Connect with us

Government

Watch Live: President Biden Unveils Cunning Plan To Lower Gas Prices Into Midterms

Watch Live: President Biden Unveils Cunning Plan To Lower Gas Prices Into Midterms

President Biden is set to deliver his much-leaked and barely-anticipated…

Published

on

Watch Live: President Biden Unveils Cunning Plan To Lower Gas Prices Into Midterms

President Biden is set to deliver his much-leaked and barely-anticipated address explaining his "Additional Actions To Strengthen Energy Security and Lower Costs":

His cunning new plan, we hear you ask?

Well, as we explained last night, it's simple - more of the same: blame big oil (gouging and profiteering), blame little oil (greedy local gas station owners), blame the Saudis (who are now Putin puppets)... and drain more of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Watch the remarks live here (due to start at 1315ET):

However, as we have noted too many times to remember, the problem is not a lack of crude oil but a lack of refining capacity...

Brian Milne, product manager, editor, and analyst at DTN, told MarketWatch:

"U.S. policy pushing away from oil consumption has led to refinery transitions to renewables, or outright closures. This trend accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic," and then accelerated further upon Biden's inauguration.

Since President Biden has been in The White House, 230mm barrels of crude have been drained from the SPR and gasoline prices for the average American are up $1.66...

Finally, it is worth noting that crude oil and wholesale gasoline prices are up around 2% on the day as he announces this cunning plan...

* * *

While we wait to hear the full details of the White House's "cunning plan" to lower gas prices into the midterms by - drumroll - draining even more oil from the SPR...

... while "inviting" oil producers to pump more because the Biden admin has promised it would buy some? all? no? oil at $67-$72 to refill the same SPR it is actively draining right now, not to be confused with the $80 price floor floated just one month ago...

... ignoring the fact that if and when oil is tumbling to $67, the White House will have finally achieved its goal of sparking a crushing global recession and amid the millions of layoffs that last thing on its mind will be to refill the SPR, JPM has done some math on what the latest proposal actually means for oil.

Below we excerpt from the latest note by JPM head energy strategist Natasha Kaneva (available to pro subs in the usual place):

The US administration still has ability to use strategic petroleum reserves over the coming weeks and months as needed to fight high petroleum prices. The Biden administration has overseen the release of nearly a third of what had been over 600 million barrels in the federal government's strategic petroleum reserves as of last November—a move that continues to be a major source of incremental supply and that has undoubtedly helped alleviate surging energy prices. Prior to the OPEC+ decision on October 5, emergency drawdowns from the US SPR were set to stop after October, given the expectations that US domestic crude oil production would have increased enough to replace SPR barrels 1:1 in volume terms.

The administration is now signaling that the remaining emergency sales of 25 million barrels (of the original 180 million) could be delivered in 4Q22, with 10-15 million barrels already confirmed for November and the final 15 million barrels likely to be sold and delivered in December. Additionally, 26 million barrels of congressionally-mandated sales required in financial year 2023 that runs from October 2022 through September 2023 could also be pulled forward for year-end 2022 delivery. This would allow the DOE to maintain 4Q22 SPR deliveries at the same rate that they have been averaging for the past six months (Exhibit 3). Any additional releases above this level would require President Biden to declare another severe energy supply interruption or conduct another Exchange transaction.

If both emergency and congressionally-mandated SPR releases are pulled forward to 4Q22, then the ending crude oil stocks will exit the year at 348 million barrels, the lowest since July 1983 (Exhibit 4).

What if that's still not enough for Biden and the market actually goes on to send oil and gas prices sharply higher as it starts discounting the failure of the SPR drain strategy? Well, there is another fallback plan, one which would lead to even higher prices in the long-term but would lower them for at least a few weeks: export bans. Here is JPM again.

A temporary petroleum products export ban

A spike in fuel prices ahead of midterm elections on November 8th could also increase consideration of restrictions on US exports of refined petroleum products, a controversial idea that has been gaining traction in some parts of the Biden administration. The Energy Department has been arguing that fuel could be better used to fill domestic US inventories, which are below seasonal averages. In August, Energy Secretary Granholm sent a letter to seven US refiners urging them to increase US product inventories or risk "emergency measures", a warning repeated in a late September virtual meeting about energy prices, where she confirmed the administration has not ruled out a US fuel export ban. The White House has asked the US Energy Department to analyze the possible impact of a ban and the State Department is also reviewing the option.

In a sign that the oil industry is becoming increasingly concerned the administration could move ahead with the export ban, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers sent a joint letter to the Energy Secretary urging to take the option off the table.

We reiterate our view that a ban on fuel exports would likely raise gasoline prices for the average American driver and would certainly raise all fuel prices for Europe, and especially Latin America. From the US’s approximately 18 mbd of refining capacity, about 3.6 mbd of refined oil products were exported in the first seven months of the year, with diesel comprising 35% of sales, or 1.2 mbd. Almost all (1.1 mbd) of the distillate exports went to Latin America, US’s primary export market (Exhibit 5). Gasoline accounted for about a quarter of total US oil product exports, amounting to 835 kbd.

The US Gulf Coast, the main US refining center, exported 790 kbd of gasoline and about 1.1 mbd of diesel, almost all of that to Latin American countries like Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Argentina (Exhibit 6). The US East Coast does not have enough refining capacity and to meet its regional fuel demand it usually imports an average 500-700 kbd of gasoline from Europe and about 250 kbd of diesel, primarily from Europe and the Middle East. There is no readily available or economic way to transport Gulf products to the US West Coast, which sources its imports from Asia.

Under a ban scenario, while nearly all of the US Gulf Coast gasoline export flows could shift to find a home on the East Coast (assuming sufficient Jones Act vessel capacity and accompanying Jones Act waivers), excess diesel production would have nowhere to go outside of domestic storage. In that scenario, US Gulf Coast diesel prices would need to fall until they were low enough to force refiners to cut runs. Because diesel only makes up about a third of the yield for US refiners, that cut in runs would need to be nearly three times greater than the 1 mbd of excess diesel supply and could remove as much as 1.5 mbd of gasoline supply from the global market. In turn, the loss of trapped refinery production in the Gulf Coast would likely strand a surplus of crude oil in the Central US, halting upstream energy production.

There would be some room for refiners to cut runs and shift yields toward gasoline, but, even if refiners max out gasoline yields, they would still need to cut runs significantly to avoid oversupplying the diesel market. Under a wholesale ban of US fuel exports, diesel prices in the US would likely be much lower initially; US gasoline prices would likely be the same or higher, and much higher in Latin America and the rest of the world.

However, a temporary (30 to 60 days) ban focused only on gasoline and blending components exports could be more effective. If refiners could still export diesel and other products, they could shift US Gulf Coast gasoline flows from Latin America to the US East Coast. This, combined with broad Jones Act waivers, could potentially lower fuel prices on the US East Coast.

Translation: while the SPR drain is bad, a refined fuel export ban would be catastrophic. The good news- for now - is that as US energy security adviser Amos Hochstein told Bloomberg TV today, "several tools are on the table, but a ban on fuel exports is not “what we are announcing today or anytime in the very near future.

Of course, that and and probably will quickly change the moment gas prices spike because as National Economic Council Director Brian Deese also told Bloomberg TV when asked if the administration might ban oil exports to ease prices, “at this moment when we have uncertainty and uncertainty for American consumers, we have to keep all options on the table" adding that President Biden will continue to assess the market, tools available and their impact.

In short, judging by the total chaos, it now appears that none other than Burisma energy guru Hunter Biden is in charge of US energy policy...

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/19/2022 - 13:03

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

RFK Jr. Reveals Vice President Contenders

RFK Jr. Reveals Vice President Contenders

Authored by Jeff Louderback via The Epoch Times,

New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers and former…

Published

on

RFK Jr. Reveals Vice President Contenders

Authored by Jeff Louderback via The Epoch Times,

New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers and former Minnesota governor and professional wrestler Jesse Ventura are among the potential running mates for independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the New York Times reported on March 12.

Citing “two people familiar with the discussions,” the New York Times wrote that Mr. Kennedy “recently approached” Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Ventura about the vice president’s role, “and both have welcomed the overtures.”

Mr. Kennedy has talked to Mr. Rodgers “pretty continuously” over the last month, according to the story. The candidate has kept in touch with Mr. Ventura since the former governor introduced him at a February voter rally in Tucson, Arizona.

Stefanie Spear, who is the campaign press secretary, told The Epoch Times on March 12 that “Mr. Kennedy did share with the New York Times that he’s considering Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura as running mates along with others on a short list.”

Ms. Spear added that Mr. Kennedy will name his running mate in the upcoming weeks.

Former Democrat presidential candidates Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard declined the opportunity to join Mr. Kennedy’s ticket, according to the New York Times.

Mr. Kennedy has also reportedly talked to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) about becoming his running mate.

Last week, Mr. Kennedy endorsed Mr. Paul to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as the Senate Minority Leader after Mr. McConnell announced he would step down from the post at the end of the year.

CNN reported early on March 13 that Mr. Kennedy’s shortlist also includes motivational speaker Tony Robbins, Discovery Channel Host Mike Rowe, and civil rights attorney Tricia Lindsay. The Washington Post included the aforementioned names plus former Republican Massachusetts senator and U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa, Scott Brown.

In April 2023, Mr. Kennedy entered the Democrat presidential primary to challenge President Joe Biden for the party’s 2024 nomination. Claiming that the Democrat National Committee was “rigging the primary” to stop candidates from opposing President Biden, Mr. Kennedy said last October that he would run as an independent.

This year, Mr. Kennedy’s campaign has shifted its focus to ballot access. He currently has qualified for the ballot as an independent in New Hampshire, Utah, and Nevada.

Mr. Kennedy also qualified for the ballot in Hawaii under the “We the People” party.

In January, Mr. Kennedy’s campaign said it had filed paperwork in six states to create a political party. The move was made to get his name on the ballots with fewer voter signatures than those states require for candidates not affiliated with a party.

The “We the People” party was established in five states: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, and North Carolina. The “Texas Independent Party” was also formed.

A statement by Mr. Kennedy’s campaign reported that filing for political party status in the six states reduced the number of signatures required for him to gain ballot access by about 330,000.

Ballot access guidelines have created a sense of urgency to name a running mate. More than 20 states require independent and third-party candidates to have a vice presidential pick before collecting and submitting signatures.

Like Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Ventura is an outspoken critic of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and safety.

Mr. Ventura, 72, gained acclaim in the 1970s and 1980s as a professional wrestler known as Jesse “the Body” Ventura. He appeared in movies and television shows before entering the Minnesota gubernatorial race as a Reform Party headliner. He was a longshot candidate but prevailed and served one term.

Former pro wrestler Jesse Ventura in Washington on Oct. 4, 2013. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

In an interview on a YouTube podcast last December, Mr. Ventura was asked if he would accept an offer to run on Mr. Kennedy’s ticket.

“I would give it serious consideration. I won’t tell you yes or no. It will depend on my personal life. Would I want to commit myself at 72 for one year of hell (campaigning) and then four years (in office)?” Mr. Ventura said with a grin.

Mr. Rodgers, who spent his entire career as a quarterback for the Green Bay Packers before joining the New York Jets last season, remains under contract with the Jets. He has not publicly commented about joining Mr. Kennedy’s ticket, but the four-time NFL MVP endorsed him earlier this year and has stumped for him on podcasts.

The 40-year-old Rodgers is still under contract with the Jets after tearing his Achilles tendon in the 2023 season opener and being sidelined the rest of the year. The Jets are owned by Woody Johnson, a prominent donor to former President Donald Trump who served as U.S. Ambassador to Britain under President Trump.

Since the COVID-19 vaccine was introduced, Mr. Rodgers has been outspoken about health issues that can result from taking the shot. He told podcaster Joe Rogan that he has lost friends and sponsorship deals because of his decision not to get vaccinated.

Quarterback Aaron Rodgers of the New York Jets talks to reporters after training camp at Atlantic Health Jets Training Center in Florham Park, N.J., on July 26, 2023. (Rich Schultz/Getty Images)

Earlier this year, Mr. Rodgers challenged Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce and Dr. Anthony Fauci to a debate.

Mr. Rodgers referred to Mr. Kelce, who signed an endorsement deal with vaccine manufacturer Pfizer, as “Mr. Pfizer.”

Dr. Fauci served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022 and was chief medical adviser to the president from 2021 to 2022.

When Mr. Kennedy announces his running mate, it will mark another challenge met to help gain ballot access.

“In some states, the signature gathering window is not open. New York is one of those and is one of the most difficult with ballot access requirements,” Ms. Spear told The Epoch Times.

“We need our VP pick and our electors, and we have to gather 45,000 valid signatures. That means we will collect 72,000 since we have a 60 percent buffer in every state,” she added.

The window for gathering signatures in New York opens on April 16 and closes on May 28, Ms. Spear noted.

“Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oklahoma are the next three states we will most likely check off our list,” Ms. Spear added. “We are confident that Mr. Kennedy will be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We have a strategist, petitioners, attorneys, and the overall momentum of the campaign.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 15:45

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

The SNF Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research announces new advisory board

From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in…

Published

on

From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in the 1970s, combating infectious disease has a rich history at Rockefeller. That tradition continues as the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research at Rockefeller University (SNFiRU) caps a successful first year with the establishment of a new advisory board.

Credit: Lori Chertoff/The Rockefeller University

From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in the 1970s, combating infectious disease has a rich history at Rockefeller. That tradition continues as the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research at Rockefeller University (SNFiRU) caps a successful first year with the establishment of a new advisory board.

This international advisory board was created in part to give guidance on how to best use SNFiRU’s resources, as well as bring forward innovative ideas concerning new avenues of research, public education, community engagement, and partnership projects.

SNFiRU was established to strengthen readiness for and response to future health crises, building on the scientific advances and international collaborations forged in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Launched with a $75 million grant from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) as part of its Global Health Initiative (GHI), the institute provides a framework for international scientific collaboration to foster research innovations and turn them into practical health benefits.

SNFiRU’s mission is to better understand the agents that cause infectious disease and to lower barriers to treatment and prevention globally. To speed this work, the institute launched numerous initiatives in its inaugural year. For instance, SNFiRU awarded 31 research projects in 29 different Rockefeller laboratories for over $5 million to help get collaborative new research efforts off the ground. SNFiRU also supports the Rockefeller University Hospital, where clinical studies are conducted, and brought on board its first physician-scientist through Rockefeller’s Clinical Scholars program. “One of the surprises was the scope of interest from Rockefeller scientists in using their talents to tackle important infectious disease problems,” says Charles M. Rice, Maurice R. and Corinne P. Greenberg Professor in Virology at Rockefeller and director of SNFiRU. “The research topics range from the biology of infectious agents to the dynamics of the immune response to pathogens, and also include a number of infectious disease-adjacent studies.”

In the past 12 months, SNFiRU often brought together scientists studying different aspects of infectious disease as a way to spur new collaborations. In addition to hosting its first annual day-long symposium, SNFiRU initiated a Young Scientist Forum for students and post-doctoral fellows to meet regularly, facilitating cross-laboratory thinking. A bimonthly seminar series has also been established on campus.

Another aim of SNFiRU is to develop relationships with community-based organizations, as well as design and participate in community-engaged research, with a focus on low-income and minority communities. To that end, SNFiRU is helping develop a research project on Chagas disease, a tropical parasitic infection prevalent in Latin America that can cause congestive heart failure and gastrointestinal complications if left untreated. The project will bring together clinicians practicing at health centers in New York, Florida, Texas, and California and basic scientists from multiple institutions to help the communities that are most impacted.

“The SNFiRU international advisory board convenes globally recognized leaders with distinguished biomedical expertise, unrivalled experience in pandemic preparedness and response, and a shared commitment to translating scientific advancements into equitably distributed benefits in real-world settings,” says SNF Co-President Andreas Dracopoulos. “The advisory board will advance the institute’s indispensable mission, which SNF is proud to support as a key part of our Global Health Initiative, and we look forward to seeing breakthroughs in the lab drive better outcomes in lives around the globe.”

The new advisory board will hold its first meeting on April 11th, 2024, following the second annual SNF Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research Symposium at Rockefeller.

Its members are: Rafi Ahmed of Emory University School of Medicine, Cori Bargmann of The Rockefeller University, Yasmin Belkaid of the Pasteur Institute, Anthony S. Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Peter Hotez of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, Esper Kallas of of the Butantan Institute, Sharon Lewin of the University of Melbourne Doherty Institue, Carl Nathan of Weill Cornell Medicine, Rino Rappuoli of Fondazione Biotecnopolo di Siena and University of Siena, and Herbert “Skip” Virgin of Washington University School of Medicine and UT Southwestern Medical Center.


Read More

Continue Reading

International

Congress’ failure so far to deliver on promise of tens of billions in new research spending threatens America’s long-term economic competitiveness

A deal that avoided a shutdown also slashed spending for the National Science Foundation, putting it billions below a congressional target intended to…

Published

on

Science is again on the chopping block on Capitol Hill. AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz

Federal spending on fundamental scientific research is pivotal to America’s long-term economic competitiveness and growth. But less than two years after agreeing the U.S. needed to invest tens of billions of dollars more in basic research than it had been, Congress is already seriously scaling back its plans.

A package of funding bills recently passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2024, cuts the current fiscal year budget for the National Science Foundation, America’s premier basic science research agency, by over 8% relative to last year. That puts the NSF’s current allocation US$6.6 billion below targets Congress set in 2022.

And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, doesn’t look much better. Even assuming his request for the NSF is fully funded, it would still, based on my calculations, leave the agency a total of $15 billion behind the plan Congress laid out to help the U.S. keep up with countries such as China that are rapidly increasing their science budgets.

I am a sociologist who studies how research universities contribute to the public good. I’m also the executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science, a national university consortium whose members share data that helps us understand, explain and work to amplify those benefits.

Our data shows how underfunding basic research, especially in high-priority areas, poses a real threat to the United States’ role as a leader in critical technology areas, forestalls innovation and makes it harder to recruit the skilled workers that high-tech companies need to succeed.

A promised investment

Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate.

Congress had just passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. The science part of the law promised one of the biggest federal investments in the National Science Foundation in its 74-year history.

The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans” by investing in research.

But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers haven’t been good at doing that recently. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is quickly becoming a casualty of political dysfunction.

Research’s critical impact

That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect.

For instance, the basic discoveries that made the COVID-19 vaccine possible stretch back to the early 1960s. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, support jobs and regional economies and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.

Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere.

But disrupting federal research funding also directly affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy.

Businesses nationwide thrive by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the economic health of your hometown and the nation.

Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly supported U.S. employers, including:

  • A Detroit welding shop that sells gases many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy.

  • A Dallas-based construction company that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.

  • More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a Department of Energy project to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.

When Congress shortchanges basic research, it also damages businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from federally funded research done by our consortium’s members.

A lag or cut in federal research funding would harm U.S. competitiveness in critical advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics. Hispanolistic/E+ via Getty Images

Jobs and innovation

Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to corporate innovation and to U.S. leadership in key fields, such as AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure research expertise.

In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. Our data shows that they go on to many types of jobs but are particularly important for leading tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.

That same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.

High stakes

If Congress doesn’t move to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets – and make up for the $11.6 billion it’s already behind schedule – the long-term consequences for American competitiveness could be serious.

Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, and academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries. Fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would turn one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.

Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and in American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 16, 2024.

Jason Owen-Smith receives research support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending