• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1555
      • Показать ещё
      Разное688
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы270
      • Показать ещё
      Люди95
      • Показать ещё
      Издания50
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации44
      • Показать ещё
      Формат21
      Показатели22
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы1
Devon Energy
24 февраля, 20:44

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt's Allies Move To Block Release Of More Emails

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The Oklahoma attorney general’s office has asked the state’s highest court to block the release of more emails between energy companies and Scott Pruitt, the state’s former top cop who became Environmental Protection Agency chief. The initial batch of 7,564 documents made public on Tuesday by the Wisconsin-based watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy revealed a chummy relationship between Pruitt and oil and gas players whose pollution he’s now tasked with policing as the nation’s top environmental regulator. Now the office that Pruitt occupied until the Senate approved his confirmation last Friday has requested a stay on District Court of Oklahoma County Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons’ order to release another trove of documents by next week.  “This maneuver is just more stonewalling by Team Pruitt to prevent the American people from seeing public records of national interest that should have been turned over prior to Pruitt’s confirmation as head of the EPA,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, in a statement. “Pruitt’s office had many months to provide his emails with corporate polluters, but is now complaining they don’t have enough time.” The Oklahoma Supreme Court will consider the stay request at a hearing scheduled for Tuesday. If the court declines the request, the attorney general’s office has until March 3 to release the documents.  President Donald Trump filled his Cabinet with climate science skeptics and fossil fuel allies, moves that riled environmental groups and Democrats. Still, Pruitt’s nomination stood apart. The former Oklahoma attorney general made his national reputation suing the EPA 13 times, repeatedly joining oil, gas and coal companies in legal challenges to rules meant to curb planet-warming greenhouse gases and pollution.  In 2011, he signed his name to a three-page complaint to the EPA that lawyers at Devon Energy Corporation, an oil and gas giant in Oklahoma City, wrote under his letterhead.  “We must reject as a nation the false paradigm that if you’re pro-energy, you’re anti-environment or if you’re pro-environment, you’re anti-energy,” Pruitt said during his Senate confirmation hearing last month. “I reject that.” But so far, he has failed to make his case to environmentalists who fear his tenure will be marked by budget cuts, weak enforcement and lax treatment for corporate polluters. During his first speech to agency staff on Tuesday, Pruitt mentioned a “toxic environment” just once. He was referring to the political rhetoric wielded by his critics. He did not mention climate change or environmental destruction at all.  type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58adda3ce4b03d80af71a4eb,58a71504e4b07602ad53f023,58ac7e76e4b0c4d51057164f,587fdf43e4b00d44838cda6e,5878ad15e4b0b3c7a7b0c29c -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 февраля, 17:21

WPX Energy (WPX) Q4 Loss Narrower than Expected, Sales Lag

WPX Energy Inc. (WPX) reported a loss of 16 cents per share in the fourth quarter of 2016, narrower than the Zacks Consensus Estimate of a loss of 17 cents.

22 февраля, 23:26

Emails Reveal Chummy Relations Between EPA Chief And Industries He Now Regulates

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); During his time as Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt, the newly sworn-in Environmental Protection Agency chief, forged an alliance with industry players to fortify oil, gas and utility companies’ legal challenges against Obama-era regulations that they said amounted to a “war on carbon,” according to more than 7,500 pages of emails published Wednesday. The public release of the emails was ordered last week by a judge in Oklahoma and comes just five days after the Senate narrowly voted to confirm Pruitt as EPA administrator. Pruitt’s nomination faced fierce protests from environmentalists and some Democrats, who argued that his confirmation vote should be delayed until after the release of the emails. The emails reveal a chummy relationship between Pruitt and the companies whose pollution he’s now tasked with reining in. The document dump sheds new light on Pruitt’s frequent strategizing with Devon Energy Corporation, the Oklahoma City-based oil and gas giant. Pruitt’s ties to the company, uncovered in a similar email dump published in 2014 by The New York Times, became a flashpoint during his confirmation process. In particular, critics railed against Pruitt’s 2011 decision to allow the company to write a three-page complaint to the EPA under his letterhead. In 2013, Pruitt’s office solicited feedback from the company before suing the federal Bureau of Land Management over proposed rules to curb emissions from methane, a potent natural gas. In a victory for Pruitt, other state attorneys general and the oil and gas lobby, a judge struck down the regulation last June. “I thought we should insert a sentence or two regarding the recent EPA report indicating their initial estimates on methane emissions were too high,” P. Clayton Eubanks, who served as Pruitt’s deputy solicitor general, wrote in an email to William Whitsitt, then an executive vice president of Devon. “Any suggestions?” The document release did not include attachments to the emails, although sometimes the names of attached files are listed, so it’s unclear to what extent Devon’s edits made it into the attorney general’s final letter. But as DeSmogBlog noted, Pruitt’s deputy later wrote: “thanks for all your help on this.” In July 2013, Pruitt gave lawyers at Devon a first crack at a letter he planned to send criticizing proposed federal restrictions on methane emissions from natural gas drilling sites. Brent Rockwood, a director at Devon, suggested edits even on a granular level. “[O]ur legal team took another review of the AG letter, and a good recommendation was made to include footnotes to source the quotes/legal arguments,” Rockwood wrote in an email sent to Pruitt’s office and Whitsitt, the Devon executive. “The attached version is the same one I originally sent to you, and which we just discussed, with the exception of the added footnotes.” “Thanks for putting the AG letter into action,” he added. “I think that this letter will make a strong statement and a real difference.” The emails also show Pruitt was in contact not just with individual companies but with fossil fuel industry groups as well. Pruitt met with the lobbying group American Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers to discuss ozone limits and the renewable fuel regulations in 2013 in Washington, D.C. After the meeting, Pruitt had his assistant put Eubanks in touch with Sarah Magruder Lyle, then a top executive at the AFPM. Lyle sent Pruitt’s staff industry talking points and research on those topics, which argued among other things that clean air standards hurt the refining industry. (Lyle now runs a group that is sponsored by pipeline companies and utilities.) Pruitt later opposed the Obama administration’s Renewable Fuel Standard and ozone limits. The White House on Wednesday did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Pruitt’s emails. Pruitt made his name suing the EPA 13 times, repeatedly joining oil, gas and coal players ― including Oklahoma Gas & Electric and the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, an industry-backed group ― in filing lawsuits to stop federal regulations. Pruitt championed the rights of Exxon Mobil Corp. in investigations into whether the oil giant committed fraud by covering up evidence that burning fossil fuels changes the climate. During his confirmation hearing, he claimed he was unsure how much lead was safe for humans to consume. Between 2002 and 2016, he received more than $300,000 in donations from the fossil fuel industry, and even more money went to a political action committee and a super PAC that paid for the former Oklahoma attorney general’s trips to Hawaii and New Orleans. “The newly released emails reveal a close and friendly relationship between Scott Pruitt’s office and the fossil fuel industry, with frequent meetings, calls, dinners and other events,” said Nick Surgey, research director at the Center for Media and Democracy, the watchdog group that sued to release the emails. “And our work doesn’t stop here,” Surgey added. “We will keep fighting until all of the public records involving Pruitt’s dealings with energy corporations are released ― both those for which his office is now asserting some sort of privilege against public disclosure and the documents relevant to our eight other Open Records Act requests.” Pruitt didn’t just practice a pro-fossil fuel agenda, he preached it too. In 2014, Pruitt gave a 20-minute presentation at a panel on climate regulations at George Mason University. Ahead of the event, Henry Butler, dean of the college’s law school, set the tone of the discussions in an email sent to Pruitt and other panelists. “For purposes of our discussion, please assume that there is a war on carbon and that there are some benefits to the reduction in carbon emissions,” he wrote. “What is often missing from the policy discussion is the costs.” And just in case the energy industry and conservative backers needed reminding that they had Pruitt’s pen, and full support was at their disposal, Pruitt’s office pushed press clips praising his work against climate regulation out to some of the same organizations that helped to direct Pruitt’s efforts. In July 2013, conservative magazine The Weekly Standard published an article praising Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general as “the unsung heroes in challenging the Obama agenda.” Two days after the story came out, Aaron Cooper, Pruitt’s director of public affairs, forwarded the link to Matt Ball, the Oklahoma director of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group that receives funding from the Koch brothers. “It’s a good read and possibly worthy of use on social media. :),” Cooper wrote. Later that day, Ball responded, saying, “Just tweeted this from AFP acct.” This article was updated to include comment from Surgey.  Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up! -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

22 февраля, 23:26

Emails Reveal Chummy Relations Between EPA Chief And Industries He Now Regulates

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); During his time as Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt, the newly sworn-in Environmental Protection Agency chief, forged an alliance with industry players to fortify oil, gas and utility companies’ legal challenges against Obama-era regulations that they said amounted to a “war on carbon,” according to more than 7,500 pages of emails published Wednesday. The public release of the emails was ordered last week by a judge in Oklahoma and comes just five days after the Senate narrowly voted to confirm Pruitt as EPA administrator. Pruitt’s nomination faced fierce protests from environmentalists and some Democrats, who argued that his confirmation vote should be delayed until after the release of the emails. The emails reveal a chummy relationship between Pruitt and the companies whose pollution he’s now tasked with reining in. The document dump sheds new light on Pruitt’s frequent collusion with Devon Energy Corporation, the Oklahoma City-based oil and gas giant. Pruitt’s ties to the company, uncovered in a similar email dump published in 2014 by The New York Times, became a flashpoint during his confirmation process. In particular, critics railed against Pruitt’s 2011 decision to allow the company to write a three-page complaint to the EPA under his letterhead. In 2013, Pruitt’s office solicited feedback from the company before suing the federal Bureau of Land Management over proposed rules to curb emissions from methane, a potent natural gas. In a victory for Pruitt, other state attorneys general and the oil and gas lobby, a judge struck down the regulation last June. “I thought we should insert a sentence or two regarding the recent EPA report indicating their initial estimates on methane emissions were too high,” P. Clayton Eubanks, who served as Pruitt’s deputy solicitor general, wrote in an email to William Whitsitt, then an executive vice president of Devon. “Any suggestions?” The document release did not include attachments to the emails, although sometimes the names of attached files are listed, so it’s unclear to what extent Devon’s edits made it into the attorney general’s final letter. But as DeSmogBlog noted, Pruitt’s deputy later wrote: “thanks for all your help on this.” In July 2013, Pruitt gave lawyers at Devon a first crack at a letter he planned to send criticizing proposed federal restrictions on methane emissions from natural gas drilling sites. Brent Rockwood, a director at Devon, suggested edits even on a granular level. “[O]ur legal team took another review of the AG letter, and a good recommendation was made to include footnotes to source the quotes/legal arguments,” Rockwood wrote in an email sent to Pruitt’s office and Whitsitt, the Devon executive. “The attached version is the same one I originally sent to you, and which we just discussed, with the exception of the added footnotes.” “Thanks for putting the AG letter into action,” he added. “I think that this letter will make a strong statement and a real difference.” The emails also show Pruitt was in contact not just with individual companies but with fossil fuel industry groups as well. Pruitt met with the lobbying group American Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers to discuss ozone limits and the renewable fuel regulations in 2013 in Washington, D.C. After the meeting, Pruitt had his assistant put Eubanks in touch with Sarah Magruder Lyle, then a top executive at the AFPM. Lyle sent Pruitt’s staff industry talking points and research on those topics, which argued among other things that clean air standards hurt the refining industry. (Lyle now runs a group that is sponsored by pipeline companies and utilities.) Pruitt later opposed the Obama administration’s Renewable Fuel Standard and ozone limits. The White House on Wednesday did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Pruitt’s emails. Pruitt made his name suing the EPA 13 times, repeatedly joining oil, gas and coal players ― including Oklahoma Gas & Electric and the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, an industry-backed group ― in filing lawsuits to stop federal regulations. Pruitt championed the rights of Exxon Mobil Corp. in investigations into whether the oil giant committed fraud by covering up evidence that burning fossil fuels changes the climate. During his confirmation hearing, he claimed he was unsure how much lead was safe for humans to consume. Between 2002 and 2016, he received more than $300,000 in donations from the fossil fuel industry, and even more money went to a political action committee and a super PAC that paid for the former Oklahoma attorney general’s trips to Hawaii and New Orleans. Pruitt didn’t just practice a pro-fossil fuel agenda, he preached it too. In 2014, Pruitt gave a 20-minute presentation at a panel on climate regulations at George Mason University. Ahead of the event, Henry Butler, dean of the college’s law school, set the tone of the discussions in an email sent to Pruitt and other panelists. “For purposes of our discussion, please assume that there is a war on carbon and that there are some benefits to the reduction in carbon emissions,” he wrote. “What is often missing from the policy discussion is the costs.” And just in case the energy industry and conservative backers needed reminding that they had Pruitt’s pen, and full support was at their disposal, Pruitt’s office pushed press clips praising his work against climate regulation out to some of the same organizations that helped to direct Pruitt’s efforts. In July 2013, conservative magazine The Weekly Standard published an article praising Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general as “the unsung heroes in challenging the Obama agenda.” Two days after the story came out, Aaron Cooper, Pruitt’s director of public affairs, forwarded the link to Matt Ball, the Oklahoma director of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group that receives funding from the Koch brothers. “It’s a good read and possibly worthy of use on social media. :),” Cooper wrote. Later that day, Ball responded, saying, “Just tweeted this from AFP acct.” Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up! -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

22 февраля, 22:24

Pruitt emails show close ties to oil, gas interests

Many of the regulations discussed in the emails still sit before EPA today, putting them squarely in Pruitt's lap.

22 февраля, 02:17

Oil & Gas Stock Roundup: Devon, Marathon's Q4, Matador's Midstream JV and More

It was a week where oil prices logged a modest decline and natural gas futures sank to a three-month low.

21 февраля, 21:44

Scott Pruitt Goes After Critics, His Own Staff In First Speech To EPA

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt mentioned a “toxic environment” just once during his first address Tuesday to the embattled agency staff. But he wasn’t talking about industry pollution or conserving nature. He was referring to his critics’ political rhetoric. “Forgive the reference, but it’s a very toxic environment,” the controversial new administrator said in the speech, which lasted under 20 minutes.   “Civility is something I believe in very much,” he added. “We ought to be able to get together and wrestle through some issues in a civil manner.” Then, at last, he began to outline his vision for the EPA. He described an agency that prioritized making it easier for polluters to comply with regulations. He promised to listen intently to companies before saddling them with new regulations. He admonished his new employees, some fearing layoffs amid looming budget cuts, for acting outside the agency’s legal mandate and running roughshod over states’ rights. “Regulations ought to make things regular,” Pruitt said. “Regulations exist to give certainty to those they regulate. Those we regulate ought to know what’s expected of them so they can place and allocate resources to comply.” He did not mention climate change or environmental destruction. Pruitt, the former attorney general of Oklahoma, was sworn in last Friday after the Senate voted 52-46 to confirm his nomination. His confirmation came a day after Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons of the District Court of Oklahoma County ruled that the Oklahoma attorney general’s office must turn over more than 2,500 emails and correspondence between Pruitt and oil and gas firms. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit from watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy and the American Civil Liberties Union alleging that his office had violated Oklahoma’s open records law. “Scott Pruitt’s going to have a lot of questions to answer,” said Nick Surgey, the director of research at the Madison, Wisconsin-based Center for Media and Democracy, referring to the emails. “The head of the Environmental Protection Agency, on day three, is already talking about putting the interests of the environment against the interests of industry.” Democrats had sought to delay a vote on his confirmation until after those documents were released. Pruitt’s former office is expected to respond by the judge’s Tuesday evening deadline. Pruitt made his reputation suing the EPA 13 times, repeatedly joining oil, gas and coal players ― including Oklahoma Gas & Electric and the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, an industry-backed group ― in filing lawsuits to halt regulations. He forged what The New York Times in 2014 called an “unprecedented, secretive alliance” between Republican attorneys general and oil and gas companies to undermine environmental regulations. In 2011, he allowed Devon Energy, an Oklahoma oil and gas firm, to write a three-page complaint to the EPA under his letterhead, which he signed. Pruitt also championed the rights of Exxon Mobil Corp. in investigations into whether the oil giant committed fraud by covering up evidence that burning fossil fuels changes the climate. In turn, the fossil fuel industry donated more than $300,000 to Pruitt between 2002 and 2016, and even more money to a political action committee and a super PAC that paid for the former Oklahoma attorney general’s trips to Hawaii and New Orleans.  “I believe we as an agency and we as a nation can be both pro-energy and jobs and pro-environment,” Pruitt said Tuesday, regurgitating a line he used during his confirmation hearing last month. “We don’t have to choose between the two.” Pruitt’s contentious confirmation drew scorn from a variety of critics. He even plans to request an around-the-clock bodyguard from his agency, according to a report by E&E News. A senior energy official at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest trade group with a history of combatting environmental rules, warned the new administration against repealing a 2009 EPA endangerment finding that classified greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. The comment underscores growing acceptance of the science of man-made global warming, particularly given that the Chamber’s official policy priorities for 2017 “oppose EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act, including the endangerment finding.” “There’s going to be hell to pay from, you know, soccer moms and soccer dads all throughout the country,” Christopher Guith, the energy official, said last month, according to a transcript published by the nonprofit Energy and Policy Institute. “People who probably voted for Donald Trump.” President Donald Trump has made slashing environmental restrictions a top priority, and the EPA is a prime target of his regulatory bushwhacking. He tapped Myron Ebell, a once-fringe contrarian who peddles conspiracy theories about climate change, to lead the EPA transition team. Soon after the inauguration, the White House ordered the EPA to freeze grants, putting a vast array of projects and personnel in limbo. That freeze has been lifted, but the White House is considering gutting the EPA’s budget, which makes up just 0.22 percent of federal spending. A policy memo leaked to Axios proposed deep cuts to the EPA’s budget, including axing hundreds of millions from grants to states and Native American tribes, climate programs, and environmental programs and management. Trump’s transition team also instructed agency employees to halt all press releases, social media, blog posts and external speaking engagements ― giving rise to rogue Twitter accounts claiming to represent the views of the silenced regulators. The team announced plans to review all EPA studies before publication, stoking fears that the new administration might stifle research on issues such as climate change. Inside EPA reported earlier this month that Trump is weighing closing the agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, which handles both civil and criminal enforcement of the country’s core environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The move would be part of a broader attack on regulations, including an executive order signed last month requiring agencies to suggest two rules to be axed for every new one proposed. For some, Trump’s proposed cuts may not go far enough. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced a bill to “completely abolish” the EPA by the end of next year, as HuffPost reported. Now that Pruitt is in place, Trump is expected to issue executive orders undoing Obama-era EPA rules on climate and water pollution as early as this week. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 февраля, 21:44

Scott Pruitt Goes After Critics, EPA In His First Speech To The Agency

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt mentioned a “toxic environment” just once during his first address Tuesday to the embattled agency staff. But he wasn’t talking about industry pollution or conserving nature. He was referring to his critics’ political rhetoric. “Forgive the reference, but it’s a very toxic environment,” the controversial new administrator said in the speech, which lasted under 20 minutes.   “Civility is something I believe in very much,” he added. “We ought to be able to get together and wrestle through some issues in a civil manner.” Then, at last, he began to outline his vision for the EPA. He described an agency that prioritized making it easier for polluters to comply with regulations. He promised to listen intently to companies before saddling them with new regulations. He admonished his new employees, some fearing layoffs amid looming budget cuts, for acting outside the agency’s legal mandate and running roughshod over states’ rights. “Regulations ought to make things regular,” Pruitt said. “Regulations exist to give certainty to those they regulate. Those we regulate ought to know what’s expected of them so they can place and allocate resources to comply.” He did not mention climate change or environmental destruction. Pruitt, the former attorney general of Oklahoma, was sworn in last Friday after the Senate voted 52-46 to confirm his nomination. His confirmation came a day after Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons of the District Court of Oklahoma County ruled that the Oklahoma attorney general’s office must turn over more than 2,500 emails and correspondence between Pruitt and oil and gas firms. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit from watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy and the American Civil Liberties Union alleging that his office had violated Oklahoma’s open records law. “Scott Pruitt’s going to have a lot of questions to answer,” said Nick Surgey, the director of research at the Madison, Wisconsin-based Center for Media and Democracy, referring to the emails. “The head of the Environmental Protection Agency, on day three, is already talking about putting the interests of the environment against the interests of industry.” Democrats had sought to delay a vote on his confirmation until after those documents were released. Pruitt’s former office is expected to respond by the judge’s Tuesday evening deadline. Pruitt made his reputation suing the EPA 13 times, repeatedly joining oil, gas and coal players ― including Oklahoma Gas & Electric and the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, an industry-backed group ― in filing lawsuits to halt regulations. He forged what The New York Times in 2014 called an “unprecedented, secretive alliance” between Republican attorneys general and oil and gas companies to undermine environmental regulations. In 2011, he allowed Devon Energy, an Oklahoma oil and gas firm, to write a three-page complaint to the EPA under his letterhead, which he signed. Pruitt also championed the rights of Exxon Mobil Corp. in investigations into whether the oil giant committed fraud by covering up evidence that burning fossil fuels changes the climate. In turn, the fossil fuel industry donated more than $300,000 to Pruitt between 2002 and 2016, and even more money to a political action committee and a super PAC that paid for the former Oklahoma attorney general’s trips to Hawaii and New Orleans.  “I believe we as an agency and we as a nation can be both pro-energy and jobs and pro-environment,” Pruitt said Tuesday, regurgitating a line he used during his confirmation hearing last month. “We don’t have to choose between the two.” Pruitt’s contentious confirmation drew scorn from a variety of critics. He even plans to request an around-the-clock bodyguard from his agency, according to a report by E&E News. A senior energy official at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest trade group with a history of combatting environmental rules, warned the new administration against repealing a 2009 EPA endangerment finding that classified greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. The comment underscores growing acceptance of the science of man-made global warming, particularly given that the Chamber’s official policy priorities for 2017 “oppose EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act, including the endangerment finding.” “There’s going to be hell to pay from, you know, soccer moms and soccer dads all throughout the country,” Christopher Guith, the energy official, said last month, according to a transcript published by the nonprofit Energy and Policy Institute. “People who probably voted for Donald Trump.” President Donald Trump has made slashing environmental restrictions a top priority, and the EPA is a prime target of his regulatory bushwhacking. He tapped Myron Ebell, a once-fringe contrarian who peddles conspiracy theories about climate change, to lead the EPA transition team. Soon after the inauguration, the White House ordered the EPA to freeze grants, putting a vast array of projects and personnel in limbo. That freeze has been lifted, but the White House is considering gutting the EPA’s budget, which makes up just 0.22 percent of federal spending. A policy memo leaked to Axios proposed deep cuts to the EPA’s budget, including axing hundreds of millions from grants to states and Native American tribes, climate programs, and environmental programs and management. Trump’s transition team also instructed agency employees to halt all press releases, social media, blog posts and external speaking engagements ― giving rise to rogue Twitter accounts claiming to represent the views of the silenced regulators. The team announced plans to review all EPA studies before publication, stoking fears that the new administration might stifle research on issues such as climate change. Inside EPA reported earlier this month that Trump is weighing closing the agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, which handles both civil and criminal enforcement of the country’s core environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The move would be part of a broader attack on regulations, including an executive order signed last month requiring agencies to suggest two rules to be axed for every new one proposed. For some, Trump’s proposed cuts may not go far enough. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced a bill to “completely abolish” the EPA by the end of next year, as HuffPost reported. Now that Pruitt is in place, Trump is expected to issue executive orders undoing Obama-era EPA rules on climate and water pollution as early as this week. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

13 февраля, 17:09

Energy Stocks' Earnings Lineup for Feb 14: DVN, NBL, FANG

Following eight back-to-back quarters of earnings decline, analysts said that the sector was likely to get recover in the fourth quarter and clock its first positive earnings growth after years.

10 февраля, 16:51

What's in Store for Devon Energy (DVN) in Q4 Earnings?

Devon Energy Corporation (DVN) will release fourth-quarter 2016 financial results on Feb 14 after the market closes.

08 февраля, 18:46

Donald Trump's EPA Pick Sued Over Thousands Of Undisclosed Records

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); When the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee convened last week to vote on Scott Pruitt’s confirmation as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 10 out of 21 committee members were conspicuously missing. All of the committee’s Democrats boycotted the vote, citing concerns that Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general, had not adequately responded to their questions during his confirmation hearing. They said Pruitt had also failed to fulfill open records requests regarding his ties to the fossil fuel industry, which has provoked anxiety among conservationists and public health experts. The committee’s Republicans advanced Pruitt’s nomination despite the boycott, and he’s expected to face a full Senate vote next week. But Pruitt may not be off the hook just yet.  The media watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy, with legal representation from the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit against Pruitt in an Oklahoma court on Tuesday seeking to force Pruitt to respond to nine open records requests. The requests were filed as far back as January 2015. The suit is also seeking the release of communications between Pruitt’s office and the energy industry, including corporations like Koch Industries, Peabody Energy and the National Coal Council.  CMD said in a statement that Pruitt had “yet to turn over a single document,” despite acknowledging last year that his office had “3,000 emails and other documents” relevant to the requests. “We are doing this because these emails should be released so that people can properly vet his record before the Senate votes to confirm him,” Nick Surgey, the center’s director of research, told Reuters news agency. The lawsuit accuses Pruitt of violating Oklahoma’s Open Records Act in failing to publicly release the documents. The act mandates that a public body “must provide prompt, reasonable access to its records” to allow people to be “fully informed about their government.”   Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the ACLU, said Tuesday that Pruitt’s office had two years to respond to a lawful request for documents. “Instead of complying with the law, he has stonewalled public interest groups, the United States Senate, and the American people,” Kiesel said in a statement. “Pruitt’s refusal to turn over these documents is unreasonable and unjustifiable,” he continued. “The lawsuit we filed today serves notice that when it comes to accountability and transparency, no government official is above the law.” The Center for Media and Democracy said an expedited hearing is scheduled for Feb. 16.  The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office has agreed to a judge’s order requiring it to retain all relevant documents while the case is pending, the group said.  Pruitt’s ties to the oil industry have come under heavy scrutiny in recent weeks. He has received more than $300,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 2002. As attorney general, he’s been accused of prioritizing industry interests over the health of the environment and his constituents. In 2014, The New York Times reported that Pruitt, together with other Republican attorneys general, had formed an “unprecedented, secretive alliance” with major oil and gas companies to undermine environmental regulations. One of the firms, Oklahoma’s Devon Energy, drafted a letter for Pruitt to send to the EPA in 2011. Pruitt printed the document on state letterhead and sent it off, almost verbatim, to Washington, D.C. Pruitt also joined industry players in filing lawsuits to stop regulations, including Oklahoma Gas and Electric and the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, an industry-backed nonprofit group. Pruitt’s nomination to lead the EPA, an agency whose mission is to protect human health and the environment, has met fierce resistance. In addition to his close relationship with the fossil fuel industry, opponents have pointed to his hostility to the EPA as evidence of his unfitness for the job: Pruitt sued the EPA 13 times as attorney general.  In a letter published Monday, more than 440 former EPA officials urged the Senate to reject Pruitt’s nomination. “Mr. Pruitt’s record raises serious questions about whose interests he has served to date and whether he agrees with the longstanding tenets of U.S. environmental law,” the letter reads. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=5878ad15e4b0b3c7a7b0c29c,585d62d0e4b0d9a5945828ae,5886b8b5e4b096b4a23452dc,587f9911e4b0c147f0bc3267,583ee914e4b048862d73fd23 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

08 февраля, 13:18

White House eyeing fossil fuel lobbyist for energy adviser job

Fossil fuel industry lobbyist Mike Catanzaro is under consideration to serve as an energy adviser on the National Economic Council, sources told POLITICO, an appointment that would test President Donald Trump’s promise to limit the number of lobbyists who serve in his administration.Catanzaro, who was a registered lobbyist as of last month, is a partner at the firm CGCN Group. His clients include American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, an industry trade group; natural gas company Devon Energy, renewable energy company NextEra Energy; and fossil fuel companies Noble Energy and Hess Corporation, among others, according to lobbying disclosure records.During the presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly vowed to “drain the swamp” in Washington. He signed an executive order late last month that bars registered lobbyists from participating in “any particular matter” on which they lobbied in the past two years. Those lobbying restrictions last for two years from the time the person joins the administration.The order allows for the administration to issue a waiver that would let lobbyists serve in the administration, but it does not include a provision like the one in an order signed by President Barack Obama in 2009 that requires disclosure of the waivers.It’s unclear if Catanzaro would sign a waiver or recuse himself from working on specific issues on which he lobbied.Trump’s National Economic Council is led by former Goldman Sachs Group President and Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn. The council will advise Trump on a range of economic policy issues.Catanzaro is among the lobbyists listed in CGCN’s January lobbying registration for Goldman Sachs Group.Before he became a lobbyist, Catanzaro held a number of high-profile energy policy jobs in Washington. He was a Republican aide on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, an energy adviser to George W. Bush’s 2004 presidential campaign, a top staffer in Bush’s EPA and his White House Council on Environmental Quality, and a member of Mitt Romney’s presidential transition team in 2012. He was a former adviser to House Speaker John Boehner as well.Catanzaro also briefly served on Trump’s transition team. But he stepped down in November after the transition imposed new rules that required lobbyists serving on the transition to drop all their clients.Catanzaro did not respond to requests for comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. CGCN declined to comment.

07 февраля, 18:10

Stock Market News for February 07, 2017

Benchmarks finished in the red on Monday following lack of clarity among investors over President Trump’s economic policies

Выбор редакции
01 февраля, 21:03

Whitehouse: Stonewalling Suggests Pruitt Trying To Hide Information From Senate

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) this morning wrote to the office of the Trump EPA nominee, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, to renew his demand for information about Pruitt's communications with fossil fuel companies -- and to suggest that Pruitt may be deliberately concealing information from senators weighing his confirmation. In response to a written question from Whitehouse regarding such records, which have been the subject of requests under Oklahoma's Open Records Act for more than two years, Pruitt wrote that he was not familiar with the pending requests and referred Whitehouse to the Oklahoma attorney general's office. Whitehouse, in his letter today, responds, "I find Mr. Pruitt's claims that he is not aware of pending open records requests at his office and is apparently powerless to provide that information to the Committee on his own accord, hard to believe, and suggestive of an effort to hide information from the Senate before his confirmation." This morning, Whitehouse and the other Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee boycotted a committee vote on the Pruitt nomination, stalling action, at least temporarily. Whitehouse cites reporting that at least 52 Open Records requests remain unfulfilled by Pruitt's office. Six of those are from the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). One, dating back to January 5, 2015, seeks communications between Pruitt and his top staff and Koch Industries, Devon Energy, Peabody Coal, and other entities. Another, from November 2015, seeks records relating to the Republican Attorney Generals Association, a group for which Mr. Pruitt has raised money and which has paid for Pruitt's travel expenses. Other requests are for emails between Pruitt and the industry-supported groups ALEC, Competitive Enterprise Institute, State Policy Network, and AG's United for Clean Power. Whitehouse charges that Pruitt's relationship with these groups "could present conflicts of interest should he be confirmed as Administrator of EPA." Whitehouse has a point.  Obviously, fossil fuel companies have a strong interest in EPA decisions and regulations. Senators, and the public, are entitled to learn more about the relationship between Attorney General Pruitt and these companies before the Senate votes on whether Pruitt should run the EPA. As Pruitt has declined to provide the Senate with these records, or information about these records, Whitehouse's letter asks the Oklahoma attorney general's office to provide, by Thursday, a list of pending Open Records Act requests and information about the office's progress in fulfilling them. Nick Surgey of the Center for Media and Democracy provided me with a January 17, 2017, letter to CMD from Pruitt's general counsel, Sarah Greenwalt, stating that Pruitt's office had identified more than 3000 documents in response to CMD's January 5, 2015, request for records regarding Pruitt's communications with fossil fuel companies. Addressing concerns about the delay, Greenwalt wrote that Pruitt's office processes requests "in the order in which they are received" and that the CMD's request was now "second from the top." If that representation is correct, Surgey sensibly concludes, Pruitt's office has not responded to a single Open Records Act request in more than two years. The January 17 letter to CMD from Pruitt's office concludes, "I unfortunately do not have an expected response date to give to you at this time." Others have in the past complained about long delays in getting responses from Pruitt's office under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, whose stated purpose is to "ensure and facilitate the public's right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power." But I haven't seen complaints from others that requests were taking more than two years. Pruitt's two-year failure to respond to public records requests concerning his ties to fossil fuel interests would seem to undermine the purpose of the Oklahoma law. Pruitt's present unwillingness to assist in providing these records to the U.S. senators considering his confirmation suggests he may indeed have something to hide. This article also appears on Republic Report. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

01 февраля, 18:12

Scott Pruitt Will Make America Great Again -- For Polluters

President Trump's choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency might put it on the endangered species list. In this video essay, Bill Moyers takes on President Trump's choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has a track record of putting the business interests of the energy sector before the environmental and health interests of the public. He has spent his career fighting the rules and regulations of the agency he is now being nominated to lead. His expected confirmation threatens to make America great for polluters again.   TRANSCRIPT I'm Bill Moyers, here with a horror story -- a story of corruption so daring, so devious and so dangerous it could kill you. It could poison your drinking water, contaminate your neighborhood and make your children very, very sick. Let's begin with a television commercial that I chanced to see on CNN during Donald Trump's inaugural weekend. Take a look. ADVERTISEMENT:The US Senate will vote to confirm Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. He's used transparent, smart regulations to protect our air and water without stifling development of America's abundant natural resources. BILL MOYERS: That's an ad sponsored by one of the biggest and most powerful trade associations in the country -- the National Association of Manufacturers. The NAM ran three ads like it during inaugural week, all of them aimed at bringing public pressure to bear on the US Senate to confirm Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency. And just who, you might ask, is Scott Pruitt? SCOTT PRUITT: It is an honor and a privilege to be before you today to be considered for the position of EPA administrator. MOYERS: Pruitt is Oklahoma's attorney general. His salary of more than $260,000 is paid by taxpayers, but Pruitt really works for the energy industry. He's a political profiteer whose career in public office is built on taking money from corporations and doing their bidding. SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): It appears that a great deal of your fundraising comes from these organizations who are in the energy sector and devoted to fighting climate change. MOYERS: At Pruitt's recent confirmation hearings before Congress, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island tried to unravel the web of corporate influence around Scott Pruitt. WHITEHOUSE: Devon Energy, Koch Industries, ExxonMobil have all maxed out to that account, at various times. PRUITT: I'm not aware if they have maxed out or not, Senator, but I'm sure that they have given to that committee. MOYERS: Now, take a look at this letter. In 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency was trying to limit methane gas leaking from drilling operations like that of Devon Energy, one of those oil and gas companies that donate to him. Pruitt wrote the EPA on behalf of the company. Turns out the letter was drafted, almost to the word, by lawyers for Devon Energy. PRUITT: That is the letter that is on my letterhead that was sent to the EPA, yes. With respect to the issue -- SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-OR): Do you acknowledge that 97 percent of the words in that letter came directly from Devon Energy? PRUITT: I have not looked at the percentages, sir. MERKLEY: You used your office as a direct extension of an oil company, rather than a direct extension of the interests of the public health of the people of Oklahoma. MOYERS: Something else: As attorney general Scott Pruitt has sued the Environmental Protection Agency 14 times. The New York Times found that 13 of those lawsuits included co-parties that had given money to Pruitt's campaign or to an affiliated PAC. Most of the suits failed. But that didn't deter Pruitt or his donors. According to the publication Energy and Environment News, the more he sued, the more the energy dollars rolled in. So why does Donald Trump want a lackey for the big energy companies to run the agency charged with protecting the public from pollution? And why did the National Association of Manufacturers run ads like this for a man so obviously not a defender of the public interest? Because Trump and the industry can count Pruitt on their side, as his record shows, in preventing the EPA from holding big business accountable for the environment and public safety. After all, when he became attorney general of Oklahoma, he shut down the state's environmental enforcement unit. SEN. ED MARKEY (D-MA): Honestly, people are going to think that it's not just the fox guarding the hen house, it's the fox destroying the hen house because you haven't distanced yourself from the actual litigation that you have initiated on most of the key issues that you are now going to have responsibility for protecting in terms of the public health of the entire country. PRUITT: And Senator, I can say to you unequivocally, I will recuse as directed by EPA ethics counsel. MOYERS: Scott Pruitt fits right into Trump's world. In his first week in office Donald Trump has aimed a sledgehammer at the EPA. Within hours of his swearing in, he ordered a freeze on all new environmental rules pending review, suspended all federal environmental grants and contracts, thus stalling billions of dollars that were heading to key operations like air pollution monitoring, water quality testing and environmental research. Then he ordered all outward communication from the EPA to stop -- no social media, no conferences, no meetings between the agency and the public. So if you want to know if there's work being done to clean up a superfund site, too bad. If you want to know the role of fracking in Oklahoma's earthquakes, sorry. Whether the emissions of an industry in your hometown comply with federal safety laws? You'll have to guess. And there's more. He's opposed climate science. PRUITT: As I indicated in my opening statement, the climate is changing and human activity contributes to that in some manner. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): In some manner? Ninety-seven percent of the scientists who wrote articles in peer-reviewed journals believe that human activity is the fundamental reason we are seeing climate change; you disagree with that? PRUITT: I believe the ability to measure with precision the degree of human activities' impact on the climate, is subject to more debate on whether the climate is changing or whether human activity contributes to it. MOYERS: We should remember that Richard Nixon, a Republican president, signed the legislation creating the Environmental Protection Agency back in l970. It was part of the movement to restore a country that had been despoiled by industrial abuse. PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON: The environmental agenda before the Congress includes laws to deal with water pollution, pesticide hazards, ocean dumping, excessive noise, careless land development and many other environmental problems. These problems will not stand still for politics or for partisanship. MOYERS: Trump's wrecking crew says environmental regulations impede the progress and profits of companies. But if you think those companies and their so-called "free market" will, without safety provisions, make America great again. Well here's is what turning back the clock could look like: These are the EPA's own photographs taken for the record as the agency began its work. Rivers were polluted. Lead gasoline threatened the developing brains of children. Trash choked harbors, and illegal dumping leached into groundwater, agricultural run off suffocated marine waterways. Unfettered industries were running our country to ruin. There, before your eyes, is our past. It's no wonder the founders of our government feared corruption in high office. They knew it could lead to bribery, nepotism and the abuse of power by a government aligned with the great monied interests -- such as the East India Tea Company. They knew it could enable of public officials to neglect their duty to the public and serve instead the design of wealth. At the end of the first week of Donald Trump's first hundred days, those founders must be turning in their graves. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

01 февраля, 15:49

Anadarko (APC) Q4 Loss Wider than Estimates, Sales Beat

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) reported fourth-quarter 2016 adjusted loss of 50 cents per share, wider than the Zacks Consensus Estimate of a loss of 48 cents.

30 января, 17:13

Guess Who's Backing Scott Pruitt To Head The EPA? The Koch Brothers.

The two dozen nonprofit groups and Senate committee members defending Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump's nominee for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, have at least two things in common. Like Pruitt, they're climate science deniers. And, like Pruitt, most of them are funded by Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who own the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries. That funding helps explain why they all consistently misrepresent the scientific consensus on climate change. After all, money buys influence, and since 1997, Koch foundations have paid a network of think tanks and advocacy groups more than $88 million to spread climate science disinformation -- more than twice what ExxonMobil, the second-biggest denier-network funder, has spent. Likewise, Koch Industries has contributed $38.5 million to federal candidates over the last 25 years and spent another $117 million since 1998 on lobbying. The Kochs didn't endorse Trump for president, but there's no doubt they would consider a guy like Pruitt heading the EPA a dream come true. When David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian Party ticket back in 1980, his party platform called for abolishing the EPA (and a number of other federal agencies, along with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security). Although Pruitt won't be able to go that far, his six-year track record as Oklahoma's attorney general suggests he will do what he can -- with the help of Koch-funded members of Congress and the rest of the Trump administration -- to defund the agency and undermine its authority. Koch Denial Network is Alive and Well In advance of Pruitt's nomination hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on January 18, a coalition of 23 nonprofit groups sent a letter to the entire Senate urging his confirmation. "Attorney General Pruitt has consistently fought for Oklahoma families and communities," the letter states, "and has been a stalwart defender against federal intrusion into state and individual rights." In fact, Pruitt has consistently fought for the corporate polluters that have financed his political campaigns, dismantling his office's Environmental Protection Unit, halting efforts to reduce poultry manure in Oklahoma waterways, opposing a wind energy transmission line, and suing the EPA 14 times to block stronger air, water and climate safeguards that would better protect Oklahoma families and communities. But I digress. Let's follow the money. The groups that signed the letter endorsing Pruitt include such high-profile, climate-science-denier organizations as the American Energy Alliance (AEA), whose president, Thomas Pyle, is a former Koch Industries lobbyist; the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose top climate disinformer, Myron Ebell, oversaw the Trump EPA transition team; and Heritage Action, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation. Heritage economist David Kreutzer, who maintains there is no justification for Obama administration climate policies, also served on the EPA transition team. Those three groups and at least 15 other letter signatories have received generous support from one or more of the Koch brothers' numerous foundations, including American Encore, the Charles Koch Foundation, Charles Koch Institute, the now defunct Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, and Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a de facto Koch bank that distributes contributions from wealthy conservatives to free-market, anti-government groups. A number of the organizations on the letter are also funded by Donors Trust, a secretive, pass-through money laundering operation that received more than $13 million from the Kochs' Knowledge and Progress Fund between 2005 and 2014. Eight of the signatories, including AEA, CEI and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, collectively received $30.2 million between 2010 and 2014 from American Encore, a "social welfare" nonprofit organization the Kochs established in 2009 as the Center to Protect Patient Rights (CPPR). The organization has been one of the Koch network's primary conduits for funneling dark money -- private donations not subject to public disclosure -- to conservative campaign funding groups. American Encore is no fan of environmental protections. A December 2016 blog post on its website calls for slashing "excessive and burdensome regulations" on hydraulic fracturing, opening up the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil drilling, and canceling the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan to curb electric utility carbon emissions. A significant chunk of the American Encore-CPPR budget came from Freedom Partners, which gave the organization a whopping $115 million between 2012 and 2013. From 2012 through 2015, Freedom Partners also donated nearly $38 million to five of the groups on the Pruitt support letter: AEA, American Commitment, Club for Growth, Heritage Action and the 60 Plus Association, which spent the bulk of its $16.5 million in Freedom Partner grants on political advertising. Like American Encore, Freedom Partners' goal is to roll back consumer, public health, environmental and workplace safeguards. It recently posted A Roadmap to Repeal, a list of Obama administration initiatives that can be repealed in the new administration's first 100 days and others that would require a longer term strategy. In the short term, Freedom Partners calls on the Trump administration to rescind the moratorium on new federal land coal leases, abandon the Paris climate agreement, and block any proposed EPA programs related to the Clean Power Plan. It also recommends that Congress repeal a number of regulations finalized during the last 60 legislative days of 2016, including rules that protect streams from coal mining, cut heavy-duty truck carbon emissions, and reduce methane leaks from oil and gas operations on public lands. Over the long term, Freedom Partners wants the administration and Congress to kill the Clean Power Plan and the "Waters of the United States" rule, which extends federal protection to headwaters and wetlands that feed drinking water supplies. Koch-Funded Senators Fawn Over Pruitt How much impact could Freedom Partners and the rest of the Koch network have? Quite a bit, actually. They are planning to spend $300 million to $400 million over the next two years to influence politics and public policy, and Marc Short -- Freedom Partners' president up until February 2016 -- was just named the White House director of legislative affairs. Formerly Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff when Pence was in the House of Representatives, Short likely will find a receptive audience on the Hill -- at least from one side of the aisle. The welcome Pruitt got at his Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee hearing two weeks ago may be an indication of things to come. Republican committee members fell all over themselves to praise Pruitt and attack the EPA for, as Chairman John Barrasso put it, creating "broad and legally questionable new regulations [that] have done great damage...." Democratic committee members, conversely, pressed Pruitt on his financial ties to fossil fuel interests, his efforts to weaken environmental safeguards, and his scientifically indefensible claim that the role human activity plays in causing climate change is "subject to continuing debate." Why were Republican EPW Committee members so hospitable to Pruitt? Like Pruitt, most of them are on the Koch gravy train and their campaign coffers are flush with fossil fuel industry cash. Nine of the 11 Republicans on the committee together received $368,000 in campaign contributions from Koch Industries over the last five years. Even more telling, the company was among the top 10 donors for seven of those nine beneficiaries and the top donor for two -- Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who is in line to become the Trump administration's attorney general. In addition to the Koch funding, the Republican committee members received more than $1.5 million since 2011 from a veritable Who's Who of energy companies, including coal giants Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal, Murray Energy and Peabody Energy; oil and gas titans BP, Chevron, Devon Energy, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil and Valero Energy; and electric utilities American Electric Power, NextEra Energy and Southern Company. Pruitt, meanwhile, received $62,500 since 2010 from Koch Industries and eight other companies listed above, including Devon Energy, ExxonMobil and Valero Energy. By contrast, none of the 10 Democrats on the committee received Koch money, let alone any coal or oil and gas industry support. The only energy-related businesses that contributed to their campaigns in the last five years were three diversified electric utilities that are heavily invested in nuclear power: Dominion Resources, Entergy and Exelon. Drain the Swamp? Donald Trump campaigned as a populist who promised to stand up to Washington lobbyists and "drain the swamp." The back story on Scott Pruitt -- and the vast sums spent by the Kochs and other fossil fuel interests to promote their agenda -- tell a very different story. Still, one may fairly question what any of this actually proves. Does money really dictate the positions that a nonprofit think tank or U.S. senator takes, be it on climate change or any other policy issue? As it turns out, none other than David Koch addressed this very question in an interview with Brian Doherty, author of the 2007 book, Radicals for Capitalism: The Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement. Koch was talking specifically about funding think tanks and advocacy groups, but what he said could easily be applied to elected officials as well. "If we're going to give a lot of money, we'll make darn sure they spend it in a way that goes along with our interest," Koch told Doherty. "And if they make a wrong turn and start doing things we don't agree with, we withdraw funding. We do exert that kind of control." I rest my case. Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists. All federal campaign spending information came from the Center for Responsible Politics. State campaign information came from the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Unless otherwise identified, foundation donation information came from Conservative Transparency and tax forms posted by the Foundation Center. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 января, 15:26

Murphy Oil (MUR) Posts Narrower-than-Expected Loss in Q4

Murphy Oil Corporation (MUR) reported fourth-quarter 2016 loss of 16 cents per share, narrower than the Zacks Consensus Estimate of a loss of 19 cents and the year-ago quarter's loss of 76 cents.

20 января, 04:49

Inaugural Balls Bring Together Politicians And The Corporations That Can Pay For Them

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― Billionaire Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday with hundreds of thousands in attendance. Before and after the swearing-in, governors, federal and state lawmakers, and many others will party at dozens of inaugural balls across the Washington, D.C., area. It’s a tradition for states to have their own balls, where politicians and officials from both sides of the aisle will party. It’s also a tradition for these balls to be funded by large corporations and the lobbying firms they hire to push their agendas in Congress and state capitols. This year, at least 14 state inaugural balls or events during inauguration week are funded or otherwise supported by corporations and lobbying firms. Trump has promised that he will “drain the swamp” and end the outsized influence of lobbyists in Washington, much as President Barack Obama vowed when he entered office. Trump said he would keep lobbyists off his transition team. But in the end, the next president appointed both active and recently deregistered lobbyists to senior transition roles. When he held a controversial phone conversation with Taiwan’s prime minister, he was actually taking action orchestrated by a lobbyist for a foreign government. Now with the inaugural balls, corporations with Washington interests are playing a key role again. Oil and gas companies looking for significant rollbacks of environmental regulation from both Congress and the Trump administration are among the most notable funders of inauguration festivities. Chevron is a sponsor of the Michigan and Texas inaugural balls. Exxon Mobil, whose former CEO Rex Tillerson is Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, is also sponsoring the Texas ball. So is the American Petroleum Institute, the main lobbying arm of the oil and gas industry. The American subsidiary of BP, the British oil company, is a sponsor of the Texas and Indiana balls. Indiana is, of course, the home state of incoming Vice President Mike Pence. Automakers Ford, Honda and Toyota ― an industry that has garnered a lot of Trump’s attention recently ― are among a long list of other sponsors of Indiana’s event. Iowa’s inaugural ball ― which will be attended by many of the state’s senior Republicans, including Gov. Terry Branstad, Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds, Sen. Joni Ernst, and Reps. Steve King, Rod Blum and David Young ― is sponsored by the DCI Group, a major lobbying and public relations firm that counts Exxon Mobil as a client. The firm is also tied to the telecommunications industry, helping run campaigns opposed to net neutrality in Washington and against the provision of municipal Internet in cities, towns and other localities. Koch Industries, the giant corporation run by billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch, is helping out the Georgia, Oklahoma and Texas balls. The Koch brothers operate perhaps the largest political influence machine on the right, funding political advertisings, grassroots activism, college courses and inside-Washington lobbying. Aside from Koch Industries, Oklahoma’s party is paid for by two natural gas companies that engage in the controversial practice of fracking: Continental Resources, run by generous Trump donor Harold Hamm, and Devon Energy, which has made large donations to Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency. Silicon Valley ride-share company Lyft signed up as a sponsor for the Michigan, Illinois, Texas and Tennessee balls by offering discounted or free rides to the events. Lyft and rival Uber have been lobbying in state capitols across the country for laws more favorable to their app-based taxi services. "Lyft" your way to the @TNStateSociety's VolunCHEERS! .@lyft is an official sponsor of the event - code: VOLUNCHEERS and VOLUNCHEERS25 pic.twitter.com/E8fxdrpG46— TN State Society (@TNStateSociety) January 11, 2017 Major law and lobbying firms are grabbing the opportunity to make nice with powerful politicians, too. DLA Piper is sponsoring the Michigan ball. Dentons and Squire Patton Boggs have sponsored the Georgia celebration. The Indiana event is supported by Faegre Baker Daniels. Mayer Brown is a Texas ball sponsor. And the Alaska State Society is partnering with Jack Ferguson & Associates to hold an inauguration open house at the lobbying firm’s offices. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 января, 04:49

Inaugural Balls Bring Together Politicians And The Corporations That Can Pay For Them

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― Billionaire Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday with hundreds of thousands in attendance. Before and after the swearing-in, governors, federal and state lawmakers, and many others will party at dozens of inaugural balls across the Washington, D.C., area. It’s a tradition for states to have their own balls, where politicians and officials from both sides of the aisle will party. It’s also a tradition for these balls to be funded by large corporations and the lobbying firms they hire to push their agendas in Congress and state capitols. This year, at least 14 state inaugural balls or events during inauguration week are funded or otherwise supported by corporations and lobbying firms. Trump has promised that he will “drain the swamp” and end the outsized influence of lobbyists in Washington, much as President Barack Obama vowed when he entered office. Trump said he would keep lobbyists off his transition team. But in the end, the next president appointed both active and recently deregistered lobbyists to senior transition roles. When he held a controversial phone conversation with Taiwan’s prime minister, he was actually taking action orchestrated by a lobbyist for a foreign government. Now with the inaugural balls, corporations with Washington interests are playing a key role again. Oil and gas companies looking for significant rollbacks of environmental regulation from both Congress and the Trump administration are among the most notable funders of inauguration festivities. Chevron is a sponsor of the Michigan and Texas inaugural balls. Exxon Mobil, whose former CEO Rex Tillerson is Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, is also sponsoring the Texas ball. So is the American Petroleum Institute, the main lobbying arm of the oil and gas industry. The American subsidiary of BP, the British oil company, is a sponsor of the Texas and Indiana balls. Indiana is, of course, the home state of incoming Vice President Mike Pence. Automakers Ford, Honda and Toyota ― an industry that has garnered a lot of Trump’s attention recently ― are among a long list of other sponsors of Indiana’s event. Iowa’s inaugural ball ― which will be attended by many of the state’s senior Republicans, including Gov. Terry Branstad, Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds, Sen. Joni Ernst, and Reps. Steve King, Rod Blum and David Young ― is sponsored by the DCI Group, a major lobbying and public relations firm that counts Exxon Mobil as a client. The firm is also tied to the telecommunications industry, helping run campaigns opposed to net neutrality in Washington and against the provision of municipal Internet in cities, towns and other localities. Koch Industries, the giant corporation run by billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch, is helping out the Georgia, Oklahoma and Texas balls. The Koch brothers operate perhaps the largest political influence machine on the right, funding political advertisings, grassroots activism, college courses and inside-Washington lobbying. Aside from Koch Industries, Oklahoma’s party is paid for by two natural gas companies that engage in the controversial practice of fracking: Continental Resources, run by generous Trump donor Harold Hamm, and Devon Energy, which has made large donations to Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency. Silicon Valley ride-share company Lyft signed up as a sponsor for the Michigan, Illinois, Texas and Tennessee balls by offering discounted or free rides to the events. Lyft and rival Uber have been lobbying in state capitols across the country for laws more favorable to their app-based taxi services. "Lyft" your way to the @TNStateSociety's VolunCHEERS! .@lyft is an official sponsor of the event - code: VOLUNCHEERS and VOLUNCHEERS25 pic.twitter.com/E8fxdrpG46— TN State Society (@TNStateSociety) January 11, 2017 Major law and lobbying firms are grabbing the opportunity to make nice with powerful politicians, too. DLA Piper is sponsoring the Michigan ball. Dentons and Squire Patton Boggs have sponsored the Georgia celebration. The Indiana event is supported by Faegre Baker Daniels. Mayer Brown is a Texas ball sponsor. And the Alaska State Society is partnering with Jack Ferguson & Associates to hold an inauguration open house at the lobbying firm’s offices. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.