Marathon assessing damage at Galveston Bay, Texas, Refinery, sources say
HOUSTON, June 20 (Reuters) - Marathon Petroleum (MPC.N), opens new tab continued assessing damage on Friday to the shut residual hydrotreating unit (RHU) at its 631,000-barrel-per-day (bpd) Galveston Bay Refinery in Texas City, Texas, from a June 14 fire, said people familiar with plant operations.
The assessment began after the fire on the 64,000-bpd RHU was extinguished on the night of June 14, the sources said. How long the unit may remain shut was unknown.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump attack on Left-wing bias on TV sparks ‘constitutional crisis'
Elon Musk may have stepped aside, but Donald Trump still has a Doge problem. The US president's plan to run a scythe through up to $425bn (£316bn) of government spending could be gutted or even vetoed in the Senate, where just a few rebel Republicans could scupper the cuts. But Trump and Russell Vought, his budget tsar, have hatched a scheme, called a 'pocket rescission', that might keep the Doge (department of government efficiency) dream on track. And it could even shift the constitutional balance of power between president and Congress towards a testy Trump. It's a high-risk, high-stakes strategy. The outcome will determine whether the Doge spending reductions can go ahead, helping to pay for Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax cuts without blowing out the budget and rattling the bond markets. But the unprecedented procedure takes the White House and Capitol Hill into uncharted legal waters. So it is likely to end up in the courts – joining a raft of litigation that will either reinforce the institutional checks on the president's power or unleash him. 'It's a challenge to Congress,' says Sarah Binder, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. 'I don't like to throw around the term 'constitutional crisis', but it's not a great position for lawmakers and institutions.' Under the constitution, Congress has the so-called power of the purse, meaning that lawmakers, not the president, are the final arbiter of what the government spends or does not spend. If the president wants to cut funding or programmes that Congress has already authorised, his only option is to launch a rescission procedure – a formal request for the cuts, which both houses of Congress must approve. The rescission process was introduced in a law called the Impoundment Control Act, which had the overall aim of making it hard for Richard Nixon, the then-president, and his successors from delaying or withholding funds once Congress had green-lighted them. Rescission has seldom been used. Ronald Reagan used it to secure $15.2bn of spending cuts as president in the early 1980s, but later in the decade, Congress tended to ignore or refuse his rescission messages. Trump tried it on with a $15bn-plus request in his first term, but was stymied in the Senate. The Democrats then got control of Congress in the midterms and pushed back another $27bn salvo. Now Trump is trying again. The initial proposal – Vought says it will be 'the first of many' – is to scuttle $9.4bn of spending on public broadcasters and international aid programmes. This rescission was flagged back in March but formally put to Congress only this month. In an executive order early last month, Trump said he wanted to terminate all public funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which accounts for about $1bn of this first rescission package. 'Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,' Trump said. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' The White House has until July 18 to persuade Congress. The rescission scraped through the House of Representatives by 214 votes to 212, but the Senate is the real test. If just four Republicans in the 100-seat upper house swap sides, the spending stays in place. It's not looking promising for Trump. Several Republicans have already voiced concern about at least some of the cuts. The dissenters include Senator Susan Collins, who chairs an influential Senate finance committee that will consider the cuts at a session on June 25. There could be fireworks. Vought will appear before the committee and, in recent weeks, he has started airing the possibility of bypassing Congress altogether through an untested and almost unknown variant of rescission: the so-called pocket rescission. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used, but it is there,' Vought told CNN. 'And we intend to use all of these tools.' The trick with the pocket rescission is to make the request to Congress right before the end of the fiscal year, which runs to Sept 30. The White House reckons that the Impoundment Control Act's wording creates a loophole: if Congress does not act on the request before Sept 30, then even if the window is well short of 45 days the spending approval will lapse automatically on that date. The case for pocket rescissions was made recently by Wade Miller, of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a Right-wing think tank. 'A rescission is a viable tool for carrying out the broader political mandate to curb unnecessary spending,' he wrote in a briefing paper. 'If the executive branch decides to use this process, the deployment of a rescission with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year is a statutorily and constitutionally valid strategy.' The CRA was set up by Vought himself, after he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the final six months of Trump's first term. He returned to the White House with the president this January, in the same role. But other Washington think tanks trenchantly oppose the CRA's position. 'Calling it a pocket rescission implies that it's like an actual functional tool under the law, in a way that it's actually not. It is a strategy that the person who is running the Office of Management and Budget has articulated to evade the law,' says Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at Protect Democracy. She says the whole purpose of the Impoundment Control Act was to stop any presidential ploy to skirt its strictures. 'One of the reasons why they might want to do this is because they're afraid they don't have the votes to actually make the cuts the legal way.' Binder, from Brookings, says that the Act doesn't explicitly deal with what happens if a president makes the request right before the end of the fiscal year. 'There's certainly room here for an aggressive Office of Management and Budget and an aggressive administration to try to stretch – others might say manipulate – the silence in the budget law,' she says. 'But the logic of the matter suggests that pocket rescissions are not legal under the Act and I would imagine there's a strong argument that they are unconstitutional under Congress's power of the purse.' Binder suspects Vought is looking to get a test case into the courts. Given there could be a constitutional principle at stake, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges are Republican appointees. In the meantime, litigants could get restraining orders or injunctions to prevent the Doge cuts. But they can't necessarily get the White House to respect these. The stage is set for a constitutional showdown. The question is whether Trump and Vought will really pull the trigger. And then, whether the weapon will actually work.
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
Middle East tensions put investors on alert, weighing worst-case scenarios
NEW YORK, June 21 (Reuters) - Investors are mulling a host of different market scenarios should the U.S. deepen its involvement in the Middle East conflict, with the potential for ripple effects if energy prices skyrocket. They have honed in on the evolving situation between Israel and Iran, which have exchanged missile strikes, and are closely monitoring whether the U.S. decides to join Israel in its bombing campaign. Potential scenarios could send inflation higher, dampening consumer confidence and lessening the chance of near-term interest rate cuts. This would likely cause an initial selloff in equities and possible safe-haven bid for the dollar. While U.S. crude prices have climbed some 10% over the past week, the S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab has been little changed as of yet, following an initial drop when Israel launched its attacks. However, if attacks were to take out Iranian oil supply, "that's when the market is going to sit up and take notice," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B Riley Wealth. "If you get disruption to supply of oil product on the global marketplace, that is not reflected in today's WTI price and that is where things get negative," Hogan said. The White House said on Thursday President Donald Trump would decide on U.S. involvement in the conflict in the next two weeks. Analysts at Oxford Economics modeled three scenarios, ranging from a de-escalation in the conflict, a complete shutdown in Iranian production, and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, "each with increasingly large impacts on global oil prices," the firm said in a note. In the most severe case, global oil prices jump to around $130 per barrel, driving U.S. inflation near 6% by the end of this year, Oxford said in the note. "Although the price shock inevitably dampens consumer spending because of the hit to real incomes, the scale of the rise in inflation and concerns about the potential for second-round inflation effects likely ruin any chance of rate cuts in the U.S. this year," Oxford said in the note. The biggest market impact from the escalating conflict has been restricted to oil, with oil prices soaring on worries that the Iran-Israel conflict could disrupt supplies. Brent crude futures have risen as much as 18% since June 10, hitting a near 5-month high of $79.04 on Thursday. The accompanying rise in investors' expectations for further near-term volatility in oil prices has outpaced the rise in volatility expectations for other major asset classes, including stocks and bonds. But other asset classes, including stocks, could still feel the knock-on effects of higher oil prices, especially if there is a larger surge in oil prices if the worst market fears of supply disruptions come true, analysts said. "Geopolitical tensions have been mostly ignored by equities, but they are being factored into oil," Citigroup analysts wrote in a note. "To us, the key for equities from here will come from energy commodity pricing," they said. U.S. stocks have so far weathered rising Middle East tensions with little sign of panic. A more direct U.S. involvement in the conflict could, however, spook markets, investors said. Financial markets may be in for an initial selloff if the U.S. military attacks Iran, with economists warning that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by Trump's tariffs. Still, any pullback in equities might be fleeting, history suggests. During past prominent instances of Middle East tensions coming to a boil, including the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, stocks initially languished but soon recovered to trade higher in the months ahead. On average, the S&P 500 slipped 0.3% in the three weeks following the start of conflict, but was 2.3% higher on average two months following the conflict, according to data from Wedbush Securities and CapIQ Pro. An escalation in the conflict could have mixed implications for the U.S. dollar, which has tumbled this year amid worries over diminished U.S. exceptionalism. In the event of U.S. direct engagement in the Iran-Israel War, the dollar could initially benefit from a safety bid, analysts said. "Traders are likely to worry more about the implicit erosion of the terms of trade for Europe, the UK, and Japan, rather than the economic shock to the US, a major oil producer," Thierry Wizman, Global FX & Rates Strategist at Macquarie Group, said in a note. But longer-term, the prospect of US-directed 'nation-building' would probably weaken the dollar, he said. "We recall that after the attacks of 9/11, and running through the decade-long US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the USD weakened," Wizman said.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Major grocery chain to shutter more than 60 locations by end of 2026
Kroger has announced plans to close more than 60 underperforming stores across the US by the end of 2026, marking one of the largest closure rounds in the company's recent history. The news came during Kroger's first-quarter earnings report, released on June 20, which states that the closures are expected to result in a 'modest financial benefit.' 'In the first quarter, Kroger recognized an impairment charge of $100 million related to the planned closing of approximately 60 stores over the next 18 months. As a result of these store closures, Kroger expects a modest financial benefit,' the report states. Kroger also emphasized its intention to reinvest savings from the closures into improving the customer experience. 'Kroger is committed to reinvesting these savings back into the customer experience, and as a result, this will not impact full-year guidance,' the report reads. Despite the scale of the closures, the company said no layoffs are expected. Employees at affected locations will be offered positions at nearby stores or in other areas of the business. 'Kroger will offer roles in other stores to all associates currently employed at affected stores,' the report states. The closings come after interim CEO Ron Sargent (pictured) took over after Rodney McMullen abruptly resigned on March 3 amid an internal ethics investigation Kroger, which operates nearly 2,800 stores nationwide under banners such as Ralphs, Fred Meyer, King Soopers, and Harris Teeter, has not yet released a list of affected locations. In the same report, Kroger disclosed that its Q1 2025 net income fell to $866 million, down from $962 million a year earlier. Total sales also declined slightly to $45.1 billion from $45.3 billion. Still, the company raised its full-year forecast for same-store sales (excluding fuel) to between 2.25 percent and 3.25 percent, citing strong demand for fresh foods, store brands and digital services. 'Our strong sales results and positive momentum give us confidence to raise our identical sales without fuel guidance, to a new range of 2.25 percent to 3.25 percent,' CFO David Kennerley commented in the report. 'While first quarter sales and profitability exceeded our expectations, the macroeconomic environment remains uncertain and as a result other elements of our guidance remain unchanged,' he added. Kroger also reaffirmed plans to spend between $3.6 billion and $3.8 billion this year on capital projects, including new store construction and renovations. The company aims to open around 30 new stores by the end of 2025, focusing on markets with stronger performance and growth potential. More details on the closures, including specific locations and timelines, are expected in the coming months. The closings come after interim CEO Ron Sargent took over after Rodney McMullen abruptly resigned on March 3 amid an internal ethics investigation. The grocer is currently undergoing a national search for a new CEO.
