US Tells Buyers of CPC Oil to Be Wary of Suspicious Non-Russian Origin Papers
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The U.S. Treasury told buyers to be cautious if they think certificates stating crude from the Caspian Pipeline Consortium is not of Russian origin have been falsified, the Treasury said on Friday.
U.S. buyers of oil from the CPC may "reasonably rely" on certification of origin papers, the Treasury said on its website, but they should exercise caution if they have reason to believe the papers are false.
President Joe Biden this month banned U.S. purchases of Russian oil to punish Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine.
The U.S. ban has unintentionally gummed up at least some trade in international oil markets as traders avoid purchases fearing that they could be penalized.
Some buyers of oil from the CPC, which ships 1.2% of the world's crude from Kazakhstan to global markets, have been avoiding its oil because of mixture with Russian grades and loadings from a Russian port.
The Treasury said in an item labeled Frequently Asked Questions on March 8 that Biden's ban does not prohibit U.S. buyers from taking crude oil from the CPC because its systems can segregate Russian crude from what is marketed.
The department updated that on Friday with the guidance to use caution on any certificates they are suspicious of.
Related News
Related News
- Repsol Ditches Plans to Develop LNG Terminal on Canada’s East Coast
- Kazakh Oil Decouples from Russian Crude But Risk Weighs on Price
- Pipeline Operator TC Energy Says Stress, Weld Fault Caused Keystone Oil Spill
- US to Sell 26 Million Barrels of Oil Reserves As Mandated by Congress
- Ukraine to Jointly Buy Gas with European Union Countries
- Company Cancels Byhalia Connection Pipeline Project
- US Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Nord Stream Pipelines -NYT
- EIA: US Natural Gas Output to Hit Record High in 2023, Demand to Fall
- US Regulator Orders Lower Pressure on Keystone Pipeline System After Spill
- US Carbon Pipeline Faces Setback as Residents Refuse to Cede Land Rights
Comments