ADVFN Logo

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for alerts Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers

OIL Oilexco

6.90
0.00 (0.00%)
Last Updated: 00:00:00
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Oilexco LSE:OIL London Ordinary Share CA6779091033 COM SHS NPV (CDI)
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 6.90 - 0.00 00:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
0 0 N/A 0

Oilexco Share Discussion Threads

Showing 20651 to 20659 of 22150 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  838  837  836  835  834  833  832  831  830  829  828  827  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
22/8/2018
16:02
Big oil asks government to protect it from climate change
Originally published August 22, 2018 at 8:19 am Updated August 22, 2018 at 8:56 am
Resident Engineer Steve Sherrill, with the US Army Corps of Engineers, talks about the project to raise some of the levees and seawalls in the area Thursday, July 26, 2018, in Port Arthur, Texas. As the nation plans new defenses against the more powerful storms and higher tides expected from climate change, one project stands out: an ambitious proposal to build a nearly 60-mile “spine” of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees on the Texas Gulf Coast.(AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
Resident Engineer Steve Sherrill, with the US Army Corps of Engineers, shows how much height will be added to some of the levees and seawalls near a refinery Thursday, July 26, 2018, in Port Arthur, Texas. The oil industry wants the government to help protect some of its facilities on the Texas Gulf Coast against the effects of global warming. One proposal involves building a nearly 60-mile “spine” of flood barriers to shield refineries and chemical plants. Many Republicans argue that such projects should be a national priority. But others question whether taxpayers should have to protect refineries in a state where top politicians still dispute whether climate change is real. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
A flood gate and seawall that will be increased is shown near a refinery Thursday, July 26, 2018, in Port Arthur, Texas. The oil industry wants the government to help protect some of its facilities on the Texas Gulf Coast against the effects of global warming. One proposal involves building a nearly 60-mile “spine” of flood barriers to shield refineries and chemical plants. Many Republicans argue that such projects should be a national priority. But others question whether taxpayers should have to protect refineries in a state where top politicians still dispute whether climate change is real. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
A seawall, which will be increased in size, is shown along the banks near downtown Thursday, July 26, 2018, in Port Arthur, Texas. The oil industry wants the government to help protect some of its facilities on the Texas Gulf Coast against the effects of global warming. One proposal involves building a nearly 60-mile “spine” of flood barriers to shield refineries and chemical plants. Many Republicans argue that such projects should be a national priority. But others question whether taxpayers should have to protect refineries in a state where top politicians still dispute whether climate change is real. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
A flood gate and seawall, that will be increased in size, is shown near a refinery Thursday, July 26, 2018, in Port Arthur, Texas. The oil industry wants the government to help protect some of its facilities on the Texas Gulf Coast against the effects of global warming. One proposal involves building a nearly 60-mile “spine” of flood barriers to shield refineries and chemical plants. Many Republicans argue that such projects should be a national priority. But others question whether taxpayers should have to protect refineries in a state where top politicians still dispute whether climate change is real. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
A flood gate and seawall that will be increased in size, is shown near a refinery Thursday, July 26, 2018, in Port Arthur, Texas. The oil industry wants the government to help protect some of its facilities on the Texas Gulf Coast against the effects of global warming. One proposal involves building a nearly 60-mile “spine” of flood barriers to shield refineries and chemical plants. Many Republicans argue that such projects should be a national priority. But others question whether taxpayers should have to protect refineries in a state where top politicians still dispute whether climate change is real. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
Storage tanks at a refinery along the waterway are shown Thursday, July 26, 2018, in Port Arthur, Texas. The oil industry wants the government to help protect some of its facilities on the Texas Gulf Coast against the effects of global warming. One proposal involves building a nearly 60-mile “spine” of flood barriers to shield refineries and chemical plants. Many Republicans argue that such projects should be a national priority. But others question whether taxpayers should have to protect refineries in a state where top politicians still dispute whether climate change is real. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
Storage tanks at a refinery along the waterway are shown Thursday, July 26, 2018, in Port Arthur, Texas. The oil industry wants the government to help protect some of its facilities on the Texas Gulf Coast against the effects of global warming. One proposal involves building a nearly 60-mile “spine” of flood barriers to shield refineries and chemical plants. Many Republicans argue that such projects should be a national priority. But others question whether taxpayers should have to protect refineries in a state where top politicians still dispute whether climate change is real. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

1 of 8
Resident Engineer Steve Sherrill, with the US Army Corps of Engineers, talks about the project to raise some of the levees and seawalls in the area Thursday, July 26, 2018, in Port Arthur, Texas. As the nation... (AP Photo/David J. Phillip) More
By WILL WEISSERT
The Associated Press

PORT ARTHUR, Texas (AP) — As the nation plans new defenses against the more powerful storms and higher tides expected from climate change, one project stands out: an ambitious proposal to build a nearly 60-mile “spine” of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Like other oceanfront projects, this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure, but it also has another priority — to shield some of the crown jewels of the petroleum industry, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and now wants the federal government to build safeguards against the consequences of it.

The plan is focused on a stretch of coastline that runs from the Louisiana border to industrial enclaves south of Houston that are home to one of the world’s largest concentrations of petrochemical facilities, including most of Texas’ 30 refineries, which represent 30 percent of the nation’s refining capacity.

Texas is seeking at least $12 billion for the full coastal spine, with nearly all of it coming from public funds. Last month, the government fast-tracked an initial $3.9 billion for three separate, smaller storm barrier projects that would specifically protect oil facilities.
Most Read Business Stories

Amazon confirms major office lease in Bellevue, will occupy former Expedia headquarters
Microsoft uncovers more Russian hacking ahead of midterms
Foreign workers' two-day walkoff at Whatcom County farm ends with settlement
With push from PETA, animal crackers bust out of their cages
For crew of 2,100-passenger cruise ship, frenetic 'turnaround day' in Seattle starts and ends the journey

That followed Hurricane Harvey, which roared ashore last Aug. 25 and swamped Houston and parts of the coast, temporarily knocking out a quarter of the area’s oil refining capacity and causing average gasoline prices to jump 28 cents a gallon nationwide. Many Republicans argue that the Texas oil projects belong at the top of Washington’s spending list.

“Our overall economy, not only in Texas but in the entire country, is so much at risk from a high storm surge,” said Matt Sebesta, a Republican who as Brazoria County judge oversees a swath of Gulf Coast.

But the idea of taxpayers around the country paying to protect refineries worth billions, and in a state where top politicians still dispute climate change’s validity, doesn’t sit well with some.

“The oil and gas industry is getting a free ride,” said Brandt Mannchen, a member of the Sierra Club’s executive committee in Houston. “You don’t hear the industry making a peep about paying for any of this and why should they? There’s all this push like, ‘Please Senator Cornyn, Please Senator Cruz, we need money for this and that.'”

Normally outspoken critics of federal spending, Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz both backed using taxpayer funds to fortify the oil facilities’ protections and the Texas coast. Cruz called it “a tremendous step forward.”

Federal, state and local money is also bolstering defenses elsewhere, including on New York’s Staten Island, around Atlantic City, New Jersey, and in other communities hammered by Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

Construction in Texas could begin in several months on the three sections of storm barrier. While plans are still being finalized, some dirt levees will be raised to about 17 feet high, and 6 miles of 19-foot-tall floodwalls would be built or strengthened around Port Arthur, a Texas-Louisiana border locale of pungent chemical smells and towering knots of steel pipes.

The town of 55,000 includes the Saudi-controlled Motiva oil refinery, the nation’s largest, as well as refineries owned by oil giants Valero Energy Corp. and Total S.A. There are also almost a dozen petrochemical facilities.
Sign up for Evening Brief

Delivered weeknights, this email newsletter gives you a quick recap of the day's top stories and need-to-know news, as well as intriguing photos and topics to spark conversation as you wind down from your day.

“You’re looking at a lot of people, a lot of homes, but really a lot of industry,” said Steve Sherrill, an Army Corps of Engineers resident engineer in Port Arthur, as he peered over a Gulf tributary lined with chunks of granite and metal gates, much of which is set to be reinforced.

The second barrier project features around 25 miles of new levees and seawalls in nearby Orange County, where Chevron, DuPont and other companies have facilities. The third would extend and heighten seawalls around Freeport, home to a Phillips 66 export terminal for liquefied natural gas and nearby refinery, as well as several chemical facilities.

The proposals approved for funding originally called for building more protections along larger swaths of the Texas coast, but they were scaled back and now deliberately focus on refineries.

“That was one of the main reasons we looked at some of those areas,” said Tony Williams, environmental review coordinator for the Texas Land Commissioner’s Office.

Oil and chemical companies also pushed for more protection for surrounding communities to shield their workforces, but “not every property can be protected,” said Sheri Willey, deputy chief of project management for the Army Corps of Engineers’ upper Texas district.

“Our regulations tell us what benefits we need to include, and they have to be national economic benefits,” Willey said.

Once work is complete on the three sections, they could eventually be integrated into a larger coastal spine system. In some places along Texas’ 370-mile Gulf Coast, 18 feet is lost annually to erosion, threatening to suck more wetlands, roads and buildings into rising seas.

Protecting a wide expanse will be expensive. After Harvey, a special Texas commission prepared a report seeking $61 billion from Congress to “future proof” the state against such natural disasters, without mentioning climate change, which scientists say will cause heavier rains and stronger storms.

Texas has not tapped its own rainy day fund of around $11 billion. According to federal rules, 35 percent of funds spent by the Army Corps of Engineers must be matched by local jurisdictions, and the GOP-controlled state Legislature could help cover such costs. But such spending may be tough for many conservatives to swallow.

Texas “should be funding things like this itself,” said Chris Edwards, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Texans are proud of their conservatism, but, unfortunately, when decisions get made in Washington, that frugality goes out the door.”

State officials counter that protecting the oil facilities is a matter of national security.

“The effects of the next devastating storm could be felt nationwide,” Rep. Randy Weber, a fiercely conservative Republican from suburban Houston who has nonetheless authored legislation backing the coastal spine.

Major oil companies did not return messages seeking comment on funding for the projects. But Suzanne Lemieux, midstream group manager for the American Petroleum Institute, said the industry already pays into programs such as the federal Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the Waterways Trust Fund, only to see Congress divert that money elsewhere.

“Do we want to pay again, when we’ve already paid a tax without it getting used? I’d say the answer is no,” she said.

Phillips 66 and other energy firms spent money last year lobbying Congress on storm-related funding post-Harvey, campaign finance records show, and Houston’s Lyondell Chemical Co. PAC lobbied for building a coastal spine.

“The coastal spine benefits more than just our industry,” Bob Patel, CEO of LyondellBasell, one of the world’s largest plastics, chemicals and refining companies, said in March. “It really needs to be a regional effort.”
WILL WEISSERT

waldron
22/8/2018
15:53
Oil Prices Jump On Major Crude Draw
By Irina Slav - Aug 22, 2018, 9:40 AM CDT oil rig

Crude oil prices jumped on Wednesday following the Energy Information Administrations̵7; latest weekly petroleum status report, with the authority confirming a draw in crude oil inventories of 5.8 million barrels for the week to August 17.

A day earlier, the America Petroleum Institute estimated inventories had gone down by 5.17 million barrels. Analysts had forecast a modest draw of 520,000 barrels. A week earlier, the EIA reported an inventory build of 6.8 million barrels.

In gasoline, the authority reported a build of 1.2 million barrels in inventories and an average daily production rate of 10.2 million barrels. That compares with an inventory draw of 700,000 barrels and a daily production of 10.2 million barrels in the week before.

In distillates, the EIA reported an increase in inventories of 1.8 million barrels and a daily production rate of 5.4 million barrels. This compares with a 3.6-million-barrel inventory increase a week earlier and daily production of 5.3 million barrels.

Earlier this week, the White House announced 11 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will be sold this year ahead of the Iran sanctions in order to soften the effect the sanctions are expected to have on global supply.
Oilprice.com
The most vital industry information will soon be right at your fingertips
Join the world’s largest community dedicated entirely to energy professionals
Sign Up Today

This has mitigated the impact of the sanctions on prices, but it has not eliminated it. Both Brent and WTI crept up yesterday and continued climbing today, despite reports about unsold Nigerian crude for loading in August and September.
Related: Indonesia Books Sharp Drop In Oil Imports

On the headwind front, growth in emerging economies in Southeast Asia is slowing down, dimming previously bright oil demand prospects. Also, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is approaching the moment when it will have to decide whether to go ahead with its plan to divest from all its oil holdings.

This Friday, Bloomberg reports, the Norwegian government will review a report, compiled by a committee of experts regarding whether the divestment is a good idea. If it deems it has merit, the news will certainly weigh on prices: Norway’s fund is the largest in the world with a value of US$1 trillion.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

waldron
21/8/2018
21:32
most do appear on the map so this one is uncharacteristic
bountyhunter
21/8/2018
21:29
YEP OFF TO BED

SWEET DREAMS

sarkasm
21/8/2018
21:27
That's because it's in the Pacific heading towards Hawaii which is not on the map :)
bountyhunter
21/8/2018
21:25
SILLY ME, OF COURSE ITS IN THE PACIFIC

FATIQUE GETTING TO ME

MUST GO SLEEPY BYES

sarkasm
21/8/2018
21:22
BH

SURPRISED NOT TO SEE LANE ON YOUR MAP

sarkasm
21/8/2018
16:24
header rolled
bountyhunter
21/8/2018
06:11
What Caused Oil’s Longest Losing Streak In Years?
By Nick Cunningham - Aug 20, 2018, 6:00 PM CDT oil field Wafra

Oil prices seemed to have leveled off after seven consecutive weeks of weekly declines, the longest streak in years. But the next steps are unclear. In the battle over the market narrative, concerns about the health of the global economy are up against the potential for serious supply outages in Iran. A lot could change by the end of this year, but as the summer draws to a close, it isn’t clear which narrative will win out.

The fears about the global economy have moved to the front burner in recent weeks. The trade war between the U.S. and China still threatens to drag down global growth, although the news that the U.S. and China will resume talks this week for the first time since June seemed to buoy the markets. But the talks will be conducted at a lower level – the U.S. point person is an undersecretary at the Department of Treasury, not Secretary Steven Mnuchin, which raises questions about the authority to ink a deal.

More importantly, Treasury isn’t even the agency that leads on trade. That adds up to U.S. and China essentially keeping their lines of communication open, but not actively seeking a resolution in any big way, at least not from this venue.

But the talks at least increase the odds, however slightly, that the proposed $200 billion in U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods do not go forward. The U.S. Trade Representative is holding a six-day process beginning this week to look at those tariffs.

Meanwhile, the meltdown in Turkey’s currency, the lira, has set off a different source of trouble. The turmoil spread to other emerging markets, dragging down a whole host of currencies.

Weaker emerging market currencies threaten to seriously slow down demand – not just for oil, but for a range of commodities. The Bloomberg Commodities Index has declined by 3 percent this month and by more than 9 percent in the last three months. Oil prices are down by more than 10 percent since May. Of course, commodity prices might get wiped out, but the slowdown would also be true of the global economy.
Related: Trump Administration Embraces Energy Dominance Agenda

“Other emerging markets have already been hit, evident through depreciating currencies, investors demanding higher yields on emerging market debt and a jump in credit default swaps on this debt,” ING wrote in a note. “However saying all of this, the US Federal Reserve seems unlikely to deviate from its plan for tighter monetary policy, which should remain supportive for the U.S. dollar, whilst growing emerging market risk adds further support to the currency.” If the Fed doesn’t let up, then the pressure on currencies around the world will continue.
Oilprice.com
Join the world's largest energy community
with over 10,000+ members

Learn, Share, and Discuss on the OilPrice Community
Sign Up Today

It is hard to imagine that such a scenario doesn’t directly translate into a significant downward revision in global oil demand. After all, oil is priced in dollars, so a stronger dollar (and weaker currencies elsewhere) means that oil is vastly more expensive. That is especially true if oil prices are not falling (it used to be the case that the dollar and oil traded inversely, but that relationship has weakened recently).

The IEA is, for now, sticking with its forecast of oil demand growth at 1.4 million barrels per day (mb/d) for 2018. Brent oil prices are up 7 percent this year, but in local currencies the price increase is much bigger. In Turkey, oil is around 75 percent more expensive, and there has been a similar increase in Argentina. In Brazil, Russia and South Africa, oil feels about 20 to 25 percent more expensive this year, even though oil has only climbed by about 7 percent, according to ING. In Hungary, India, Poland, Chile, Indonesia and the Philippines, oil is 15 to 20 percent more expensive. And on and on.
Related: Why Mexico’s Oil Production Could Fall Even Further

Price increases of that magnitude will surely cut into demand. But the picture gets muddied when governments step in to shield their countries from those price increases, ING says. In Brazil, the government decided to re-regulate fuel prices to stave off crippling protests. Indonesia announced $4.8 billion in subsidies to keep prices from rising. Malaysia also decided to fix fuel prices for the rest of 2018. These price supports could blunt the price signal from both higher global oil prices and weaker currencies, keeping demand from falling by more than it would otherwise.

Still, the story is bearish for crude. We have different things happening at the same time – the global economy is slowing (the end of synchronized growth), the U.S.-China trade war potentially acting as a major headwind and emerging market currencies dragging down demand.

The oil supply picture remains in flux, with the potential outage of 1 mb/d of Iranian supply looming. But the demand side of the story suddenly looks pretty negative.

By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

la forge
Chat Pages: Latest  838  837  836  835  834  833  832  831  830  829  828  827  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock