Tag: oil prices
Republicans Collins And Whatley Booked Big Profits From Iran War Oil Spike

Republicans Collins And Whatley Booked Big Profits From Iran War Oil Spike

Two Republicans competing in marquee Senate races appear to be financially benefiting from the war in Iran.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins and North Carolina Republican Michael Whatley have both seen their stock portfolios soar since the war began on February 28, largely because of their investments in oil and gas.

American-produced oil shot up in value after the war disrupted the global oil trade. This has led to a surge in gas prices and increased profits for some oil and gas companies.

The U.S. and Iran entered a two week ceasefire agreement on March 7, but it is unclear if the plan will stabalize the oil market.

Leo Mariana, a research analyst at Roth Capital Partners, told The Guardian that the war has been a “windfall” for energy investors.

Among those investors are Collins and her husband, who reported owning up to $115,000 in natural gas stock on her campaign finance disclosures. This includes shares of ConocoPhillips, that hit a 52-week high on March 26.

Between the start of the war and April 1, Collins profited by up to $24,480 from these investments.

Whatley also owns shares of ConocoPhillips, along with Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Devon Energy, and Shell. His total oil and gas investments are worth up to $1.39 million.

With the help of the war, Whatley has profited by up to $219,660.

Both Whatley and Collins have expressed support for the war in Iran, a stance that risks putting them out of step with most voters. A Pew Research Center survey from March found that 61 percent of voters don’t support the conflict.

Whatley’s Democratic opponent, former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, said on X that the war was “devastating” and unwise.

“Americans fear another costly, drawn-out war that puts our troops in harm’s way and removes focus and resources from needs here at home,” Cooper said. “Americans deserve to know all the long-term objectives of this war, its risks and the exit strategy.”

Collins’ Democratic opponent will be chosen in a June 9 primary.

Reprinted with permission from American Journal News

Ceasefire! What Might This Mean for the Strait, the Markets, and You

Ceasefire! What Might This Mean for the Strait, the Markets, and You

As I suspect you’ve heard, a two-week ceasefire appears to be in place in the war with Iran. That is unequivocally good news, though no one paying attention can breath anything like a sigh of relief, despite the relief rally going on this morning in equity markets, with West Texas Intermediate oil down ~$20 as I write this (which will have moved by the time you read this).

There are more questions than answers and for the (scant) details as we know them, go to any news source you trust. But here are my quick impressions. Hovering over all of them are “What was that for? What did thousands of people have to lose their lives for?”

Let me be unequivocal about this. I’ll be very happy if the parties in this conflict can find the offramp they appear to be seeking. But I fear this will be no occasion for celebration. Iran’s hardline theocracy remains in place, and worse, appears ready to continue their operation of turning the Strait of Hormuz into a tollbooth, which would be a massive cash cow for them. If you’re thinking “the U.S. would never let that stand!” you might be right, but that could well mean the ceasefire ends and the conflict restarts.

My top priority is that nobody else gets killed because of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s aggressions. But I don’t celebrate the arsonist who puts out the fire he started.

With that, a few impressions of where we are. They talk about the fog of war, but what I’m about to try to see through is the fog of this ceasefire, with an econ-more-than-a-geopolitical angle.

—Feeling the Blues in the Strait of Hormuz: A key Iranian condition for the ceasefire is that "safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations."

This is bad. To me, and to some press reports, it reads like they’ll ramp up their control of who transits (relative to pre-war), possibly with a cap on traffic, and with a toll (the number $2 million per vessel has circulated for a while).

We don’t know how private shippers will respond, but what choice do they have? At least in the medium term, there's nowhere near enough supply-chain alternatives to move product out into the globe. If this is broadly correct, and if this condition stands, it suggests that a new, post-war SoH transit premium will be added to the price of oil and other goods coming through the Strait, one that will continue to be passed forward to consumers.

—The Way We Were: Will Markets/Oil Just Revert to Prewar Levels/Trends? Unknowable, but, at least re oil, not if the aforementioned premium kicks in. Equity markets, though they trended down toward correction territory, broadly expected Trump to back down, so the relief rally is solidly underway as I write this AM: Here’s the S&P pre-opening futures:

Gas is up this morning ($4.16/gal), and if the oil decline sticks, we’ll have a real-time test of the old rockets/feathers dynamic, where the gas price takes the elevator up and the stairs down.

I’m not in the biz of predicting where markets will go but if the result of this war, as some are predicting, is to crimp the existing supply chain of fossil fuels, it would raise prices and dampen global growth at some margin. But it could also stimulate new activity to find workarounds to this obviously dysfunction choke point, and put more wind power in the sails of renewable energy development. (You know my views on this: as I said to Shalanda Young yesterday, if I were in charge, I’d do the Canadian Shuffle and allow a nice bunch of Chinese EVs into the US, conditional on some degree of tech-transfer and joint production.)

—Will It Stick? I find the fact that the Trump administration is apparently allowing Iran’s 10-point plan to be a starting place for ceasefire negotiations to be very surprising and a symbol of how desperate Trump is for an offramp. He’s gone from promising to end their civilization at 8pm ET to “sure, we’re cool with sitting down to chat about you keeping your nukes and controlling the Strait.” You’ll see what I mean if you look their list.

I’ve been following Tobin Marcus from Wolfe Research on these matters, who writes this morning (with Chutong Zhu):

If the US were outright accepting Iran's 10 points as they're now being reported, this would be a huge surprise and a massive concession, with the US accepting various Iranian red lines and giving up on our own, including on the nuclear file. On the other hand, if defining the 10 points as a "basis for negotiations" does not imply acceptance of those points, then it's unclear how close the two sides really are in the ongoing negotiations. It's a little hard to believe that Trump is accepting anything like Iran's 10 points, and the WH seems to be telling Israel we're doing nothing of the sort, so we lean toward interpreting this as intentional wiggle-room to facilitate an offramp, which raises questions about the likelihood that the next two weeks of negotiations will actually culminate in a permanent deal.

In other words, there’s a tension between Trump’s usual play—break something, declare victory, move on to breaking something else—and accepting what should be unacceptable. And it is impossible to know at this point how that balances out. If you pushed me to take a side, I’d guess he’s more likely to mush up some version of pushing back on the most egregious Iranian conditions and turn tail outta there.

—What Does All This Mean For Regular Folks Just Trying to Go About Their Lives? As you know, this is always my touchstone up in here. Assuming the ceasefire sticks, Strait of Hormuz traffic picks up, and the oil price falls at least part of the way back to its prewar level, the gas price should slowly come down, much as we predicted here. That still cuts meaningfully into real disposable incomes, and, as I’ve been worrying about, lower real wage gains. I’m watching carefully to see how the March headline CPI, out Friday, compares to the most recent pace of mid/low wage growth of 3.4 percent.

But more broadly, for folks just trying to make ends meet, this misadventure in the Middle East is yet another Trumpian own goal kick in their faces. The Trump tariffs, the Trump budget, the Trump war—they’re all making life more expensive for people, which is especially ironic given that those people will tell you that their main economic concern is affordability.

And never forget the opportunity costs: if you’re spending all your time making things worse, you’ve squandered the time you could have spent making things better. Imagine that instead of negotiating a 10-point plan that gives the Iranian regime what they want, we were negotiating a 10-point plan for affordable housing, childcare, and healthcare.

I’ve said it before, including yesterday, so sorry—not sorry—for being repetitious. But any Democrat who seeks to retain and win office that isn’t working to operationalize that contrast needs to immediately get out of the way and make room for someone who will fight their a— off on behalf of these priorities.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Econjared.


Behind Trump's Attacks On Clean Energy Lie Corruption -- And Masculine Insecurity

Behind Trump's Attacks On Clean Energy Lie Corruption -- And Masculine Insecurity

We are now in a global fossil fuel crisis. With oil and liquefied natural gas from the Persian Gulf unable to reach international markets due to Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, hydrocarbon prices have been soaring around the world and widespread shortages are emerging. Anyone who thought that the U.S. would be insulated from this dire picture thanks to its large domestic oil production has had a rude awakening: the average retail price of gasoline has risen more than $1 per gallon over the past month, while the price of diesel is up $1.60.

But the Trump administration hasn’t allowed these short-run distractions to divert it from its long-run goals: It remains deeply committed to killing renewable energy, especially wind power, and increasing America’s reliance on fossil fuels.

True, some of the administration’s attacks on wind power have failed: Its efforts to throttle offshore wind development by ordering developers to stop work on projects that are already underway have repeatedly been overruled by the courts. But the administration is continuing to block development of onshore wind and solar power by freezing the issuance of federal permits.

And on Monday the Interior Department unveiled a new tactic in its war on wind: It announced that it will pay TotalEnergies, a French energy giant, almost $1 billion to not produce energy — specifically to abandon its plans to build two large wind farms off the East Coast.

To understand the Trump administration’s motives in its campaign to kill renewable energy, one must realize that this campaign is both economically self-destructive and, despite the best efforts of the fossil fuel industry, deeply unpopular.

Fifteen years ago wind and solar power were still relatively marginal energy sources, which those hostile to their development could portray as unproven and uneconomic. Today they are major contributors to energy supply in many nations — and in some U.S. states. Perhaps most notably, as the chart at the top of this post shows, renewables — mostly wind, but with a growing role for solar — now account for more than a third of electricity generation in Texas, America’s largest producer of electricity and not exactly a state run by environmental extremists.

Even more impressively, renewables have dominated the growth in Texas’s electricity generation in recent years:

You almost have to admire the administration’s persistence, its determination to turn back the clock on energy even though renewables are big business, its tenacity in trying to block new, secure energy sources even in the face of a global energy crisis. But what’s this all about?

The administration has argued that offshore wind farms are a threat to national security, supposedly interfering with radar. But that doesn’t explain the efforts to block onshore wind and solar, and the courts have remained unconvinced. In announcing the buyoff of TotalEnergies, the Interior Secretary claimed that wind power is expensive and unreliable; but in that case why is it necessary to pay private companies not to develop it?

Campaign finance is part of the story. At this point, political contributions from fossil fuel companies go almost entirely to the GOP, while alternative energy favors Democrats.

Beyond campaign finance, fossil fuel interests, especially but not only the Koch brothers, have spent many decades promoting hostility to renewable energy and any effort to mitigate climate change. They have done so by every means possible, including faux environmentalism. When Donald Trump makes bizarre claims about how wind power is massacring birds and “driving whales crazy,” he’s getting his fantasies, whether he knows it or not, from the fossil-fuel propaganda machine.

Now, this long-term project has had limited success at moving the broader public, which remains favorably disposed toward renewable energy. In fact, as late as 2020 large majorities of rank-and-file Republicans held favorable views of both solar and wind power. Those views have shifted against renewables in Trump’s second term, but even now they aren’t nearly as extreme as the views of the Trump administration. And according to Pew, a substantial majority of Americans still believes that promoting wind and solar is “a more important priority” than promoting fossil fuel production.

But the right-wing elite is completely anti-renewable.

In large part this reflects long-term indoctrination by fossil-fuel backed think tanks and media. In addition, however, to make sense of the right-wing elite’s intense hostility to renewable energy one needs to think about psychology (psychology that the fossil fuel cabal exploits.)

Bear in mind that on the political right wind and solar power are routinely condemned as “woke.” Real men burn stuff.

What this reflects, I believe, is a common factor underlying many right-wing obsessions. Why cling to fossil fuels in the face of a technological revolution in energy? Why valorize “warrior ethos” and bulging biceps in an age of drone warfare? Why build economic policy around a doomed attempt to bring back “manly” jobs? At a deep level, I’d argue, it’s about nostalgia for an imagined past in which brawn mattered more than brains, combined with, yes, a hefty dose of insecure masculinity.

The world keeps declining to cooperate with these macho dreams. Tariffs aren’t bringing back blue-collar jobs. Setting out to “destroy the enemy as viciously as possible” — as Pete Hegseth said Tuesday — isn’t winning an easy victory over Iran. And turning our back on the energy revolution, even paying the private sector to reject new technology, means both making America less secure and ceding the future to other countries that aren’t ruled by MAGA’s obsessions.

But that appears to be a price both fossil fuel interests and the Trump administration are willing to pay.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World