Speak to a specialist

Register and we will customize a solution that meets your exact needs. When you speak to one of our experts, you may be qualified to sample our industry-leading products on a no-cost basis.

You can unsubscribe from these updates at any time. We manage your personal data in accordance with our privacy policy.
Generic Hero BannerGeneric Hero Banner
Latest market news

Venezuela to export first asphalt since May

  • Market: Oil products
  • 20/02/26

The first asphalt export from Venezuela since the US revoked sanctions waivers in May 2025 began loading this week.

The 36,681dwt vessel The Judge is currently docked at Amuay Bay, Venezuela, after ballasting off the coast for the past week, according to shiptracking data from Kpler.

The ship was expected to deliver asphalt to multiple ports in the southeastern US in mid-to-late February, but a power outage at Venezuela's Paraguana refining center delayed loading, according to market participants.

The 14,953dwt vessel The Chief was also seen ballasting at Amuay Bay.

These movements come after the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) issued new general licenses on 29 January that lifted sanctions on Venezuela's oil exports and allowed purchases of refined products, including asphalt, by established US entities.

In the five months before US president Donald Trump's administration ended waivers for Venezuelan asphalt in May 2025, the US imported 420,000 short tons. This was a 5.3pc increase from all of2017, the last year with significant Venezuelan exports. The majority of exports landed on the US Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

By Sarah Tucker and Adriana Alfaro

Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
20/02/26

US high court strikes down Trump's tariffs: Update

US high court strikes down Trump's tariffs: Update

Updates with details throughout Washington, 20 February (Argus) — The US Supreme Court has thrown out most of the tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed on nearly all US trading partners, finding his ability to unilaterally impose tariffs exceeded his powers under a decades-old law. The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling released on Friday will block Trump's ability to use tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to extract concessions from trading partners and punish countries that reject his demands. The Constitution "did not vest any part of the taxing power in the executive branch," chief justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, backed by two other conservative justices and all three liberal justices. Trump, speaking hours after the court announced its ruling, raged against the justices who overturned his tariffs. "I'm ashamed of certain members of the court for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," Trump said. "It's an embarrassment to the families" of justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, he said. Trump appointed both justices during his first term. The majority opinion noted that "the Framers gave 'Congress alone' the power to impose tariffs during peacetime." Trump "must 'point to clear congressional authorization' to justify his extraordinary assertion of that power," the majority opinion said, adding that "He cannot." Trump scoffed at the opinion. "The court said that I'm not allowed to charge even one dollar under IEEPA", he said and suggested that the six justices were "swayed by foreign interests". What is affected? The Supreme Court decision affects Trump's tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, where he cited an economic emergency created by the three countries' alleged inaction to stop the flow of fentanyl drugs into the US. The Supreme Court ruling also strikes down Trump's most extensive action — imposing tariffs of at least 10pc on nearly every US trading partner to address the "economic emergency" of persistent US trade deficits. The Supreme Court's decision also will affect the tariffs Trump imposed on imports from Brazil, US government lawyers informed the Court of International Trade last month. Trump cited Brazil's alleged suppression of freedom of speech as a reason to impose tariffs. The decision will not affect tariffs on US imports of steel, aluminum, cars and auto parts, which Trump imposed by citing well-tested legal trade authorities. Next steps Trump said he will sign an executive order later on Friday to impose a 10pc broad tariff on all US trading partners, in place of the struck down IEEPA tariffs. Trump said that action will invoke Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows imposing tariffs of up to 15pc to address a balance of payments issue. But that legal avenue comes with limitations. The administration can impose those tariffs only for a period of 150 days. Any extensions would require explicit authorization from Congress. The Republican-led US Congress has not challenged Trump's tariff authority to date, although lawmakers have increasingly voiced concerns about the effect of tariffs on prices. The House of Representatives and the Senate have voted on separate resolutions challenging the tariffs Trump has imposed on imports from Canada and Brazil, but they have not passed any tariff legislation. "Congress and the administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks" with respect to tariffs, House of Representatives speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) said. But Trump likely would have trouble finding enough votes on Capitol Hill to support his tariffs. "The president must refrain from any further unilateral action on tariffs," House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) said. Trump said he does not plan to work with Congress on tariffs. "I have the right to do tariffs," he said. "We have a right to do pretty much what we want to do." The Trump administration will also quickly begin the legal process for replicating the IEEPA tariffs with "Section 202" and "Section 301" tariffs, US trade representative Jamieson Greer said, speaking alongside Trump. A "Section 232" authority allows the Commerce Department or US Trade Representative's office to determine whether imports of a product need to be curbed on national security grounds. A Section 301 investigation would target a specific country on the grounds that it is discriminating against US exports. In both cases, the process for imposing tariffs can take months. It also requires public consultation and allows carveouts for the affected US importers. The use of Section 232 and 301 authorities is "a little more complicated" than IEEPA, and "those will also be challenged", Trump's former trade representative Bob Lighthizer told participants at the Argus Americas Crude Summit in Houston on 4 February. Trump's administration will have its work cut out for it in deciding how, and whether, to refund an estimated $175bn in tariffs collected using IEEPA tariffs. Trump in his remarks suggested that the refund process could take years. Hundreds of companies, including refiners Valero and Marathon Petroleum, have already filed lawsuits seeking to recover the tariffs. The effective US tariff rate was around 13pc as of late 2025, up from 2.6pc a year earlier, according to research published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on 12 February. US companies and consumers paid about 90pc of the tariff burden, with only a fraction absorbed by foreign producers, the Fed researchers found. Foreign governments did not immediately react to the US court's tariff decision. "We take note of the ruling," the EU said. "We remain in close contact with the US administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling." By Haik Gugarats and Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Find out more
News

US tariff refund fight to take 'years': Trump: Update

20/02/26
News
20/02/26

US tariff refund fight to take 'years': Trump: Update

Adds remarks from President Donald Trump Washington, 20 February (Argus) — President Donald Trump said he is expecting a years-long court fight over whether his administration must refund an estimated $175bn in tariffs the US Supreme Court said on Friday were imposed unlawfully. The Supreme Court, in its 6-3 ruling striking down the tariffs, did not say what should happen to the billions of dollars in tariff revenue that the Trump administration has already collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump said ambiguity in the court's ruling over how to handle tariff refunds would mean it would be subject to years of litigation. "What happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn't discussed," Trump said to reporters after the decision. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years." Trump's remarks on Friday in defense of his use of tariffs — and his vow to collect even "more money" by deploying other tariff authorities — suggest that importers seeking to claim tariff refunds could be in for lengthy court battles. The tariff refund process is likely to be a "mess", as the US may be required to refund "billions of dollars" to importers, associate justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a dissent to the Supreme Court's ruling invalidating the IEEPA tariffs. US government attorneys have previously conceded during litigation over the tariffs that importers that have sued would be entitled to refunds. But neither the Trump administration, nor the Supreme Court's ruling, have said how refunds will work for the vast numbers of other parties that have paid the IEEPA tariffs. "There's a whole specialized body of trade law," attorney Neal Katyal said during oral arguments in the tariff case at the Supreme Court, where he was representing importers. "It's a very complicated thing. There's got to be an administrative protest." Hundreds of companies, including refiners Valero and Marathon Petroleum, already have filed lawsuits seeking to recover the tariffs. The court ruling on Friday will have no effect on more traditional tariffs that Trump has imposed on steel, aluminum, auto parts and cars. Complicating any potential refund process in the near-term is the fact that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency responsible for collecting and processing federal tariffs, has been partly shut down since 14 February because of a funding impasse. Earlier this year, CBP updated an electronic refund process that replaced checks, but the agency has yet to say how it will handle IEEPA tariffs. Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA last year, an authority he delighted in using. The US had collected $133bn in tariffs under IEEPA as of December, an amount that since then has likely risen to $175bn, according to economists at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School. Losing that revenue — and future tariff revenue — will cut off funds anticipated to total $2 trillion over the next decade. "The country will now be about $2 trillion deeper in the hole," Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget president Maya MacGuineas said. "This is very bad news." US retailers, automakers and other merchants have previously said they were absorbing the cost of some of the tariffs in anticipation of a potential ruling striking them down, while also raising prices to cover their additional costs. But it is unlikely that merchants receiving refunds will directly pass those savings along to customers that already paid inflated prices. "They're not going to go to consumers, right?" former US trade representative Robert Lighthizer told participants at the Argus Americas Crude Summit in Houston, Texas on 4 February. They "are going to go to the middleman." Democrats are already using the outstanding issue of tariff refunds to attack Trump and his Republican allies ahead of the midterm congressional elections in November. They say across-the-board tariffs have driven up the price of everyday goods, undermined alliances with key trading partners and allowed Trump to enrich himself. "Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest," California governor Gavin Newsom (D) said. "Cough up!" By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

US poised for 'mess' in handling tariff refunds

20/02/26
News
20/02/26

US poised for 'mess' in handling tariff refunds

Washington, 20 February (Argus) — President Donald Trump's administration will have its work cut out for it in deciding how, and whether, to refund an estimated $175bn in tariffs collected using emergency authorities that the US Supreme Court ruled on Friday were unlawful. The upcoming refund process is likely to be a "mess" as the US may be required to refund "billions of dollars" to importers, associate justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a dissent to the court's 6-3 decision throwing out tariffs Trump imposed under International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Among the likely complications will be the billions of dollars involved, and the sheer number of importers that could be eligible for refunds. Trump last year used dire terms to describe the outcome of an unfavorable court ruling on tariffs that has now arrived. "It would be impossible to ever recover, or pay back these massive sums of money and honor," Trump said last August. "It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!" US government attorneys have already conceded during litigation over the tariffs that importers that have sued would be entitled to refunds. But neither the Trump administration, nor the Supreme Court's ruling on the tariffs, has offered clear guidance on how refunds will work for the vast numbers of other parties that have paid the IEEPA tariffs. "There's a whole specialized body of trade law," attorney Neal Katyal said during oral argument in the tariff case at the Supreme Court, where he was representing importers. "It's a very complicated thing. There's got to be an administrative protest." Hundreds of companies, including refiners Valero and Marathon Petroleum, already have filed lawsuits seeking to recover the tariffs. The court ruling on Friday will have no effect on more traditional tariffs that Trump has imposed on steel, aluminum, auto parts and cars. Complicating any potential refund process in the near-term is the fact that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency responsible for collecting and processing federal tariffs, has been partly shut down since 14 February because of a funding impasse. Earlier this year, CBP updated an electronic refund process that replaced checks, but the agency has yet to say how it will handle IEEPA tariffs. Neither the White House nor CBP responded immediately to requests for comment. Trump is preparing to give a press conference on Friday to discuss the ruling. Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA last year, an authority he delighted in using. The US had collected $133bn in tariffs under IEEPA as of December, an amount that since then has likely risen to $175bn, according to economists at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School. Losing that revenue — and future tariff revenue — will cut off revenue anticipated to total $2 trillion over the next decade. "The country will now be about $2 trillion deeper in the hole," Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget president Maya MacGuineas said. "This is very bad news." US retailers, automakers and other merchants have previously said they were absorbing the cost of some of the tariffs in anticipation of a potential ruling striking them down, while also raising prices to cover their additional costs. But it is unlikely that merchants receiving refunds will directly pass those savings along to customers that already paid inflated prices. "They're not going to go to consumers, right?" former US trade representative Robert Lighthizer told participants at the Argus Americas Crude Summit in Houston, Texas on 4 February. They "are going to go to the middleman." Democrats are already using the outstanding issue of tariff refunds to attack Trump and his Republican allies ahead of the midterm congressional elections in November. They say across-the-board tariffs have driven up the price of everyday goods, undermined alliances with key trading partners and allowed Trump to enrich himself. "Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest," California governor Gavin Newsom (D) said. "Cough up!" By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's tariffs

20/02/26
News
20/02/26

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's tariffs

Washington, 20 February (Argus) — The US Supreme Court has thrown out most of the tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed on nearly all US trading partners, finding his ability to unilaterally impose tariffs exceeded his powers under a decades-old law. The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling released on Friday will block Trump's ability to use tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to extract concessions from trading partners and punish countries that reject his demands. Trump has already pledged to find other ways to maintain tariffs, although the alternative leaves the administration with fewer, more time-constrained options than IEEPA, the 1977 law the administration has used to impose across-the-board tariffs on most imports. The Constitution "did not vest any part of the taxing power in the executive branch," chief justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. The Supreme Court decision affects Trump's tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, where he cited an economic emergency created by the three countries' alleged inaction to stop the flow of fentanyl drugs into the US. The Supreme Court ruling also strikes down Trump's most extensive action — imposing tariffs of 10pc and higher since 5 April 2025 on nearly every US trading partner to address the "economic emergency" of persistent US trade deficits. The Supreme Court's decision also will affect the tariffs Trump imposed on imports from Brazil, US government lawyers informed the Court of International Trade last month. Trump cited Brazil's alleged suppression of freedom of speech as a reason to impose tariffs. The decision will not affect tariffs on US imports of steel, aluminum, cars and auto parts, which Trump imposed by citing well-tested legal trade authorities. Next steps Trump and his economic team had recently stepped up public advocacy for the Supreme Court to leave his trade policy in place, highlighting the key role tariffs play in his foreign policy and in federal revenue generation. "I'm waiting for a decision from the Supreme Court," Trump said on Thursday. "Without tariffs, what would you do? Everybody would be bankrupt, everybody, the whole country would be bankrupt." But his administration has prepared for the possibility of the Supreme Court striking down the tariffs. The US Trade Representative's office in the past month quickly wrapped up trade deals with most major US trade partners that had languished for months. Trade deals struck with India, Indonesia, Taiwan and Vietnam call on those countries to increase energy and other imports from the US. The administration now is expected to try to quickly enact a 10pc tariff after the Supreme Court's decision because of the negative ruling, probably by invoking Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows imposing tariffs of up to 15pc to address a balance of payments issue. But that legal venue comes with limitations. The administration can impose those tariffs only for a period of 150 days. Any extensions would require explicit authorization from Congress. The Republican-led US Congress has not challenged Trump's tariff authority to date, although lawmakers have increasingly voiced concerns about the effect of tariffs on prices. The House of Representatives and the Senate have voted on separate resolutions challenging the tariffs Trump has imposed on imports from Canada and Brazil, but they have not passed any tariff legislation. The money question The US has collected nearly $284bn in customs duties since the start of Trump's second term, up by $204bn from the year-earlier period, according to data from the US Treasury Department. Hundreds of companies, including refiners Valero and Marathon Petroleum, have already filed lawsuits seeking to recover the tariffs. The effective US tariff rate was around 13pc as of late 2025, up from 2.6pc a year earlier, according to research published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on 12 February. US companies and consumers paid about 90pc of the tariff burden, with only a fraction absorbed by foreign producers, the Fed researchers found. By Haik Gugarats and Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

E15 council eyes more US biofuel quota waivers: Update

19/02/26
News
19/02/26

E15 council eyes more US biofuel quota waivers: Update

Updates with reaction from refiners, details on RIN return New York, 19 February (Argus) — A US House of Representatives Republican task force devising major reforms to road fuel markets has revised an earlier proposal to allow more gasoline and diesel to be exempted from annual biofuel quotas. The lawmakers last week floated limiting exemptions to 450mn program credits a year but is now considering a plan to raise that amount to 550mn credits a year in a bid to assuage oil refiners, according to three people familiar with the debate. The House last month punted on legislation that would have allowed year-round sales of gasoline containing 15pc ethanol (E15), up from 10pc currently, and that would have revamped the US biofuel quota program. Instead, the House asked a new E15 Rural Domestic Energy Council comprised of Republican lawmakers to propose changes. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires oil companies to annually blend minimum volumes of biofuels or buy Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits from those that do, while letting small refineries bid for hardship exemptions that can save them tens of millions of dollars. One gallon of corn ethanol generates one RIN, while more energy-dense fuels like renewable diesel earn more. Exemption decisions have varied wildly over time, although President Donald Trump's administration has unnerved farmers by granting many refiners' hardship requests — including nearly 1bn RINs exempted from 2024 quotas, initially set at 21.5bn credits. The program is important for crop demand and retail fuel prices, and the council has tried to devise changes to make the program more predictable. The E15 council's latest proposal would make some changes immediately, including allowing year-round sales of E15 gasoline and blocking some Midwestern states from requiring a boutique fuel blend this summer that would allow more ethanol blending. The plan would also maintain an earlier provision that compensates some unnamed small refinery owners for past compliance by providing them with special RINs that do not expire . A framework shared with Argus shows that these credits — estimated at 363mn RINs — could be provided to refiners this year and could count toward old mandates or be used in future years. But the big changes to exemptions would take effect starting in 2028, a win for farm groups that were concerned the council's work would delay the Trump administration's efforts to set new biofuel quotas in the coming weeks. The latest plan would require EPA to exempt no more than 550mn RINs from annual biofuel obligations, starting in 2028, although that cap would increase or decrease proportionally as mandates get more or less ambitious. Regulators would not be able to force other companies to blend more biofuels to offset their smaller rivals' waivers, also starting in 2028, an addition pushed by oil majors. All refineries currently eligible could apply for exemptions, although the E15 council's latest plan would remove a requirement that only facilities that qualified at the program's outset could continue winning them, allowing refineries that process no more than 10,000 b/d of crude that started up later to compete for relief. An earlier bill backed by the American Petroleum Institute would have restricted exemptions to companies with limited collective refining capacity, angering firms that would have lost the ability to win exemptions for smaller units they own. The council instead wants to let EPA decide which facilities deserve relief, letting small companies, mid-sized refiners like Delek and even oil majors like Chevron still compete for a smaller pool of exemptions. The process for applying for hardship relief would largely stay the same, though refineries would have to apply for 2028 exemptions ahead of time and could appeal initial decisions. Under current rules, companies can submit hardship requests — including for years-old mandates — at any time. The proposal otherwise tracks closely with one the council circulated last week, including banning the creation of credits tied to electric vehicles and tasking a government watchdog with studying the mandate's impacts on fuel costs and refining capacity. Debate continues in Congress But the council's efforts to boost E15 sales and limit exemptions, already challenged by a backlash from refiners and skepticism from some Republicans, still face an uphill battle. A group of 27 oil refineries criticized the latest plan in a letter to the council Thursday. The bloc, which includes facilities small enough to win exemptions as well as larger units owned by merchant refiner PBF, wants the E15 council to scrap exemption caps and instead require regulators to set less-aspirational biofuel mandates tied to actual ethanol consumption. Biofuel advocates have privately responded coolly to the council's plans for distinct reasons. A group of farm groups and fuel retailers told lawmakers in a letter last week to not exempt any more than 450mn RINs a year. The council missed a goal of reaching an agreement by 15 February but has a separate goal that Congress will weigh the legislation by 25 February. The proposed biofuel changes would likely be added to larger legislation, but it is not clear what bill that would be. The office of council co-chair Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa) declined to comment. By Cole Martin Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Related Products

Argus Refined Products Outlook

Argus Refined Products Outlook

A comprehensive, 24‑month price forecast for refined oil product markets, delivered in a single, integrated solution.
Find out more

Argus Specialised Freight

Argus Specialised Freight

Data, insights and unique tools to help manage freight risk in biofuels, renewable feedstocks and chemicals markets
Find out more

Argus Asphalt Forward Curves

Independent market valuation tool to support investment and trading decisions on Asphalt markets
Find out more

Argus North American Long-Term Natural Gas Forward Curves

Independent market valuation tool to support investment and trading decisions on North America Electricity markets
Find out more

Argus O.M.R. Fuels

Germany's robust and comprehensive basis for supply contracts
Find out more
Generic Hero Banner

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more