US oil refineries are operating near full capacity as conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine tighten global fuel supplies.

According to the Financial Times, the exceptionally high operating rate has created a fragile situation in which any major technical failure or natural disaster could have serious consequences.

Data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) show that refineries nationwide are operating at 96% of capacity. Facilities in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions have reached 100% capacity utilization.

After Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, US energy companies boosted exports of refined petroleum products, particularly diesel and jet fuel, to record levels. The high operating rates have enabled refineries to maintain uninterrupted fuel supplies to both domestic and international markets while supporting the share prices of companies such as Valero and Marathon Petroleum.

The shares of both companies have nearly doubled since the beginning of the year.

Goldman Sachs previously assessed scenarios under which oil prices could rise above $120 per barrel by the end of 2026.

Analysts, however, warned that any disruption, whether from equipment failures or hurricanes, would place significant additional pressure on consumers already facing elevated energy costs worldwide.

“Rising exports from the United States are helping, but this is only a Band-Aid on a serious bullet wound,” said Rabobank energy strategist Joe DeLaura.

“We are trying to offset the shortfall by operating at the limits of our capacity, but that also means any refinery outage would have extremely severe consequences,” DeLaura added.

President Donald Trump said in the spring that his administration would draw on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help contain rising oil prices.

The US Department of Energy subsequently announced that 172 million barrels of crude oil from the reserve would be released to the market. Washington has since released about 77% of that volume.

In July, the Government Accountability Office reported that roughly 25% of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve’s total inventory was effectively inaccessible.

The Big Hill storage site in Texas is out of service while crude oil pumps, pipelines and control systems undergo upgrades.

The Bayou Choctaw and West Hackberry underground crude oil storage facilities in southern Louisiana are also facing significant constraints on refilling their reserves.

Problems disposing of saline formation water and critically low groundwater levels are limiting the storage capacity at both facilities.

The Trump administration has generated more than $13 billion in revenue from Venezuelan oil sales this year but has provided almost no public explanation regarding the final destination or usage of these funds.

The Financial Times (FT) calculated Venezuela’s estimated oil revenues using data on crude oil shipments from the country since January, compiled by the shipping and data analytics platform Kpler.

To determine these figures, the FT utilized price assessments from the pricing agency Argus Media for Merey crude—an extra-heavy grade produced in Venezuela—as well as Boscan and Hamaca, two less common Venezuelan crude grades.

The pricing data does not cover all varieties of Venezuelan petroleum and begins only from February onward.

The value of the barrels shipped since January for which direct price estimates are available currently stands at approximately $11.5 billion.

However, based on historical pricing trends, it is estimated that the barrels without established price assessments bring the total figure to more than $13 billion.

The Venezuelan government established a website to track the revenue generated from US-managed oil sales, but the site currently contains only a single entry: a $300 million transfer completed in March.

The US seized control of Venezuela’s oil exports and suspended certain sanctions in January, after removing Nicolás Maduro and installing Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as leader.

Oil revenues account for approximately one-quarter of Venezuela’s GDP. The easing of sanctions was widely expected to provide a significant boost to an economy that was in crisis even before the devastating earthquakes that struck the country last month.

However, six months after the US seized control of the funds, economists point out that evidence of an economic recovery in Venezuela remains relatively weak.

This lack of recovery is seen as a potential sign that Washington is not returning the entirety of the revenues to Caracas.

Washington has offered contradictory explanations regarding what it has done with the money, ranging from a presidential executive order describing its role as maintaining “calm” to statements by President Donald Trump asserting that the US has “made a lot of money” from Venezuelan oil.

US lawmakers from both political parties have begun pressing the administration to clarify where the money has gone and what measures are in place to prevent corruption during its allocation.

Joaquin Castro, a prominent Democratic Congressman, told the FT that Congress has been “kept in the dark” on the matter.

“Trump’s intervention in Venezuela has been about oil, power, and corruption from the very beginning; billions of dollars in Venezuelan oil revenue are being controlled by the Trump administration without transparency or safeguards,” Castro said.

During a hearing on Tuesday, Representative María Elvira Salazar, a Republican from South Florida, called for the public release of reports on these funds, emphasizing “the importance of transparency regarding where the money is going.”

The fate of Venezuela’s oil revenues has become an even more urgent issue following two devastating earthquakes on June 24. The UN estimates that the cost of damage to buildings and infrastructure alone will reach $37 billion.

Benjamin Gedan, a former senior official responsible for Latin America at the White House during the Obama administration, said that Democrats could investigate the oil funds if they win control of one or both chambers of Congress in November.

“This would be a really juicy target. You can anticipate a lot of subpoenas and requests for testimony regarding the distribution of Venezuelan oil revenues,” Gedan said.

Shortly after the January intervention, President Trump stated that the revenues would be under his control. Since then, the administration has issued a series of conflicting statements on how the oil funds might be utilized.

The initial executive order issued in January stated that the funds belong to the government of Venezuela and would be held in US government accounts in a “fiduciary and official capacity.”

Conversely, the US Department of Energy stated that the funds would be distributed “for the benefit of the American people and the Venezuelan people.”

In June, Trump stated that the US had recovered the cost of its military operation in Venezuela “28 times over” through oil, adding that the US “also made a lot of money.”

“It took 48 minutes to win that war. We brought out millions of barrels of oil,” Trump said.

In April, senior State Department official Michael Kozak said that approximately $3 billion in oil revenues had been sent to Venezuela and that the accounting firm KPMG was auditing the bank accounts.

Kozak stated that the administration would submit quarterly reports on the funds, but Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee say they have received no information since then.

US officials indicate that control of the oil funds is being used to exert pressure on Rodríguez, who currently governs the country partly under instructions from Washington.

During a congressional hearing last Wednesday, Kozak said: “It is their money but… they need our permission.”

The official noted that funds have been released to cover expenses such as public sector salaries and oil industry equipment.

The State Department stated that under this system, “billions of dollars have been injected into the Venezuelan economy,” adding that “financial monitoring continues to ensure the funds benefit the Venezuelan people.”

Given that Venezuela was forced to sell its oil at a steep discount on international markets to bypass US sanctions until January, many economists expected the country to experience a robust economic recovery this year. The government introduced a new resource law to encourage oil and gas investment, and production has increased this year.

However, Francisco Rodríguez, a Venezuelan economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, pointed out that the official first-quarter growth rate was 2.5%, representing the lowest level in five years.

“Venezuela likely did not grow faster in the first quarter, despite rising oil revenues, because the US did not transfer all of the increased oil revenues to the Venezuelan government,” Rodríguez said.

José Guerra, a Venezuelan economist and former opposition lawmaker, said that oil revenues should be significantly higher than in recent years. “Where is the money? There is no transparency, and the US government is not giving us information,” he said.

Alejandro Grisanti, director of Ecoanalítica, a consultancy specializing in Venezuela, noted that there have been signs of large-scale dollar inflows over the past two months.

Grisanti expected the economy to accelerate in the fourth quarter of the year, but said the earthquake would likely delay this recovery until the middle of next year.

Since the earthquake, Rodríguez has been lobbying for access to funds held abroad, including assets held by the IMF and Venezuelan gold held in the custody of the Bank of England pending the outcome of a lawsuit.

The US has set aside a $386 million aid package for disaster relief and has deployed hundreds of troops to Venezuela to assist with relief efforts.

John Barrett, the US Chargé d’Affaires in Caracas, stated this month that money from the oil revenue accounts has also been “allocated for this specific reconstruction effort,” though he did not specify the amount.

US officials noted that the estimated oil revenue figure does not include revenues from mining exports, a portion of which has also been collected by the government.

The US House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a temporary funding bill designed to prevent a potential federal government shutdown before the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, authorizing funding to continue at current levels for federal agencies through Dec. 4.

The House approved the stopgap measure in a 220-205 vote. The bill received backing from 213 Republicans, six Democrats, and California Independent Representative Kevin Kiley. Only one Republican lawmaker voted against the bill.

The legislative step comes at a time when the House of Representatives has so far managed to approve only three separate appropriations bills, which cover national security, the State Department and related programs; agriculture, rural development, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related agencies; and military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies.

In the Senate, Democratic and Republican members of the appropriations committees negotiating the budget have yet to resolve the impasse over government funding.

Representative Tom Cole, the Republican Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, assessed the situation during a speech on the House floor on Tuesday.

“The harsh reality before us is clear: the end of the fiscal year is outpacing our remaining work,” Cole said. “Our conference refuses to let Senate Democrats’ obstructionism and inaction trigger an artificial government shutdown at the end of September. That is why we are acting before a funding crisis occurs, rather than reacting to one.”

Cole added: “This short-term continuing resolution, free of any extraneous policy riders, keeps the government open, preserves the progress we have made, and maintains a path toward full-year appropriations.”

The temporary funding legislation also contains a provision authorizing payments of $174,000 each to Alfredia Scott, the widow of the late Democratic Representative David Scott, and to the legal heirs of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who died earlier this month.

The majority of House Democrats strongly criticized the bill prior to the vote, arguing that the text was drafted without a bipartisan negotiation process.

Representative Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, outlined her position during a House Rules Committee hearing on Monday.

“If I am to support a continuing resolution, it must keep the government running, be free of poison pills, and protect Congress’s constitutional authority over spending decisions,” DeLauro said.

The measure approved by the House now heads to the Senate.

The bill is considered to have weak prospects of passing the Senate due to the chamber’s 60-vote threshold and anticipated opposition from Senate Democrats.