President Donald Trump’s promise to revive the Venezuelan oil industry drew praise from U.S. energy executives on Friday — but no firm commitments to invest the vast sums of money needed to bring the country’s oil output back from the doldrums. The lack of firm pledges from the heads of the companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips that Trump summoned to the White House raised doubts about the president’s claim that U.S. oil producers were ready to spend $100 billion or more to rebuild Venezuela’s crude oil infrastructure. The country boasts the world’s largest oil reserves, but its production has cratered since the regime pushed most of those companies out decades ago. Exxon CEO Darren Woods offered the starkest assessment, telling Trump in the live-streamed meeting in the East Room that Venezuela is “uninvestable” under current conditions. He said major changes were needed before his company would return to the country, and that big questions remain about what return Exxon could expect from any investments. “If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” Woods told Trump. “Significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.” Still, Woods said he was confident the U.S. can help make those changes, and said he expected Exxon could put a technical team on the ground in Venezuela soon to assess the state of its oil infrastructure. Harold Hamm, a fracking executive and major Trump ally, expressed more enthusiasm but still fell short of making any commitments. “It excites me as an explorationist,” Hamm, whose experience has centered on oil production inside the U.S., said of the opportunity to invest in Venezuela. “It is a very exciting country and a lot of reserves — it’s got its challenges and the industry knows how to handle that.” Still, Energy Secretary Chris Wright pointed reporters after the meeting to a statement from Chevron — the only major U.S. oil company still operating in Venezuela — that it was ready to raise its output as a concrete sign the industry was willing to put more money into the country. Chevron currently produces about 240,000 barrels a day there with its partner, the Venezuelan state-run oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA. Mark Nelson, Chevron’s vice chairman, told the gathering the company sees “a path forward” to increase production from its existing operations by 50 percent over the next 18 to 24 months. He did not commit to a dollar figure, however. Wright indicated that the $100 billion figure cited by Trump on Thursday was an estimate for the cost of reconstructing Venezuela’s dilapidated oil sector — rather than a firm spending commitment made by producing companies. “If you look at what’s a positive trajectory for Venezuela’s oil industry in the next decade, that’s probably going to take about $100 billion investment,” said Wright, who later told Bloomberg Television he is likely to travel to Venezuela “before too long.” Most of the nearly two dozen companies in attendance at Friday’s meeting expressed tepid support for the administration’s plan, though others indicated they were eager to jump back quickly. Wael Sawan, the CEO of the European energy giant Shell, said the company had been pushed out in Venezuela’s nationalization program in the 1970s, giving up 1 million barrels per day of oil production. Now it was seeking U.S. permits to go back, he said. “We are ready to go and looking forward to the investment in support of the Venezuelan people,” he said. Jeffery Hildebrand, CEO of independent oil and gas producer Hilcorp Energy and a major Trump donor, said his company was “fully committed and ready to go to rebuild the infrastructure in Venezuela.” Trump said during the meeting that companies that invest in Venezuela would be assured “total safety, total security,” without the U.S. government spending taxpayer dollars or putting boots on the ground. He indicated that Venezuela would provide security for the U.S. companies, and that the companies would bring their own protection as well. “These are tough people. They go into areas that you wouldn’t want to go. They go into areas that if they invited me, I’d say, ‘No, thanks. I’ll see you back in Palm Beach,’” Trump said of the oil companies. Before the executives spoke, Trump insisted that oil executives are lining up to take the administration up on the opportunity. “If you don’t want to go in, just let me know,” he said. “There are 25 people not here today willing to take your place.” Following the public meeting, the companies stayed for further discussions with administration officials behind closed doors. The president also dismissed speculation that the administration may offer financial guarantees to back up what he acknowledged would be a risky investment. “I hope I don’t have to give a backstop,” he said. “These are the biggest companies in the world sitting around this table — they know the risks.” Trump also laughed off the billions that Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips are owed for the assets seized by the Venezuelan regime decades ago. “Nice write-off,” he quipped. “You’ll get a lot of your money back,” Trump told ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance. “We’re going to start with an even plate, though — we’re not going to look at what people lost in the past because that was their fault.” ConocoPhillips spokesperson Dennis Nuss said in a statement that Lance “appreciates today’s valuable opportunity to engage with President Trump in a discussion about preparing Venezuela to be investment ready.” The White House at the last minute shifted the meeting from a closed-door session in the Cabinet Room to a live-televised spectacle in the East Room. “Everybody wants to be there,” the president wrote of the oil executives on social media just ahead of the meeting. POLITICO reported on Thursday that the White House had scrambled to invite additional companies to the meeting because of skepticism from the top oil majors about reentering the country. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged in an appearance Thursday that “big oil companies who move slowly … are not interested,” but said the administration’s “phones are ringing off the hook” with calls from smaller players. Bethany Williams, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, called Friday’s meeting “a constructive, initial conversation that highlighted both the energy potential and the challenges presented in Venezuela, including the importance of rule of law, security, and stable governance.” Venezuela — even with strongman Nicolás Maduro in custody in New York — remains under the rule of the same socialist government that appropriated the rigs, pipelines and property of foreign oil companies two decades ago. Questions remain about who would guarantee the companies’ workers’ safety, particularly since Trump has publicly ruled out sending in troops. Kevin Book, a managing director at the energy research firm ClearView Energy Partners, noted that few CEOs in the meeting outright rejected the notion of returning to or investing in Venezuela, instead couching any sort of presence on several conditions. Some of those might be nearer term, such as security guarantees. Others, like reestablishing legal stability in Venezuela, appear more distant. “They need to understand the risk and they need to understand the return,” Book said. “What it sounded like most of the companies were saying … is that they want to understand the risk and the return and then they’ll look at the investment.” Evanan Romero, a Houston-based oil consultant involved in the Trump administration’s effort to bring U.S. oil producers back to Venezuela, said international oil companies will not return to the country under the same laws and government that expropriated their assets decades earlier. “The main contribution that [interim president] Delcy [Rodríguez] and her government can do is make a bonfire of those laws and put it on fire in the Venezuelan Bolivar Square,” Romero said. “With those, we cannot do any reconstruction of the oil industry.” Zack Colman and Irie Sentner contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump’s Cabinet officials are scheduling their first formal calls with oil company CEOs to press them to revive Venezuela’s flagging oil production, four people familiar with the conversations told POLITICO. Calls that Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are planning with chief executives represent some of the first official outreach that the administration has made to the U.S. companies after months of informal discussions with people in the sector, these people said — days after President Donald Trump told reporters that “our very large United States oil companies” will “spend billions of dollars” in Venezuela. However, the companies’ executives remain wary of entering a socialist-ruled country that was plunged into political upheaval after U.S. forces took strongman Nicolás Maduro into custody over the weekend, following decades of neglect in its nationalized oil fields, according to market analysts and industry officials. Industry officials are also discussing what types of incentives would be needed to get them to return to the country, according to two industry officials familiar with the plans who were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. Those could include having the U.S. government signing contracts guaranteeing payment and security or forming public-private joint ventures. Even if they don’t yet have fully formed ideas for what would get them to invest in Venezuela, Trump’s insistence is difficult to ignore, said one former administration agency head who was granted anonymity to discuss the evolving matters. “Most companies have been thinking about this for a while. All of the big folks are probably thinking about it — and very, very, very hard,” the person said. “It’s a pretty powerful thing when the president of the United States says, ‘I need you to do this.’” Publicly, the White House expressed confidence. “All of our oil companies are ready and willing to make big investments in Venezuela that will rebuild their oil infrastructure, which was destroyed by the illegitimate Maduro regime,” spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement. “American oil companies will do an incredible job for the people of Venezuela and will represent the United States well.” One person said the administration also “hopes” the American Petroleum Institute, the powerful trade association representing oil companies working in the United States, would form a task force to advise the White House on how best to revive Venezuelan oil production. “In nearly all cases, these calls are the first outreach from the administration on Venezuela,” the person said. API is “closely watching developments involving Venezuela and any potential implications for global energy markets,” group spokesperson Justin Prendergast said in response to questions. “Events like this underscore the importance of strong U.S. energy leadership. Globally, energy companies make investment decisions based on stability, the rule of law, market forces and long-term operational considerations,” Prendergast said. Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had spoken to U.S. oil companies “before and after” the military operation that seized Maduro and brought him to New York, where the former Venezuelan leader made his first court appearance on Monday. “And they want to go in, and they’re going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela, and they’re going to represent us well,” Trump continued. Industry executives on Monday told Reuters no such outreach had occurred to oil majors Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron, all of which have experience working in Venezuela’s oil fields. Bringing Venezuela’s oil production — now around 1 million barrels a day — back to its glory-days’ height of 3 million barrels a day would require at least $183 billion and more than a decade of effort, industry analyst firm Rystad Energy said Monday. While the Venezuelan government might supply some of that money, international companies would need to spend $35 billion in the next few years to reach that goal. “Rystad Energy believes that around $53 billion of oil and gas upstream and infrastructure investment is needed over the next 15 years just to keep Venezuela’s crude oil production flat at 1.1 million” barrels a day, the firm said in a client note. “Going beyond 1.4 million [barrels a day] is possible but would require a stable investment of $8 [billion]-$9 billion per year from 2026 to 2040, on top of ‘hold-flat’ capital requirements.” ConocoPhillips spokesperson Dennis Nuss said in a statement that it would be “premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,” but said the company is monitoring the “potential implications for global energy supply and stability” from the events in Venezuela. ConocoPhillips is continuing its efforts to collect more than $10 billion in compensation it was awarded in arbitration for the Venezuelan government’s seizure of the company’s assets in 2007, Nuss said. Exxon Mobil and Chevron did not respond to requests for comment. Oil field services companies Halliburton and Baker Hughes did not respond for comment, and SLB declined to comment. The only company to publicly indicate interest in Venezuela has been Continental Resources, a firm led by Trump ally and informal energy adviser Harold Hamm. Hamm told the Financial Times on Sunday that “with improved regulatory and governmental stability we would definitely consider future investment.” Continental, which played a key role in developing oil fracking technology, has never operated outside the United States — though it announced on Monday a deal in which it would buy assets in Argentina. People in the oil industry have said a major concern is that Venezuela is not stable enough to guarantee the safety of any workers and equipment they might send there. Companies are asking that the U.S. government contract directly with them before they commit to entering the country. “We need some boots-on-the-ground security and some financial security. That’s on top of the list,” said a second industry executive familiar with the talks who was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. Trump’s decision to allow Maduro’s second-in-command, acting President Delcy Rodríguez, and other members of the regime to remain in charge of the country’s government has also made industry executives wary of taking on the job, this person added. Rodríguez and her family had been part of the Venezuelan government under Hugo Chávez in the mid-2000s when the regime seized the assets of foreign oil companies. Colombia, Canada, the EU and the United States have levied sanctions against her after accusing her of undermining the Venezuelan elections. “Who’s running the game here?” the second industry executive said. “If she’s going to be in charge — plus the guys who have been there all along — what guarantee can you give us that stuff is going to change? Those three issues — physical, financial and political security — have to be settled before anyone goes in.” Longtime Republican foreign policy hand Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela during his first term, said the president is “exaggerating” the likelihood that companies will return to the country, given the risk and capital required. “The president seems to suggest that he will make the decision, but that is not right — the boards of these companies will make the decisions,” said Abrams, who is now senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I expect that you’ll see all of them now say, ‘This is fantastic, it’s a great opportunity, and we have a team ready to go to Venezuela,’ but that’s politics,” he added. “That doesn’t mean they’re going to invest.”

American oil companies have long hoped to recover the assets that Venezuela’s authoritarian regime ripped from them decades ago. Now the Trump administration is offering to help them achieve that aim — with one major condition. Administration officials have told oil executives in recent weeks that if they want compensation for their rigs, pipelines and other seized property, then they must be prepared to go back into Venezuela now and invest heavily in reviving its shattered petroleum industry, two people familiar with the administration’s outreach told POLITICO on Saturday. The outlook for Venezuela’s shattered oil infrastructure is one of the major questions following the U.S. military action that captured leader Nicolás Maduro. But people in the industry said the administration’s message has left them still leery about the difficulty of rebuilding decayed oil fields in a country where it’s not even clear who will lead the country for the foreseeable future. “They’re saying, ‘you gotta go in if you want to play and get reimbursed,’” said one industry official familiar with the conversations. The offer has been on the table for the last 10 days, the person said. “But the infrastructure currently there is so dilapidated that no one at these companies can adequately assess what is needed to make it operable.” President Donald Trump suggested in a televised address Saturday morning that he fully expects U.S. oil companies to pour big money into Venezuela. “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure and start making money for the country,” Trump said as he celebrated Maduro’s capture. DECAYED INFRASTRUCTURE It’s been five decades since the Venezuelan government first nationalized the oil industry and nearly 20 years since former President Hugo Chávez expanded the asset seizures. The country has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, but its petroleum infrastructure has decayed amid years of mismanagement and meager investment. Initial thoughts among U.S. oil industry officials and market analysts who spoke to POLITICO regarding a post-Maduro Venezuela focused more on questions than answers. The administration has so far not laid out what its long-term plan looks like, or even if it has one, said Bob McNally, a former national security and energy adviser to President George W. Bush who now leads the energy and geopolitics consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group. “It’s not clear there’s been a specific plan beyond the principal decision that in a post-Maduro, Trump-compliant regime that the U.S. companies — energy and others — will be at the top of the list” to reenter the country, McNally said. He added: “What the regime looks like, what the plans are for getting there, that has not been fully fleshed out yet.” A central concern for U.S. industry executives is whether the administration can guarantee the safety of the employees and equipment that companies would need to send to Venezuela, how the companies would be paid, whether oil prices will rise enough to make Venezuelan crude profitable and the status of Venezuela’s membership in the OPEC oil exporters cartel. U.S. benchmark oil prices were at $57 a barrel, the lowest since the end of the pandemic, as of the market’s close on Friday. The White House did not immediately reply to questions about its plan for the oil industry, but Trump said during Saturday’s appearance at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida that he expected oil companies to put up the initial investments. “We’re going to rebuild the oil infrastructure, which requires billions of dollars that will be paid for by the oil companies directly,” Trump said. “They will be reimbursed for what they’re doing, but it’s going to be paid, and we’re going to get the oil flowing.” However, the administration’s outreach to U.S. oil company executives remains “at its best in the infancy stage,” said one industry executive familiar with the discussions, who was granted anonymity to describe conversations with the president’s team. “In preparation for regime change, there had been engagement. But it’s been sporadic and relatively flatly received by the industry,” this person said. “It feels very much a shoot-ready-aim exercise.” ‘WHOLESALE REMAKING’ Venezuela’s oil output has fallen to less than a third of the 3.5 million barrels per day that it produced in the 1970s, and the infrastructure that is used to tap into its 300 billion barrels of reserves has deteriorated in the past two decades. “Will the U.S. be able to attract U.S. oilfield services to go to Venezuela?” the executive asked. “Maybe. It would have to involve the services companies being able to contract directly with the U.S. government.” Talks with administration officials over the past several days also involved the fate of the state oil company, which is known as PdVSA, this person added. “PdVSA will not be denationalized in some way and broken,” this person said. “Definitely it’s going to be wholesale remaking of PdVSA leadership, but at least at this point, there is no plan for denationalization or auctioning it off. It’s in the best position to keep production flowing.” Chevron, the sole major oil company still working in Venezuela under a special license from the U.S. government, said in a statement Saturday that it “remains focused on the safety and wellbeing of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets. “We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations,” Chevron spokesperson Bill Turenne said in a statement. Evanan Romero, a Houston-based oil consultant involved in the effort to bring U.S. oil producers back to Venezuela, said in a text message that Saturday’s events laid the groundwork for American oil companies to return “very soon.” Romero is part of a roughly 400-person committee, mostly made up of former employees of the Venezuelan state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, that formed about a year ago to strategize about how to revive the country’s oil industry under a new government. The committee, which is not directly affiliated with opposition leader María Corina Machado’s camp, is debating the role any new government should have in the oil sector. Some members favor keeping the industry under the control of the government while others contend that international oil majors would return only under a free market system, Romero said. ‘ABOVE-GROUND RISK’ Ultimately, the “orderliness” in any transition will determine U.S. investment and reentry in Venezuela, said Carrie Filipetti, who was deputy assistant secretary for Cuba and Venezuela and the deputy special representative for Venezuela at the State Department in Trump’s first administration. “If you were to see a disorderly transition, obviously I think that would make it very challenging for American companies to enter Venezuela,” said Filipetti, who is now executive director of nonpartisan foreign policy group The Vandenberg Coalition. “It’s not just about getting rid of Maduro. It’s also about making sure that the legitimate opposition comes into power. ” Richard Goldberg, who led the White House’s National Energy Dominance Council until August, said the Trump administration could offer financial incentives to coax companies back into Venezuela. That could include the Export-Import Bank and the U.S. International Development Finance Corp., whose remit Congress expanded in December, underwriting investments to account for political and security risks. Promoting U.S. investment in Venezuela would keep China — a major consumer of Venezuela’s oil — out of the nation and cut off the flow of the discounted crude that China buys from Venezuela’s ghost fleets of tankers that skirt U.S. sanctions. “There’s an incentive for the Americans to get there first and to ensure it’s American companies at the forefront, and not anybody else’s,” said Goldberg. It’s unclear how much the Trump administration could accelerate investment in Venezuela, said Landon Derentz, an energy analyst at the Atlantic Council who worked in the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. Many consider Venezuela a longer-term play given current low prices of $50 per barrel oil and the huge capital investments needed to modernize the infrastructure, Derentz said. But as U.S. shale oil regions that have made the country the world’s leading oil producer peter out over time, he said, it would become increasingly economical to export Venezuelan heavy crude to the Gulf Coast refineries built specifically to process it. “Venezuela would be a crown jewel if the above-ground risk is removed. I have companies saying let’s see where this lands,” said Derentz, who served in Trump’s National Security Council during his first term. “I don’t see anything that gives me the sense that this is a ripe opportunity.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered pointed remarks Wednesday to Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić about his country’s progress toward EU membership. “Now is the moment for Serbia to get concrete about joining our union,” said the Commission chief, during a press conference in Belgrade on her tour of the Western Balkans. “Therefore, we need to see progress, on the rule of law, the electoral framework and media freedom,” von der Leyen added. “I know these reforms are not easy,” she said. “They take patience and endurance. They must include all parts of society and the political spectrum. But they are worth the effort. Because they move you closer to your goal.” Von der Leyen also urged the Serbian president to join the EU in imposing sanctions against Russia. Belgrade has consistently refused to align with the bloc in sanctioning Russian energy and goods, especially since it is almost entirely dependent on Russian gas. “I commend you for reaching 61 percent of alignment with our foreign policy. But more is needed. We want to count on Serbia as a reliable partner,” said von der Leyen. Serbia applied for EU membership in 2009 and was subsequently granted candidate status in 2012, later opening accession negotiations with the EU in 2013. Since then, 22 of the 35 chapters of accession criteria have been opened — but only two have been provisionally closed. Leadership in the Western Balkan country has come under heavy criticism in recent years. Protests triggered by the collapse of the Novi Sad train station canopy in November last year turned into a wider revolt over corruption, accountability, and democratic backsliding, which was met with a violent response from police. The European Green Party criticized the Commission chief’s visit to Serbia, calling it “deeply regrettable that von der Leyen honors Vučić with an official visit without visible reservations, while his regime unlawfully detains students and opposition members and violently represses protesters,” its co-chair Vula Tsetsi said in a statement. The U.S. decided last week to sanction Serbia’s leading oil supplier, the Petroleum Industry of Serbia (NIS), because it is majority-owned by Russia’s Gazprom Neft. Vučić met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing during a regional security summit in September, reaffirming Serbia’s commitment to purchasing Russian gas and potentially increasing it. “Since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, Serbia has been in a very difficult situation and under great pressure, but … we will preserve our neutrality,” said Vučić, utilizing Kremlin terminology for its war on Kyiv.

COPENHAGEN — Connie Hedegaard remembers when climate was Europe’s great unifier. More than a decade ago, as the EU’s first climate commissioner, she helped turn carbon policy into a pillar of Brussels’ power and a point of pride for the bloc. But with southern Europe now burning and Brussels pivoting to a new mantra of security and competitiveness, she worries the tide is turning — with dire ramifications. “When people lose their homes or their families to extreme weather, they don’t just suffer loss, they also lose trust in decision-makers,” Hedegaard told POLITICO on the sidelines of an organic farming summit. “That mistrust is what feeds polarization.” And she didn’t mince words about the industry giants and other actors she says are responsible for stalling progress. “I remember when BP called itself ‘Beyond Petroleum,’” she said, citing the giant British oil firm. “Now they are backtracking. They should be ashamed of themselves.”  The warning by the Danish national, who led the European Commission’s newly established climate wing between 2010 and 2014, comes more than a year after far-right parties surged in the European election, capitalizing on voter anger over inflation and green rules.  Eight months into Ursula von der Leyen’s second term atop the Commission, her ambitious Green Deal climate and environmental agenda has become a political punching bag, with national governments pushing for looser targets and industry lobbying to slow the pace of change. But Hedegaard argued that treating the Green Deal as a burden in tough times is a dangerous miscalculation.  “For Europe, climate and security are interlinked. I think most people can see it when they look at our energy dependency and the need for transformation of our energy systems,” she said. “If policymakers fail to act, they risk fueling the very populism they claim to fear.” CLIMATE REALITY From last year’s “monster” floods in Spain to this summer’s fires in Cyprus and southern France, climate disasters have battered Europe with increased scale and frequency. In Scandinavia, July’s record-breaking heat left hospitals overwhelmed and even drove reindeer into cities in search of shade. The European Environment Agency estimates such disasters have already cost the continent nearly half a trillion euros over the past four decades. In Scandinavia, July’s record-breaking heat left hospitals overwhelmed and even drove reindeer into cities in search of shade. | Jouni Porsanger/Lehtikuva/AFP via Getty Images Hedegaard is no stranger to political battles. A former Danish minister and longtime center-right politician, she cut her teeth in Copenhagen before moving to Brussels in 2010. Remembered in EU corridors for her direct and conversational style, honed by an early career as a journalist, Hedegaard is blunt in her assessments. Her pointed attack on BP, for instance, comes after the company scaled back its renewable energy investments while raising annual spending on oil and gas — reversing the climate pledges the firm once trumpeted. BP did not respond to a request for comment. Hedegaard’s remarks also come as climate lawsuits mount around the world. Last month, the International Court of Justice ruled that governments can be held legally responsible for failing to act on climate change, a decision that could also embolden challenges against corporations. Since leaving Brussels, Hedegaard has taken on several roles in climate policy and sustainability, including chairing the European Climate Foundation. But her post-EU career has not been without controversy. In 2016, she joined Volkswagen’s new Sustainability Council, a move critics said risked greenwashing in the wake of the carmaker’s emission-cheating Dieselgate scandal. She defended the role as unpaid and aimed at pushing the company to clean up its act. For von der Leyen, Hedegaard has an unvarnished message: Don’t blink. “She has stood firm so far. She must continue to do that,” she said of the EU executive president. Hedegaard also warned that Europe can’t afford to stall while China pours billions into climate-friendly technology. “If Europe hesitates while others go full speed, we risk losing the industries of the future,” she said. A climate pact with Beijing last month was hailed as a diplomatic win, but underscored how cooperation is increasingly entangled with rivalry over who will dominate the supply chain. Closer to home, Hedegaard pointed to farming as one of the EU’s most immediate levers. She argued that the Common Agricultural Policy, which consumes around a third of the EU budget, could be used more forcefully to drive the green transition while cutting red tape for the smallest farmers. “It takes courage,” she said, “but agriculture is one of the sectors where we actually have the tools to act.” “This is not the time to hesitate or foot-drag,” she added. “It is time to deliver.”

Iran’s parliament endorsed a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global transit chokepoint, in response to overnight U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Iranian state media reported Sunday. Iran’s state-owned broadcaster Press TV reported that the legislature had reached a consensus to close the strait. The final decision rests with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, it said. The channel, which separates Iran and Oman, is a vital gateway for oil shipments from Persian Gulf countries. The parliamentary endorsement comes directly after the U.S. launched strikes on Iran’s Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities.

LONDON — The British government is expected to unveil crucial guidance on scope-three emissions for oil and gas projects in the North Sea on Thursday, according to two industry figures and a figure familiar with government planning. Climate watchdog the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning launched a consultation last October on guidance for emissions in the fossil fuel industry.  That consultation closed in January. This followed a legal verdict last summer, known as the Finch case. It determined that end-use emissions, known as ‘scope three’, must be factored into the environmental impact of fossil fuel projects as part of applying for planning permission. OPRED and the North Sea Transition Authority regulator have paused decisions on licenses for new drilling projects and the granting of existing licenses until the government clarifies its position. “We took the decision … that we have some decisions to take that risk looking a bit incongruous. [So] we pause, we wait until we see what the policy landscape from government is, and then we decide what to do moving forward. And so that’s exactly where we are,” Stuart Payne, NSTA chief executive, told POLITICO in January. This includes fossil fuel projects Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North Sea, which campaigners successfully challenged earlier this year — leading to their environment approvals being revoked. A DESNZ spokesperson told MECUK they were not going to comment on speculation, but confirmed Energy Minister Michael Shanks would be in Scotland on Thursday. CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story included an inaccurate decision date.

BRUSSELS — The EU ramped up payments for purchases of Russian-made fuel from India in 2024, a new report shared with POLITICO shows — helping fill Moscow’s war coffers. From January to August, the EU bought fuel worth almost 20 percent more than it did last year from three major Indian refineries working on Russian crude oil, according to the analysis, prepared by the Center for the Study of Democracy think tank. While entirely legal, the rise comes despite EU efforts to impose a price cap of $60 per barrel alongside its G7 allies and outlaw direct imports of most Russian oil to the bloc, showcasing just how porous those measures have become in the two years since they were rolled out. India, which replaced Saudi Arabia as Europe’s top fuel supplier for 2024, has also begun accepting Russian cargoes via EU-sanctioned ships, the report warns — a development that’s now sparking anger from inside the bloc.  “By allowing third countries like India and Turkey to re-export petroleum products made from Russian oil … the EU provides the Kremlin with the ability to replace its lost market” in Europe, said Martin Vladimirov, a senior analyst at CSD, which analyzed information from several firms tracking customs data and sanctions compliance.  “The additional revenues have been able to sustain the enormous costs of the war effort in Ukraine,” he added. Brussels is well aware of the so-called refining sanctions loophole, which allows the EU to legally buy Russian-origin fuels as long as these are processed in other countries. But the new findings illustrate how the bloc continues to fund Moscow despite its attempts to throttle the Kremlin’s revenues, around half of which come from fossil fuel exports. The extra cash is a welcome relief for Russia, which increasingly needs funds to shore up its budget as the ruble tanks and defense spending explodes, while it also faces slowing growth and high inflation.  Overall, the EU’s fuel imports from India have actually dropped 9 percent so far this year compared to 2023, while its purchases from India’s three main refineries — the RIL Jamnagar, Vadinar and state-owned New Mangalore facilities — known to process Russian oil rose by a modest 4 percent. But the amount the bloc paid for those purchases has risen markedly. It’s not possible to prove definitively how much Russian-made fuel the refineries sold to the EU. But since the facilities rely heavily on Moscow for crude — accounting for 30 percent to 70 percent of total imports this year — some of it would have to be exported to the bloc, the report states. In all, the three facilities exported 6.7 million metric tons of oil to EU countries until August, the analysis argues, raising €5.4 billion in oil revenues. That was driven largely by Moscow’s increasing ability to dodge the EU’s sanctions, the report states, by relying on a growing “shadow fleet” of aging tankers with obscure ownership and unknown insurance to sell its crude.  In the first eight months of this year, these shadow tankers delivered nearly three-quarters of India’s crude imports from Russia, according to CSD.  Meanwhile, India is also beginning to accept Russian vessels targeted by EU sanctions, the report argues, despite the country’s previously having turned away tankers under Western restrictions. One such vessel, the Legacy, has continued to ship crude to India after coming under EU sanctions in June. Since then, the ship has delivered over 200,000 metric tons of oil to refineries, including to the Jamnagar complex, according to the report and Kpler, a commodities platform that does real-time tracking of oil tankers. That’s all legal. But for Vladimirov, it shows the “EU should ban the import of petroleum products from refineries in third countries … that have been maximizing Russian crude oil purchases” to sell them back to the bloc.  Brussels must also “immediately ban financial and trade transactions with refineries” that are owned at least in part by Russian firms like Vadinar, he added. The European Commission, and the companies behind the Jamnagar, Vadinar and New Mangalore refineries, did not respond to requests for comment by POLITICO. But the findings are prompting pushback from inside the bloc. Brussels is currently readying its 15th sanctions package against Russia, despite a growing sense of acceptance among some countries that the bloc can do little to stymie Moscow’s exports outside Europe. “Accepting EU-sanctioned … oil tankers [is] not acceptable,” argued one EU diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “But what can you do about it?”

Exxon Mobil Chair and CEO Darren Woods urged the incoming Trump administration to avoid making turbulent climate policy swings — and he pushed the president-elect to reject carbon border taxes favored by some GOP lawmakers. In an interview with POLITICO, Woods signaled that one of the most powerful players in the energy industry might serve as a moderating influence in Washington, even as Republicans seek to dismantle Biden-era climate policies. The future of the Inflation Reduction Act and other clean-energy programs is one of the most important questions hanging over the incoming administration. “I don’t think the challenge or the need to address global emissions is going to go away,” Woods said. “Anything that happens in the short term would just make the longer term that much more challenging.” Woods made the comments via telephone from the COP29 climate negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan, just days after President-elect Donald Trump won the White House with a vow to turbocharge United States’ fossil fuel production and roll back Biden policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas pollution and speeding the growth of clean energy. Trump is widely expected to withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and his election has scrambled climate diplomacy at the annual talks. Despite the forecasts that the world is on pace to set a new annual high temperature for the second year in a row, Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax,” demonized policies promoting electric vehicles and castigated wind and solar energy. But some members of his party, including a sizable number of Republicans in Congress, have spoken out against wholesale repeal of the IRA, citing the economic benefits it has delivered to their districts. Woods, who took the top job at Exxon after his predecessor Rex Tillerson became Trump’s first secretary of State, said he opposed carbon border tariffs, which would impose fees on imports that are produced through processes with higher carbon emissions than in the U.S. That type of tariff has been touted by Robert Lighthizer, who was Trump’s first-term trade representative, as well as some Republicans in Congress who said it would benefit U.S. companies whose products are cleaner than their foreign competitors. It is widely viewed as a response to the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, which would tax imported raw materials from countries that do not have a price on carbon emissions. “I think it’s a bad idea. It’s a really bad idea,” Woods said. “I think carbon border adjustment is going to introduce a whole new level of complexity and bureaucratic red tape. I don’t think it’s going to be very effective.” Instead, he said, a regulatory system based on the carbon intensity of products would be a better solution. That would still require the government to enforce some basic accounting standards and a framework assessing the carbon dioxide footprint across a range of products. “Regulation will play a really important part of that,” Woods said. The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism has emerged as a COP29 flash point. China, Brazil, India and South Africa lodged a formal complaint against governments using trade measures to curb emissions, arguing it raised the costs of deploying green technology in low- and middle-income countries. Several countries initially raised similar objections to Biden’s IRA, contending it subsidized U.S.-based companies while shutting out foreign competitors. Trump has vowed to scrap many of those incentives. Woods said Exxon would adapt to whatever happens with IRA provisions that benefit the oil and gas industry, such as tax incentives for carbon capture, utilization and storage technology. “I’ve been advising that we have some level of consistency,” Woods said. “One of the challenges with this polarized political environment we find ourselves in is the impact of policy switching back and forth as political cycles occur and elections happen and administrations change. That’s not good for the economy.” Woods said Biden’s energy policies had amounted to “limiting the supply of traditional sources of energy and trying to force through expensive alternatives,” though he cautioned against complete about-face on climate change. He warned American industries that fail to address environmental performance during Trump’s second term risk worsening the problem. “We all have a responsibility to figure out, given our capabilities and ability to contribute, how can we best do that,” Woods said. “How the Trump administration can contribute in this space is to help establish the right, thoughtful, rational, logical framework for how the world starts to try to reduce the emissions.” Woods’ preferred approach on carbon intensity echoes several legislative proposals floating around Congress. Those are similar to other models that effectively reduced sulfur content in marine fuel oil and automotive diesel. “Once we can specify carbon intensity, you can then unlock the capability of industry to meet those carbon intensity specifications, and every government can set that level based on their set of circumstances in their country,” Woods said. Exxon has also launched a carbon capture business that aims to collect emissions of the greenhouse emitted from petroleum operations and store them in underground reservoirs in Louisiana and Texas as well as the seabed below the Gulf of Mexico. That technology has been embraced by the oil sector and received lucrative tax incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act, though it has been criticized by environmental groups. Despite Biden’s focus on green policies, the U.S. still became the world’s top oil and gas producer during his term and hit production levels unequaled by any other country in history. The U.S., the world’s largest economy and second-largest emitter of planet-heating gases, remains off track of Biden’s goal to cut emissions in half this decade, relative to 2005 levels.

The Czech Republic, one of Ukraine’s closest allies, has let oil refineries earn over a billion euros in surplus profits through discounted Russian fuel purchases despite alternatives long being available, new research seen by POLITICO shows. The conclusions come in a report published Monday by analysts at the Center for the Study of Democracy and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. They found that “the Czech Republic has spent over €7 billion on Russian oil and gas — more than five times the €1.29 billion it has provided in aid to Ukraine.” One company in particular, Polish firm Orlen Unipetrol, has benefited handsomely from the arrangement. The researchers found its ability to continue buying Russian fuel — which was, on average, 21 percent cheaper than alternative Azerbaijani oil in 2023 — allowed it to make large revenues, which the state in turn gets to tax.  “This strategy contributed to surplus profits of around €1.2 billion,” they write.  The situation is possible because the European Union granted the Czech Republic an exemption to its Russian oil ban after Moscow invaded Ukraine. The carve-out was intended to give landlocked countries in Central Europe like Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic extra time to find new fuel routes. However, the two think tanks argue, the Czech Republic’s dependence on Russian oil actually rose in 2023 to around 60 percent, despite the government’s intentions to phase out purchases from Moscow. While that figure has since dropped to a preinvasion level of 50 percent earlier this year, the report argues the market has more than enough spare capacity for Prague to end its reliance on Russia altogether. “Czechia could secure normal supplies of non-Russian crude oil by taking advantage of the spare capacity on the Trans-Alpine pipeline bringing oil from the Italian port of Trieste, the Adria pipeline connecting to Druzhba in Slovakia and by increasing refined products imports and petroleum stocks withdrawals,” said Martin Vladimirov, director for energy and climate at the Center for the Study of Democracy. According to him, the country already has healthy oil reserves and could stably transition away from Moscow’s exports. Hungary has used the same loophole to drastically increase — rather than reduce — its imports of Russian crude, and the Moscow-friendly government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has openly sought to forge new energy deals with the Kremlin. Those additional funds have helped bankroll Russia’s death and destruction next door in Ukraine. Prague, by contrast, has been one of Kyiv’s closest allies, shipping military hardware and humanitarian support, while also raising funds for much-needed ammunition. The reason for the continued imports, the analysis alleges, is that Russian pipeline oil is sold off at lower prices than alternatives, like crude imported from Azerbaijan. That means it can be refined and sold on as petrol, diesel and jet fuel for a larger profit. Luke Wickenden, an analyst with the Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, said that “this exemption, granted to Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary, was intended as a temporary measure, yet Orlen continues to use it to funnel roughly €50 million each month to the Kremlin in oil tax revenues.” “Time and time again we see exemptions in the EU sanctions exploited to increase imports of Russian fossil fuels to boost companies’ profits,” he said. The Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade insisted the country is committed “to ending our reliance on Russian fossil fuels as quickly as technically possible.” The ministry added it is working to boost the capacity of a pipeline linking it to Germany, Austria and Italy, aiming to fully divest from Russian oil by next year. “It’s important to note that Russian oil is imported by a private company Orlen Unipetrol,” the ministry said in comments to POLITICO. “The government does not have direct control over private business decisions.”