Tag: oil

This Is Why the U.S. Can’t Use the Oil It Produces

The United States produces more oil than any other country in the world—averaging 13.3 million barrels per day (MMb/d) in 2024. But strangely, the U.S. also imports about 6.5 MMb/d of crude. This paradox confuses many Americans. Why doesn’t the U.S. just use its own oil? The answer lies in infrastructure mismatches, refinery design, trade economics, and federal laws that restrict the flow of domestic oil.

  1. 🧪 Light Oil vs. Heavy Oil: Not All Crude Is Created Equal
    The U.S. primarily produces light, sweet crude oil, which is low in sulfur and viscosity. Meanwhile, many American refineries—especially those built in the 1970s and 80s—were designed to handle heavy, sour crude, the kind that comes from countries like Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada.

Over 60% of U.S. refinery capacity is optimized for heavy crude processing.
Upgrading a single refinery to handle lighter crude can cost between $100 million to $1 billion.
This means that even though the U.S. produces oil, it’s the wrong kind of oil for its aging refinery infrastructure. So we export light crude (often to Asia and Europe) and import heavy crude to feed our refineries.

  1. 🏗️ Refinery Location and Infrastructure Gaps
    The second major problem is geography. Much of America’s oil production comes from inland fields like the Permian Basin (Texas/New Mexico) or the Bakken Formation (North Dakota). Meanwhile, many of the refineries that need oil are located on the East and West Coasts, far from those production zones.

California, despite being a top 5 oil-producing state, imports ~75% of its crude due to limited pipeline access.
The Keystone XL cancellation and other pipeline delays exacerbate this logistical mismatch.
It’s often cheaper to import oil from the Middle East or Latin America to coastal ports than it is to move domestic crude across the U.S. via expensive trucking, rail, or limited pipelines.

  1. ⚖️ The Jones Act: A Shipping Law That Backfires
    The Jones Act, passed in 1920, requires that any goods (including oil) transported between U.S. ports must use ships that are U.S.-built, -owned, and -crewed. These ships are vastly more expensive to operate than foreign tankers.

A Jones Act tanker costs up to $75,000 per day—nearly 3x more than foreign vessels.
This makes it cheaper to ship oil from Saudi Arabia to New Jersey than from Texas to New Jersey.
The law, originally meant to support the American maritime industry, now creates bottlenecks in the oil supply chain—making domestic crude more expensive to move than imported oil.

Keep reading

Oil trader pockets reported $125 mn on suspiciously well-timed Iran bet – media

A massive crude oil bet placed shortly before reports of a possible US-Iran peace deal sent prices crashing and fueled suspicion of insider trading, after the position reportedly generated a $125 million profit in just over an hour.

According to market commentary platform the Kobeissi Letter, nearly 10,000 crude oil short contracts were placed around 3:40 AM (07:40 GMT) on Wednesday “without any major news,” describing the roughly $920 million position as unusually large for that time of day.

At 4:50 AM, Axios reported that Washington and Tehran were nearing an agreement to end the conflict and resume negotiations. Oil prices plunged more than 12% within two hours of the report, turning the short position into an estimated $125 million profit before the price later rebounded, the platform said.

During the US-Israeli war against Iran, prediction and traditional financial markets were flooded with suspiciously well-timed bets linked to airstrikes, ceasefire announcements, and diplomatic developments.

According to The Guardian, traders placed more than $1 billion in seemingly prescient wagers, including an $850,000 bet shortly before US strikes against Iran and around $950 million in oil futures hours before Trump announced a ceasefire in April. AP reported that the ceasefire announcement alone generated more than 413 million predictions and over $100 million in wagers across prediction markets within days.

Keep reading

DOJ Investigating Suspicious Iran War Oil Trading Trend: Report

Ups and downs in the war with Iran may have been an opportunity for insiders betting on oil prices to make a killing, according to a new report.

The report from ABC News said the Department of Justice is taking a close look at several oil market trades that came just before critical moments in the war with Iran.

In four transactions under review, the Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are examining trades that netted more than $2.6 billion to individuals who bet oil prices would drop immediately before they did so.

From the start of the conflict on Feb. 28, the oil market has been up and down depending upon Iran’s strategy, America’s response, and expectations that oil might again flow freely.

The London Stock Exchange Group highlighted the trades, which began on March 23, when 15 minutes before President Donald Trump announced a delay on attacks against Iranian infrastructure, a $500 million bet was placed that oil prices would dip.

On April 7, only hours ahead of Trump’s announcement of a temporary halt in hostilities, a $960 million bet was placed that oil prices would fall.

On April 17, 20 minutes before Iran said the Strait of Hormuz would be opened, a $760 million bet was placed that oil prices were going to drop.

On April 21, 15 minutes before the ceasefire was extended, $430 million worth of bets was placed predicting oil prices were going down.

The Guardian noted last month that the conflict has been accompanied by unprecedented betting on events through online betting platforms, with many bets being precisely timed to events in the war.

For example, according to one complaint before the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, six so-called insiders reaped $1.2 million from betting when former Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would be killed.

Reining this in through legislation is a complex task, if it can be done at all, one expert said.

“Is the problem that we don’t have legislation or that we don’t have enforcement capabilities?” Joshua Mitts, a law professor at Columbia University, said.

“To have a law that can’t really be enforced effectively given the technological limitations, it’s sort of putting the cart before the horse,” he said.

The oil price bets appear suspicious, another expert said.

Keep reading

SEA DANGER: Somali Pirates Hijack Another Oil Tanker, This Time off the Coast of Yemen

An alliance of Somali pirates and Houthi militias?

The oceans have become increasingly more dangerous, with military conflicts targeting cargo ships in the Black Sea, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, the Strait of Hormuz… and around the Horn of Africa, where there’s an ongoing resurgence of activity by Somali Pirates.

Yesterday (2), an oil tanker was hijacked off the coast of Yemen and diverted toward Somalia’s waters.

The attack was reportedly carried out by armed Somali pirates, but some Yemenis with ties to armed groups – and even to the Houthi militia – were also suspected of participating in the attack.

The New York Times reported:

“Since April, at least three vessels have been hijacked by Somali pirates off the country’s coast. The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center, run by the British Navy, recently raised the threat level around the coast of Somalia to ‘substantial’ and urged ships to proceed with caution.

Yemen’s Coast Guard said that the tanker, the Togo-flagged Eureka, was subjected to an armed robbery by ‘unidentified’ people, who boarded the ship and directed it through Yemen’s Gulf of Aden toward Somalia’s coast. Efforts to monitor and recover the vessel were underway, it said.”

Keep reading

Trump: There Could Be a Future Where U.S. Energy Companies Operate in Iran

President Donald Trump said there “could be” a future where American energy companies are operating inside of Iran in response to a question from Breitbart News on Saturday.

Trump spoke to reporters for just over three minutes on the tarmac of Palm Beach International Airport before boarding Air Force One and departing for Miami.

When Breitbart News asked if he envisions a future where American energy companies are operating inside of Iran, much like Venezuela, he said, “Could be.”

“Could be. It could be. I’ll tell you what, we have a lot of ships coming up to Texas and Louisiana. It’s a line of ships,” he said. “You saw the satellite. We have a line of ships; big ones. Two million barrels, and they’re coming up. I mean, literally hundreds of ships are in line to go to Texas. I mean, they’re already started, but we’re selling a lot of oil. A lot of oil.”

Before taking any questions, Trump said that Iran desires a deal.

“[We’re] doing very well with regard to Iran. Again, they want to make a deal. They’re decimated. They’re having a hard time figuring out who their leader is. They don’t know who their leader is because their leader is gone…their former leader,” he told reporters, referring to Ali Khamenei, who was killed at the beginning of Operation Epic Fury.

The president’s gaggle with reporters came soon after reports surfaced from Iranian state media that Iran had countered a 9-point U.S. proposal for a deal to end the war with their own 14-point plan.

Trump said he had not yet read the proposal but would do so aboard the short flight on Air Force One to Miami.

“I’ll let you know about it later,” he said.

Keep reading

Trump presented with RISKY secret Iran plan using US ground troops as oil prices plunge global economy into chaos

Donald Trump may escalate the Iran war by sending ground troops to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and deploying special operations forces to seize the nuclear materials the regime needs to build a bomb.

The President’s top military advisers are set to brief him on new options for military action designed to force Iran back to the negotiating table and end the war.

CENTCOM’s secret plans include using ‘short and powerful’ strikes on Iranian infrastructure to force Tehran to show more flexibility on ending its nuclear program, according to Axios.

It would amount to the most intense US combat activity in Iran since the beginning of the month, when Americans staged a high-stakes rescue of downed crew members. 

One plan Trump is expected to review calls for reopening commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz with US ground troops. The passage, which transits one-fifth of all global oil shipping, has been stalled for seven weeks.

Another strategy the President will hear involves using special forces to enter Iran and recover its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. During prior negotiations, the regime refused to hand over the nuclear material to the US.

After peace talks stalled earlier this month, Trump imposed a naval blockade on all Iranian ports in the Gulf.

Tehran, meanwhile, has shut down oil shipping lanes by attacking tankers with speedboats and laying sea mines in the strait.

Trump’s new pressure campaign to reopen the strait comes as the global oil market has plunged into chaos, driving US gas prices to their highest level per gallon since 2022.

US gas prices rose another 7 cents on Thursday to $4.30 for a gallon of regular, the biggest one-day jump in prices since the start of the war. 

Gas is now at its highest price since the consumer inflation crisis of July 2022, according to the data from AAA. 

Keep reading

Trump warns Iran oil infrastructure could ‘explode’ as blockade halts exports

During an appearance on Fox News’ “The Sunday Briefing,” President Donald Trump asserted that Iran’s oil infrastructure is currently on the brink of a catastrophic failure that could materialize within the next three days.

He attributed this imminent collapse to a U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, which has effectively halted the nation’s ability to export its primary commodity.

Trump further explained that while Iranian facilities continue to produce oil, the lack of viable export routes has left the surplus with nowhere to go, creating immense physical and logistical pressure on the country’s internal storage and pipeline systems.

“When you have, you know, lines of vast amounts of oil pouring through your system, if for any reason that line is closed because you can’t continue to put it into containers or ships, which has happened to them — they have no ships because of the blockade — what happens is that line explodes from within, both mechanically and in the earth,” the president said.

Trump also warned that if these detrimental failures occur, the country will have to spend vast amounts of time and money rebuilding the impacted infrastructure, and other issues could still linger.

“It’s something that happens where it just explodes. And they say they only have about three days left before that happens. And when it explodes, you can never, regardless, you can never rebuild it the way it was,” Trump said.

Analysts believe that Iran could be forced to shut down its oil fields as early as April 29th due to the blockade, which could also impact the crude production long term.

“In other words, it will always be, if you rebuild it, it’s hard to rebuild it all, but it would only be about 50% of what it is right now,” Trump said, emphasizing that he believes Iran is ‘under pressure’ because of the situation.

Forced to divert its oil to onshore tanks, Tehran is quickly running out of storage, as the tanks are only able to hold so much, since its exports have been halted.

Keep reading

Political Theatre – Solve Energy Crisis by Eliminating Fossil Fuels

Over 50 nations are gathering in Colombia to map out a future without oil, gas, and coal, all while the world is in the middle of an energy crisis driven by war, supply disruptions, and rising demand that cannot even be met today. The same governments pretending they can eliminate fossil fuels are quietly scrambling behind the curtain to secure more of them just to keep the lights on.

This is what happens when policy is driven by ideology instead of reality. I have warned repeatedly that there is no viable alternative capable of replacing fossil fuels at scale. This is not an opinion. It is a simple matter of physics and infrastructure. Wind and solar cannot provide baseload power. They are intermittent, unreliable, and require storage systems that do not exist at the level needed to sustain a modern industrial economy. Yet politicians stand up and pretend we can simply flip a switch and transition the entire world economy to renewables as if energy were some optional luxury.

What makes this entire agenda even more dangerous is that they are no longer speaking in vague terms, they are openly stating the objective. Ursula von der Leyen declared that “the global fossil fuel crisis must be a game-changer… let’s earn the clean ticket to heaven,” which is not economic policy, it is ideological rhetoric detached from reality. John Kerry has pushed that leaders must accelerate the “transition away from fossil fuels” or face catastrophe, while Ed Miliband continues to insist Net Zero is essential to eliminate dependence on traditional energy altogether. Then you have Ro Khanna advocating ending fossil fuel subsidies and halting new permits, which in practical terms means cutting supply before any viable replacement exists.

Yet even within their own ranks the cracks are showing. Tony Blair bluntly admitted that any strategy centered on phasing out fossil fuels in the near term is “doomed to fail.” They are publicly advancing an agenda that even insiders know cannot function in the real world.

What they refuse to admit is that every single modern economy depends on fossil fuels at its core. Transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, heating, electricity, all of it. You cannot remove that foundation without collapsing the structure built on top of it. Even now, as they hold conferences and make declarations, countries are reverting to coal because when crisis strikes, theory disappears and survival takes over. That is the reality they will never say out loud.

Keep reading

ENERGY WARS: Russia Will Shut Flow of Druzhba Pipeline Oil Into Germany

Druzhba means ‘friendship’, which is nowhere to be found these days.

Today, Ukraine restarted the flow of Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia through the Druzhba pipeline that it kept shut to further boost the election of Péter Magyar.

In exchange for that, the EU was finally able to approve the long-awaited 90 billion Euro loan to Kiev – although it must be noted that both Budapest and Bratislava ‘opted-out’, meaning no Hungarian or Slovak money is part of it.

But there isn’t time to celebrate because, also today, Russia announced that it will close a major oil pipeline into Germany.

The Telegraph reported:

“Russia has announced plans to shut the Druzhba pipeline within nine days, cutting the Continent off from Kazakh oil as it faces supply disruption caused by the Iran war.

The planned closure poses a particular threat to Germany, where the Druzhba pipeline supplies 17pc of the crude oil processed by PCK refinery, which provides 90pc of the fuel used by Berlin’s cars.”

Keep reading

Wes Moore’s ‘Climate Study’ Bankrolled by Left-Wing Rockefeller Fund As Left Looks To Force Oil Companies To Pay Damages for Climate Change

Democratic Maryland governor Wes Moore announced late last year he would commission a climate “study” aimed at assessing “the undue burden Marylanders are paying for extreme weather events” so that fossil fuel companies can be coerced into paying some sort of climate reparations. Moore didn’t mention it, but the left-wing, climate-obsessed Rockefeller Family Fund chipped in $30,000 for the study, raising questions about the study’s impartiality, the Free Beacon‘s Thomas Catenacci reports. We aren’t holding our breath for the results.

The RFF—established in 1967 by the liberal great-grandchildren of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller—says oil companies (the source of their generational wealth) “advance a business model that accelerates the climate crisis” and that the Maryland study is intended to make those companies pay up. The RFF said in a December press release that the study would “lay the groundwork for a Maryland climate superfund bill, which would require fossil fuel companies to pay for a portion of the state’s climate adaptation costs identified through the study”—which is a weird thing to say before the study is actually conducted and the findings presumably unknown—but did not disclose its role in funding the research.

Blue states like New York and Vermont have already passed “climate superfund” laws, which stipulate that oil companies helped cause extreme weather events like floods and wildfires and have to pay damages to compensate for them. Both states are facing lawsuits from the Trump administration arguing that the laws illegally usurp federal emissions regulations.

The move comes as the RFF—which sits on more than $200 million in total assets, according to its latest tax filing—also supports lawsuits seeking to compel oil companies to pay damages by holding them responsible for climate change. “Such suits have largely been unsuccessful, including in Maryland, where the state’s Supreme Court recently dismissed three lawsuits from Democratic-led jurisdictions that accused the likes of BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron of causing costly weather events,” Catenacci writes. “The RFF-backed study, then, could be the first step toward securing payouts from oil companies through the legislative process rather than the judicial one.”

Keep reading