Oil (Petroleum) and Gasoline

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      A Court Debates Whether a Climate Lawsuit Threatens National Security

      by

      The judge asked lawyers how a suit by Charleston, S.C., claiming oil companies misled people about climate risks, might be affected by a Trump executive order blasting cases like these.Two teams of high-powered lawyers clashed this week in Charleston, S.C., over a global-warming question with major implications: Do climate lawsuits against oil companies threaten national security, as President Trump has claimed?In the lawsuit, the City of Charleston is arguing that oil companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron and about a dozen others carried out a sophisticated, decades-long misinformation campaign to cover up what they knew about the dangers of climate change.There are some three dozen similar cases around the country, and recently Mr. Trump issued an executive order calling the lawsuits a threat to national security, saying they could lead to crippling damages. The hearings in Charleston were the first time lawyers had to grapple in a courtroom with the president’s assertions.Mr. Trump’s executive order was the opening salvo in a broad new attack by his administration against climate lawsuits targeting oil companies. Citing the executive order, the Justice Department this month filed unusual lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan seeking to prevent them from filing their own climate-change suits. (Hawaii filed its suit anyway, and Michigan’s attorney general has signaled that she will also be proceeding.)In court hearings in Charleston on Thursday and Friday, Judge Roger M. Young Sr. asked each side to weigh in on the order as they sparred over the companies’ motions to dismiss the case, which was filed in 2020.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Oil Companies Are ‘Battening Down the Hatches’

      by

      The industry is bracing for the OPEC Plus oil cartel’s meeting on Saturday, which is widely expected to further increase oil production despite weak demand.U.S. oil companies are pulling back as lower commodity prices take a toll.After two months of crude oil prices hovering around $60 a barrel, companies are shutting down drilling rigs and laying off workers as they pare spending. It now appears very likely that U.S. oil production will not grow much this year, if at all.There are two main reasons for low oil prices. President Trump’s trade war is likely to slow the global economy, hurting demand for fuel. And OPEC Plus, an oil cartel led by Saudi Arabia, is increasing production of oil as demand is softening.On Saturday, eight members of the cartel are widely expected to announce plans to bring even more oil to market this summer, which could send prices lower still.American oil companies are not waiting to find out.While the oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron are maintaining their spending plans, smaller companies are pulling back. Those focused on drilling for oil now plan to spend around 3.5 percent less this year than previously planned, according to a BloombergNEF analysis of a dozen publicly traded companies. All things equal, more drilling tends to drive oil prices down and less drilling generally props them up.“We can’t run our program on hope,” Tom Jorden, chief executive of the oil and gas producer Coterra Energy, told analysts during an earnings call this month. “So we are battening down the hatches, expecting this to last for a while.”The Houston-based company said it would drill less in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico, the top U.S. oil field, and more in the Northeast, which is rich in natural gas. Prices for that fuel, used in power plants and for heating, have been much more resilient.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Vote Against E.V. Mandate Felt Like an Attack on California, Democrats Say

      by

      For decades, California has been able to adopt its own emissions regulations, effectively setting the bar for carmakers nationally. And for just as long, Republicans have resented the state’s outsize influence.There is little question that California leaders already see fossil fuels as a relic of the past.At the Southern California headquarters of the state’s powerful clean-air regulator, the centerpiece art installation depicts in limestone a petrified gas station. Fuel nozzles lie on the ground in decay, evoking an imagined extinction of gas pumps.For more than half a century, the federal government has allowed California to set its own stringent pollution limits, a practice that has resulted in more efficient vehicles and the nation’s most aggressive push toward electric cars. Many Democratic-led states have adopted California’s standards, prompting automakers to move their national fleets in the same direction.With that unusual power, however, has come resentment from Republican states where the fossil fuel industry still undergirds their present and future. When Republicans in Congress last week revoked the state’s authority to set three of its mandates on electric vehicles and trucks, they saw it not just as a policy reversal but also as a statement that liberal California should be put in its place.“We’ve created a superstate system where California has more rights than other states,” Representative Morgan Griffith, who represents rural southwestern Virginia, said in an interview. “My constituents think most folks in California are out of touch with reality. You see this stuff coming out of California and say, ‘What?’”Federal law typically pre-empts state law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. But in 1967, the federal government allowed smoggy California to receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact its own clean-air standards that were tougher than federal limits, because the state historically had some of the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards as their own under certain circumstances.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said last week that the state would fight in court to preserve its autonomy in setting emissions rules.Rich Pedroncelli/Associated PressWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Venezuela celebra elecciones para el Esequibo, territorio de otro país

      by

      La mayoría de los países y los habitantes de esta región están de acuerdo: pertenece a Guyana. El presidente de Venezuela Nicolás Maduro convocó elecciones para este territorio rico en petróleo.El domingo, Venezuela tiene previsto celebrar elecciones a gobernador y legisladores para representar al Esequibo, un territorio escasamente poblado y rico en petróleo.Pero hay un problema. El Esequibo está reconocido internacionalmente como parte de Guyana, el país vecino, no de Venezuela.La mayoría de los países y las 125.000 personas que viven en el Esequibo están de acuerdo: pertenece a Guyana, nación de unos 800.000 habitantes, y no a Venezuela, de unos 28 millones.Al convocar elecciones legislativas y regionales el domingo, incluidas las del Esequibo, el presidente autocrático de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, según los analistas, pretende legitimar su gobierno en el extranjero y también dentro de su nación, profundamente insatisfecha, donde, al parecer, la lealtad de los militares se está resquebrajando.El año pasado, Maduro declaró la victoria en las elecciones presidenciales, pero no aportó ninguna prueba que respaldara su afirmación. En su lugar, los escrutinios recogidos por los observadores electorales mostraron que su oponente había ganado de forma aplastante. Muchos países, incluido Estados Unidos, no reconocieron a Maduro como vencedor.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Republicans Kill California’s Ban on Gas-Powered Cars

      by

      In 50 years, California’s authority to set environmental rules that are tougher than national standards had never been challenged by Congress. Until now.The Senate on Thursday blocked California’s landmark plan to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles, setting up a legal battle that could shape the electric car market in the United States.The 51-44 vote was a victory for the oil and gas industry and for Republicans who muscled through the vote by deploying an unusual legislative tactic that Democrats denounced as a “nuclear” option that would affect the way the Senate operates way beyond climate policy.The repeal deals a blow to California’s ambition of accelerating the nation’s transition to electric vehicles. But the consequences will ripple across the country. That’s because 11 other states intended to follow California’s plan and stop selling new gas-powered cars by 2035. Together, they account for about 40 percent of the U.S. auto market.The resolution, which had already been approved by the House, now goes to President Trump’s desk. Mr. Trump, who opposes clean energy and has taken particular umbrage at California’s efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels, is expected to sign it into law.California leaders have promised to challenge the Senate vote and try to restore the ban.“This Senate vote is illegal,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democrat of California. “Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China.“California’s auto policy was allowed under permission granted by the Biden administration. The 1970 Clean Air Act specifies that California can receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact clean air standards that are tougher than federal limits because the state has historically had the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards under certain circumstances.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      EU Plans New Sanctions on Russia in Push for Ukraine Cease-fire

      by

      The European Union has now targeted Moscow’s fleet of covert oil tankers and plans more restrictions, as the Trump administration’s approach to the war shifts.European Union defense and foreign ministers approved a new package of sanctions on Russia on Tuesday, targeting covert oil exports, days after the top E.U. official announced plans for a further set of even tougher restrictions.The point is to intensify Russia’s economic pain — and by doing so, to prod President Vladimir V. Putin toward peace talks to end the war in Ukraine. The push comes as questions mount about how the United States will approach future sanctions.After a call between President Trump and Mr. Putin on Monday, the White House backed off its demand that Russia declare an immediate cease-fire. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said at a news conference that it was unclear whether the United States would join with Europe in stepping up sanctions.E.U. nations have imposed extensive sanctions on Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The ones they approved on Tuesday are the 17th set. These take aim at Russia’s so-called shadow fleet — old tanker ships that Moscow uses to covertly transport and sell its oil around the world.Officials are already discussing an 18th package. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, the E.U. executive arm, said last week that officials could go after gas pipelines, hit banks and push to further crimp Russia’s global energy sales.“It takes two to want peace, and it takes only one to want war,” Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s top diplomat, said on Tuesday. “In order to make Russia want peace, also, we need to put more pressure on Russia.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What’s the Cost to Society of Pollution? Trump Says Zero.

      by

      The Trump administration has directed agencies to stop estimating the economic impact of climate change when developing policies and regulations.The White House has ordered federal agencies to stop considering the economic damage caused by climate change when writing regulations, except in cases where it is “plainly required” by law.The directive effectively shelves a powerful tool that has been used for more than two decades by the federal government to weigh the costs and benefits of a particular policy or regulation.The Biden administration had used the tool to strengthen limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants, factories and oil refineries.Known as the “social cost of carbon,” the metric reflects the estimated damage from global warming, including wildfires, floods and droughts. It affixes a cost to the economy from one ton of carbon dioxide pollution, the main greenhouse gas that is heating the planet.When considering a regulation or policy to limit carbon pollution, policymakers have weighed the cost to an industry of meeting that requirement against the economic impact of that pollution on society.During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The first Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under the Biden administration, the cost was adjusted for inflation and jumped to $190 per ton.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Oil Prices Slide Further on Plans to Increase Supply

      by

      U.S. oil prices fell to around $56 a barrel after the OPEC Plus cartel said it would bring more oil to market.Oil prices resumed their downward slide after the OPEC Plus cartel of oil producers said over the weekend that it would pump more oil, despite concerns that President Trump’s trade war will curb demand.The U.S. benchmark oil price fell to around $56 a barrel, from $58 on Friday. For many companies, the steady decline means it will not be profitable to drill wells in the United States despite Mr. Trump’s calls for increased production.Prices were last around this level in early April, just before Mr. Trump said he would pause reciprocal tariffs on most countries for 90 days. That announcement led to rallies in both the stock market and the oil market, though oil prices have since waned.That is partly because OPEC Plus is raising output at the same time that economists are warning that higher tariffs on most American trading partners will slow global economic growth and potentially cause a recession in the United States.The eight countries that make up the OPEC Plus cartel said on Saturday that they would further ramp up production in June.Lower commodity prices are causing some companies to pull back. There are about 9 percent fewer rigs drilling wells in the Permian Basin, the top U.S. oil field, than there were this time last year, when oil was trading near $80 a barrel, according to Baker Hughes.On Friday, Exxon Mobil and Chevron, the two largest U.S. oil and gas companies, reported their lowest first-quarter earnings in years. Those financial results reflect the market before Mr. Trump further escalated tariffs on China in early April.“It is clear that this uncertainty is weighing on economic forecasts, causing significant volatility and raising the prospects of slower growth,” Darren Woods, Exxon’s chief executive, told analysts. More