Russia takes control of major airport from foreign shareholders

Energy News Beat

A presidential decree has transferred stakes in St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo to a domestic entity

President Vladimir Putin signed an order on Thursday transferring all the rights of St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Airport from foreign shareholders to a new Russian entity.

Under the presidential decree, stakes in the Cyprus-registered company that manages the airport in Russia’s second-largest city will be consolidated in a new domestic company.

“100% of shares in the authorized capital of the LLC Air Gates of the Northern Capital (AGNC) owned by Thalita Trading Limited are subject to transfer to the ownership of the company AGNC Holding in the manner and on the terms determined by the government of the Russian Federation,” the decree states.

Existing shareholders, which include a consortium with German airport operator Fraport, the Qatari wealth fund, and Abu Dhabi sovereign fund Mubadala Investment Co., will retain their stakes but won’t be able to vote.

The decree also provides the stakeholders with the possibility to restore their voting rights “upon their application, subject to the conclusion of corporate agreements with other participants in the company and upon the assumption of obligations to comply with Russian legislation.”


READ MORE:
Russian beer giant taking Carlsberg to court – Kommersant

German airport operator Fraport, the Qatar Investment Authority, and Russia’s VTB Bank each hold about a 25% stake in Pulkovo.

The decision was made because of the “threat to the national interests and economic security of the Russian Federation resulting from the violation of obligations by certain foreign legal entities,” the order states.

According to the document, the implementation of the decree will not lead to “economic benefits” for the new managing entity and its participants, emphasizing that they do not need to obtain any additional permits or approvals from the Russian authorities.

For more stories on economy & finance visit RT’s business section

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

 

The post Russia takes control of major airport from foreign shareholders appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Spot LNG shipping rates, European prices drop this week

Energy News Beat

Spot liquefied natural gas freight rates and European LNG prices fell this week when compared to the week before, according to Spark Commodities.

Last week, LNG freight rates were almost flat.

The Spark30S Atlantic decreased by $500 to $160,250 per day, whilst the Spark25S Pacific increased by $250 to $152,000 per day.

“LNG Atlantic freight rates fell again week, with a 3 percent week-on-week decrease,” Qasim Afghan, Spark’s commercial analyst told LNG Prime on Friday.

Afghan said that the Atlantic rate decreased by $5,000 to $155,250 per day, while the Pacific decreased by $11,000 to $141,000 per day.

As per European LNG pricing, the SparkNWE DES LNG front month also declined from the last week.

The NWE DES LNG for December was assessed at $14.175/MMBtu and at a $0.800/MMBtu discount to the Dutch TTF.

“The SparkNWE DES LNG price for January delivery is assessed at $12.689/MMBtu and at a $0.770/MMBtu discount to the TTF,” Afghan said on Friday.

“This is the lowest reported SparkNWE DES LNG front month price in 8 weeks,” he said.

According to Platts data, JKM, the price for LNG cargoes delivered to Northeast Asia, dropped from the last week.

JKM for January settled at $16.135/MMBtu on Thursday.

Oman’s state-owned firm OQ Trading recently submitted the lowest bid in a tender to supply Pakistan with one spot LNG shipment in January.

Four companies took part in the tender, and OQ Trading submitted the most competitive bid for the January 8-9 delivery and the firm offered a price of $18.4600/MMBtu.

Vitol Bahrain offered a price of $18.5800/MMBtu, QatarEnergy Trading offered a price of $19.4300/MMBtu, and Trafigura offered a price of $19.6400/MMBtu.

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Spot LNG shipping rates, European prices drop this week appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

US weekly LNG exports reach 24 cargoes

Energy News Beat

US liquefaction plants shipped 24 liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargoes in the week ending November 29, while natural gas deliveries to these terminals dropped by 0.6 percent compared to the week before.

The EIA said in its weekly report, citing shipping data provided by Bloomberg Finance, that the total capacity of these 24 LNG vessels is 91 Bcf.

The agency did not release its weekly report in the prior week due to to holidays. During the week of November 9-15, US terminals shipped 27 LNG cargoes.

Average natural gas deliveries to US LNG export terminals during the week November 23-29 decreased by 0.1 Bcf/d compared to the prior week, averaging 14.3 Bcf/d, according to data from S&P Global Commodity Insights.

Natural gas deliveries to terminals in South Louisiana decreased by 1.5 percent (0.1 Bcf/d) to 8.7 Bcf/d, while natural gas deliveries to terminals in South Texas increased by 1.7 percent (0.1 Bcf/d)

The agency said that natural gas deliveries to terminals outside the Gulf Coast decreased by 2.2 percent (less than 0.1 Bcf/d).

Cheniere’s Sabine Pass plant shipped nine LNG cargoes and the company’s Corpus Christi facility sent three shipments during the week under review.

The Freeport LNG terminal and Venture Global’s Calcasieu Pass each shipped four cargoes, while Sempra Infrastructure’s Cameron LNG terminal dispatched three LNG cargoes.

Also, the Cove Point plant sent one cargo during the week. The Elba Island LNG terminal did no ship cargoes during the week under review.

This report week, the Henry Hub spot price decreased 2 cents from $2.72 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) last Wednesday to $2.70/MMBtu this Wednesday, the agency said.

The December 2023 NYMEX contract expired Tuesday at $2.706/MMBtu, down 19 cents from last Wednesday.

Moreover, the January 2024 NYMEX contract price decreased to $2.804/MMBtu, down 23 cents from last Wednesday to this Wednesday, the EIA said.

According to the agency, the price of the 12-month strip averaging January 2024 through December 2024 futures contracts declined 12 cents to $2.983/MMBtu.

The agency said that international natural gas futures dropped this report week.

Bloomberg Finance reported that weekly average front-month futures prices for LNG cargoes in East Asia decreased 26 cents to a weekly average of $16.57/MMBtu.

Natural gas futures for delivery at the Dutch TTF decreased 45 cents to a weekly average of $13.97/MMBtu.

In the same week last year (week ending November 30, 2022), the prices were $31.01/MMBtu in East Asia and $40.01/MMBtu at TTF, the EIA said.

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post US weekly LNG exports reach 24 cargoes appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Is Modi’s India cosying up to the Taliban?

Energy News Beat

On November 24, more than two years after Taliban fighters drove into Kabul to reclaim control over Afghanistan, a key, lasting outpost of the government they had overthrown shut down 1,000km (600 miles) away, in the Indian capital of New Delhi.

Afghanistan’s diplomatic mission in India, led by former ambassador Farid Mamundzay, announced the permanent closure of its embassy in New Delhi, citing “pressure from both the Taliban and the Indian government to relinquish control”.

The shutdown had been in the works. Nearly two months earlier, Mamundzay had said the embassy would have to stop diplomatic services because of a “lack of support” from India, a reduction in personnel and resources, and the mission’s inability to meet the expectations of an estimated 32,000 Afghan nationals in the country.

The suggestions of Indian antipathy – which New Delhi has denied – towards the embassy underscore a shift in the image that the world’s largest democracy has held among large sections of Afghans, say analysts.

“It is disheartening to acknowledge that this development is not conducive to the strength and vitality of our ties, which have stood the test of time,” Mamundzay told Al Jazeera.

When the Taliban first took power in Kabul in 1996, India swiftly shut down its embassy there and shunned all diplomatic ties with the ultra-conservative group, with its hardline interpretations of Afghan customs and Islamic rules. When the Taliban were removed following the United States-led invasion in 2001, India was among the first countries to reopen its mission and recognise the new state that emerged.

Over the two decades that followed, India was one of the largest suppliers of aid and assistance to democratic Afghan governments. When the US was negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban, India was publicly opposed to the arrangement – worried about the return of a group whose allies had repeatedly targeted the Indian embassy in Kabul and the country’s consulates elsewhere in Afghanistan. The worst of those attacks, the 2008 bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, killed 58 people.

Yet, in June 2022, less than a year after the Taliban returned to power, India reopened its embassy in Kabul, sending a team of “technical experts” to run the mission. New Delhi has engaged in conversations with the Taliban, even though it does not formally recognise the movement as the government of Afghanistan.

So, is India cosying up to the Taliban? What does it hope to gain from a softer equation with the group? How does India’s tense relationship with Pakistan fit into the picture? And what are the implications of this shift in New Delhi’s approach?

The short answer: While India has not formally launched diplomatic ties with the Taliban, it has also avoided alienating the group since its return to power, in a bid to retain its presence in Afghanistan, analysts have said. A deterioration in ties between the Taliban and Pakistan has helped India’s gambit. But New Delhi risks losing goodwill among a generation of Afghans that had viewed it as a supporter of education, democracy and human rights.

Former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, right, and Afghanistan’s then-President Hamid Karzai before a meeting in New Delhi, India, on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 [Gurinder Osan/AP Photo]

The soft power years

As Afghanistan suffered under war and turmoil from the 1980s, India became a home away from home for many Afghans. Former President Hamid Karzai went to university in India. The family of Abdullah Abdullah, who effectively shared power with Ghani since 2014, has lived in India for years.

From 1996, India backed the Northern Alliance, an anti-Taliban resistance force led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, which counted Abdullah as a leading member.

After the collapse of the first Taliban regime, India contributed close to $3bn in aid between 2001 and 2021 for projects in Afghanistan. It constructed Afghanistan’s new parliament building, highways, power stations and dams — but a significant fraction of its aid was also spent on education and skills development, all of which helped amplify India’s soft power in the country.

Yet as the Taliban’s challenges to the Afghan government grew in the period before August 2021, India’s attitude started to change, said Raghav Sharma, director of the Centre for Afghanistan Studies at OP Jindal Global University in Sonipat, an hour outside New Delhi.

“In the last years of the republic, there was a lot of uncertainty in which way the political will would sway. What was certain though was that the Taliban were going to be rehabilitated; in what form or what positions was unclear,” he said, adding that India started reducing its engagement with Ghani’s government. “It also seemed that the Americans cranked up pressure on India to make its presence less visible to assuage concerns of Pakistan.”

India and archrival Pakistan have long jostled for greater influence in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s traditionally close ties with the Taliban meant the group’s re-emergence as a leading player in the country would have spooked India, said Afghan political ethnographer Orzala Nemat.

“It is likely the Taliban takeover may have raised concerns that it would lead to higher Pakistani influence in the country that could potentially jeopardise the Indian presence and interest,” she said.

“The assumptions were valid to an extent because there is evidence that the Pakistani establishment influence strong control over the Taliban.”

Yet even as India tried to distance itself from the Ghani government, what no one had foreseen, Sharma pointed out, was just how dominant the Taliban’s return would be. The group, he said, effectively carried out a “total eclipse of the landscape”.

It was an eclipse that would fundamentally change India’s approach to Afghans as well as to Afghanistan, say experts.

Afghan students attend class in a school built by an Indian project in the Achin district of Jalalabad province on December 2, 2013 [File: Parwiz/Reuters]

‘What is the message?’

For close to 30 years, the warren-like lanes of the southeast Delhi neighbourhood of Bhogal have embraced a snapshot of the future many Afghans in the Indian capital have dreamed of.

With 300 students from grades 1 to 12, the Sayed Jamaluddin Afghan School was the only school in the city offering education in Pashto, Dari and Arabic, in addition to English. Girls and boys mingled in mixed-gender classrooms, learning maths, physics and geography, imagining careers for themselves and hoping for a better tomorrow for Afghanistan.

It was funded by the Afghan embassy in New Delhi, which in turn received financial support from the government of India.

But earlier this year, the school’s funding dried up – the embassy claims the Indian government stopped its support.

The school initially relocated to a cramped eight-room apartment, also in Bhogal, to reduce rental expenses. It wasn’t enough. In October, the school shut down.

“It is the only Afghan school that Afghan girls had access to. This is going to create barriers for Afghans to access education in India,” Sharma said. Because India doesn’t have an official refugee policy, many schools don’t accept refugee students. “So what is the message the government is sending out to these communities?” Sharma questioned.

Thousands of Afghan students have traditionally studied in Indian universities, many receiving Indian government scholarships. But after the Taliban takeover in August 2021, India cancelled all existing Afghan visas, including for students who have since struggled to return to India to continue their education.

“The Indian government has not been the most cooperative, refusing to issue visas, not even for medical cases,” Sharma said.

The shadow of religious discrimination has also crept into India’s handling of Afghan visa requests. While Hindus and Sikhs in Afghanistan have received some support in moving to India, the door has largely been closed for Muslim Afghans, at a time when India is ruled by the Hindu majoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Meanwhile, a diplomatic battle has been brewing. While the Taliban has been able to gain access and control of some of the Afghan missions globally, the embassy in India was among the many that continued to operate under the leadership of diplomats appointed by the previous government, which — unlike the Taliban — was recognised internationally.

In the absence of a functioning government, some of these embassies ran independently, often supported through fees collected from consular services.

After the Afghan embassy in New Delhi announced its closure, Zakia Wardak and Sayed Mohammad Ibrahimkhil, the Afghan counsel generals in Mumbai and Hyderabad, pushed back against the ambassador, insisting that they were still in “constant touch with the [Indian] Ministry of External Affairs … and trying to address the current difficult situation”.

But Mamundzay’s embassy was equally biting in its statement: “There are no diplomats from the Afghan Republic remaining in India … The only individuals present in India are diplomats affiliated with the Taliban.”

Afghans living in Delhi protest outside the UNHCR office in New Delhi, India, on Monday, August 23, 2021, against the Taliban takeover of their country, demanding that they be given refugee status in India [Manish Swarup/AP Photo]

Behind the change

The charge that India is now colluding with the Taliban is in many ways an inversion of what New Delhi accused Pakistan of, for close to three decades.

The Haqqani faction of the Taliban, in particular, was viewed by Indian agencies as a proxy for Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency and blamed for deadly attacks on Indian diplomatic missions and infrastructure projects in Afghanistan.

Yet relations between Pakistan and the Taliban have nosedived since the group returned to power, and especially in recent months. Islamabad has blamed Kabul for not doing enough to stop armed fighters from crossing over and carrying out devastating attacks in Pakistan that have killed dozens.

Ties hit a further low after Pakistan decided to expel nearly 1.7 million Afghan refugees recently, again citing the attacks. The Taliban government has described the Pakistani move as an “injustice” and “humiliating”.

In parallel, however, India has been quietly reaching out to the Taliban. For years, India would refuse to send diplomats formally even to multilateral meetings on Afghanistan that had Taliban representatives. That changed first. Then, days after the Taliban took over in Kabul, India’s ambassador to Qatar, Deepak Mittal, met the Taliban’s Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai in Doha.

In June 2022, Indian diplomats met Taliban officials in Kabul. And India has been sending large volumes of wheat to Afghanistan in coordination with the Taliban government, to help ease the hunger crisis in that country.

The closure of the Afghan mission in Delhi points to the broader changes in India’s policy on Afghanistan, said Mamundzay.

“It represents more than just the end of a diplomatic mission. It signifies a challenging juncture in the relationship between our nations,” the diplomat told Al Jazeera.

Refugee and former Afghan policewoman Khatira Hashmi sits inside a rented accommodation in New Delhi, India on August 13, 2021. When the Taliban shot her and gouged out her eyes, she knew Afghanistan was no longer safe. Along with her husband, she fled to India in 2020 [Altaf Qadri/AP Photo]

‘Lost goodwill’

The absence of a working embassy in New Delhi has consequences beyond the symbolism, said Nemat.

“The resulting damage is quite massive on the Afghan population in general,” she said. “If diplomatic relationships collapse, it affects commercial activity, people seeking medical treatments, students, particularly women, seeking higher education opportunities – there are thousands of youth who would want to travel to India to get safe access to education.

“This is no longer possible.”

At the heart of India’s stance, said Sharma, is a desire to not offend the Taliban’s sensibilities.

“[India has] not issued a single statement on women being denied education in Afghanistan, or in support of Matiullah Wesa, who studied in India, and regarded it as his home,” he said, referring to the Afghan girls’ education activist who was jailed by the Taliban for seven months before he was released in October.

“And that is largely because they want to protect their diplomatic mission in Kabul, have eyes and ears on the ground in Afghanistan. But they also want to make sure that groups that are inimical to India’s interest do not have a free run in Afghanistan,” Sharma explained.

Yet, India has not fully embraced the Taliban either, refusing, so far, to recognise the group’s rule in Kabul, and steering clear of sending an ambassador to Afghanistan.

The Taliban, Nemat said, “don’t even represent the entire population, having deprived women of basic rights”.

“It is understandable if these factors play a part in India’s hesitance to build relations with them,” she said.

Nevertheless, “India has already lost a lot of goodwill in the way it handled the aftermath of the collapse of the republic,” Sharma said.

Mamundzay agrees, adding that the Indian government has been reluctant to entertain any critical feedback on its policies.

“While there has been a lot of rhetoric on solidarity with the Afghan people, it doesn’t quite square off with the reality on the ground,” he said, adding that he was observing a widespread and increasing disappointment among Afghans towards India.

That could come back to bite India, Mamundzay cautioned.

“Tomorrow if the groups India has shunned get back into positions of influence [in Afghanistan], it wouldn’t do anything for Indian interests,” he said. “India has sent the message that political expediency and realpolitik trump everything else.”

The embassy of the former Afghan government has shuttered in New Delhi amid allegations that India stopped helping it.

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Is Modi’s India cosying up to the Taliban? appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

OPEC+ to extend oil output cuts

Energy News Beat

The OPEC+ group of major oil-producing countries led by Russia and Saudi Arabia agreed to deepen production cuts to about 2.2 million barrels per day (bpd) at a meeting on Thursday, according to a statement from the delegates.

The group, which accounts for over 40% of global crude production, met to discuss next year’s output amid worries that the market faces a potential surplus after earlier production cuts were set to end next month.

The new plan includes an extension of the previous 1 million bpd cut by Saudi Arabia and Russia’s 300,000 bpd reduction. In addition to that, Russia will reduce its exports of refined products by 200,000 bpd, while the remaining 700,000 bpd in cuts will be divided among other members. The UAE plans to cut output by 163,000 bpd, while Iraq will cut an extra 220,000 bpd.

Crude producers said they plan to gradually reduce the cuts after the first quarter of 2024 if market conditions are favorable.

OPEC+ members have taken a series of steps that started back in late 2022 to support crude prices and help stabilize the global oil market, which has had a volatile year due to sanctions against major oil producer Russia and now more recently the Israel-Hamas war.

Oil prices briefly rose on news of the OPEC+ decision, but declined later in the day and extended losses early on Friday. Global benchmark Brent crude futures for February were trading just above $80 per barrel as of 09:00 GMT, while the US benchmark WTI was around $76 per barrel.


READ MORE:
Russian tanker stranded off Indian coast due to Western sanctions – Bloomberg

Experts say the group’s decision fell short of market expectations, which were leaning toward a longer-lasting and official non-voluntary cut.

For more stories on economy & finance visit RT’s business section

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

 

The post OPEC+ to extend oil output cuts appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Occidental Petroleum in talks to buy shale driller CrownRock for over $10 billion

Energy News Beat

(Bloomberg) – Occidental Petroleum Corp. is in talks to buy shale driller CrownRock LP, according to the Wall Street Journal, as the consolidation wave in North America’s most prolific oil field gathers momentum.

A deal for CrownRock could be valued above $10 billion including debt and could come together soon, the newspaper reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

Occidental and CrownRock did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside of usual business hours.

CrownRock is one of the larger closely held oil and gas producers in the Permian basin, North America’s biggest source of crude. Output from that region of West Texas and New Mexico has doubled in just six years to the point where it yields more oil on a daily basis than OPEC heavyweight Iraq.

If the purchase is successful, it would augment a portfolio Occidental had already expanded with the $38 billion takeover of Anadarko Petroleum Corp. in 2019. That deal was aided by an investment by Occidental’s biggest shareholder: Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

The pursuit of CrownRock is also the latest twist in a flurry of recent deal activity in the sector as oil executives, flush with cash from the post-pandemic run-up in oil prices, buy up rivals to secure new places to drill. It comes on the heels of Exxon Mobil Corp.’s roughly $60 billion bid for Pioneer Natural Resources Co. and Chevron Corp.’s $53 billion takeover of Hess Corp.

Bloomberg News reported last month that CrownRock was up for sale and could fetch around $8 billion. Devon Energy Corp. was among companies interested in CrownRock, according to people familiar with the matter. ConocoPhillips was also considering a bid, Reuters reported.

CrownRock is run by Tim Dunn, an influential Republican donor who has spent more than $20 million over the past decade or so to support conservative politicians.

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Occidental Petroleum in talks to buy shale driller CrownRock for over $10 billion appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

How wealthy countries evade responsibility for their fossil fuel exports

Energy News Beat

Editor’s note: This story was originally published by Yale Environment 360. It appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

When the world convenes in the United Arab Emirates for the next round of the endless climate slog, much attention will be paid to the pledges of individual nations to cut their emissions. This has been the basic scorecard of climate talks almost since the start. But it’s a wildly incomplete scorecard, in ways that are becoming ever clearer as we enter the endgame of the energy transition. We’ve been measuring it wrong.

That’s because a country’s exports of fossil fuel don’t count against its total. But it’s those exports that are driving fossil fuel expansion around the world, coming as they do from some of the most diplomatically powerful and wealthy nations on Earth.

To give the most obvious, and largest, example: the United States is, fitfully, cutting back on its carbon emissions; its envoys will be able to report, honestly, that the Inflation Reduction Act should soon actually be trimming our domestic use of oil, gas, and coal, as we subsidize heat pumps and build out EV charging networks. But at the very same moment, the U.S. production of fossil fuels is booming. That means, of course, that much of that supply is headed overseas.

And the numbers are truly staggering. If the liquefied natural gas (LNG) buildout continues as planned, for instance, by 2030 U.S. LNG exports will be responsible for more greenhouse gases than every house, car, and factory in the European Union. The emissions, under the U.N. accounting system, will show up on the scorecards of the EU and the dozens of mostly Asian nations that will buy the gas. But if you could see them in the atmosphere, they would be red, white, and blue.

Exactly the same thing is true of a handful of other nations — in fact, some are even more grotesque in their hypocrisy, if not their impact. Norway has, arguably, done as good a job as any country on earth on moving past oil and gas; almost every new car in the country runs on electricity. But it’s planning one of the dozen biggest expansions in national oil and gas production, almost all of it for export. Canada and Australia fall into the same basket. Indeed, a remarkable new report from Oil Change International (OCI) found that those four countries (the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Norway), along with the U.K., account for just over half of the planned expansion in oil and gas between now and mid-century. In most cases the project licenses have already been granted, and unless officials intervene, the damage (enough carbon and methane to take us past the Paris climate targets) is locked in.

But this means that if other nations and the climate movement could figure out how to pressure these countries to turn the spigot to the right, we could staunch much of this flow of greenhouse gases into the air. If five countries account for half the expansion problem — and if those five countries are rich and have diversified economies that allow them freedom of choice about their futures — then some of the main targets are clear. All of them, remember, have made the right noises about the need for urgent climate action; they just haven’t been willing to face down their exporters.

Canada continues to approve and/or subsidize new pipelines and LNG export projects, while permitting new oil and gas fields, putting it on track to become the world’s second-largest producer of oil and gas. Australia, the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter, has given the green light to major new coal and gas projects. Norway, Europe’s largest oil and gas producer, has awarded 47 new licenses for oil and gas projects in the Norwegian Sea and is permitting expansion into the Barents Sea in the Arctic. And the current Conservative government in the U.K. has adopted a policy to “max out” fossil fuel development in the North Sea.

As for the U.S., the OCI report makes clear it plans by far the biggest expansion of its oil and gas industry — about a third of the global total. Basically, this is a result of the invention of fracking, which beginning in the early 2000s allowed the rapid expansion of oil and gas production. We literally have more of the stuff than we know what to do with — so we needed to find other people to sell it to.

That would have been largely impossible prior to 2015 — since the oil shocks of the 1970s, the U.S. had had a ban on crude oil exports. But in one the great historical ironies of all time, Congress, under great pressure from the fossil fuel industry, lifted that ban the very week that the world was in Paris wrapping up the global climate accords. A few of us were fighting (with our laptops, from Paris cafes) to keep the ban in place; I coauthored an op-ed then that criticized congressional leaders as “politicians who simply don’t understand the physics of climate change.

As it turns out, I didn’t understand the true scale of the disaster unfolding. Because it wasn’t just crude oil that was going to be sold abroad; until 2016 the U.S. had been a net importer of natural gas, but that year things began to turn. And it’s LNG that has truly turned America into an export monster. Enormous terminals — seven of them — have been built, mostly along the Gulf Coast, with 24 more planned; their business rationale is simply to take the excess gas produced by the fracking spree and send it overseas. And the numbers are astonishing. Remember the anger that President Biden brought upon himself (and the damage with young voters) when he stupidly approved the Willow oil complex in Alaska in March? Well, the next export terminal up for approval — CP2, in Cameron Parish, Louisiana — would be associated with 20 times the greenhouse gas emissions of the Willow project.

The Obama administration, of course, loved fracking — it seemed like an easy way out of both the climate and economic predicaments it inherited, jumpstarting the economy with cheap fossil fuel and, since natural gas produces less carbon than coal when its burned, allowing America’s CO2 emissions to fall. But on closer examination, it was a devil’s bargain: methane leaking from the natural gas production chain balanced out those carbon gains, and so it was unclear if total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions had even budged. But that didn’t slow the push for more — which accelerated after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when the fossil fuel industry grabbed at the chance to expand natural gas production as an altruistic response. Whatever you think of that argument, we’ve already more than met the needs of the EU; it had enough gas for last winter, and more to come this year. There is definitely no need to build new terminals, which would lock in huge increases in production for the next 40 years.

That’s especially true since the old argument for exporting gas — it was cleaner than the coal being burned in Asia — no longer makes sense. Since sun and wind now produce the cheapest energy on earth, we’re no longer talking about transition fuels. The whole point of net zero emissions is that we have to move fast to the actually clean stuff.

And it’s especially true because we’ve been learning that exporting this stuff is even more dangerous than using it at home. A new paper from Cornell’s Bob Howarth (the dean of methane science) that I first reported on in the New Yorker last week has truly shocking implications. It showed that when you put LNG on a boat and send it off around the world, large amounts leak out in the process. In the best-case scenario, it is 24 percent worse for the climate than burning coal; in the worst case (old ship, long voyage) it’s 274 percent worse. This is mind-boggling and soul-sickening, and it makes the calculations in, say, the OCI report much more ominous.

Yet Biden could limit the damage. Though his administration has already approved too many of these projects, he could stop the ones that remain. Under federal law, the Department of Energy needs to grant an export license for each new terminal, certifying that sending it to countries with which we don’t have a free trade agreement is in the national interest. And clearly this isn’t; standing up here could help him regain some of the ground he lost with the Willow calamity. And it would be hard for the other side to demagogue. Because exporting natural gas clearly drives the price up here at home — that’s how economics works. Indeed, Biden could even reinstate the ban on crude oil exports lifted in 2015.

The most important decision any of these leaders — in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Norway, or the U.K. — could make is simply to say, “We won’t be the hydrocarbon equivalent of the narcotics cartels.” If they did, some of the slack would be taken up by other nations, like the United Arab Emirates, erstwhile host of the upcoming COP. But some of it would also be taken up by the switch to renewables; with the biggest suppliers leaving the market, prices would rise, and the spreadsheet would change. Again, that’s how economics works.

But the real question here may be, how do politics work? The fossil fuel industry demonstrated its firm grip on power in the U.S. in 2015 when it got the export ban lifted. Now the industry is flush with cash: Exxon reported a quarterly profit of $9.1 billion last month. It’s using its cash to buy up even more fracking real estate; clearly it concludes it has the political juice to enable it to face Biden down and keep on pumping gas for the planet.

And Exxon and the U.S. are not alone in this arrogance. In Canada, for instance, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau keeps talking a good game on reducing emissions — but at some level, who cares? There aren’t enough Canadians to produce that much carbon (indeed, the wildfires across the nation will produce more than twice as much as the people this year). Canada’s huge contribution to our global crisis is its exports. Trudeau quite honestly summed up his nation’s position in 2017 in a talk to Texas oilmen, when he told the truth about the country’s vast tar sands complex: “No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.” Canada couldn’t burn 173 billion barrels of oil if everyone in the country kept their car idling 24 hours a day, and they couldn’t burn the enormous quantity of natural gas that’s been found further north in Alberta if they all turned their thermostats to 115 and wore bathing suits all winter. That’s why they’re busy building pipelines to take the oil and the gas to the Pacific.

I could do the same math for Australia or the U.K. or Norway. No matter what they stand up and say in the UAE over the next month, remember: They’ve decided to hold a fire sale at the end of the world.

Source: Thebulletin.org

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post How wealthy countries evade responsibility for their fossil fuel exports appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Northeast Natural Energy received “industry-first” ESG grade for Marcellus shale natural gas production

Energy News Beat

(WO) – Northeast Natural Energy, a West Virginia-based Marcellus shale natural gas producer, has just become the first producer globally to receive an “A” letter grade from Equitable Origin (EO) for the ESG performance of its West Virginia assets. This was the result of a voluntary reverification audit conducted by Responsible Energy Solutions LLC in 2023.

A pioneer in differentiated natural gas production, NNE became the first producer in the United States to certify an asset to EO’s independent voluntary standard for high-ESG performance at the site level in 2021.

Equitable Origin-approved expert third-party assessor Responsible Energy Solutions LLC independently evaluated NNE’s operations against the principles of the EO100 Standard, including corporate governance and ethics; social impacts, human rights, and community engagement; occupational health and safety and fair labor standards; and environmental performance.

Annually, the assessors undertake reverification audits to assess conformance to the standard and progress by NNE on a Continual Improvement Plan that is a requirement for ESG certification. These findings are subject to a rigorous external peer review.

“Having completed our third annual assessment for Northeast Natural Energy, our team has seen continuous improvement that reflects a culture of excellence at NNE,” said Roy Hartstein, founder and president, Responsible Energy Solutions LLC. “Through the review of thousands of pages of documents and dozens of interviews with NNE staff, contractors, and external stakeholders, we have found that culture reflected in action and results from the field through the senior leadership.”

Northeast Natural Energy, LLC is a privately owned energy company headquartered in Charleston, W.Va. that focuses on the development of dry, pipeline quality natural gas in the Appalachian basin. The company operates 40,000 contiguous acres in north central West Virginia, developing and producing reserves from the Marcellus shale.

Source: Worldoil.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Northeast Natural Energy received “industry-first” ESG grade for Marcellus shale natural gas production appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

This is what the climate crisis is costing economies around the world

Energy News Beat

The economic toll of extreme weather has grown substantially, according to a World Meteorological Organization report.
Extreme weather events and climate-related disasters have caused significant economic losses, reaching nearly $1.5 trillion in the decade to 2019.
The international system has struggled to make the required progress on climate change, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2023.

Around the world we’re counting the cost of climate change, in every way, but what does this mean in terms of economic losses, what are the main causes and where is this being felt the most?

Extreme weather, climate and water-related events caused almost $1.5 trillion of economic losses in the decade to 2019, up from $184 billion in the 1970s, according to a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. The real figures are likely to be even higher, as many losses go unreported.

While the good news contained in the report showed that improved warnings and disaster management has cut the number of lives lost, there is no getting away from the huge human and environmental cost of the climate crisis, and the impact it is having on livelihoods and businesses.

Failure to mitigate climate change is ranked as one of the key threats in the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2023, with 70% of respondents rating existing measures to prevent or prepare for climate change as “ineffective” or “highly ineffective”.

“Despite 30 years of global climate advocacy and diplomacy, the international system has struggled to make the required progress on climate change,” the report says. “The potential failure to address this existential global risk first entered the top rankings of the Global Risks Report over a decade ago, in 2011.”

The economic costs of the climate crisis

While the environmental losses and hazards are clear, the economic costs are also important since they have an uneven impact on communities, with some countries and regions disproportionately affected.

China suffered direct economic losses of more than $42 billion in the first nine months of 2023 from natural disasters including torrential rains, landslides, hailstorms and typhoons according to the nation’s government data.

What’s causing the losses? Image: WMO

Tropical cyclone damage was the largest proportion, according to the WMO data, with floods coming in second, and drought third.

In Africa, disasters from 1970-2021 caused $43 billion in economic losses, with droughts accounting for 95% of deaths, according to the WMO. Europe’s reported cost was $562 billion in losses, with 8% of global disaster deaths occurring in Europe, the data showed.

For South America, the losses amounted to $115.2 billion and for North America, Central America and the Caribbean it was $2 trillion. Meanwhile, the latest instalment of the US National Climate Assessment has concluded that extreme weather events currently cost the country $1 billion every three weeks (compared to every four months in the 1980s) and averaged $150 billion in damages each year between 2018-2022.

More frequent and severe

Climate-related extreme events are set to become more frequent and severe, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is against this backdrop the United Arab Emirates will host the 28th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, known as COP28, from 30 November to 12 December.

The United Nations’ global chief heat officer, Eleni Myrivili, has called for firm commitments at the summit to stem rapidly rising temperatures in cities.

As we head towards the meeting, you can follow the build-up on the World Economic Forum’s website.

“Our only ask is that you come with solutions, and real actions,” Majid Al Suwaidi, Director-General and Special Representative of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28), Office of the Special Envoy for Climate Change of the UAE, told the Forum in a panel session. “That’s what we want our COP to be about, solutions, actions, real things that will get us back on track.”

Source: Weforum.org

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post This is what the climate crisis is costing economies around the world appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Bjorn Lomborg: COP28 will ignore net-zero’s atrocious waste of money

Energy News BeatThe spectacle of another annual climate conference is getting underway in the United Arab Emirates (Nov 30 – Dec 12). Like Kabuki theater, performative set pieces lead from one to the other: politicians and celebrities arrive by private jets; speakers predict imminent doom; hectoring NGOs cast blame; political negotiations become fraught and inevitably go overtime; and finally: the signing of a new agreement that participants hope and pretend will make a difference.

This circus has repeated since the 1990s. Despite 27 previous conferences with iterations of ominous speeches and bold promises, global emissions have inexorably increased, punctuated just once, by the economic shutdown of COVID-19. This year is likely to see higher emissions than ever before.

Almost every rich country preaches far more than it delivers. This is exemplified by the European Union, which has promised more than anyone else, yet — when forced by Russia’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine to cut off gas imports — went looking in Africa for more oil, gas and coal. Meanwhile, almost every poor country understandably prioritizes prosperity, which means abundant, cheap and reliable energy — which still means fossil fuels.

Underpinning the climate summit farce is one big lie repeated over and over: that green energy is on the precipice of replacing fossil fuels in every aspect of our lives. This exaggeration is today championed by the International Energy Agency, which has turned from an impartial arbiter of energy data to the proponent of the far-fetched prediction that fossil fuels will peak within just seven years.

The claim ignores the fact that any transition away from fossil fuels is occurring only with enormous taxpayer-funded subsidies. And while major energy players like Exxon and Chevron are moving back to investment in fossil fuel, big bets on green energy have failed spectacularly. Over the past 15 years, alternative energy stocks have plummeted in value, thus sending the pensions of ordinary workers tumbling due to virtue signalling pension companies while general stocks have increased more than four-fold.

What won’t be acknowledged at COP28 in the United Arab Emirates — because it has never been acknowledged at a global climate summit — is the awkward reality that while climate change has real costs, climate policy does, too.

In most public conversations, climate change costs are vastly exaggerated. Just consider how every heat wave is depicted as an end-of-the world, cataclysmic killer, while the far greater reductions in deaths from warmer winters pass without being remarked on. Yet the costs of climate policy are bizarrely ignored.

Analyzing the balance between climate and policy costs has been at the heart of the study of climate change economics for more than three decades. Renowned economist William Nordhaus is the only climate change economist recognized with a Nobel prize. His research shows that we should absolutely do something about climate change: early cuts in fossil fuel emissions are cheap and will reduce the most dangerous temperature rises. But his work also shows that highly ambitious carbon reductions will be a bad deal, with phenomenally high costs and low additional benefits.

Climate activists, who insist we should listen to the science, have consistently ignored this research and encouraged rich world leaders to make ever-greater climate promises. Many leaders have even gone so far as to promise net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Despite this likely being the single costliest policy ever promised by world leaders, it was made without a single peer-reviewed estimate of the full costs. Earlier this year, a special issue of Climate Change Economics made the first such analyses.

This astonishing work has gone almost entirely unreported by any major news outlet. It shows that even with very generous assumptions, the benefits of pursuing net zero will just slowly inch upwards over the century. By mid-century, the benefits — meaning the avoided costs from climate change — could reach about $1 trillion each year.

But the costs would be much, much higher. Three different modelled approaches all show far higher costs than benefits for every single year throughout the 21st century and far into the next. By 2050, the annual costs of the policy range between $10 and $43 trillion. That’s 4-18 per cent of global GDP. Consider that the total tax intake of all governments across the world today is about 15 per cent of global GDP — and politicians would potentially have us spend more than that.

Across the century, the benefit is 1.4 per cent of global GDP while the cost averages out at 8.6 per cent of global GDP. Every dollar in cost delivers perhaps 16 cents of climate benefits. Clearly, this is an atrocious use of money.

The only thing that could avoid this summit being a retread of 27 other failures is if politicians acknowledge the real cost of net zero policy — and instead of making more carbon cut promises, vow to dramatically increase green energy R&D.

This would help innovate the price of low-carbon energy below that of fossil fuels so every country in the world will want to make the switch. Instead of subsidizing today’s still-inefficient technology and trying to brute force a transition by pushing up the price of fossil fuels, we need to make green technologies genuinely cheaper.

Sadly, that seems a far-fetched hope. Instead, this climate summit looks set to be another wasted opportunity producing yet more hot air.
Source: Nationalpost.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Bjorn Lomborg: COP28 will ignore net-zero’s atrocious waste of money appeared first on Energy News Beat.