Occidental taps UAE oil giant for carbon removal money
Occidental Petroleum has inked a deal with the Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. that could provide $500 million for a carbon dioxide removal megaproject being pursed by the U.S. driller.
The agreement to evaluate a potential joint venture for the South Texas Direct Air Capture Hub was signed by Occidental Chief Executive Vicki Hollub and ADNOC CEO Sultan al-Jaber, who is also the technology minister and climate envoy of the United Arab Emirates. It was announced Friday during President Donald Trump's visit to the UAE.
The deal represents a vote of confidence — and a potential insurance policy — for the hub's development amid increased scrutiny of climate-related spending from Trump's Department of Energy, along with growing economic challenges for the broader direct air capture industry.
Advertisement
The South Texas hub seeks to remove 1 metric million tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually with matching funds awarded during the Biden administration — federal backing that is now in question. Occidental's deal with ADNOC would help fund a hub that's half the size of the current proposal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Who gets to pick the new name for the American Bank Center?
(This story was updated to add new information and because an earlier version included an inaccuracy.) Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the timeline by which the city of Corpus Christi and OVG need to come to an agreement over the naming rights for the American Bank Center. Whose name will be emblazoned on what is now the American Bank Center has started a renewed round of debate — but one that remains centered on whether the name the building ultimately bears is Thomas J. Henry Law. In news releases issued June 4 and June 5, the high-profile personal injury attorney suggested that his offer for the naming rights — $1.25 million annually for 10 years — made the most sense. Henry has made his interest in the naming rights of the American Bank Center publicly known for more than a year, as well as his proposed bid — in one news release describing the process as 'mired in needless delay and political interference.' 'There is no other company that has offered—nor is willing or able to offer—a deal of comparable value to the taxpayers,' the news release states. 'Every month this process is delayed is another month of lost revenue for the hardworking families of Corpus Christi.' Henry also suggested in the news release that there were 'growing concerns of political bias obstructing a significant public-private opportunity.' In a message to the Caller-Times, Mayor Paulette Guajardo wrote that the city is 'committed to a fair naming process,' describing the American Bank Center as 'a cornerstone of the city's cultural and economic vibrancy.' The contract between the city and OVG, the American Bank Center's management company, calls for OVG to manage the naming rights process with a final decision 'based on feedback and collaboration between OVG, City Council, and City staff,' she wrote. 'Next week, we expect that feedback to be given,' Guajardo wrote in the June 5 message. 'OVG has a process committed to a transparent and thorough evaluation considering all proposals fairly. Any assertions otherwise are patently false and designed to receive media attention.' The dispute over the naming rights for the landmark building has taken on multiple fronts, to include the process in which a decision is reached and who makes the decision. OVG representatives did not immediately respond to a message sent by the Caller-Times, but city officials confirmed that Henry's is one of two proposals for the naming rights. Information was not immediately available about the second company or its proposal amount. American Bank has sponsored the taxpayer-owned entertainment venue on Shoreline Boulevard for about 20 years but announced in April 2024 its intent to end the partnership. It was initially thought the center would shed its American Bank name in September 2024. There have been several extensions since then, City Manager Peter Zanoni told the Caller-Times. In a memo, he wrote that staff was in process of scheduling meetings between City Council members and OVG representatives. They are intended 'to ensure OVG is available to answer questions from City Council Members interested in this topic' and to allow city officials 'to ask more detailed questions about their naming rights process, recommendations, alternatives, and next steps,' Zanoni wrote in the memo. 'Feedback from Council Members is a crucial part of OVG's decision-making process for the naming rights.' He told the Caller-Times that OVG engaged with about 100 entities over the past two years as part of its naming rights process, with less than a dozen considered to be serious contenders. May 31 was the last call for proposals, Zanoni said, adding that the city and OVG need to come to an agreement in the near future. Options described by Zanoni include: selecting a naming rights partner, starting the naming rights process over again, requesting an additional extension with American Bank, forgoing a name entirely or picking a general name for the venue that is not associated with a naming rights partner. The current contract with American Bank expires at the end of August, he added, at which point there will be a 30-day timeline in which signage must be removed. While some council members have voiced support for Henry's offer — City Councilman Eric Cantu issued a news release fully backing the attorney and 'a transformational deal for a city asset that needs it' — others have questioned what they consider to be a push for a potentially hurried process. 'It would seem to me that whatever is the best solution today will also be the best solution next week and next month,' said City Councilman Mark Scott. 'So I'm fascinated by what I perceive to be as pressure to rush to a decision.' Henry's bid far outweighs the other proposal, Cantu said, asserting that politics are obstructing moving forward with the process. In his news release, he pointed out that the 'city of Corpus Christi is facing a serious budget shortfall.' The deficit was last estimated to be about $7 million. 'It's just sad — this man has money from his business and wants to invest in Corpus Christi,' Cantu told the Caller-Times. 'We should be happy that he wants to invest in Corpus Christi and give us that much money to put his name on a building.' Henry's news release named Guajardo, Scott and City Councilman Roland Barrera as continuing 'to stand in the way of progress.' Barrera asserted that Henry is 'utilizing the press to try to manipulate the narrative and manipulate negotiations,' in part referencing statements in Henry's news release accusing council members of 'interference.' 'I just don't know how you negotiate in good faith with a partner that's actually painting themselves as the victim and (making) statements like that,' he said. 'It's just a nonstarter for me.' The exact balance of the roles that OVG and the City Council play in determining the naming rights wasn't immediately clear June 5; however, the management company wrote in an email to the Caller-Times last year that it was 'leading the selection process for the naming rights partner, and the decision will be made in collaboration with the City of Corpus Christi.' Cantu wants the discussion about the naming rights to be held publicly in the June 10 council meeting, and has criticized the contract with OVG, asserting the decision should be solely the council's. Scott said he was seeking to be 'fully informed and make sure the council's fully informed of all the relative data points that lead to a decision.' 'It's not obstruction,' he said. 'I think it's just making sure that we make the right decision with the right information.' More: American Bank is parting ways with American Bank Center This article originally appeared on Corpus Christi Caller Times: Who gets to pick the new name for the American Bank Center?
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Ted Cruz proposes withholding broadband funding from states that regulate AI
The Brief Senator Ted Cruz proposed that states attempting to regulate AI should lose federal broadband funding. This proposal is an addition to a House-passed bill aiming for a 10-year ban on state AI regulation. Critics argue Cruz's plan is "undemocratic and cruel," forcing states to choose between broadband access and AI consumer protection. WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed on Thursday an alternative punishment for planned legislation that would set a 10-year ban on state regulation of Artificial Intelligence model learning. Under Cruz's budget reconciliation proposal, an attempt to regulate AI would be prohibited from collecting federal funding provided by the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The Proposal The U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of House Resolution 1, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," on May 22. In part, the budget bill would ban state regulation on AI for 10 years. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Cruz authored a budget reconciliation that he says is intended to "fulfill President Trump's agenda." In a summary of the proposal, he refers to state regulation as "strangling AI deployment," comparing it to EU precautions against tech development. Cruz's proposal adds $500 million to the BEAD program, which has already administered $42.45 billion to the states in order to expand high-speed internet access across the country. It also prevents states from receiving any of that funding if they attempt to regulate AI. Dig deeper Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) has recently spoken out against HR 1, saying the anti-regulatory section alone will cost Congress her vote. Greene explained that she discovered the controversial provision, located on pages 278-279 of the bill, only after the House had already passed the legislation. Once the bill returns to the House following Senate deliberations, Greene says she will change sides based on the matter of AI. What they're saying Advocacy group Public Citizen released a commentary on Cruz's proposal, referring to it as a "display of corporate appeasement." In the article, J.B. Branch, a Big Tech accountability advocate, included the following statement: "This is a senatorial temper tantrum masquerading as policy. Americans have loudly rejected Senator Cruz's dangerous proposal to give tech giants a decade of immunity from state regulation. State legislatures, attorneys general, and citizens across all 50 states have demanded that Congress step away from overhauling consumer protections put in place in the absence of federal leadership. But instead of listening to the American people, Senate Republicans threw a fit and tied vital digital funding to corporate impunity. "With this move, Republicans are telling millions of Americans: 'You can have broadband but only if your state gives up the right to protect you from AI abuses.' It's undemocratic and cruel. Republicans would rather give Big Tech a 10-year hall pass to experiment on the American people unchecked, rather than give underserved rural and urban communities the ability to compete in the digital economy. Congress must reject this corporate giveaway and refocus their energy on representing the public interest." In her statements criticizing the anti-regulation portion of HR 1, Greene expressed concerns about developing rapidly evolving tech without checks and balances. "No one can predict what AI will be in one year, let alone 10," Greene said. "But I can tell you this: I'm pro-humanity, not pro-transhumanity. And I will be voting NO on any bill that strips states of their right to protect American jobs and families." What's next HR 1 is expected to continue undergoing changes in the Senate before returning to the House for another vote. Cruz's proposal has yet to be officially added to the legislation. The Source Information in this article comes from public U.S. Congress filings, Public Citizen, and previous FOX 4 coverage.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cowboys' Pickens vs. Bland dilemma not about cap
Cowboys' Pickens vs. Bland dilemma not about cap originally appeared on Athlon Sports. We'll be a good sport and play the either-or game: George Pickens is the answer. Why? Because of the draft capital the Dallas Cowboys spent to acquire his services. If he walks after this season, then Dallas essentially wasted 75% of the 3rd round rookie contract they gave up — three years of cheap labor, gone. You don't make that trade unless you plan to keep the player. Advertisement So keep the player. But wait. Let's slow down. That's the answer ... but what is the question? It's an online debate about whether the Cowboys can afford to keep both Bland and Pickens as future stars paid within the parameters of the salary cap. And here's the truth: this whole 'Pickens or Bland' debate is built on a flawed premise. You don't have to choose. Not if you manage the cap like a team with a plan. Why? Because "Cap Hell'' is a myth. It's a talking point, not a truth. The salary cap is real tomorrow but fake today. It's not a hard team-building wall — it's an accounting strategy. It can be stretched, manipulated, forecasted with precision, and restructured. Advertisement As our Mike Fisher has been pointing out for years, "It's the same as your household budget. Cash, check, credit card ... generally, you can find ways to afford what you need.'' Yes, the Cowboys will have big numbers on the books come 2026: • Tyler Smith extension looming • Micah Parsons and Osa in Year 1 of their new deals • Dak Prescott and CeeDee Lamb in Year 2 of theirs That's the cost of retaining great players. But that's the bed Dallas made — and they'll have to lay in it. Just don't let them tell you one has to go, because at that point... they're reclining in a bed of lies. Related: Inside The Cowboys' Micah Parsons 'Cap Hell' Myth Related: Cowboys Get Major News On New Cap Announcement This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 7, 2025, where it first appeared.
