Tuesday, March 05, 2024

Oberman calls out UP, BNSF for cutting jobs when they should focus on growth

March 5, 2024


Surface Transportation Board Chairman Martin Oberman has seen some rail carriers cut jobs and neglect their infrastructure in pursuit of short-term profit, and he says there’s nothing to like about it.

Oberman spoke last week before the Southeast Association of Rail Shippers’ conference, and the “cult of the operating ratio” (OR) could be rising again with BNSF and Union Pacific cutting workers and a hedge fund looking to seize Norfolk Southern.

“These low OR — which could only be achieved rapidly — as the activists demanded — by cutting payroll — have meant lots of free cash which the Class Is have not been shy about paying out in stock buybacks, dividends, and in BNSF’s case, returns to its owner,” Oberman said. “The total in the last decade or so is over $250 billion — money which was not invested in retaining workers or building new infrastructure to increase a railroad’s reach and serve more customers.”

Billionaire Warren Buffett said as much in his recent letter to shareholders, expressing disappointment in BNSF’s latest returns. Union Pacific ousted a CEO in 2023 and the new one is doubling down on squeezing workers in the name of shareholder return.

SMART-TD members and rail workers have been coping with the consequences through job cuts, irresponsibly long trains and inhumane work schedules. For our members, “PSR” stands for “punishing and sadistic railroading.”

Starting in about 2014, more than 45,000 rail workers lost their jobs because of the quest for increased efficiency.

“Railroads are a regulated monopoly. They have a common carrier obligation to the public interest and to the nation’s economy,” Oberman said. “Unlike other businesses, railroad management and owners are not just free to manipulate the business by draining the company’s resources for short-term gain.”

Too often, the pro-free market crowd, overseeing spreadsheets from the comfort of their railroad offices, think that “free market” means “we can run our business however we want and do to workers and the communities we affect whatever we want. We’re here to make money, and they should be happy about it. They’re lucky we’re here.”

That mentality’s brought longer trains, fewer inspections and less emphasis on safety, as much as industry executives and mouthpieces like the Association of American Railroads and Railway Age claim the railroads are working in everyone’s best interests. PSR is only good for everyone who owns stock.

The industry’s shareholders cruised through the initial wave of PSR with fatter wallets and bigger dividends, Oberman noted in his speech. Contrast that with the thousands of workers who were sent home for the last time as service to their former customers suffered.

Investor neglect drew attention of federal regulators, including Oberman’s STB, after a post-COVID national supply chain meltdown. The STB held hearings on carrier performance in 2022 and has kept a close eye on carrier personnel levels since.

Recent events indicate carrier leadership is being guided back to its shortsighted ways. Investors demand quick profits at the exclusion of all else. Hundreds of jobs have been cut from BNSF and Union Pacific over the past weeks and months.

So when leaders such as Oberman and Federal Railroad Administrator Amit Bose decide to oversee the industry through a more skeptical lens, along with the workers and the members of the media, those folks in the comfortable offices get less comfortable.

Oberman also expressed his doubts about activist investor group Ancora’s plan to replace Norfolk Southern’s leadership with a who’s who of exploitative executives.

“Several weeks ago, Ancora wrote me a letter. The essence of their message was that they had taken a $1 billion dollar stake in NS in order for it — quote — ‘to become a safer railroad,’ ” Oberman said. “Really? What hedge fund raises $1 billion to promote safety anywhere? The measure of Ancora’s disingenuous pitch to improve safety is that its slide deck completely omits reference to FRA data which shows that, in the last year, NS has been an industry leader in reducing mainline rail accidents and derailments.”

SMART-TD members — the people who do the work — have lived through PSR. Oberman has gone through PSR, as has Bose. It was a failure for workers, shippers and catastrophic for the national supply chain. It’s not wanted by anyone or good for anyone except for those who would reap the most by doing the least.

The watchdogs of the industry — Oberman, Bose and SMART-TD — all recognize this. We do not want to go through it again.

UP and BNSF executives — you’ll need to get to work, because PSR doesn’t.

Read Oberman’s speech


With rail safety bill’s passage, two-person crews could be required for Virginia freight trains

BY:  - MARCH 4, 2024 

 CSX’s Acca Yard in Richmond is a major freight rail depot. (AiRVA Photography)

As the federal government considers requiring two crewmembers on all trains, similar legislation to increase rail safety statewide passed both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly. 

Last year‘s Norfolk Southern Railway Company train derailment in Ohio – which caused some cars to catch fire and spill dangerous materials, with some infiltrating local waterways – sparked the state legislation and a greater focus on railway safety standards.

Del. Shelly Simonds, D-Newport News, and Sen. Jennifer Carroll Foy, D-Prince William, carried the measure successfully, which is now headed to the governor for his signature. With the governor’s signature, Virginia would join states such as Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, New York, and Ohio to reform rail safety efforts. 

Under the legislation, no railroad company will be able to operate a train, locomotive or light engine by moving freight without at least two qualified individuals aboard. The bill carries a civil penalty of up to $2,000 for the first violation and $5,000 for three or more. 

The legislation was amended, cutting regulations on the train length. The legislation would not apply to using a train, locomotive, or light engine for moving locomotives or for utility services. 

Simonds said residents and commuters in her district have expressed concerns about long trains causing delays at road crossings and are “fed up with these delays.” She said Hampton Roads has over 500 railroad crossings. 

“The bottom line is that every train must have a two-person crew so that someone can respond to emergencies and decouple the train if first responders need to get through a crossing,” said Simonds. “I don’t think we realize how dangerous it is for roads to be blocked by a train if there is a fire or a person needs to get to a hospital.”

If the governor signs the bills, Simonds said the legislation will ensure a crewmember will always be on board a train who can help our first responders if there’s an accident. She noted that railroads are also critical to commerce and Virginia’s supply chain, so they must operate as safely as possible. 

Last year, Simonds carried the same bill, but it failed 4-3 in a House Commerce and Energy subcommittee, as the Federal Railway Administration also reviewed regulations on freight crew sizes. The federal agency’s effort was an attempt “to avoid a patchwork of state laws,” said Rob Bohannon, representing the Virginia Railway Association.

The Virginia subcommittee also heard testimony that passing the bill would set a “slippery slope” in regulating businesses and create a challenge for rail operators struggling to find workers.

Tim Bentley, who spoke on behalf of Norfolk Southern during a January Senate Commerce and Labor committee hearing, said that passing the legislation in the commonwealth could create a potential difference between the state law and federal regulations. 

“We have always believed that crew size should be negotiated in collective bargaining, but if it’s not in collective bargaining, we believe there needs to be a systemwide, nationwide standard of federal regulations,” Bentley said, similar to other federal rail regulations. 

Rachel Jones, deputy secretary of transportation, had also previously urged lawmakers at the same committee meeting to consider waiting until the federal government’s ruling.

However, the federal government has been working on the rule for a long time, according to Carroll Foy.

“There’s no reason to believe that the federal government will actually take action on the federal administration proposal,” Carroll Foy said.

She added the case in Ohio cost millions and threatened the lives of many people, so “we need to make sure that we have engineers and conductors ready to go on these trains to keep everyone safe.”

SMART Union, representing railroad workers nationwide, advocated for the legislation and two-person crew rule over the past two sessions.

“This bill is not just for the rail workers; it’s for the safety for all Virginians to have an employee able to assist in case of emergency and, most importantly, be able to open up the crossing on the mega-long trains so the emergency responders and the public can pass through,” said 

SMART State Legislative Director Ronnie Hobbs in a statement. “A two-person crew is especially important in case of a derailment, such as occurred in East Palestine, because it is the conductor who has the paperwork about any hazardous materials on board and who coordinates with emergency services.”

The rail administration is proposing a minimum requirement of two crewmembers for all railroad operations, with exceptions for operations that do not pose significant safety risks to railroad employees, the public, or the environment. The federal government is expected to rule on the proposal this month. Simonds and Carroll Foy’s bill now heads to Gov. Glenn Youngkin for review.


Rail industry, labor urge Senate to pass bill addressing cuts to unemployment benefits

By Trains Staff | March 5, 2024

Sequestration cuts took effect in May 2023, could last until 2030 without passage of legislation

Trains Washington Watch logo


WASHINGTON — A rare coalition of rail industry and labor groups have asked the Senate Budget Committee to approve legislation which would permanently exempt railroad unemployment and sickness benefits from sequestration budget cuts.

The bill in question, S.1274, the Railroad Employee Equity and Fairness Act, or REEF Act, was introduced by Sen. Deb. Fischer (R-Neb.); its 12 consponsors include six other Republicans, four Democrats, and two Independents. It is scheduled to be considered by the Budget Committee on Wednesday.

A letter sent Monday night to Democratic and Republican leadership of the committee notes that Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act benefits are the only federal unemployment insurance and sickness benefits program subject to sequestration, and that railroad workers saw a 5.7% cut to benefits — which currently amounts to $50 every pay period — as of May 10, 2023.

“Without Congressional intervention, outdated sequestration will continue to unfairly penalize these workers through Fiscal Year 2030,” says the letter, signed by the Association of American Railroads, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, Amtrak, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. The letter urges the committee to approve the “common-sense, bipartisan bill” so the legislation can advance to the full Senate.

The full letter is available here.

 

India’s Steel Sector Urges Tariff Adjustments To Combat Flood of Imports

  • India becomes a net importer of steel, with imports exceeding exports by over 30%.

  • Chinese steel imports surge by 63% in April-July FY24, prompting concerns and calls for corrective measures.

  • Steel industry leaders advocate for tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and a reassessment of free trade agreements to address the influx of imports and support domestic production.

In July, India became a net importer of steel for the fourth time in the last year. And therein lies a tale of tariffs, changes in steel prices, and supply and demand. However, before discussing those issues, it’s important to revisit the facts.

A recent report by India’s Steel Ministry revealed the country became a net importer of steel for the first time in the ongoing fiscal year and the fourth time in a calendar year. Throughout this month, the country imported 587,000 tons of steel, while exports amounted to 513,000 tons. Meanwhile, both imports and exports grew by more than 30%.  

Analysts attribute this discrepancy to the surge in imports of competitively priced steel. This steel predominantly originated in China, though South Korea also contributed significant amounts. In July, for instance, imports outpaced exports by a margin of 74,000 tons. 

The Indian Steel Association’s (ISA) reaction has been a mix of concern and annoyance. In fact, the organization now says it will take up the matter of this sharp upsurge in imports with the Indian Government. This means it will likely call for corrective measures (read: tariffs) to address the evident trade distortions.

Representing India’s steel manufacturers, the ISA’s secretary general, Alok Sahay, recently highlighted the need for systemic policy changes. He told the Business Standard that India’s prevailing “lesser duty” regime forces a minimum period of 15 months for implementing any trade-related actions. This, in turn, renders India susceptible to such situations. 

Sahay added that the organization plans to formally communicate this concern to the government. “To ensure fairness, it’s crucial to effectively counter trade imbalances caused by exporting nations in a “timely manner,” he said.

Dropping Infrastructure Demand in China Sends Steel Elsewhere

ISA’s data shows that during April-July of FY24, India witnessed a 63% surge in Chinese steel imports compared to the corresponding period last year. Meanwhile, steel imports from South Korea saw a marginal decline of 4%. Incidentally, ISA sources its data from the Joint Plant Committee (JPC), a government-empowered entity responsible for collecting statistics on India’s iron and steel industry.

As reported by MetalMiner over the last several months, China’s steel demand continues to decline due to challenges in its property market. In response, steel companies continue to export to countries like India. And though steel production remains in a global slowdown, China’s output experienced a 2.5% rise, reaching 627 MT between January and July 2023.

Tata Steel CEO Forecasts Global Surge for Steel Prices

In an interview with the Hindu BusinessLine, CEO and MD of Tata Steel, T.V. Narendran, said the Chinese economic rebound following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions has been less robust than predicted. However, the rest of the world, especially India, remains on an infrastructure uptick. The combination of these two factors led to a significant increase in steel exports from China and an overall moderation in global steel prices. 

But according to Narendran, the situation could shift in the latter half of the fiscal year 2024. This is mainly due to impending production cuts, which would inevitably lead to a rise in steel prices. Indeed, Narendran expects steel prices to climb within the range of $600 to $650 per ton, a significant increase from the present range of $570 per ton. The CEO attributes much of this to sustained Indian demand to investments and a focus on improving infrastructure.

Tariffs and Steel Prices Remain a Point of Debate

Regarding the subject of tariffs, another prominent Indian steel personality, Sajjan Jindalhas, said he supports government intervention to counterbalance U.S. tariffs and Europe’s carbon tax via the implementation of a corresponding levy. Jindal feels this is necessary to level the playing field for Indian firms, including his own steel company, JSW Steel Ltd. 

Related: Could This Unknown Company Help Solve Europe’s Energy Crisis?

In an interview with Bloomberg, Jindal urged India to establish non-tariff barriers to counteract steel imports supported by state policies. He also advocated imposing duties on Chinese steel due to those firms’ significant state backing, highlighting the resultant inequitable competition. 

India’s Steel Sector Seeks FTA Overhaul

Meanwhile, the Hindu BusinessLine recently asked Tata Steel’s Narendran whether there was a need for India to rework the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) due to increasing steel imports. Narendran responded that he was unsure whether there was any room for renegotiating the FTAs.

Nevertheless, the data concerning the FTAs established with Japan and Korea showed they export more to India than India exports to them. This dove-tails with the steel industry’s perspective that India has not really benefited from consenting to remarkably low tariff levels.

The top steel honcho feels India needs to examine how it could attract steel suppliers interested in the Indian market. In this case, the goal would be to have them invest, manufacture steel locally, and sell within India itself. 

By Sohrab Darabshaw

 

New Oil Law Likely To Be The End Of Iraqi Kurdistan’s Independence Dream

  • The New Oil Law being worked on by the government of Iraq in Baghdad may drastically reduce the independence in energy matters for Iraqi Kurdistan.

  • The FSC ruled that the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) must turn over “all oil and non-oil revenues” to Baghdad.

  • The New Oil Law may have drastic consequences for Western IOCs working in the area.

A series of legal rulings by Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court (FSC) on 21 February underlined that the planned New Oil Law being worked on by the government of Iraq in Baghdad will be the final agent of change that will end any semblance of independence for Iraqi Kurdistan. And for Western oil companies working in the region, it looks like the future has been cancelled.

To begin with, the FSC ruled that the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) must turn over “all oil and non-oil revenues” to Baghdad. This marks the end of any debate over whether the KRG can continue to conduct oil sales independent of the Federal Government Iraq’s (FGI) State Organization for Marketing of Oil (SOMO) – it cannot. And even it managed to arrange channels to do so, it would have to hand over all the money made from the oil sales to the FGI in Baghdad anyway. This effectively returns all financial control of Iraqi Kurdistan back to Iraq’s central government. The FSC added that the FGI, in turn, would be responsible for paying the salaries of public servants in the KRG, with the amount paid to be deduced at source in Baghdad from the KRG’s share. And the KRG must provide monthly, in-depth accounts of every salary that the FGI is paying.Related: 2 Ways to Play Europe’s $800 Billion Energy Crisis

Effectively, this is a much tougher reset of the original ‘budget payments for oil revenues’ deal agreed between the KRG and the FGI back in November 2014, as analysed in full in my new book on the new global oil market order. The deal was that the KRG exported up to 550,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil from its own fields and Kirkuk via SOMO. In return, Baghdad would send 17 percent of the federal budget after sovereign expenses (around US$500 million at that time) per month in budget payments to the Kurds. This arrangement never functioned properly, with the KRG frequently (and rightly) accusing the FGI of underpaying budget disbursements, and the FGI frequently (and rightly) accusing the KRG of under-delivering oil revenues. The deal was then superseded by an understanding reached between the KRG and the new Iraqi federal government formed in October 2018 and centred on the 2019 national budget bill. This required the FGI to transfer sufficient funds from the budget to pay the salaries of KRG employees along with other financial compensation in exchange for the KRG handing over the export of at least 250,000 bpd of crude oil to SOMO. Again, this arrangement never worked properly either.

However, things became much worse in late 2017 for two reasons. The first reason was that 25 September 2017 saw a non-binding vote on full independence for Iraqi Kurdistan. Independence had been tacitly promised to Iraqi Kurdistan by the U.S. and its allies in exchange for Kurdistan’s fearsome Peshmerga army being the West’s principal boots on the ground in the fight against the then-rampant ISIS. Over 92 percent of voters in the 2017 referendum voted in favour of independence, but shortly after the results were announced, forces from Iraq and Iran (supported as well by Turkey) moved into the Kurdish region and quelled any further moves to make independence a reality. Neither Iraq nor Iraq nor Turkey (all with sizeable Kurdish populations) could tolerate the ramifications of a broader upsurge in the Kurdish independence movement across the region. The second reason was that soon after that, Russia gained control over Iraqi Kurdistan’s oil sector through three key mechanisms also analysed in full in my new book on the new global oil market order.

Moscow’s aim was not just to secure the big oil and gas reserves of Iraqi Kurdistan but, more importantly in the long term, to sow the seeds for the destruction of Kurdish independence and its assimilation into one Iraq. It was Russia, then, that stoked mistrust and discontent between the KRG and FGI over the original 2014 ‘budget payments for oil revenues’ deal, which is largely why it never worked properly. The fault-line that Moscow used to create chaos between the two sides was handed to it by the lack of clarity over oil revenues in Iraq’s own Constitution. According to the KRG, it has authority under Articles 112 and 115 of the Constitution to manage oil and gas in the Kurdistan Region extracted from fields that were not in production in 2005 – the year that the Constitution was adopted by referendum. In addition, the KRG maintains that Article 115 states: “All powers not stipulated in the exclusive powers of the federal government belong to the authorities of the regions and governorates that are not organised in a region.” As such, the KRG maintains that as relevant powers are not otherwise stipulated in the Constitution, it has the authority to sell and receive revenue from its oil and gas exports. The KRG also highlights that the Constitution provides that, should a dispute arise, priority shall be given to the law of the regions and governorates. However, the FGI and SOMO argue that under Article 111 of the Constitution oil and gas are under the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates. 

Another turn for the worse for Iraqi Kurdistan came at the end of 2021 when the U.S. formerly ended its combat mission in Iraq, which effectively flung open the door for even greater economic, political, and military influence in Iraq by Iran, Russia, and China. It is in the interests of none of these three countries for the still broadly pro-U.S. Iraqi Kurdistan to exist. Moscow is happy enough to continue to work on fields in north and south Iraq, but under the administration of a centralised pro-Russian authority in Baghdad. In tandem with this, China has been building up its influence in southern Iraq, through multiple deals done in the oil and gas sector that have then been leveraged into bigger infrastructure deals across the south. The apotheosis of Beijing’s vision for China is all-encompassing ‘Iraq-China Framework Agreement’ of 2021. This in turn, was an extension in scale and scope of the ‘Oil for Reconstruction and Investment’ agreement signed by Baghdad and Beijing in September 2019, which allowed Chinese firms to invest in infrastructure projects in Iraq in exchange for oil, as also analysed in full in my new book on the new global oil market order.

Given all of this, it should not surprise anyone that on 3 August last year, the then-new Iraq Prime Minister, Mohammed Al-Sudani, clearly stated that the new unified oil law – run in every respect out of Baghdad - will govern all oil and gas production and investments in both Iraq and its semi-autonomous Kurdistan region and will constitute “a strong factor for Iraq’s unity”. Nor should it surprise anyone that a very high-ranking official from the Kremlin said recently at a meeting with senior government figures from Iran that: “By keeping the West out of energy deals in Iraq – and Baghdad closer to the new Iran-Saudi axis - the end of Western hegemony in the Middle East will become the decisive chapter in the West’s final demise,” a senior source who works closely with the European Union’s energy security apparatus exclusively told OilPrice.com.

By Simon Watkins for Oilprice.com

Oil Riches Fuel Heated Dispute Between Venezuela and Guyana

  • Venezuela claims ownership of the resource-rich Essequibo region, which constitutes two-thirds of Guyana's territory.

  • Recent evidence suggests heightened Venezuelan military activity along Guyana's border, raising fears of a potential invasion.

  • Diplomatic efforts, including a pact signed in 2023, have failed to ease tensions as both sides remain locked in a territorial dispute.

Squabbling between Venezuela and South America’s newest oil-producing nation Guyana over the resource-rich Essequibo region is heating up once again. The more than century-long quarrel centers on Venezuela’s claim to the 61,000 square mile area, which comprises roughly two-thirds of Guyana’s sovereign territory. After supermajor Exxon made a swathe of high-quality oil discoveries in the waters off Essequibo, socialist Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s saber-rattling intensified. By the end of 2023, there were fears Venezuela would use its military to annex the contested region, although the presidents of both Venezuela and Guyana ultimately agreed to resolve the dispute peacefully. Since then, evidence of heightened Venezuelan military activity along Guyana’s border has emerged, sparking fears Caracas is preparing to seize the Essequibo by force.

The Essequibo and nearby Demara, another territory in Guyana, were originally Dutch colonies established in the 17th century that were seized by British troops after the French occupation of the Netherlands. Both colonies, after reverting to Dutch rule, were officially ceded to Britain in 1814 and then unified with other colonies in the area to form British Guiana. The area was contested by the Spanish Empire, which claimed Britain had encroached upon the territory of its colony, the Vice Royalty of New Granada, which contained present-day Venezuela, Colombia, Panama and Ecuador. The origins of the modern dispute are found in Venezuela’s emergence as a sovereign nation in 1831 after the country left the Republic of Gran Colombia, formerly the Vice Royalty of New Granada, which achieved independence from Spain in 1819. Caracas chose to exercise Venezuela’s colonial legacy laying claim to the Essequibo after gold was discovered in the area. 

Following substantial U.S. pressure, which arose after Caracas hired a Washington-based lobbyist who argued Britain had breached the Monroe Doctrine, the 1899 Washington Treaty of Arbitration settled the dispute. That international agreement, which essentially found in favor of Britain, established the border that exists today. The rising popularity of leftist politicians in British Guiana, coupled with increasing demands for independence, alarmed rightwing governments in Caracas that were battling a Cuba-backed leftist insurgency. Venezuela’s rightwing governments were fearful of that conflict intensifying, particularly with the conservative central government in neighboring Colombia fighting a multi-party civil war against several leftist guerilla movements, which Bogota appeared incapable of defeating. After the Cuban Revolution, socialism’s popularity and volume of leftist insurgencies soared across Latin America. This sparked alarm in Washington, especially as the Cold War intensified and Soviet influence grew, seeing the White House perceive anti-communist Venezuela as a natural bulwark against the spread of Marxist ideology in Latin America.

As such, the claim to the Essequibo gained a new significance in Venezuela during the Cold War. Anti-communist President Romulo Betancourt, known as the father of Venezuelan democracy, resurrected the claim to the Essequibo. In 1962, during Betancourt’s second presidency, Caracas declared the Washington Treaty null and void as the rightwing government ratcheted up pressure on British Guiana’s leftist pro-independence leaders. Betancourt used this to derail the colony’s push for independence and prevent a socialist government from taking power, which it feared would turn Guyana into a haven for the leftist guerillas at war with Caracas. It isn’t only Maduro who has considered invading Guyana. Fervently anti-communist rightwing dictator President Marcus Perez Jimenez, a military officer who ousted Betancourt in 1948, prepared to invade British Guiana in 1958, although a coup d'état toppled his regime before the plan was executed. 

While Venezuela’s political ecology has changed significantly since the end of the Cold War, with a socialist authoritarian regime in power since 1999, the claim to the Essequibo is one of the very few issues shared by Maduro and the opposition. After a tense end to 2023, where rumors of an invasion of the Essequibo swirled following Caracas’ announcement that a referendum was found in favor of incorporating the territory into Venezuela, the dispute appeared to calm. It has, nonetheless, flared again over recent weeks. Caracas accused Georgetown of awarding illegal drilling licenses to energy companies, objected to Exxon’s drilling campaign and claimed the supermajor was engaging in corrupt conduct with key opposition figure Maria Corina Machado. The greatest threat, however, comes from the mobilization of Venezuela’s reputedly powerful military, which with 337,000 personnel, is ranked third in South America by manpower.

There is abundant evidence Caracas is boosting troop and equipment numbers along the border with Guyana. Intelligence from a range of sources, notably satellite images examined by The Center for Strategy and International Studies (CSIS), indicates this to be the case. They show extensive land clearing which it is believed is being used to establish supply and transport infrastructure as well as create staging zones for military formations. The photos also show a build-up of Venezuelan forces near the border, with patrol boats, light tanks and armored vehicles moving into the area. Supporting this is Georgetown’s claims that satellite imagery from friendly governments revealed intensifying Venezuelan military activity near its border. These events indicate Caracas will deploy more troops, armored vehicles and aircraft to the contested border region, which not only elevates tensions but also the risk of an armed clash.

Related: Could This Unknown Company Help Solve Europe’s Energy Crisis?

Those actions are a breach of the December 2023 Argyle Declaration signed by Venezuela’s President Maduro and Guyana President Irfaan Ali in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. In this pact, Venezuela and Guyana agreed, first and foremost, that directly or indirectly, they will not threaten or use force against one another in any circumstances, including in relation to any existing controversies. There was also a commitment to refrain from escalating the existing conflict through words or deeds while pursuing good neighborliness and peaceful coexistence. Finally, both countries consented to resolving the dispute peacefully in accordance with international law and establishing a joint commission to find a resolution.

The latest events demonstrate Maduro is acting duplicitously and contrary to the objectives he publicly agreed to, principally resolving Venezuela’s claim without resorting to violence and in accordance with international law. Indeed, Venezuela’s dictatorial president is using the country’s reputedly powerful military, with the threat of invasion, as a lever to ensure Georgetown’s compliance with its goal of annexing the Essequibo. The use of diplomacy coupled with the threat of military violence to coerce a country into changing its behavior is known as compliance. This is one of the preferred strategies used by dictators around the world to achieve their geopolitical objectives. For over a decade, Maduro has openly demonstrated his diplomatic duplicity and willingness to use violence or the threat of violence to terrorize opponents to achieve ideological goals and secure his regime’s future. 

As Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrates, illiberal dictators, like Maduro, do not respect international law nor diplomacy and ultimately will nearly always resort to naked force, particularly if they possess a fait accompli, to resolve disputes. A fait accompli is where a regime believes the application of overwhelming military force will allow it to seize disputed territory without triggering a prolonged war. Since 1945, it has become the most common strategy employed by authoritarian states for seizing contested territory. The most recent example is the Kremlin’s belief it possessed a fait accompli that would allow a successful invasion of Ukraine while avoiding all-out war, although that strategy failed with a costly protracted conflict erupting. A fait accompli, like compellence, is essentially a form of coercive bargaining used to achieve diplomatic and political compliance from an opposing state through the threat or actual use of overpowering force. 

Venezuela’s military, on paper, presents itself as among the most powerful in South America and capable of overwhelming Guyana’s minuscule defense force. Key to Maduro’s thinking regarding the Essequibo is his close alliance with Putin, where Venezuela’s autocratic regime sided with the Kremlin regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia, especially since Washington imposed strict sanctions on Caracas, emerged as one of Venezuela’s main backers providing not only financial assistance but also crucial military aid and supplies. The Kremlin has been arming Venezuela’s military since President Hugo Chavez assumed office and launched his 1999 socialist Bolivarian Revolution. The importance of Russia’s military aid soared as Washington ratcheted up sanctions, aimed at cutting Caracas off from global energy and financial markets, against the dictatorial Maduro regime.

Moscow has equipped Caracas with 4th generation fighter jets, helicopter gunships, anti-aircraft missiles, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, anti-armor weapons and a multitude of small arms. In fact, Rosoboronexport, Russia’s state arms seller, licensed a plant in Venezuela to produce Kalashnikov AK-103 assault rifles, the military’s standard long arm. In a show of solidarity with Maduro, the Kremlin has dispatched powerful military assets to Venezuela. These include nuclear-capable Tupolev strategic bombers, destroyers and the Kirov class battlecruiser Peter the Great, considered the world’s largest nuclear-powered surface vessel. Moscow has also dispatched military advisers, bodyguards and deployed troops, including mercenaries from the controversial Wagner Group, to support the beleaguered Maduro regime. Russian soldiers were reputedly even sent to monitor Venezuela’s border with Colombia, Washington’s closest South American ally.

Despite Venezuela’s military strength on paper, there are questions as to whether the armed forces are operationally capable of launching an invasion and seizing the disputed territory. Essequibo’s harsh terrain and lack of infrastructure make it inhospitable to military operations. For those reasons, it is speculated Venezuela’s land forces must pass through Brazil’s territory to reach the region. At the end of 2023, Brazil began reinforcing its military presence on the border with Venezuela and has been sending further personnel as well as equipment since the start of this year. In February 2024, according to a report from news agency Reuters, Brasilia moved two dozen armored cars to Manaus and bolstered the local garrison to 600 troops. The Boa Vista garrison will reportedly be increased to a regiment, and Brazil’s army is considering further troop and armored vehicle deployments along the border. Brazil’s armed forces, which are ranked as the largest and most powerful in South America, are presumed capable of repelling any incursion by Venezuela’s military.

There are significant doubts regarding Venezuela's armed forces' capability and combat readiness. During 2021, Caracas’ land forces, in a series of clashes in the southern state of Apure, which borders Colombia, were trounced by a handful of battle-hardened leftist guerillas from the dissident 10th Front of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC – Spanish initials). The 10th Front, which is estimated to number 300 fighters, repudiated Bogota’s 2016 FARC peace agreement and established an operational base in Apure, where it became heavily involved in illicit economies, including cocaine trafficking and extortion. The dissidents found allies in Venezuela’s military, which saw them cooperating with various units of the armed forces on highly profitable illicit activitiesincluding cocaine trafficking.

A dispute over control of those economies in Apure combined with Maduro’s rising paranoia over losing control and fears that the dissident 10th Front was growing too strong saw the Venezuelan military launch attacks on the illegal armed band. By March 2021, ground elements of Venezuela’s ground forces, including the army, police special forces and Bolivarian National Guard, were locked in an asymmetric conflict with the 10th Front. Despite their numerical advantage and dominance in firepower through the deployment of fighter jets, artillery, helicopters and armored vehicles, attacks by Venezuelan ground forces foundered against the experienced guerillas’ irregular tactics. The dissident FARC guerillas inflicted heavy casualties on Venezuelan forces including capturing many soldiers in ambushes, with it believed the real death toll is double the 16 dead officially reported

There is considerable conjecture as to why Venezuela’s armed forces failed to defeat a minor adversary, especially when their substantial superiority in numbers and firepower is considered. Deficient training and equipment, poor strategic as well as tactical planning and low morale were responsible for a lack of combat effectiveness. There is also speculation that the capability of Venezuela’s armed forces has been degraded by its growing political role, where it is a tool used to ensure the dictatorial Maduro regime’s survival rather than as a professional apolitical organization tasked with defending Venezuela’s sovereign territory. For these reasons, Caracas’ military buildup on Guyana’s border and Maduro’s saber-rattling appear to be pressuring Georgetown through the threat of violence rather than presenting as a genuine plan to invade Guyana and annex the Essequibo.

By Matthew Smith for Oilprice.com

 

Africa’s Richest Person Wants to Create a Trading Firm for Its Biggest Refinery

Aliko Dangote, the owner of Africa’s largest refinery and Africa’s richest person, is looking to set up a trading firm that would handle crude supply for the new mega refinery in Nigeria, Reuters reported on Tuesday, citing multiple sources with knowledge of the plans.   

The Dangote Refinery in Nigeria, Africa’s biggest, began the production of fuels in January 2024, marking the start-up of the refinery that has seen years of delays.   

The Dangote refinery, which has a processing capacity of 650,000 barrels per day (bpd), will meet 100% of Nigeria’s demand for all refined petroleum products and will also have a surplus of each of the products for export.

The refinery project, which has cost around $20 billion, up from initial cost estimates of between $12 billion and $14 billion, has seen years of delays.

Nigeria hopes the new refinery will alleviate its chronic fuel shortage that has turned Africa’s biggest oil producer into a fuel importer. Nigeria, OPEC’s top crude oil producer in Africa, has had to rely on fuel imports due to a lack of enough capacity at its refineries, which had to undergo refurbishment in recent years.

Now Aliko Dangote wants to try and set up a trading arm to handle trade for the huge refinery, after major oil trading houses and supermajors haven’t signed any deals with Africa’s richest person regarding possible loans to the refinery for the crude it would need to purchase, according to Reuters’ sources.

“He is going to try and do it himself,” one industry source told Reuters.

Dangote’s trading firm is most likely to be based in London and is expected to be led by Radha Mohan, a former trader at Essar, per Reuters’ sources.

Mohan is currently the director of International Supply and Trading at Dangote Group, after joining the company in 2021.   

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com