VietSea to distribute ExxonMobil's base oils in Vietnam

Spanish Market: Oil products
23/02/26

ExxonMobil has appointed VietSea Chemicals as its sole distributor for Group II base oils, namely EHC 50 and EHC 110, in Vietnam, ExxonMobil said on 20 February.

ExxonMobil seeks to expand its presence in the southeast Asian market. Vietnam does not currently produce any lubricant base stocks and is fully reliant on imports.

"VietSea will hold inventory of ExxonMobil EHC Group II base stocks in Vietnam and supply via tank truck to Vietnamese blenders," said VietSea's retail director Angelina Nhi Ha.

ExxonMobil has a combined global production capacity of over 7mn t/yr across its refineries in the US, Europe and Asia, producing Group I, II and III base oils. Production in Asia is based in Singapore, for Group I and II base oils.

The refinery recently completed the Singapore Resid Upgrade Project that added 20,000 b/d of Group II lubricant base stocks.

By Tara Tang

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.

23/02/26

US regulatory rollback raises wider oil sector concerns

Washington, 23 February (Argus) — President Donald Trump has repealed more than 15 years of regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, an action that raises doubts over the future of other climate regulations. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) earlier this month revoked tailpipe standards that limited CO2 emissions, in addition to repealing its 2009 endangerment finding that gave it the ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Trump says the tailpipe rules were part of a "giant scam" to address climate change, forcing consumers to buy vehicles they did not want. The now-gutted tailpipe rules were among the last remaining federal measures to constrain CO2 emissions from cars and trucks. The Republican-led Congress last year voted to block California from enforcing its own tailpipe rules, after which lawmakers eliminated all penalties for carmakers that fail to meet federal fuel-economy standards. US car manufacturer General Motors said last month it expects $500mn-750mn in savings this year from no longer having to purchase fuel-economy compliance credits. The tailpipe repeal will likely increase fuel demand and thereby raise gasoline prices by 75¢/USG by 2050 in constant dollar terms, or 29pc above a reference-case scenario, according to the EPA. That would be a positive development for US oil producers and refiners. Ahead of the rollback, the US Energy Information Administration's reference case in its Annual Energy Outlook showed fuel demand from light-duty vehicles falling to 4.9mn b/d by 2050 from 8.3mn b/d this year. But the additional spending on fuel could start to bite for consumers. Under one scenario the EPA modelled, consumers would face net losses of $180bn over 2027-55, as greater spending on fuel and maintenance overwhelms any upfront savings from cheaper vehicles. The EPA relied on an alternative scenario, where oil prices plunge to $47/bl by 2050 compared with a reference-case scenario of $91/bl, to demonstrate the rollback would produce net savings of $250bn by 2055. None of the EPA's analyses accounted for the billions of dollars in health costs from additional air pollution or damage from climate change. Under a recent policy change, the EPA assigned a value of $0 for negative air pollution externalities, despite outcry from environmentalists that say this has distorted its analyses. Methane uncertainty The sweeping arguments the EPA used to repeal its tailpipe rule could complicate the oil sector's push for long-term stability in federal methane regulations. To support the revoking of the tailpipe standards and the underlying endangerment finding, the EPA says it now believes the US' Clean Air Act is only able to regulate "local and regional" air pollution, rather than global greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA also says it was futile to issue costly rules in the US because it believes the climate benefits will be immaterial. If the courts agree with that argument, that could spell trouble for a separate methane regulation. "It seems logically impossible to set standards for methane if the EPA's argument in its recent rule rescinding the endangerment finding succeeds," Harvard Law School's Environmental and Energy Law Programme director, Jody Freeman, says. Oil groups have sought to retain federal methane regulations, with some change to reduce costs. Doing so would avoid creating uncertainty over millions of dollars of investments the industry has already made in emission controls, while also preventing backlash from foreign buyers that have to consider carbon intensity when buying LNG and oil. The EPA has yet to say if it wants to repeal its methane authority. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin last year said he plans to reconsider the methane rule, but the agency is months late in releasing a proposal. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

India's crude throughput remains stable in January

23/02/26

India's crude throughput remains stable in January

Mumbai, 23 February (Argus) — Crude throughput at Indian refineries was largely unchanged at 5.6mn b/d in January, compared with December 2025 and the same period a year earlier, preliminary data from India's oil ministry show. Among state-controlled refiners, throughput at IOC's nine refineries rose by 3pc on the year to 1.63mn b/d, but fell by 3pc on the month due to marginal declines in throughput at IOC's 120,000 b/d Barauni and 300,000 b/d Panipat refinery, the data show. Throughput at its subsidiary CPCL's 210,000 b/d Manali refinery was largely unchanged on the year but fell by 9pc on the month. This was because crude intake at the refinery fell by 12pc on the month to 214,000 b/d in January, market intelligence firm Kpler show. Throughput at HPCL's two refineries fell by 9pc on the year given that the 301,000 b/d Vizag refinery was stabilising following upgrades. Meanwhile, throughput at HMEL's 226,000 b/d refinery in Bhatinda, north India, rose sharply on the month after undergoing maintenance for most of November 2025. Among private refiners, Reliance Industries' (RIL) throughput remained strong, rising by 4pc on the year. The facility completed its planned turnaround at the 100,000 b/d diesel hydrotreater No.2 unit in November. Meanwhile, throughput at Nayara Energy's 400,000 b/d Vadinar refinery remained stable since December, but it was down by 6pc on the year given that some units were down because of catalyst poisoning from running on 100pc Urals crude, sources told Argus . India's crude and condensate production fell by 8pc on the year at 520,194 b/d in January, oil ministry data show. India's dependency on crude imports remained at 89pc during the month. Ethanol blending in gasoline was 20pc in January, largely unchanged from December. Cumulative blending over November 2025-January 2026 also came in at 20pc. An increase in ethanol blending into the domestic blending pool has helped Indian refiners like IOC, BPCL, MRPL to increase rare spot gasoline cargoes for exports, traders said. By Rituparna Ghosh Indian refinery throughput b/d Refiner Jan '26 Dec '25 m-o-m ± % Jan '25 y-o-y ± % IOC 1,584,226 1,631,516 -3 1,536,935 3 BPCL 851,226 827,581 3 851,226 0 HPCL 496,548 496,548 0 543,839 -9 MRPL 354,677 354,677 0 378,323 -6 CPCL 236,452 260,097 -9 236,452 0 NRL 70,935 70,935 0 70,935 0 RIL 1,371,419 1,442,355 -5 1,324,129 4 Nayara Energy 378,323 378,323 0 401,968 -6 HMEL 283,742 141,871 100 260,097 9 Total 5,627,548 5,603,903 0 5,603,903 0 Source: India's oil ministry Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Brazil eyes options for fossil-fuel phase-out plan

20/02/26

Brazil eyes options for fossil-fuel phase-out plan

Sao Paulo, 20 February (Argus) — Brazil's government has missed its own deadline for a roadmap to phase out fossil fuel use but has expanded the plan's scope to include how it plans to pay for the transition. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called on several of his ministers in December to deliver a draft phase-out plan by 3 February. Instead, the government issued a statement outlining the next steps to develop the plan that, once finished, will need to be approved by the nation energy policy council (CNPE). The phase-out plan is in the final drafting stage with the energy, finance and environment ministries providing input, along with the presidential chief-of-staff's office, the government said. The idea for such a global roadmap was a key topic at last year's UN Cop 30 climate summit that Brazil hosted. The Cop 30 presidency is also drafting its own roadmap, which it says it will unveil at Cop 31, held in Turkey. The government has now promised that it will not only present an outline to end fossil fuel use, but also its proposal to finance the transition to renewable energy. Once the CNPE approves a draft plan, it will still need to go through public hearings, which means it could take several months for approval of the final phase-out plan. Meanwhile, several non-governmental organizations have presented their own proposals to help direct public debate. A proposal presented recently by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Brazil made 31 recommendations for the government plan, working to address fossil fuel demand and supply, as well as regulations and investments. The WWF plan included eliminating all subsidies and investments directed to oil and gas and pushing those resources to renewable electrification and advanced biofuels. The plan also calls for both state-controlled Petrobras and the Bndes development bank to renewables rather than fossil-fuel expansion. The WWF calls on the government to suspend the expansion of hydrocarbons and to begin preparing to decommission oil and gas assets, a proposal that is unlikely given the administration's push to expand hydrocarbons production. Fossil fuels linger in other plans Brazil's long-term energy plan (PNE 2055), released last week, offers some clues regarding nearer-term decarbonization of the sector. It includes scenarios for both rapid and slow decarbonization of the energy sector through 2055. In the government's most aggressive scenario, it foresees a reduction of fossil fuel demand to 15pc of total energy consumption in 2055, compared with 50pc in 2025. In a scenario of more gradual energy transition, fossil fuels would account for 38pc of energy demand. For the power sector, which is already 96pc renewable, PNE 2055 expects the sector to be 99pc renewable by 2055 in its most ambitious decarbonization scenario and 97pc renewable use in the business-as-usual scenario. For the transport sector, the long-term plan forecasts conventional biofuels, which include biodiesel and ethanol, supplying up to 43pc of demand in 2055, up from 23pc in 2025 and advanced biofuels, including sustainable aviation fuel, could supply as much as 22pc by 2025. Electrification, which is still gaining traction in Brazil, would reach 13pc in the business-as-usual scenario, but nearly twice that level in the more rapid decarbonization scenario. In all scenarios, Brazil will remain a significant producer of hydrocarbons, but most output would be exported in the rapid decarbonization scenario, while more than half of output would be consumed domestically under the scenario of a slower energy transition. Crude production is forecast to peak in 2030 under all government scenarios, while gas output will peak in 2045. These scenarios underscore that even with a significant boost in renewable energy investments, Brazil's long-term planning does not yet contemplate the elimination of fossil fuels. It also indicates the need for more aggressive long-term policies and regulations if Brazil indeed plans to phase out fossil fuels over the next three decades. Brazil's energy use scenarios (%) 2025 2055 net zero 2055 business as usual Bioenergy 30 39 29 Other renewables 1 4 2 Electricity 19 41 30 Hydrogen 0 3 1 Petroleum products 41 7 28 Natural gas 4 4 6 Coal 4 2 3 Other non-renewable 1 2 1 National Energy Plan 2055 Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

US high court strikes down Trump's tariffs: Update

20/02/26

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.

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

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.

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

VietSea to distribute ExxonMobil's base oils in Vietnam

Related news posts

US regulatory rollback raises wider oil sector concerns

US regulatory rollback raises wider oil sector concerns

India's crude throughput remains stable in January

India's crude throughput remains stable in January

Brazil eyes options for fossil-fuel phase-out plan

Brazil eyes options for fossil-fuel phase-out plan

US high court strikes down Trump's tariffs: Update

US high court strikes down Trump's tariffs: Update

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

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

Argus Refined Products Outlook

Argus Refined Products Outlook

Argus Specialised Freight

Argus Specialised Freight

Argus North American Long-Term Natural Gas Forward Curves

Argus Asphalt Forward Curves

Argus O.M.R. Fuels

Business intelligence reports