News Article | May 18, 2017
"We believe consumers benefit most when markets are allowed to flourish without mandates, riders and special treatment by lawmakers and regulators," said API Chief Economist Erica Bowman. "Unfortunately, Senate Bill 106 does the exact opposite for Connecticut consumers. Instead of providing special treatment to nuclear power companies, we should let the markets protect consumers as they are currently doing for consumers across Connecticut and the nation." The poll results were released on a press conference call this morning. The opening statement and results of the poll are available on API's website. The Connecticut Petroleum Council is a division of API, which represents all segments of America's oil and natural gas industry. Its more than 625 members produce, process, and distribute most of the nation's energy. The industry also supports 9.8 million U.S. jobs and is backed by a growing grassroots movement of more than 40 million Americans. The study was conducted on May 1-4, 2017, by telephone by Harris Poll on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute among 822 Connecticut registered voters, with a sampling error of +/- 3.4 percent. A full methodology is available upon request. "What America is Thinking on Energy Issues" is a public opinion series provided by API, offering data to inform policy discussions and ensure policymakers and others know Americans' perspectives on key energy issues. To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/connecticut-voters-oppose-special-treatment-for-the-millstone-nuclear-power-plant-300460151.html
News Article | May 22, 2017
I continue to see reports each week that declare that the end of the oil age is at hand. But at some point, the models and projections have to be reconciled with the data. Although projections continue to abound about peak oil demand, the data continue to suggest otherwise. Last week the American Petroleum Institute (API) reported that total U.S. petroleum deliveries in April averaged 19.6 million barrels per day (BPD). This represented the highest April deliveries in nine years. Gasoline deliveries in April moved up 0.6% from April 2016 to average nearly 9.3 million BPD, which marked the highest April deliveries on record. Data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) are largely consistent with these numbers. After a period of decline that began in 2008 -- in the face of the housing crisis and $100/bbl oil -- U.S. petroleum demand has now risen every year since 2012. Based on growth over the past couple of years, this year could see average demand climb back to 20 million BPD -- the highest level since 2007. Globally, the EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook projects that this year and next year will look like the past seven years, with oil demand growing by at least a million BPD each year, and setting new all-time highs every year. In fact, demand has grown at that pace for about 35 years. U.S. refinery throughput has also risen every year since 2009. In 2014 throughout rose above 16 million BPD for the first time, and this year the weekly average has breached 17 million BPD for the first time (on several occasions). A growing volume of this refinery throughout is destined for the export market. Exports of finished products like distillate and gasoline have tripled in the past decade to reach more than three million BPD.
News Article | May 17, 2017
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Halliburton Company (NYSE: HAL) today announced its Board of Directors has unanimously elected Jeff Miller, the Company’s president and a board member, to the position of president and CEO. Dave Lesar, who has led Halliburton as chairman and CEO since 2000, will continue serving the Company as executive chairman. The leadership changes are effective June 1, 2017. “I am grateful to the Board and Dave for this opportunity to serve Halliburton shareholders and employees,” Miller said. “I have been fortunate to work directly with Dave for many years and to learn from him as we execute and deliver industry-leading returns by serving our customers and growing our revenue and margins. I look forward to leading our organization as we continue to collaborate and engineer solutions to maximize asset value for our customers.” Miller will provide the day-to-day leadership and management of the Company. He will also be responsible for the planning and execution of Halliburton’s strategic direction, financial objectives, and technology development along with Halliburton's management team who will report directly to him. As executive chairman, Lesar will continue to play an important leadership role focusing on the strategic direction of the Company, advising the Halliburton management team and transitioning CEO responsibilities to Miller who will then continue reporting to Lesar. He will be actively engaged with shareholders and continue working with customers to ensure the Company is best addressing their needs. Lesar has entered into a new executive employment agreement that provides that he will continue as executive chairman through mandatory retirement on December 31, 2018, and contains a 4 year non-compete. “Successful careers are about creating opportunities and value for all constituents including shareholders, customers, and employees, and I believe we have achieved those goals during my time as CEO and will continue to do so in the future. As I approach my last 18 months as a Halliburton employee, it’s time to look forward and transition to new leadership,” said Lesar. “I have known and worked with Jeff for almost 30 years and have great confidence that he is the best choice to be the next Halliburton CEO. With the support of our committed management team and the dedication of our outstanding employees, I know he will lead Halliburton to continue to deliver both long-term shareholder value and superior customer service. I look forward to working closely with him as he transitions into his new role.” “The Board’s experience with Jeff during his management career gives us confidence that he is a worthy successor to build upon Dave’s legacy and will continue to provide strong returns to our shareholders, serve our customers well and successfully lead our employees,” said Halliburton Lead Director J. Landis Martin. “On behalf of the Board, we thank Dave for his 17 years of outstanding leadership and dedication as Halliburton CEO and look forward to his continued contributions to the Company as executive chairman. He is a visionary leader who has led Halliburton's geographic expansion, industry leadership, market share growth and outstanding financial performance.” “The leadership transition plan that the Board has implemented leverages the strength of the Halliburton executive team, provides for a seamless transition and exemplifies the Company’s robust succession management program,” Martin added. Lesar joined Halliburton in 1993 and has served the Company in a variety of roles. He has served as chairman and CEO since 2000. He served as president and chief operating officer of Halliburton from June 1997 to August 2000, and continued as president until August 2014. Previously he was executive vice president and CFO of Halliburton, and executive vice president of Finance and Administration for Halliburton Energy Services, a Halliburton business unit. Lesar holds a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Business of Administration from University of Wisconsin. He serves on the board of directors of the American Petroleum Institute. Miller joined Halliburton in 1997 and has since served in several leadership roles, including chief operating officer until 2014 when he was named president and was appointed to the Halliburton Board of Directors. Miller holds a Bachelor of Science in agriculture and business from McNeese State University in Louisiana, and an MBA from Texas A&M University. He is a certified public accountant, a member of the Advisory Council for Texas A&M University Dwight Look College of Engineering, and a member of the board of directors for Atwood Oceanics, Inc. Founded in 1919, Halliburton is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry. With approximately 50,000 employees representing 140 nationalities, and operations in approximately 70 countries, the company serves the upstream oil and gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir – from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction, completion and production optimization. Visit the company’s website at www.halliburton.com. Connect with Halliburton on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube.
News Article | May 18, 2017
The American Petroleum Institute has asked US Interior Sec. Ryan Zinke to instruct the Bureau of Land Management to defer compliance dates under its methane emissions control rule for 2 years. “We make this request in view of directives in recent presidential and secretarial orders that may lead to changes to or withdrawal of the final rule,” API Pres. Jack N. Gerard told Zinke in a May 16 letter.
News Article | May 19, 2017
"Women Rocking the Rockies is designed to show Colorado's young women that this field presents limitless opportunity for them," said Tracee Bentley, executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Council. "Women and minorities have pathways to success in the natural gas and oil industry and we want to give them the tools they need to thrive in this growing field." The American Petroleum Institute commissioned a study, "Attitudes and Perceptions of Women about Seeking Employment in the Oil & Natural Gas Industry." The study's authors, Democratic strategist Celinda Lake and Republican strategist Linda DiVall, found that women seeking employment have bypassed the industry because of a systemic lack of knowledge about the opportunities available. The Women in Power initiative, spearheaded by Bentley, was created to change that paradigm. "Women Rocking the Rockies aims to introduce the attendees to new opportunities," said Bentley. "I believe that today some of these young women realized that their unique interests and skills are compatible with a career in natural gas and oil." Partnering organizations that helped make this event possible include: Alliance of Choice in Education, Alpha Kappa Alpha, American Association of Blacks in Energy, Camp Experience, College Summit, College Trek, Colorado Association of Career and Technical Administrators, Colorado Association of Career and Technical Education, Colorado Black Roundtable, Colorado Black Women for Political Action, Colorado League of Charter Schools, Colorado School Counselor Association, Colorado Succeeds, Colorado Women's Chamber of Commerce, Colorado Workforce Development Council, Delta Sigma Theta, Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Escuela Tlateloco, Kappa Alpha Psi, McKenna Long Aldridge Women's Initiative, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors of Colorado, Rocky Mountain Energy Forum, Rocky Mountain Pipe Trades District 5, StemsCo, TRIO Educational Opportunity Center, and Urban League of Denver. The Colorado Petroleum Council is a division of API, which represents all segments of America's oil and natural gas industry. Its more than 625 members produce, process, and distribute most of the nation's energy. The industry also supports 9.8 million U.S. jobs and 8 percent of the U.S. economy. To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/colorado-petroleum-council-holds-women-rocking-the-rockies-event-in-denver-to-encourage-young-women-to-pursue-natural-gas-and-oil-careers-300460947.html
News Article | May 19, 2017
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke spent much of his first two months in office meeting with energy and other industry groups, according to personal schedules released this week under the Freedom of Information Act. The schedules, which cover March and April, detail a slew of meetings with oil and gas producers as well as officials representing gun owners, marine industries, automobile dealers and builders. Zinke, who was confirmed by the Senate on March 1, also met with representatives of the Navajo Nation and Montana’s Little Shell Tribe, as well as numerous lawmakers and officials from a range of states and U.S. territories. Zinke held more than a half-dozen meetings with executives from nearly two dozen oil and gas firms during the period, including BP America, Chevron and ExxonMobil. He also spent time with the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Energy Alliance and Continental Resources chief executive Harold Hamm. Several of these discussions covered executive actions the administration would later take in an effort to reverse President Barack Obama’s policies, such as limits on drilling off America’s coasts and the venting of methane from drilling operations on federal and tribal land. Jack Gerard, president and chief executive of API, said in a statement that “Interior is a critical agency for the natural gas and oil industry, regardless of who is in office. API engages with every agency, and our goal is to have constructive discussions to promote forward-looking policies that advance America’s energy leadership throughout the world.” As for Zinke, Gerard added, he “has been open to constructive dialogue and has shown a willingness to work with all stakeholders.” The Montanan invited the National Wildlife Federation to his office on his first day, according to his spokeswoman Heather Swift, and he has since met with officials from the Nature Conservancy, the Outdoor Industry Association and with the president of the Congress-chartered National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. But Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune criticizes the secretary for not paying more attention to conservation groups. “Zinke’s schedule makes it obvious that he would rather meet with big oil companies like Chevron, BP, and ExxonMobil who want to drill our precious public lands than the tribes and communities who want to protect them,” Brune said in a statement. “Zinke claims to want to walk in Teddy Roosevelt’s shoes, but Roosevelt would be stunned by Zinke’s obvious agenda of trying to sell out our natural legacy.” [Trump orders review of national monuments, vows to ‘end these abuses and return control to the people’] Tom Cors sees it differently. The Nature Conservancy’s public lands director for U.S. government relations says Zinke “is trying to live up to” being a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. In April, Cors and other conservancy officials gave him a tour of Santa Cruz Island, the part of the Channel Islands National Park in California that they have helped restore. This month they showed him a section of the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah — which the Trump administration is considering shrinking or rescinding — that the organization owns. “We are using our longstanding relationship with him to work with him and are trying to create success with that administration, as we have with every other administration,” Cors said Thursday night. The secretary’s itinerary on that trip to Utah — including whom he saw and for how long — sparked controversy. Local tribal officials, who view Bears Ears as sacred ground and want its monument status preserved, complained that they had only an hour with him after months of unanswered requests. Even before his travels, Zinke had met in his office with Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) and members of the state’s congressional delegation, who want the monument rescinded. Zinke’s schedules show he hosted Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye and the chief of staff for Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) in early April. It’s unclear if their conversation focused on the future of the Navajo Generating Station, a huge coal plant facing closure by its owners. Also on the schedules were Zinke’s multiple meetings with National Rifle Association officials, including an April 5 session in his office with NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director Chris W. Cox. Zinke then flew to Atlanta on April 28 to deliver an address at the group’s convention. His calendar since taking office highlights his penchant for speaking with journalists from conservative media outlets. He appeared on the Fox News Channel five times during the two months and granted interviews to Breitbart, National Review and the Washington Examiner. He also spoke with reporters from the New York Times and Bloomberg. In addition, the calendar gives a sense of how former officials in the George W. Bush administration provided input during the Trump administration’s early days. In late March, Zinke got together with Randall Luthi, who used to direct Interior’s Minerals Management Service and now heads the National Ocean Industries Association, for a “personnel meeting,” according to his schedule. The next month he spoke to NOIA’s conference in Washington. In an interview last month, Luthi said he had been inviting the head of Interior to address his members “twice a year” since 2010. “Secretary Zinke was the first” to come, Luthi said. And on April 5, the secretary spoke by phone with former vice president Richard B. Cheney. Kate Kelly, public lands director for the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, suggested in an email that “Zinke’s schedule raises a lot of questions.” “We know more about how he spends his time from his twitter feed than we do from these schedules,” she said, noting that one shows a full week in California — where he and his wife have a home — without any details about whom he met with “or how he used taxpayer dollars.” By contrast, Zinke’s tweets reveal that he met with Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and Interior employees there. “Why not be transparent about that?” Kelly asked.
News Article | May 18, 2017
According to data from the American Petroleum Institute, total US petroleum deliveries in April averaged 19.6 million b/d, up 1.7% from April 2016. These were the highest April deliveries in 9 years.
News Article | May 17, 2017
The American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers each asked the US Environmental Protection Agency to review the federal Renewable Fuel Standard and reconsider ground-level ozone limits.
News Article | May 24, 2017
A powerful industrial lobby group has moved to withdraw from a landmark climate change lawsuit brought against the federal government by 21 young people, arguing that it trusts the Trump administration to fight the case. In a surprise reversal, the National Association of Manufacturers filed court documents on Monday saying it no longer wanted to fight alongside the federal government in the children’s lawsuit. The lawsuit argues that young people have been harmed by the failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming. The organization stands by its original position, its senior vice president and general counsel, Linda Kelly, said in a statement to The Washington Post. [This climate lawsuit could change everything] But she said that — after joining the lawsuit during the Obama administration — the business organization was now confident that the Trump administration would strongly defend the case. That made it less of a priority for the manufacturing association, she said. “After every election, the NAM evaluates what cases we need to be involved in to protect manufacturers’ interests. As the dynamics have changed over the last several months, we no longer feel that our participation in this case is needed to safeguard industry and our workers,” said Kelly. But activists suggested the group’s request to withdraw was a sign that industry was feeling uneasy about landing up on the opposite of the children who brought the lawsuit — as well as sweeping requests for information from their lawyers. The court is not required to grant the organization permission to withdraw from the lawsuit. The case is expected to go to trial before the end of 2017. Two other industry associations, the American Petroleum Institute, the main oil lobby, and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, remain involved in the case. Activists have suggested that the organization’s request to withdraw from the lawsuit was prompted by a May 25 deadline to respond to various questions posed by lawyers for the children. In seeking to exit the landmark case, the manufacturing association avoids having to answer questions submitted by the plaintiffs, which were expected to press NAM about its positions on climate change. This would mean stating whether they agree with the basic principles in the case, including that CO2 influences the climate, that fossil fuel extraction has been responsible for elevated levels of CO2, and that greenhouse gas pollution endangers the health of current and future generations. “They don’t want to take a public position on the facts of climate change,” said Julia Olson, an attorney representing the young people. She added that the association would have been at risk of having to produce confidential documents on its internal discussions on climate change if it stayed in the case. The young people, aged 9 to 21, bought the case to the District Court in Oregon in August 2015, while President Barack Obama was in office. All three organizations applied to intervene in the lawsuit, arguing at the time that they did not believe their interests would be adequately represented by the Obama administration. They pointed to concern over emissions regulations and other measures implemented in Washington, D.C., which they said were at odds with their own interests. NAM intervened to fight the litigation in January 2016, arguing that constraints on fossil fuel production would directly harm the businesses they represent. The group, which includes ExxonMobil, Devon Energy and Arch Coal among its members, was a long-standing opponent of climate change regulations, including Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Frank Volpe, an attorney for the business groups, said at proceedings on Thursday that, as well as NAM, “there may be another and maybe all three” who decide to leave the case, although neither association has yet confirmed their position. API told The Washington Post that they do not comment on pending litigation. While many of the businesses represented by NAM have independently opposed action on climate change, others have spoken out about the dangers posed by burning fossil fuels, supported the Obama administration’s efforts to reduce emissions, and made steps toward sustainability themselves. Olson suggested NAM was under pressure from those members unhappy at the organization’s efforts to block Obama-era regulations. “It’s very likely there’s disagreement among the members of NAM,” she said. Most NAM members contacted by The Washington Post, including Shell, BP, Intel, Proctor & Gamble, Boeing, and Toyota, on whether they attempted to influence the decision to withdraw from the lawsuit did not respond in time for publication. General Electric and Microsoft refused to comment, and a spokeswoman for American Electric Power said they did not have any discussions with NAM about the case.
News Article | May 26, 2017
This story has been updated. All three industry groups involved in a landmark climate-change lawsuit being brought against the federal government have filed motions to withdraw from the litigation. On Thursday evening, the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers — trade associations representing members of the fossil-fuel industry — moved to withdraw from the lawsuit being brought by 21 youth plaintiffs arguing that the federal government has violated their right to a healthy climate system. A third industry group, the National Association of Manufacturers, filed a motion to withdraw earlier this week. The organizations had joined the litigation last year as “intervenor-defendants.” This means that, while none of them were originally involved in the lawsuit, they were permitted to join as defendants alongside the federal government on the basis that their interests were likely to be significantly affected by the outcome of the case. Because the three industry groups were not original parties in the lawsuit, they say they have the right to request a withdrawal from the case, which the court may or may not decide to grant. [Just don’t call it ‘climate change’: Rebranding government in the age of Trump] The lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, has garnered international attention, with some experts characterizing it as the “biggest trial of the century.” The 21 plaintiffs, who range in age from 9 to 21, allege that the government has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by promoting the production of fossil fuels and greenhouse-gas emissions and contributing to the progression of climate change. This, they charge, is a violation of the public-trust doctrine, which dictates that the government must preserve certain common resources for public use, including the climate system, the plaintiffs argue. The case, originally brought against the Obama administration, has been inherited by the Trump administration, which is the major reason the industry groups say they now wish to withdraw. Earlier this week, National Association of Manufacturers Senior Vice President Linda Kelly told The Washington Post that the group evaluates the cases it wishes to be involved with after each election and had decided that “as the dynamics have changed over the last several months, we no longer feel that our participation in this case is needed to safeguard industry and our workers.” The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers issued a similar statement to The Post on Friday. “AFPM has decided to withdraw from this case, as we are confident that the U.S. Department of Justice will rigorously defend its position and that the court will conclude that setting national environmental policy is the role of Congress and the president,” spokeswoman Diana Cronan wrote. [Scientists just published an entire study refuting Scott Pruitt on climate change] A statement emailed to The Post by API media director Eric Wohlschlegel said, “We continue to focus on the progress the U.S. is making leading the world in reducing carbon and other emissions, and we have full confidence that the courts will recognize that Congress and the Executive branch have the constitutional authority to write and execute the laws of the U.S.” In moving to withdraw from the litigation this week, the industry groups may be able to avoid having to respond to a request for admission from the plaintiffs. This is a series of allegations or complaints presented by the plaintiffs, mainly surrounding the issue of climate change and its effects in this case, that the defendants are required by the court to address. They include questions about the industry’s position on the effects of climate change on water supplies, agriculture and other natural systems, as well as the ability of human societies and natural ecosystems to adapt. The questions are used as a discovery tool in the lawsuit, a means of accumulating evidence for a trial. The deadline for this response had been set for Thursday; the industry defendants had requested an extension until June 7. [Pope Francis presents Trump with a ‘politically loaded gift’: His encyclical on climate change] “After these youths sued the government, the trade associations pleaded their members’ interests would be destroyed if they weren’t allowed to be in the case, but now they are running for the hills,” Julia Olson, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs and executive director of the advocacy group Our Children’s Trust, said in a statement Thursday evening. “Now, they’ve decided they’re better off being on the sidelines than subjecting themselves to discovery.” The industry groups did not refer to the response deadline as a factor in their decision to withdraw. The lawsuit has already faced a number of hurdles. The Obama administration filed to have the case dismissed — a motion that Judge Ann Aiken, a U.S. District Court judge in Oregon, denied in November in a landmark ruling that cleared the case to continue to trial. More recently, the Trump administration filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit requesting that Aiken’s ruling be overturned. On May 1, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin recommended a denial of the appeal. Judge Aiken has yet to make a final decision on whether to allow the appeal. The court also has the power to decide whether to grant the trade associations’ requests to withdraw from the case. Each group has argued that joining the case is not an irreversible decision and that permitting withdrawal would help simplify the judicial process by reducing the number of parties participating in the proceedings. But Philip Gregory, another co-lead counsel with the plaintiffs, has argued that the motions fail to present a concrete reason for withdrawal. “They plead with the court to let them out, yet fail to give Judge Coffin any reason behind their change of heart,” he said in a statement Thursday.