USMCA labor case building: Former official

: Crude oil, Electricity, Metals, Natural gas, Oil products
21/02/12

A likely legal action against a facility in Mexico for alleged labor violations of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) would test the strength of the free trade deal that the US energy industry hopes to use to advance complaints against Mexico City.

Private parties such as US labor unions are likely to bring a case to the US trade representative that would allege violations in Mexico of the agreement's workers' rights provisions, said Jamieson Greer, who was chief of staff to former President Donald Trump's US trade representative, Robert Lighthizer.

"There is a great desire to have one of these cases," Greer, who is now a partner at King & Spalding's international trade practice in Washington, told Argus. "My guess is we will see one within the next few months."

Although the particular Mexican company was not identified, the case could have implications for energy investment that has underpinned US-Mexican commercial ties for years.

The USMCA, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) last year, requires Mexico to make its unions more democratic by giving workers greater ability to organize and bargain. The country also must set up independent bodies such as labor courts to resolve disputes.

Yet an independent board evaluating USMCA labor provisions said in December it found "serious concerns" with the implementation of labor laws in Mexico.

Many unionized workers are still unable to democratically elect their leaders, the board said, adding that many collective bargaining agreements in Mexico fall under an old system of "protection contracts" that keep bad working conditions and low wages in place.

Greer said a case would likely not be brought until after the US Senate confirms Katherine Tai, President Joe Biden's nominee for trade representative.

Greer did not say what company or industry might be targeted, but said both Mexican and foreign companies with operations in the country could be named.

US Senate finance committee chair Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) "is consulting closely with the new administration and stakeholders to make sure Mexico lives up to its obligations under USMCA," said Wyden's spokesman Keith Chu. "He is confident the Biden-Harris administration will act quickly to protect the rights of workers if Mexico does not keep up its side of the bargain."

The USMCA has more robust labor provisions and more powerful enforcement mechanisms than most trade agreements and the previous Nafta, including allowing private parties such as labor unions or companies to petition the US government to take action.

By Jens Erik Gould

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.

24/11/08

Market realities force Opec+ to delay supply boost

London, 8 November (Argus) — Eight Opec+ members have opted to delay a plan to begin raising crude output from December by one month, as slowing global oil demand growth and rising supply keep the pressure on prices. The eight — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria and Oman — had already postponed, by two months to December, their plan to start returning supply. But they have now "agreed to extend the November 2023 voluntary production adjustments of 2.2mn b/d for one month until the end of December 2024", the Opec secretariat said on 3 November. The decision was made to avoid potential oversupply given a well-supplied market after heavy refinery maintenance, one Opec+ delegate said. Expectations of slower demand also led Saudi Aramco to cuts its December official formula prices this week for customers in Asia-Pacific. End-of-year volatility and uncertainty about Chinese oil demand also played their part in the decision, giving the group more time to see whether China's economy responds positively to Beijing's stimulus measures and to assess market trends for the first quarter, the delegate added. But at least one Opec source was unhappy with the postponement and concerned that Opec+ has missed its chance to increase supply. "When do we bring back our barrels?" the source said. "No-one knows." Rising non-Opec+ production from the US, Guyana, Brazil and elsewhere is already expected to meet slowing growth in demand next year. And concerns about the outlook for global oil demand are intensifying in light of slower-than-expected growth in China. The IEA expects oversupply of 1mn b/d next year even without the additional Opec+ oil returning to the market. The re-election of Donald Trump as US president could further alter the supply-demand balance in a way that does not favour the return of Opec+ crude. Trump's threat of tariffs and trade wars once in office may heighten concerns over slowing economic growth in China and other key markets. And his Iran policy could further destabilise a region on the brink of a sustained wider conflict. Still, Opec delegates see Trump's promises of cutting energy prices for US consumers as electioneering staples that he will be unable to deliver in practical terms. US shale producers are already producing at record levels and are likely to keep production growth restrained as they prioritise shareholder returns. Conformity focus But market dynamics are not the only drivers of Opec+ decision-making. Many in the group face internal political and financial pressure to increase production and oil revenue. Given this background, the decision to delay the production increase keeps the focus on those in the group that have been overshooting their output targets — namely Iraq, Russia and Kazakhstan. The secretariat made a point of underlining the wider group's "collective commitment to achieve full conformity" on 3 November, with a focus on those three countries. While Iraq, Kazakhstan and Russia have made some progress in reducing output in recent months, all three remained above their effective targets in October under their latest publicly available compensation plans. Kazakhstan fell around 60,000 b/d short of its promise to deliver extra production cuts, according to Ar gus ' latest estimates, having reduced output by around 200,000 b/d to 1.26mn b/d. Iraq was still above its Opec+ target of 4mn b/d and 130,000 b/d above its effective target under its compensation plan. Russia's production was bang on its formal Opec+ target, but 10,000 b/d above its effective target under its compensation plan, which stipulated a first cut of 10,000 b/d in October. Opec+ crude production mn b/d Oct Sep* Target† ± target Opec 9 21.23 21.18 21.23 +0.00 Non-Opec 9 12.12 12.30 12.62 -0.51 Total 33.35 33.48 33.85 -0.50 *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable Opec wellhead production mn b/d Oct Sep Target† ± target Saudi Arabia 8.95 8.92 8.98 -0.03 Iraq 4.03 4.07 4.00 +0.03 Kuwait 2.43 2.46 2.41 +0.02 UAE 2.93 2.95 2.91 +0.02 Algeria 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.00 Nigeria 1.42 1.36 1.50 -0.08 Congo (Brazzaville) 0.27 0.24 0.28 -0.01 Gabon 0.23 0.21 0.17 +0.06 Equatorial Guinea 0.06 0.06 0.07 -0.01 Opec 9 21.23 21.18 21.23 +0.00 Iran 3.30 3.37 na na Libya 1.08 0.55 na na Venezuela 0.90 0.90 na na Total Opec 12^ 26.51 26.00 na na †includes additional cuts where applicable ^Iran, Libya and Venezuela are exempt from production targets Non-Opec crude production mn b/d Oct Sep* Target† ± target Russia 8.97 8.97 8.98 -0.00 Oman 0.76 0.76 0.76 +0.00 Azerbaijan 0.48 0.48 0.55 -0.07 Kazakhstan 1.26 1.46 1.47 -0.20 Malaysia 0.32 0.32 0.40 -0.08 Bahrain 0.16 0.16 0.20 -0.04 Brunei 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.01 Sudan 0.01 0.01 0.06 -0.05 South Sudan 0.06 0.06 0.12 -0.07 Total non-Opec 12.12 12.30 12.62 -0.51 *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Trump to zero in on Iran’s oil exports - will it work ?

24/11/08

Trump to zero in on Iran’s oil exports - will it work ?

London, 8 November (Argus) — Donald Trump's return to the White House poses questions for the oil market, not least what it might mean for Iran's rising crude exports. Early signs suggest Trump intends to dial up the pressure on Tehran and its oil sales, but repeating the playbook from his first presidency is unlikely to deliver the same result today. Iran's oil exports have been on the rise since Joe Biden's election win against Trump four years ago. Before he took office, Biden's talk on the campaign trail about wanting to revive the 2015 nuclear deal — which Trump reneged on in 2018 before reimposing sanctions on Iran — created space for a relative easing of tensions. That, in turn, paved the way for a recovery in Iranian oil sales. Iran's crude and condensate exports were averaging below 500,000 b/d throughout the second half of 2019 and 2020 as Trump-era sanctions took effect, but they began to tick up in 2021 and have carried on rising ever since. Exports averaged around 1.6mn b/d in January-October this year, according to data from analytics firms Kpler and Vortexa, just 500,000-600,000 b/d short of what Iran was selling in the two years before the sanctions were reimposed. Biden's detractors, many from across the aisle, pointed to the recovery in Iran's exports as proof that his administration was not properly enforcing the sanctions imposed under Trump, and that it was intentionally looking the other way. Biden's team regularly dismissed those claims, insisting enforcement was ongoing. The truth is that there is a cat and mouse game between sanctions enforcers and countries under sanctions. It took Iran 18 months to rebuild networks bypassing the sanctions regime. Russia, subject to a less onerous G7 price cap, similarly figured out ways to break through the sanctions noose. A batch of Iranian tanker-focused sanctions imposed under Biden since late last year appears to have had an effect on delivered prices to China, and yet Iran's exports have continued to climb. Those were the days A second Trump presidency will bring an opportunity for change. Given his first administration's hawkish stance towards Iran, there is an overwhelming expectation that he and his new team will set out to tighten the economic grip on Iran in an effort to limit Tehran's ability to financially support its proxies in the region. The stated goal of Trump's maximum pressure campaign in 2018 was to drive Iran's oil exports to zero, from above 2mn b/d. And although it ultimately failed to deliver that, reducing exports to less than a quarter of pre-sanctions levels still constituted success. However, repeating that success in 2025 and beyond will be a tall order. Analysts canvassed by Argus argue that pressing ahead with sanctions, even with stricter enforcement, would at best deliver a limited reduction, largely because Iranian oil trade today is not what it was in 2018. "Today, everyone who had been wary of the implications of being involved has already left the game. And those who do remain are those who do not necessarily fear sanctions," said Iman Nasseri, managing director for the Middle East at consultancy FGE. In 2018, around-three quarters of Iran's 2mn b/d or so of exports went to buyers in Europe, Asia-Pacific, Turkey and the UAE. The rest was going to China, to a mix of state-owned and private-sector companies. The threat of sanctions subsequently deterred almost everyone from taking Iranian crude except for Chinese independent refiners, pushing Tehran's exports below 500,000 b/d. Chinese independents have since gradually increased their intake of discounted Iranian crude to the point that they have been collectively taking around 1.5mn b/d in recent months. The remaining 100,000-200,000 b/d has been going to Iran's allies Syria and Venezuela. "With the majority of exports going to independent and private players in China who are not really worried about sanctions, or exposed to the US financial market, we should not expect a change in their behaviour," Nasseri says. "At best, we could be looking at a fall of 200,000-500,000 b/d" owing to increased enforcement. Homayoun Falakshahi, senior oil analyst at Kpler, also expects limited results should Trump choose to again focus his efforts on sanctions and enforcement, unless he is prepared to work with Beijing to put pressure on those independent refiners that are single-handedly keeping Iran's oil lifeline open. "Trump could try to trade off the Iranian issue with something of more significance to China," Falakshahi said, although he admits it will be "very difficult" to convince Beijing. "There would be significant pushback from Chinese officials, especially now, when refining margins are weak," he said. "You would be taking out one of the cheapest feedstocks going to Chinese refiners." Falakshahi sees no real impact in the short term, given the vast and intricate network of middlemen and entities that Iran has built to facilitate its oil trade in recent years. But the market "could see a decrease of 500,000-600,000 b/d in Iranian exports" by the summer of 2025, he said. A different approach Another challenge for the new Trump administration is the speed at which Iran has been expanding its tanker fleet in recent years. Biden's administration has responded with a record number of vessel-specific sanctions this year. "And that could go further after Trump takes office," said Armen Azizian, senior oil risk analyst at Vortexa. Some of the tankers that have been sanctioned by the US are "having difficulties on the water", he added. "We've seen cargoes on the water for longer, and some other tankers have been restricted to domestic trade. If they were to sanction more VLCCs, you would see an impact." Even so, Tehran still has plenty of opportunity to carry on expanding its fleet. "Iran has been growing its dark fleet for two years now," Azizian said. "The average age of the VLCCs joining the dark fleet has been 18 years, and there are many candidates that could join over the next year. So, while Trump could change how things are done, so long as Iran continues to expand its fleet, it shouldn't have a problem continuing its trade." By Nader Itayim Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Austria to ask EU to act if German gas levy not removed

24/11/08

Austria to ask EU to act if German gas levy not removed

London, 8 November (Argus) — Austrian energy regulator E-Control will "take all necessary steps" at an EU level if it looks like a law to abolish Germany's storage levy on gas exiting the country will not be passed in time, it told Argus today. E-Control will take action in close co-operation with the Austrian ministry, the European Commission and energy regulators' group Acer before the end of December if needed, the regulator's executive director, Alfons Haber, told Argus . The regulator is "very much concerned that the announced abolishment of the German gas storage levy at cross-border exit points is at risk now", Haber said. But E-Control remains optimistic that the German government will fulfil its promise to abolish the gas storage levy from 1 January 2025. The collapse of the German government earlier this week has made it uncertain whether parliament can pass the required bill in time. The German storage levy — set at €2.50/MWh at present — was introduced in 2022 to cover losses incurred by German market area manager THE to fill gas storage sites ahead of the winter. But the levy made the German import route uneconomical for its southern and eastern neighbours, which last year asked the EU to intervene. Germany agreed to scrap the levy on cross-border interconnection points in May , saying at the time that the change would have to be ratified by an act of parliament. The levy "severely impacts cross-border gas flows in Europe and has strong negative effects on the CEE region", Haber told Argus . Particularly in light of the risk that Russian gas transit through Ukraine would end after 1 January, German imports would become more significant for Austria, in which case the levy would "hurt" even more, Austrian market area manager AGGM board member Bernhard Painz said. Scope for levy law to be passed in time The incumbent government hopes to pass some bills "that cannot be delayed" before the end of this year, the chancellor said on 6 November. Economy and climate minister Robert Habeck on 7 November said he expects the interests of the government and the "democratic opposition" to align on energy security. But Habeck does not expect "a great deal of helpfulness", and "it remains to be seen" whether some decisions can be made together with the opposition on a case-by-case basis, he said. Major opposition party CDU today voiced a desire for an earlier election date in German parliament, asking Scholz to schedule a vote of no confidence as early as next week. This would drastically reduce the chance of any bill being passed before the end of this year. The chancellor today said he was open to a "sober" discussion about the election date. Scholz expressed hope that the "democratic factions of parliament" could agree on which laws can still be passed this year. This common understanding could determine the "right moment" to trigger a vote of no confidence, he said. Only the chancellor can call a vote of no confidence under the German constitution. The opposition can do so only if they elect a new chancellor at the same time. Bill is not controversial among democratic parties Democratic parties showed no opposition to the bill to change how the storage levy is charged during its first reading in parliament, suggesting it could be passed as one of the bipartisan projects if it is high enough on the agenda. The bill, introduced to parliament in August , was framed as a way to align the storage levy with EU rules. The government asked for it to be expedited. The upper house of parliament, the Bundesrat, passed the law on to the lower house without comments on the proposed changes. During the first reading of the bill in the lower house, no democratic party raised any concerns about the law. CDU instead framed it as an attempt to fix what the government had done wrong in 2022. Then-governing parties the Greens, SPD and FDP were in favour of the law in light of its positive effects on EU solidarity. BMWK was not immediately available for comment on whether the storage levy was on the list of laws that the government would try to push through before the end of this year. By Till Stehr and Brendan A'Hearn Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Canada climate plans not equally at risk post-Trudeau

24/11/08

Canada climate plans not equally at risk post-Trudeau

Toronto, 8 November (Argus) — Canada's climate policies will be overhauled if prime minister Justin Trudeau loses an upcoming federal election, but the Conservative Party might not move to roll back all of the programs. Trudeau over nine years in office has pushed through a raft of carbon pricing policies, cracked down on provinces with insufficiently ambitious plans, and even started a global "challenge" to spur more jurisdictions to price emissions. But Canada's policies have exacerbated cost-of-living concerns at a time when voters across the world are punishing incumbents for inflation, and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has barnstormed the country with a pledge to "axe the tax." An election must happen no later than October 2025, and the ruling Liberals are down significantly in polls. "We are going to see change, significant change," said Lisa DeMarco, a senior partner at the law firm Resilient and a member of the International Emissions Trading Association board at the Canada Clean Fuels and Carbon Markets Summit in Toronto, Ontario, this week. What "axe the tax" might mean in practice is uncertain. Inevitable targets are the country's federal fuel charge, currently at C$80/t ($57.54/t) and set to gradually increase to C$170/t in 2030, and a recently proposed greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program for upstream oil and gas producers. But other policies, especially those with industry support, could remain. The country's distinct system for taxing industrial emissions, which includes a federal output-based pricing system that functions as a performance standard, "will likely be untouched," said former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole. A point of debate at the conference was what Poilievre might do with the country's clean fuel regulations, which function similarly to California's long-running low-carbon fuel standard and have boosted biofuel usage in the country. The policy is "certainly not at the top of the list" of Conservative priorities, said Andy Brosnan, president of low-carbon fuels at environmental products marketer Anew Climate. But that does not mean it will escape scrutiny. Conservatives could tinker with the program or push through more muscular changes like excluding electric vehicles, said David Beaudoin, chief executive of the climate consultancy NEL-i. "We should expect that regulation will be maybe not dismantled but somehow changed, perhaps fundamentally," Beaudoin said. In the gap left by the federal government, provinces could make up the difference with their own climate programs, panelists agreed. Quebec for instance has a linked carbon market with California, and British Columbia has its own low-carbon fuel standard. But policymakers should heed the lessons of Trudeau's declining popularity and reorient how they approach climate policy, O'Toole argued. "Try to be minimally disruptive on economically vulnerable citizens," he said. "Try not to pit industry against industry or region of the country against region." By Cole Martin Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Talks to restart as port of Vancouver lockout drags

24/11/08

Talks to restart as port of Vancouver lockout drags

Calgary, 8 November (Argus) — A labour disruption at the port of Vancouver is now into its fifth day, but the employers association and the locked-out union are to meet this weekend to try to strike a deal and get commodities moving again. Workers belonging to the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 514 on Canada's west coast have been locked out by the BC Maritime Employers Association (BCMEA) since 4 November. This came hours after the union implemented an overtime ban for its 730 ship and dock foreman members. The two sides will meet on 9 November evening with the assistance of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) in an effort to end a 19-month long dispute as they negotiate a new collective agreement to replace the one that expired in March 2023. The FMCS was already recruited for meetings in October, but that did not culminate in a deal. Natural resource-rich Canada is dependent on smooth operations at the port of Vancouver to reach international markets. The port is a major conduit for many dry and liquid bulk cargoes, including lumber, wood pellets and pulp, grains and agriculture products, caustic soda and sodium chlorate, sugar, coal, potash, sulphur, copper concentrates, zinc and lead concentrate, diesel and renewable diesel liquids and petroleum products. These account for about two-thirds of the movements through the port. Grain operations and the Westshore coal terminal are unaffected while most petroleum products also continue to move, the Port of Vancouver said on 7 November. As the parties head back to the bargaining table, the ILWU Local 514 meanwhile filed a complaint against the BCMEA on 7 November, alleging bargaining in bad faith, making threats, intimidation and coercion. "The BCMEA is trying to undermine the union by attempting to turn members against its democratically-elected leadership and bargaining committee, said ILWU Local 514 president Frank Morena on 7 November. "They know their bully tactics won't work with our members but their true goal is to bully the federal government into intervention." But that is just "another meritless claim," according to the BCMEA, who wants to restore supply chain operations as quickly as possible. The union said BC ports would still be operating if the BCMEA did not overreact with a lockout. "They are responsible for goods not being shipped to and from BC ports — not the union," Morena says. The ILWU Local 514 was found to have bargained in bad faith itself already, according to a decision by the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) in October. Billions of dollars of trade are at risk with many goods and commodities at a standstill at Vancouver, which is Canada's busiest port. A 13-day strike by ILWU longshore workers in July 2023 disrupted C$10bn ($7.3bn) worth of goods and commodities, especially those reliant on container ships, before an agreement was met. By Brett Holmes 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