US may restore Venezuela diesel swaps, ease waiver

  • Spanish Market: Crude oil, Natural gas, Oil products
  • 20/01/21

The new US administration is considering whether to reinstate Venezuelan crude-for-diesel swaps and ease a key sanctions waiver, but policy reversals alone would not be enough to meaningfully revive the Opec country's oil production after years of neglect.

At his senate confirmation hearing yesterday, secretary of state nominee Tony Blinken said the administration broadly backs the policy of pressuring Caracas to hold new elections, but "I believe there's more that we need to try to do in terms of humanitarian assistance, given the tremendous suffering of the Venezuelan people."

That humanitarian bent is partly driving President Joe Biden's administration to weigh whether non-US companies can resume the diesel swaps, and whether to restore less restrictive waiver conditions on US companies with Venezuelan assets, industry officials tell Argus.

The steps would aim to alleviate Venezuelan suffering without altering the sanctions framework designed to oust President Nicolas Maduro, a goal the "maximum pressure" campaign of Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump, never achieved.

After the US imposed oil sanctions on Venezuela in January 2019, Spain's Repsol, Italy's Eni and India's Reliance engaged in diesel transactions with Venezuela's state-owned PdV on humanitarian grounds, with the US Treasury's grudging approval. Repsol and Eni loaded Venezuelan crude as payment from PdV for natural gas from their offshore Perla field and other debts, with low-sulfur diesel shipped back to settle their books. Top supplier Reliance lifted Venezuelan crude in exchange for diesel in straight swaps. The sanctions exclude US companies from all Venezuelan oil trade.

Unlike gasoline, the diesel transactions and the subsequent ban were never formally enshrined in the sanctions. US officials telephoned the three companies around August 2020 to say their tolerance for swaps had ended. Diesel supply wound down in late October, just before the US elections in which former president Trump lost re-election but prevailed in Florida, partly thanks to anti-Maduro policies favored by conservative Hispanic voters. Venezuela's US-backed opposition was tight-lipped about the diesel ban, reluctant to cross its White House patrons despite concerns about the humanitarian costs at home.

Transcendent sentiment

Topped off with some high-sulfur supply from PdV's dilapidated refining system, the low-sulfur imported diesel helps to run Venezuelan power generators, produce and distribute food, operate water pumps and run public transport. As gasoline grew increasingly scarce last year, Venezuela's modest private sector started to shift more toward diesel for light trucks, distribution fleets and tractors.

Since the diesel swaps ended three months ago, Venezuela has been mostly relying on inventories, but these are expected to dry up around the end of March, potentially aggravating power outages and food shortages.

Although Venezuelans tend to be divided over the sanctions issue based on their political inclinations, a majority of all stripes reject diesel sanctions, according to a September 2020 survey of 500 residents across the country conducted by Venezuelan polling firm Datanalisis that was shared with Argus.

"Diesel is the first product that is rejected in all of the clusters of self-described political identification, including the opposition," Datanalisis president Luis Vicente Leon told Argus.

The survey showed that 68pc of participants reject diesel sanctions, including 50.4pc of self-described government opponents and 72.5pc of independents, as well as 90.7pc of pro-government participants.

A restoration of diesel swaps for non-US companies could be balanced out with a return to the original conditions of a sanctions waiver that has allowed Chevron and four US oil services companies to remain in Venezuela. At issue are waiver restrictions imposed in April 2020 that permit the companies to preserve their assets but prevent them from conducting maintenance and paying hundreds of local employees. The waiver itself lapses in June.

Elusive rebound

The return of more flexible waiver conditions as well as the diesel swaps would breathe some life back into Venezuelan crude production. The country is currently producing around 400,000 b/d, half the level it was at a year ago, and far from the 3mn b/d it pumped in the 1990s.

The Orinoco heavy oil belt, once meant to catapult Venezuelan output to 6mn b/d, is only producing around 200,000 b/d as almost all of PdV's joint ventures with foreign partners are off line or stagnant. The exceptions are PetroPiar, with minority partner Chevron, and PetroSinovensa, with China's state-owned CNPC. PdV's mature eastern and western divisions that used to produce about 1mn b/d apiece are barely producing 100,000 b/d now. Most onshore gas production is flared.

Any significant upturn in Venezuelan production could be problematic for the Biden administration, which is sensitive to the future electoral repercussions of any perceived softening of US policy toward Maduro and his close ally Cuba. But regardless of the sanctions or any relief the Biden administration would implement, chronic operating problems such as electricity outages, equipment theft, impaired infrastructure and labor flight would keep a lid on Venezuelan output growth. Without structural changes and significant investment, Venezuela's oil industry has little chance of a turnaround.

As for exports, a restoration of the diesel swaps would allow PdV to diversify back into the Spanish and Indian markets. Others could open up if more non-US companies sign on to the swaps. Since the diesel ban took effect in October 2020, exports have mostly gone to China through obscure intermediaries in cash transactions benefitting Maduro, critics of the diesel ban say. US sanctions on tankers, including last-minute additions by the Trump administration, have only driven the trade further underground.

Argus has learned that US State Department officials are preparing to brief new decision-makers about the diesel issue. The emphasis is on unintended humanitarian consequences, including the risk to Perla gas production that supplies western Venezuelan power plants and residential demand. At the Perla gas field, Repsol and Eni are currently producing at capacity of more than 500mn cf/d despite the loss of the diesel-based payment mechanism. Instead, they are accumulating more PdV debt in anticipation of recouping payment through future diesel swaps.

Bolder action

The Maduro government is hoping the Biden administration will take bolder action on sanctions, especially after his chief rival, US-backed opposition leader Juan Guaido, lost effective control of the National Assembly in December. But Biden plans to maintain US recognition of Guaido's authority and views Maduro as a "brutal dictator," Blinken told the Senate panel.

While the new White House is focusing on the Covid-19 pandemic, Iran and other priorities over Venezuela, Caracas may be feeling upbeat in spite of persistent international pressure over its human rights record. The US stance could converge with the EU's stress on negotiations that would lead to elections, erasing the zero-sum policy espoused by Trump and Guaido.

In the UK, Maduro might expect a victory later this year when the Supreme Court is expected to hear Venezuela's case to access half of the country's gold reserves in the Bank of England to pay for UN-coordinated pandemic relief. Closer to home, Venezuela scored propaganda points this week by supplying oxygen to pandemic-hit northern Brazil.

The picture is more complicated in the US. The opposition's hold over PdV's refining arm Citgo — an arrangement blessed by the Trump administration — is slipping away, potentially handing Maduro a short-term political gain but a longer term commercial loss. Creditors have all but given up on a near-term comprehensive debt restructuring, but US bondholders are hoping the Biden team will eventually allow them to trade their instruments.


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.

28/06/24

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.

Canaries' bio-marine fuel demand hit by ETS exemptions


28/06/24
28/06/24

Canaries' bio-marine fuel demand hit by ETS exemptions

London, 28 June (Argus) — Spanish energy firm Cepsa has delayed plans to supply marine biodiesel blends in the Canary Islands as increased demand for conventional bunker fuels and EU regulatory exemptions weigh on market fundamentals for the blended products. Cepsa's international marine fuels sales manager, Francisco Diaz Castro, told attendees at the Maritime Week Las Palmas conference last week that the firm remains committed to supplying marine biodiesel in the Canary Islands but is delaying it in response to a sharp rise in conventional bunker fuel demand in recent months, underpinned by vessels re-routing around the southern tip of Africa to avoid the risk of Houthi attacks in in the Red Sea. Vessels have been stocking up on bunker fuels before and after sailing around Africa's Cape of Good Hope to avoid stopping along the way. Latest data from the Spanish transport ministry show sales of conventional bunker fuel out of the Canary Islands last month increased by 3pc compared with April and by 41pc on the may last year (see table) . This demand growth has pushed suppliers to retain barge availability for conventional bunker fuels, reducing capacity to supply marine biodiesel blends. Market participants told Argus that another reason marine biodiesel demand in the Canary Islands has not picked up is EU regulatory exemptions for vessels sailing between the islands and mainland Spain. According to article 12 (3b) of the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS) directive, "an obligation to surrender allowances shall not arise in respect of emissions released until 31 December 2030 from voyages between a port located in an outermost region of a member state and a port located in the same member state, including voyages between ports within an outermost region and voyages between ports in the outermost regions of the same member state, and from the activities, within a port, of such ships in relation to such voyages." Argus understands that this exemption applies to all vessels covered under the scope of the EU ETS, but would not apply if the vessel is sailing from an outermost region, such as the Canary Islands, to a different EU member nation, for example the Netherlands. A similar exemption for FuelEU Maritime regulations may be applicable as well, subject to member states asking for the exemption of the specific ports and routes for the vessels. Such an exemption could apply until 2029. Argus understands that requests from member states for this exemption will be published in the coming months. An exemption from FuelEU Maritime regulations could also be applied to routes connecting islands with a population under 200,000 people. This specific exemption would therefore not apply to Tenerife and Gran Canaria but may apply to other parts of the Canary Islands with smaller populations. By Hussein Al-Khalisy and Dafydd ab Iago Canary Islands liquid bunker sales t Month Las Palmas Tenerife Total Sales % m-o-m % y-o-y May-24 282,447 49,749 332,196 3 41 Apr-24 255,262 68,782 324,044 27 38 Mar-24 189,868 64,654 254,522 0 3 Feb-24 207,564 47,344 254,908 -6 0 Jan-24 219,962 51,894 271,856 16 27 Dec-23 187,889 47,306 235,195 4 1 Nov-23 181,218 45,940 227,158 5 -2 Spanish Transport Ministry 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


28/06/24
28/06/24

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.

Strikes disrupt bitumen at France Port Jerome refinery


28/06/24
28/06/24

Strikes disrupt bitumen at France Port Jerome refinery

London, 28 June (Argus) — Bitumen truck flows from ExxonMobil's 236,000 b/d Port Jerome refinery in northern France have been disrupted since 19 June by strike action at the neighbouring Gravenchon petrochemicals plant, according to market participants. Protesters outside the refinery entrance have blocked trucks, with the strike action linked to the petrochemical plant that is threatened with closure. Bitumen traders said they had been informed by ExxonMobil that a meeting will be held on 2 July between the company and its workers, and that the strike action is unlikely to stop before then. There has been less of an effect on cargo flows from Port Jerome. Four bitumen cargoes have loaded for export since the refinery's restart in May after an early March fire. The latest shipments have been to Bristol, southwest England, on the 6,165dwt An Hai Wan that arrived there on 25 June and to Galway, Ireland, on the 6,384dwt Bithav due in on 30 June. Port Jerome accounts for around 20pc of France's refining capacity and produces in excess of 600,000 t/yr of bitumen. ExxonMobil has yet to comment on the latest developments at Port Jerome/Gravenchon. By Fenella Rhodes 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


28/06/24
28/06/24

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.

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