Federal regulators are alleging a major oil company CEO conspired with foreign governments to keep oil and gas prices high.
On Monday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against John B. Hess, CEO of Hess Corporation, accusing him of secretly communicating with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
Hess’s company had sought a $53 billion merger with oil giant Chevron — a deal that the FTC ruled could go forward only if Hess himself was not involved with the subsequent company.
“We are very pleased that our merger with Chevron has cleared this significant regulatory hurdle,” Hess said in a statement.
“This transaction continues to be an outstanding deal for Hess and Chevron shareholders and will create a premier integrated energy company that is ideally positioned for the energy transition.”
But while Hess will remain on as an advisor to Chevron concerning the new company’s business operations in Guyana, he will not get a seat on its board.
The FTC asserted in its complaint that his direct involvement in the new conglomerate would “heighten the risk of harm” to market competition, and would “meaningfully increase” the risk of the kind of backdoor coordination between rivals that is barred by federal antitrust law.
Hess, the FTC charged, urged OPEC officials to push publicly and privately for “inventory management,” or reduced pumping and fracking with the goal of driving up prices.
That goal cuts against the principal selling point of the shale boom for American consumers, the FTC charges.
The record U.S. oil and gas production allowed by tools like fracking and directional drilling have undercut the “artificially low production levels and associated artificially high prices OPEC oil producers seek to set,” the agency said.
With 50 percent of global oil production under its control, OPEC has historically been able to influence or even set global prices, the FTC noted — something that would be illegal if carried out within the U.S.
As the U.S. fracking boom crashed global oil prices, “OPEC officials had an incentive to coordinate with these [U.S.] rivals rather than compete,” the agency charged.
Hess, in statements included in the filing, has praised OPEC’s price-controlling pumping. He said in a 2021 Hess earnings call that the cartel’s leadership had done a “masterful job [in] giving the market what it needs, but not oversupplying it,” and that “OPEC, I think, has done a great job managing the oil market.”
The complaint also contains redacted private communications Hess allegedly had with oil industry leaders from Saudi Arabia and the OPEC secretary.
Monday’s accusations make Hess the second major oil company CEO to be accused of illicit conspiracy with OPEC this summer.
The terms of the Chevron-Hess deal are similar to an FTC decree in May concerning Pioneer Natural Resources, another fracking-sector leader whose chief executive the agency accused of conspiring with OPEC to artificially boost prices.
In a dissenting opinion from the agency’s Monday ruling, Melissa Holyoak, a commissioner at the FTC, argued that in both the Chevron-Hess and Exxon-Pioneer cases, there was “no reason to believe the law has been violated.”
The Clayton Act, the 1914 antitrust law that the FTC says Hess violated, “means whatever the Majority needs it to mean to appease political demands,” Holyoak wrote.
“Unfortunately for Mr. Hess, the CEO of Hess Corporation, the author of every fairy tale must also fabricate a villain, and today’s action unjustifiably gave him that label.”
In a press statement, Hess Corporation representatives argued that the complaint is “without merit,” and that the company has led the industry in reinvesting its profits into drilling operations — and therefore, arguably, the oil supply.
Chevron CEO Mike Wirth also said in a statement regarding the FTC barring Hess’s direct involvement that it was “unfortunate that our Board of Directors will not get the benefit of his decades of global experience.”
As in the Chevron-Hess case, the FTC ruled that the Exxon-Pioneer merger could go through only if Pioneer’s incumbent leadership was forced out.
The FTC alleged that Pioneer’s CEO and founder, Scott Sheffield — who sought to sell his company to Exxon for $64.5 billion — had engaged in “collusive activity” that had pushed up oil prices, “leading American consumers and businesses to pay higher prices for gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil and jet fuel.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So we got two different oil companies engaged in scumbag activity, allegedly of course. If true, one would hope they get taken down for this.
But American capitalism states that they will just get a slap on the wrist and continue on their day.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So we got two different oil companies engaged in scumbag activity, allegedly of course. If true, one would hope they get taken down for this.
But American capitalism states that they will just get a slap on the wrist and continue on their day.
RICH CRIMES are “White-Collar”, and they carry much less severe penalties than “Blue-Collar” crimes. I used to think of it as business crime and bad actor crime, but now it seems we have one legal system for the poor who commit crimes like petty theft, one system for smaller scale businesses, and the wealthy elite/mega-corps enjoy a very friendly system that the rest of us will never see. They get to steal, swindle, and cheat people out of their hard earned cash in the name of business. And they get to do this openly, blatantly taking actions that most of us would go straight to jail for contemplating. If Trump did one thing good, he exposed this. Now it’s up to us to make sure we are all treated equal in the eyes of the law.
So we got two different oil companies engaged in scumbag activity, allegedly of course. If true, one would hope they get taken down for this.
But American capitalism states that they will just get a slap on the wrist and continue on their day.
RICH CRIMES are “White-Collar”, and they carry much less severe penalties than “Blue-Collar” crimes. I used to think of it as business crime and bad actor crime, but now it seems we have one legal system for the poor who commit crimes like petty theft, one system for smaller scale businesses, and the wealthy elite/mega-corps enjoy a very friendly system that the rest of us will never see. They get to steal, swindle, and cheat people out of their hard earned cash in the name of business. And they get to do this openly, blatantly taking actions that most of us would go straight to jail for contemplating. If Trump did one thing good, he exposed this. Now it’s up to us to make sure we are all treated equal in the eyes of the law.
You are also more likely to encounter violence in blue collar crime vs white collar crime. That should come with a consummate penalty.
And to further point out what you're saying, here is trump advocating police brutality being used on shoplifters...................
Donald Trump's Call for 'Really Violent Day' Compared to 'The Purge'
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for "one really violent day" to crack down on shoplifting, drawing comparisons to The Purge and to Kristallnacht in 1930s Germany.
Ah yes, violence… Is physical violence really any worse than financially wiping somebody out? I’d rather get my ass beat than lose everything. But I wouldn’t rather be killed… there are degrees to how bad something is judged to be. Of course, white-collar crimes are mostly financial crimes rather than violent acts, but do they really do less harm overall? Blue-collar crimes that are non-violent are punished with a much stiffer penalty than comparable white-collar crimes. So I don’t buy that argument for why we need a 3 tiered legal system where those who are more affluent are punished to a much lesser degree. Inherent socio-economic classism was built into our legal system from jump. And it has morphed into some dystopian ‘fair’ system that treats those on the socio-economic bottom as lesser than the affluent. IMHO, that’s BS.
Funny you ask. I was an electrician in the Navy. I saw sharks hit the trash bags we’d throw off the bow. Yes, the Navy and all ships afaik through trash overboard at sea. And even though Donald the idiot got it all wrong, I too would take electrocution over being eaten by a shark as a preferred death experience. Electrocution is faster and less painful.
Ah yes, violence… Is physical violence really any worse than financially wiping somebody out? I’d rather get my ass beat than lose everything. But I wouldn’t rather be killed… there are degrees to how bad something is judged to be. Of course, white-collar crimes are mostly financial crimes rather than violent acts, but do they really do less harm overall? Blue-collar crimes that are non-violent are punished with a much stiffer penalty than comparable white-collar crimes. So I don’t buy that argument for why we need a 3 tiered legal system where those who are more affluent are punished to a much lesser degree. Inherent socio-economic classism was built into our legal system from jump. And it has morphed into some dystopian ‘fair’ system that treats those on the socio-economic bottom as lesser than the affluent. IMHO, that’s BS.
My partner had a coworker who's son was attacked during a robbery with a bat. One hit in the head, he is not the person he was before, he is not capable like he was before. He can barely remember how to tie his own shoes. Some time death might be preferable. But the person who blue collar robbed him got his wallet and phone and stole who is was.
That said, I hate people who steal, no matter the shirt they wear.
And that's the thing. The act of violence is a separate crime in and of itself that should be prosecuted. The act of violence is always a crime in and of itself. It is a separate from the act of stealing. I think what the problem is that some are referring to is how when it comes to white collar crimes people who steal millions get sentences no more, and sometimes even less than the sentences people get for stealing thousands simply because one is a white collar crime and one is considered a blue collar crime. I'm sorry to hear what happened to your partners coworker.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Ah yes, violence… Is physical violence really any worse than financially wiping somebody out? I’d rather get my ass beat than lose everything. But I wouldn’t rather be killed… there are degrees to how bad something is judged to be. Of course, white-collar crimes are mostly financial crimes rather than violent acts, but do they really do less harm overall? Blue-collar crimes that are non-violent are punished with a much stiffer penalty than comparable white-collar crimes. So I don’t buy that argument for why we need a 3 tiered legal system where those who are more affluent are punished to a much lesser degree. Inherent socio-economic classism was built into our legal system from jump. And it has morphed into some dystopian ‘fair’ system that treats those on the socio-economic bottom as lesser than the affluent. IMHO, that’s BS.
My partner had a coworker who's son was attacked during a robbery with a bat. One hit in the head, he is not the person he was before, he is not capable like he was before. He can barely remember how to tie his own shoes. Some time death might be preferable. But the person who blue collar robbed him got his wallet and phone and stole who is was.
That said, I hate people who steal, no matter the shirt they wear.
I feel for him. And I bet many of those people Madoff took for a ride and lost their life savings would have preferred death too. My point is, the non-violent white-collar crimes are just as bad or worse than non violent blue-collar crimes, yet they don’t get treated the same in our system.
Ah yes, violence… Is physical violence really any worse than financially wiping somebody out? I’d rather get my ass beat than lose everything. But I wouldn’t rather be killed… there are degrees to how bad something is judged to be. Of course, white-collar crimes are mostly financial crimes rather than violent acts, but do they really do less harm overall? Blue-collar crimes that are non-violent are punished with a much stiffer penalty than comparable white-collar crimes. So I don’t buy that argument for why we need a 3 tiered legal system where those who are more affluent are punished to a much lesser degree. Inherent socio-economic classism was built into our legal system from jump. And it has morphed into some dystopian ‘fair’ system that treats those on the socio-economic bottom as lesser than the affluent. IMHO, that’s BS.
My partner had a coworker who's son was attacked during a robbery with a bat. One hit in the head, he is not the person he was before, he is not capable like he was before. He can barely remember how to tie his own shoes. Some time death might be preferable. But the person who blue collar robbed him got his wallet and phone and stole who is was.
That said, I hate people who steal, no matter the shirt they wear.
I feel for him. And I bet many of those people Madoff took for a ride and lost their life savings would have preferred death too. My point is, the non-violent white-collar crimes are just as bad or worse than non violent blue-collar crimes, yet they don’t get treated the same in our system.
I'd tell you who is at fault for that but it might start a political debate, can't have those these days in polite company.
I didn't know where to add this opinion piece, but it seems pretty spot on.
America is being poisoned by the same virus that ruined Europe Opinion by Matthew Lynn • 9h • 3 min read
It is meant to be a country of rugged individualism, where self-reliance is everything, and where people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The United States has always defined itself as a nation guided by a spirit of small government and personal responsibility. And yet, it turns out that this has long since faded. As dock workers strike for outrageous pay demands, and as government hand-outs have surged, the blunt truth is this. America’s can-do culture has been poisoned by a very European sense of entitlement – and its fate will inevitably be European-style debt and stagnation.
Most people might think that the $200,000 a year an American dock worker can make is more than enough for a job that, while skilled, doesn’t exactly require a degree from Harvard or MIT. It turns out, however, that this is not enough for the quaintly named International Longshoremen’s Association. Its members have started a strike this week that will bring trade along the Eastern seaboard to a standstill. It has said it wants a 77pc pay rise over six years, along with a total ban on the automation of cranes, gates, and container moving trucks, even though China, with far lower labour costs, is developing ports that are run entirely by AI-driven robots.
But the attitude that other people owe Americans a living is far from isolated. In fact, entitlement culture is spreading almost everywhere. The latest figures from the Economic Innovation Group think tank show that government handouts now make up nearly a fifth of the average American income, double the level of 1970. While some of that can be explained by an ageing population, a far larger part of the story is surely the tendency of political leaders to shower favoured groups with “free cash” (it is hardly a coincidence that the swing states have the highest level of government dependency). Even worse, handouts have been growing at three times the rate of the more traditional form of income (otherwise known as having a job).
With the presidential election only a month away, both major parties are competing on who can offer yet more lavish benefits to key voter groups. Candidates for the White House used to at least pay lip service to reducing the deficit, and Bill Clinton even managed it for one year, the last President to do so. Now, even though the deficit is running at 6pc of GDP at a time when the economy has been doing well, it is barely even mentioned.
Sure, at the moment the US can afford it. And yet, the economy has been propped up by a boom in shale oil and gas that has turned America into the largest energy producer in the world, by the strength of its technology companies, and by massive borrowing that has seen the overall debt to GDP ratio soar to 122pc from 100pc only a decade ago.
France, Italy and the UK could all afford it as well when they started down the road of entitlement. The trouble is, while it might take a decade, or it might take 20 years, eventually a something-for-nothing culture catches up with you. The economy slows down, debts become unsustainable, and a country becomes trapped in a doom loop of stagnation and endlessly rising taxes.
The US still has the chance to escape from that, but it will have to start by standing up to the dockers, and curbing state handouts. The only catch is this. Right now, none of the country’s leaders show any willingness to grasp that – and unless they do, the culture of rugged individualism that made it the world’s richest nation will be lost forever.
Sign up to the Front Page newsletter for free: Your essential guide to the day's agenda from The Telegraph - direct to your inbox seven days a week.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Nothing illegal about it. That's the sad truth. Transdigm and companies like them are practically holding our warfighter hostage because they demand the DoD to buy things at margins in the hundreds of percents. It's all there for everyone to see.
Republicans and traditional conservatives (like myself) used to be for the prevention of price gouging through the promotion of competition. That era has long passed with the dawn of crony capitalism. Both parties are guilty of it. I think the Republicans are more so. If you're looking for proof of that statement, watch either one of the Transdigm hearings that took place in front of Congress and see which players were on which sides...
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
JURASIC PARK called and they want their world view back. Being a community that helps each other succeed, helps each other through hardships, and is as fair and balanced as can be, insuring everyone opportunity in life is just horrible. Smfh. We should strive for more than the first sentence of that BS opinion says we are ‘entitled’ to be. Hell, you’re longing for the wild west. Go watch a western.
Just watch the first part where the boss speaks. Dude definitely has this planned out and I’m here for it. Get your guys paid!
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
That's freaking extortion. Not exactly helping union sympathy with that one...
I can't imagine people affected by Helene are happy about it.
Really? I thought that was called negotiation tactics in a capitalist society. Seems the definitions are constantly evolving depending on who’s doing the negotiating.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
In an unbridled capitalist society, which we are pretty much living in now, I would agree that is the negotiation tactic. It seems pretty obvious that there has been rampant price gouging and corporate greed at the C-suite level, for sure. It would be hypocritical for someone to ignore that and call out Daggett for what he is doing.
I - being someone who is caught in the crossfire of all this - happen to call out both. Daggett is no different than a guy like Nicholas Howley at Transdigm, especially considering how much Daggett's own salary is...
I think this will cut both ways, too, just like during COVID. Sure, the dock workers see this as an opportunity to get paid - and by all accounts I've seen so far, they make really good wages already. It also looks like they are demanding a 77% wage increase over the next six or seven years. I'm not aware of any escalation index that would support that as being reasonable.
However, the C-suites will also see an opportunity here to say "The prices are going up because the dock workers are striking" and then when the dock workers strike is over, the prices will still stay high.
The rest of us lose.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
I get what you’re trying to say, but a guy making good money fighting for his employees who don’t make anywhere near as much isn’t a knock, at least not from my perspective.
So I looked at the whole wages thing. Here something interesting:
How much do dockworkers make? Here are the striking workers' salaries.
I’ve noticed that multiple sources made sure to put his salary, as well as the top tier salary at the top of the articles. CBS isn’t the only way who did this when I did a Quick Look.
But scroll down to the bottom, and you see the average salary of the dock workers: $53K.
In today’s economy? That’s not a lot.
And as far as the union workers, the make a lot ONLY because of significant overtime hours clocked. Something that you and I both know companies hating paying out. Look at Donald trumps recent comments at a rally about paying out overtime.
So I’m always gonna look at this as society claiming these are essential workers right up until it’s time to cut the check. All those fast food workers and other minimum wage works during the pandemic were also essential workers too. Remember all the cute commercials we made for them, 05?
Right up until those essential workers wanted to get paid like one….
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
