China — it's going to just force them to pay us a lot of money." Biden argued Trump's policies would result in higher inflation and additional costs for consumers. "He now wants to tax you more by putting a 10pc tariff on everything that comes into the United States of America," Biden said. Trump pivoted to issues such as energy and regulations when he was asked about his actions during the attack on the Capitol. "On January 6, we were energy independent," Trump said. And when pressed on whether he would pursue policies to deal with climate change, Trump focused on having "clean air" and "clean water", while defending his decision to pull the US out of the Paris climate accord. "It was a rip off of the United States, and I ended it because I didn't want to waste that money," Trump said. Biden said Trump did not do a "damn thing" when in office to clean up the air and water and criticized his inaction on climate change. Biden defended his suite of climate rules and support for clean energy, but he failed to tout passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided support for electric vehicles, renewable energy and advanced manufacturing. On foreign policy, Trump insisted that a variety of global conflicts would have never occurred if he was in office. He contended that the war in Ukraine would abruptly be resolved if he were re-elected. "I'll have that war settled," Trump said. "I will get it settled, and I'll get it settled fast before I take office." Biden defended his record on foreign policy, saying he ushered through crucial support that has helped in the defense of Ukraine and Israel. Biden said that stood in contrast to Trump, who he said "encouraged" Russian president Vladimir Putin to invade other countries and has threatened to undermine Europe's defenses against military attacks. "This is a guy who wants to pull out of NATO," Biden said. The debate occurred just days before the US Supreme Court is expected to decide whether Trump, or any other president, should be immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office. Trump's attorneys have argued he should be immune from prosecution for any official acts while holding office, which could affect a criminal charge that he sought to undermine the 2020 election. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Mexico to tap economist for energy minister
Mexico to tap economist for energy minister
Mexico City, 27 June (Argus) — Mexican president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum appointed economist and lawyer Luz Elena Gonzalez to become energy minister in her government that will take office on 1 October. Gonzalez has a long record in public service and served as finance director of the Mexico City government during Sheinbaum's tenure as the capital's mayor from 2018-2024. She has no direct energy industry experience. Sheinbaum won a convincing victory in the 2 June presidential elections and will take office on 1 October when Morena political party founder and current president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador ends his six-year term. Gonzalez will face a range of challenges as energy minister including completion of the long-delayed Olmeca refinery, development of a plan to tackle state-owned Pemex's enormous debt, expansion of Mexico's electricity generation and grid capacity with a renewed focus on clean energy and the construction of natural gas storage. She will also be in charge of policy decisions that will define the role of private-sector investors in the energy sector. Gonzalez will replace Miguel Angel Maciel, appointed following energy minister Rocio Nahle's resignation in October 2023 to pursue the Veracruz gubernatorial election. Nahle, who took office as energy minister in 2018, led efforts to build the Olmeca refinery and has been a strident supporter of Lopez Obrador's energy sovereignty policy that has sought to restrict private-sector investment. Sheinbaum also appointed Jesus Esteva as transport minister, Raquel Buenrostro as civil service minister, David Kershenobich as health minister and Edna Elena Vega as urban and rural development minister. All of the candidates appointed today have either worked with Sheinbaum during her period as Mexico City mayor or in Lopez Obrador's government. By Rebecca Conan Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
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