Energy News Beat

(Bloomberg) — When the US borrows money, it needs to pay its loans back with interest—just like any other borrower. But America’s national debt is currently $34 trillion and rising. Soon, the US will need to spend more each year paying interest than what it spends on national defense.

In the last few weeks, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin told Bloomberg TV that the US economy is “in a terrible place,” and Black Swan author Nassim Nicholas Taleb warned that “a debt spiral is like a death spiral.”

“It’s a slow spiral, but it’s still a spiral—of rising debt and rising payments on the debt,” Phillip Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office, tells the Big Take DC podcast. “ The situation is unsustainable.”

Swagel and Bloomberg reporter Liz McCormick join the Big Take DC to discuss the US government’s debt crisis, and what it would take to rein it in.Transcript:

Saleha Mohsin: The US government has a serious spending problem. It’s thrown money at military needs, roads, digging out of the pandemic—mostly using cash it doesn’t have in the bank. Just like the rest of us paying off a loan, the government has to pay interest on what it borrows. Over the past decade, those interest payments have crept up.They’ve become a bigger and bigger slice of federal spending—and soon, America will need to spend more each year paying off that debt interest than it spends on national defense. I’ve asked my sources at Treasury, in Congress, and even some historians – no one can think of us ever being here before. Everyone agrees we have a problem – but what no one can agree on is where the buck stops to fix it.

America’s debt is spiraling out of control – it’s over $34 trillion right now. And if it feels like every other month, Congress is narrowly avoiding a government shutdown over spending… that’s because it kind of is.

This week, we’ll look at how we got here, and what it will take for Washington to fix it. From Bloomberg’s Washington bureau, this is the Big Take DC podcast. I’m your host, Saleha Mohsin.

Mohsin: Borrowing money is not always a bad thing. In 1790, Alexander Hamilton wrote that debt was the price of liberty.

In Lin Manuel Miranda’s musical about Hamilton’s life, you can hear the young Treasury secretary pleading with the other founding fathers:

Hamilton: If we assume the debts, the union gets new line of credit, a financial diuretic. How do you not get it…

Mohsin: Without debt, he rap-argues, the US couldn’t fund the fight to become an independent nation.

Hamilton: We needed money and guns and half a chance, uhh who provided those funds?

Mohsin: So the US has really leaned into debt—so much so that the last time the country had zero debt was in 1835.

That’s because each year, the US creates a massive budget. It’s money that keeps the economy moving, even when faced with challenges like a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.But when the federal government wants to spend more than it’s bringing in through taxes and other revenue, it has to borrow—from other countries and the private sector. That gap between our money in and our money out is called a deficit.

Liz McCormick: You could think about it for your household. If everything I owe is bigger than the assets I have, I’m in a deficit.

Mohsin: My colleague Liz McCormick and I have spent a lot of time talking about the deficit. She’s a chief correspondent at Bloomberg, covering debt and currency markets.

McCormick: So for the US, all the net revenues they’re taking in after they pay out all their expenses, they’re in the red.

Mohsin: Unlike a household spending more than it’s bringing in, it’s ok for the US government to live its life in the red.

McCormick: We have the global, what they call reserve currency, meaning many things are priced in US dollars. It gives us this kind of special status. No one quite thinks the US is going to kind of really default on their debt. (laughs)

Mohsin: In other words, people trust that the US will pay back its loans eventually—and they trust so deeply that it’s good for its dollar that they rely on it as the backbone of the global economy. That’s one reason why America can run up such a high bill. But lenders still want something in exchange for buying US debt.

McCormick: There’s no free lunch. So they’re saying, ‘yeah, here, US Treasury, take our money. We like you, take it. But give me something every month because I’m kind of putting my money to you and I can’t use it, right? So, at least give me some, what we call, interest.’

Mohsin: So when the government wants to fund a program—say, a new part for Medicare, building a bridge, or helping allies like Israel or Ukraine—even if we don’t have that money set aside, we can borrow it at a very low cost to taxpayers.

That’s helped us get out of some really sticky situations. You may recall what newscasters and headlines sounded like during the financial crisis…

CBS Archival: Three of the five biggest independent firms on Wall Street have now disappeared.

AP Archival: Wary investors now wonder how the markets will recover from billions of dollars of bad mortgage debts, frozen credit markets, banks afraid to lend…

George W. Bush Archival: We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis…

Mohsin: That last clip was President George W. Bush speaking in 2008, when the government used spending to prop up a flailing economy. But that came with a price tag of hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal deficit nearly tripled from what it had been before the crisis.

Barack Obama Archival: Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable.

Mohsin: That’s President Barack Obama, speaking in 2011.

Barack Obama Archival: But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money… [fade]

Mohsin: In 2013, US debt surpassed the country’s GDP.

When President Donald Trump took office, he worked with Congress to cut taxes as a way to help grow the economy. Those tax cuts will add an estimated two and a half trillion dollars to the nation’s deficit in the next decade or so.

And then… Covid hit. And lawmakers were desperate to keep the economy afloat.

CNN Archival: First: those stimulus checks. Up to $1,400 for about 90% of households—

C-SPAN Archival: We’re making sure that small businesses have access to loans for their fixed costs—

C-SPAN Archival: And expanded unemployment insurance.

McCormick: During the pandemic, even as our borrowing shot up, as it kind of should in a crisis, we, we didn’t want, you know, companies and people to personally fail and not be able to fund their life. So there was a lot of fiscal support. Uh, but the Fed was cutting rates down to zero.

Mohsin: Let’s recap: to keep the economy from cratering, the government spent and then the Federal Reserve said: let’s make it really easy for people to borrow even more so that they keep spending. So the Fed slashed interest rates – making it cheaper to take on debt.

McCormick: But that’s all been turned on its head now because, because of inflation, the Fed has had to lift rates to like a 22 year high.

Mohsin: That 22-year high is a shock to the economy right now. People and companies have gotten so used to low interest rates, that now, everyone’s adjusting to how much more they have to pay—for everything from car loans to mortgages.

And higher rates are hurting the government’s wallet, too.

McCormick: And that’s made the Treasury, every time they pay interest semi-annually, pay a lot higher interest. I mean, our interest expense is almost the amount of what we’re paying for big other categories like defense.

Mohsin: In 2023, the cost of just paying off the interest on US debt… reached $1 trillion. Coming up… as the US debt continues to climb, what is the growing cost to taxpayers?

Mohsin: The US debt has been climbing for decades. But to understand why experts think now is different, I wanted to talk to someone who’s seen how the budget is handled – from the inside.

So I sat down with Phillip Swagel. He’s the director of the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. It’s a non-partisan agency, funded by Congress.

Phillip Swagel: We provide the Congress with budget analysis and economic analysis. We would never say to a member of Congress, your bill is the, the right thing or the wrong thing, we just provide analysis.

Mohsin: If you’re following news coverage of a proposed law, you’ve probably heard CBO’s estimate for how much that legislation will affect the national debt.

American Farm Bureau Archival: The Congressional Budget Office released their ten-year baseline for farm bill spending…

PBS Archival: The Congressional Budget Office estimates these changes could cost more than $90 billion over the next two years.

Mohsin: Swagel told me that there are two main reasons we should care that the government can’t get its debt under control.

First, it means that we have to spend money paying off interest – as in, managing the debt load – instead of using that money for programs that actually help people. And second, it’s only going to get worse.

Swagel: When we have higher interest rates, more debt. We pay more in interest. And then that builds back into the debt which leads to yet, higher debt and higher interest payments.

Mohsin: So, it’s a spiral.

Swagel: We are in a spiral now. It’s a slow spiral, but it’s still a spiral of rising debt and rising payments on the debt. The situation is unsustainable.

Mohsin: Just this week, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a former options trader who wrote a book about unpredictable events called The Black Swan, told a hedge fund he advises that “a debt spiral is like a death spiral.”He’s not the only one with eyes on the economy who’s been raising alarm bells. A few weeks ago, Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary, put it bluntly on Bloomberg TV:

BTV-Wall Street Week Archival: No, I think we’re in a terrible place.

Mohsin: And this is all while the US has some of the cheapest interest rates of any country in the world. That’s because America has a solid record of paying back its loans, other countries cut a sweet deal when they loan money. But that could all change.

If the US keeps borrowing from other countries, and racking up a high bill—and continues to squabble over paying its debt… the country, and the US dollar, could lose its favored status.

It’s not enough to avoid a default—just the fighting is hurting the country. It’s like when parents fight and threaten to divorce, but don’t. Just because they stay together, doesn’t mean the fights don’t cause damage.

Our only hope for a way out of this debt spiral is for Congress to balance the budget. But that requires some hard decisions about where to cut spending. And Congress… is famously deadlocked.

McCormick: I don’t want to be too pessimistic, but I just don’t see the political will down in Washington right now to, to change their tune. We can’t seem to work across the aisle and get these agreements that would work to put us at least on a trajectory where the deficit should be getting better, right?

Mohsin: Even passing a basic spending bill has turned into a high-wire act, haunted by regular government shutdown threats. So getting through any serious cuts is gonna be hard.

Swagel: The challenge is that at any moment, we don’t have to take action, right?

Mohsin: So it’s hard to imagine folks in government suddenly getting inspired to take action. But there is at least one example of a time when it got its act together. Swagel says, back in the ‘90s, people thought the US might fully pay off its debt— and they were worried about that!

Swagel: And that’s because of the privileged place of Treasury securities. The Treasury debt has an important role in the global economy. A Treasury bond is an asset for the private sector that is seen as safe, and seen as liquid. And so if investors want an asset with those characteristics, the ability to buy and sell treasury bonds is important to financial markets.

Mohsin: That fiscal responsibility didn’t happen by accident. It essentially took investors bullying President Bill Clinton’s administration. Here’s how that went:

Investors were against the government’s unsustainable spending. So they revolted. They started dumping their Treasury bonds, and when those bonds flooded the market, they appeared a whole lot riskier. It was your basic laws of supply and demand at play.

When Treasuries are seen as even a tiny bit riskier, buyers demand a higher return on their investment. Kinda like how your home insurance costs more if you live in a flood zone.

So to recap: investors sold off Treasuries, which drove prices lower. But that drove up the amount buyers demanded in exchange for each bond. That made it more expensive for the government to borrow.

And Treasuries guide the interest rate for all sorts of debt—like home mortgages and other consumer obligations. So all of a sudden, you’ve got the makings of an economic slowdown, which is every elected leader’s nightmare.

McCormick: Back in the Clinton days, you know, James Carville, his advisor always joked like, ‘I thought I’d wanna come back as,’ what did he say? ‘Like a great baseball player or the Pope or something.’ And then he is like, ‘I wanna come back as the bond market,’ because Clinton wanted to do all the spending and bond yields just went crazy.

Mohsin: Clinton was forced to change his whole economic agenda just to keep investors happy – and prevent an economic crisis.

Back in the ‘90s, debt interest wasn’t skyrocketing like it is today, so it’s a bit of an apples to walnuts comparison. But it’s possible that the same kind of pressure from markets could help now.

McCormick: Maybe if bond yields just keep going and going and this situation gets worse and worse, maybe somebody gets religion and says we need to do something, but I think it’s going to take a lot.

Mohsin: Thanks for listening to the Big Take DC podcast from Bloomberg News.

I’m Saleha Mohsin. This episode was produced by Julia Press and Naomi Shavin. It was fact-checked by Stacey René. Alex Sugiura and Blake Maples are our mix engineers. Our story editors are Caitlin Kenney, Wendy Benjaminson, and Michael Shepard. Nicole Beemsterboer is our Executive Producer. Sage Bauman is our Head of Podcasts.

If you liked what you heard, please be sure to subscribe, rate, and review the show—it’ll help other listeners find us! Thanks for tuning in. I’ll be back next week.

On each episode of the Big Take DC, host Saleha Mohsin explores one story about how money, politics and power shape Washington—and the consequences for Americans and people all over the world. Download and subscribe to the Big Take DC podcast on iHeart, Apple, Spotify, Bloomberg Carplay or wherever you listen.

Source: News.yahoo.com

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post America’s ‘Debt Spiral’ Is Nearing a Critical Threshold appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

The Finance Committee in the Iraqi parliament made a statement on 31 January calling for the sale of oil in currencies other than the US dollar, aiming to counter US sanctions on the Iraqi banking system. 

“The US Treasury still uses the pretext of money laundering to impose sanctions on Iraqi banks. This requires a national stance to put an end to these arbitrary decisions,” the statement said.

“Imposing sanctions on Iraqi banks undermines and obstructs Central Bank efforts to stabilize the dollar exchange rate and reduce the selling gap between official and parallel rates,” it added.

The Finance Committee affirmed its “rejection of these practices, due to their repercussions on the livelihoods of citizens,” and reiterated its “call on the government and the Central Bank of Iraq to take quick measures against the dominance of the dollar, by diversifying cash reserves from foreign currencies.”

Washington imposed sanctions on Iraqi Al-Huda Bank this week, under claims of laundering money for Iran. Several other banks have been hit with similar sanctions over the past year.

The statement came the same day a senior US Treasury official said Washington expects Baghdad to help identify and disrupt the funds of Iran-backed resistance factions in Iraq.

“These are, as a whole, groups that are actively using and abusing Iraq and its financial systems and structure in order to perpetuate these acts and we have to address that directly. Frankly, I think it is clearly our expectation from Treasury perspective that there is more we can do together to share information and identify exactly how these militias groups are operating here in Iraq,” the official stated. 

Three US soldiers were killed in an Iraqi resistance attack near the Syrian–Jordanian border on 28 January. Near daily Iraqi attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria have now been halted after the killing of the US soldiers, following Iraqi government pressure on resistance groups, primarily the Kataib Hezbollah faction.

The government in Baghdad has faced pushback from Washington for its attempts to diplomatically facilitate a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, and a transition of US presence in Iraq to an “advisory role.” 

The US exercises significant control over the Iraqi financial system. Due to US sanctions, Baghdad has struggled to pay hefty energy debts owed to Iran. 

Additionally, Iraqi oil revenues are transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Baghdad requires US permission to access these funds.

The Iraqi government recently expressed hope in moving towards de-dollarization. 

Iraq is set to implement several new economic measures to further strengthen the national currency against the US dollar, a government source told the Iraqi News Agency (INA) on 14 November. 

Last May, the Iraqi government announced a ban on the US dollar for both personal and business transactions. 

“It is clear that Iraq is economically dominated by the US, and our government does not truly control or have access to its own money … We believe that it is crucial to move away from the hegemony of the dollar, especially as it has become a tool to impose sanctions on countries. It is time for Iraq to rely on its local currency,” Iraqi MP and member of the Finance Committee, Hussein Mouanes, told The Cradle in an exclusive interview last year. 

Source: Thecradle.co

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Iraqi parliament calling to ditch US dollar for oil trade appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Norway’s district court in Oslo recently made a decision on fossil fuels that deserves the attention of every person concerned about climate change.

This ruling, which compels energy firms to account for the industry’s entire carbon footprint, could change the way oil and gas licenses are awarded in Norway—and inspire similar legal challenges to fossil fuel production in other countries.

The district court judge Lena Skjold Rafoss ruled that three petroleum production licenses, held by energy companies including Equinor and Aker BP, were invalid largely due to the lack of consideration that had been given to so-called “downstream emissions.” That is, emissions from burning the petroleum that these firms would extract from the North Sea (also called scope 3 emissions).

This case is a big win for environmental campaigners who have tried to make oil and gas companies account for the emissions that come from burning their products. Similar efforts have been defeated in legal challenges elsewhere over the last few years.

As a researcher of climate and energy law, I have noted in my work how rules on oil and gas licenses are not aligned with national climate targets. I have called for changing these rules so that the downstream emissions the oil and gas from a new field will produce are considered when deciding whether it should go ahead.

Although the judgment only applies to Norway and its implication should not be overstated, it could seed similar arguments in climate litigation elsewhere. This could force governments to consider how drilling for and burning new oil and gas will really affect climate change.

Oil and gas companies applying for exploration and production licenses in new fields are, in most countries, obliged to produce an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for each proposed project. Firms submit these EIAs to the government and they are usually made public. The idea is that public scrutiny and participation will ensure the government’s final decision is informed and transparent.

In many countries, EIAs must now account for a project’s impact on the climate. But this obligation is typically interpreted as encompassing the emissions from exploration and production only—not from burning the oil and gas extracted.

Despite previous legal challenges and until this recent decision, regulators and courts in oil-producing countries like Norway and the UK have been reluctant to make firms account for the emissions that come from burning the fuels they produce. This is despite the fact these scope 3 or downstream emissions constitute 67%–95% of overall emissions for oil production.

Why consider downstream emissions?

Regulators and companies argue that these emissions are not relevant as they do not form a part of the project under consideration. But regulating demand for oil and gas, through higher emission standards for vehicles for example, is not enough to tackle climate change.

Research confirms that keeping global heating below 2°C will require a third of the world’s oil and half of its gas reserves to remain underground by 2050. More recent assessments based on limiting warming to 1.5°C are even stricter.

Plainly, we cannot keep producing fossil fuels while keeping climate targets alive.

The legal requirements on EIAs in Norway allow room for interpretation, carving a role for courts to clarify if downstream emissions ought to be included. In a 2020 ruling by the Norwegian Supreme Court, in a case dubbed People v Arctic Oil, the court decided that downstream emissions were a relevant consideration for environmental assessment.

However, the case concerned opening new areas for firms to bid for licenses and the court ruled that such an assessment was not required at that stage. This new decision concerns the government awarding production licenses for specific fields.

At this stage, firms should have a much better understanding of the geology of the field they intend to drill in, how much oil or gas is there and the quantity of downstream emissions it should yield. The court argued that the government’s interpretation of the law to exclude downstream emissions at this stage is too restrictive and downstream emissions must be considered before granting permits.

Will the decision inspire further legal challenges?

Despite the clear victory for environmental groups, the practical value of the judgment must be carefully considered.

The judgment will most likely result in an appeal from the Norwegian Ministry of Energy and take months or years to make its way to the country’s Supreme Court for a final decision. While this might delay the drilling, if the government complies with the judgment and requires oil and gas firms to make the necessary downstream emissions assessment it might still proceed with approving new oil production permits—even if the assessment shows considerable downstream emissions.

Will courts in other countries follow suit? Not every country has a written constitution with environmental rights provisions like Norway (the UK doesn’t, for example). But while foreign judgments do not usually serve as precedent, courts often mention applicable decisions in consideration of the relevant facts.

In the UK, a few outstanding cases deal with downstream emissions. For example, environmental campaign groups Greenpeace and Uplift are challenging the government’s approval of the Rosebank oil and gas field west of Shetland, in part due to its lack of consideration of downstream emissions.

The UK Supreme Court is also expected to hand down judgment in the Finch case. This will decide whether it was lawful for Surrey County Council to approve an oil development without requiring an assessment of downstream emissions.

This builds on similar legal challenges in response to new fossil fuel production in Australia and the US. The outcomes of these cases could change the assessment process for all fossil fuel projects.

Source: Phys.org

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Oil firms forced to consider full climate effects of new drilling, following landmark Norwegian court ruling appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

On January 26, the Biden administration announced it would pause new approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The official news followed several leaked stories—including one prominent article by The New York Times—that triggered criticism from LNG supporters and praise from climate activists.

The announcement appears to be a concession to the “keep it in the ground” movement and the 65 federal lawmakers who asked for the policy change in November 2023. However, some pragmatic progressives see the pause as misguided: “The urgency of the energy transition cannot excuse counterproductive purity tests,” wrote Elan Sykes and Neel Brown of the Progressive Policy Institute.

From the libertarian perspective, the pause is unwise energy policy, an encroachment on free trade, and a continuation of the Biden administration’s use of uncertainty as a political weapon against energy suppliers. Let’s dig in.

What Is Changing, Exactly?

LNG is the liquefied version of natural gas (mostly methane, CH4). Shippers cool the gas to approximately negative 260 degrees Fahrenheit to make it a liquid that is portable via tanker ships. International trade in LNG has spiked in part because of the abundant natural gas resources in the United States, which were enabled by technological improvements in unconventional production from shale formations.

The United States did not export significant quantities of LNG until about 2015, so one might say the industry is in uncharted waters. The aggressive growth in LNG exports (particularly relative to historic levels of imports) can be seen in the graph below.

 

(Source.)

Although the large quantities of exports are new, the legal apparatus is not. Specifically, under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the Department of Energy (DOE) must approve any import or export of natural gas. Congress passed the NGA in 1938, so the statute predates the organization of the DOE itself, which was formed by Congress in 1977 by the DOE Organization Act.

Before the DOE was established the responsibilities in this section of the NGA were carried out by the Federal Power Commission (renamed in 1977 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC). Now the two agencies each regulate different parts of the LNG industry. DOE explains their roles as follows:

The NGA directs DOE to evaluate applications to export LNG to non‐​FTA [Free Trade Agreement] countries. … Typically, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction over the siting, construction, and operation of LNG export facilities in the US In these cases, FERC leads the environmental impact assessments of proposed projects consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, and DOE is typically a cooperating agency as part of these reviews. Obtaining a DOE authorization to export LNG to non‐​FTA countries is an important step for most projects in their path toward financing and construction.

The Biden administration said the DOE will now scrutinize applications to export LNG through the lens of climate change and other factors in determining whether additional US LNG exports are in the public interest. The White House stated:

The current economic and environmental analyses DOE uses to underpin its LNG export authorizations are roughly five years old and no longer adequately account for considerations like potential energy cost increases for American consumers and manufacturers beyond current authorizations or the latest assessment of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. Today, we have an evolving understanding of the market need for LNG, the long‐​term supply of LNG, and the perilous impacts of methane on our planet.

The DOE has never denied an LNG export application, so this is a big shift in public policy.

Who Carries the Burden of Proof?

The rise of low‐​cost natural gas production in the United States—combined with high prices and resource constraints in other parts of the world—means US producers can profitably refrigerate, ship, and deliver gas to other countries. In contrast to other energy resources that require mandates and subsidies, LNG exports merely require approval from the federal government. All the government has to do is get out of the way.

The text of the NGA establishes approval as the default position. The statute says the DOE “shall” issue an order approving a project “unless, after opportunity for hearing, it finds that the proposed exportation or importation will not be consistent with the public interest.” Hence a pause to further consider new factors is the wrong posture—LNG approvals should continue until and unless DOE makes a new finding that LNG exports are inconsistent with the public interest. Ideally, of course, the government shouldn’t have the power to bar energy exports in peacetime.

There is a case to be made on either side of the climate debate regarding LNG.

Supporters of LNG exports cite the lower CO2 emissions of natural gas combustion over coal. By exporting natural gas and displacing the use of coal globally, the argument goes, the United States can help other countries reduce their CO2 emissions. We have certainly seen coal‐​to‐​gas switching bring down emissions in the United States.

Opponents of LNG exports, however, argue that the energy required to cool and transport natural gas—not to mention leakage of uncombusted methane, itself a potent greenhouse gas—makes it little better for climate change than burning coal.

The Administration’s Action is Arbitrary and Capricious

As experts debate the net impact of natural gas exports on factors like global climate change, the structure of the NGA indicates that approvals should move forward while the DOE deliberates. In July 2023, the DOE rejected a petition by environmental groups to do precisely what it now accepts—to undertake a blanket review of its LNG policy.

In fact, the DOE’s rejection notes in the first sentence of the document that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that each agency “shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.” The DOE’s new policy of a “pause” runs afoul of the APA and deprives interested parties the ability to challenge it before it goes into effect.

The new stated policy of a pause is especially capricious—meaning impulsive or unpredictable—given how the DOE responded to the environmental petitioners just six months ago:

After carefully considering Petitioners’ request, DOE is denying the Rulemaking Petition. As discussed below, DOE has reasonably exercised its discretion to implement its LNG export program through a combined approach of individual adjudications and export‐​focused regulatory actions, rather than a single rulemaking of broad applicability. DOE‘s existing LNG export regulatory program is responsive to Petitioners’ principal concerns—namely because, since 2013, DOE has, in fact, established a decision‐​making process under NGA section 3(a) that “respond[s] to the complex issues raised by LNG export and appropriately serve[s] the Natural Gas Act,” as Petitioners request. (emphasis in original)

How can the DOE now claim that it does not need to go through a formal rulemaking process in reversing course and implementing a new LNG approval regime? Even the environmental groups that want the DOE to shut down LNG exports should agree that their petition for a new rulemaking was the appropriate vehicle for enacting new policy.

Further, in the event of an administrative policy change at DOE that rises to the level of national significance—I think an indefinite LNG export pause qualifies—the Supreme Court’s “Major Questions Doctrine” should come into play. As the Congressional Review Service summarized the doctrine, “if an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance, its action must be supported by clear congressional authorization.” (emphasis in original) Did Congress give the DOE clear authorization to deny LNG export applications based on the factors DOE now finds important?

Political Uncertainty as Punishment

We have already seen the playbook of capricious policy in action. In February 2022, FERC issued new policy statements “providing guidance for future consideration of natural gas projects by the Commission.” The policy change—which suggested that an unspecified level of climate mitigation would be necessary to serve the public interest and receive FERC approval of gas pipeline projects—injected enormous uncertainty into the pipeline approval process.

The concept of the February 2022 policy statement was also the subject of a series of rebuttals (prebuttals?) by Commissioner Bernard McNamee, who argued forcefully beginning in 2019 that “the commission does not have the authority under the NGA or [the National Environmental Policy Act] to deny a pipeline certificate application based on the environmental effects of the upstream production or downstream use of natural gas nor does the commission have the authority to unilaterally establish measures to mitigate” emissions.

Ultimately, FERC withdrew its proposal after receiving blistering blowback from members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (ENR). Senator Joe Manchin (D‑WV), ENR chairman, said FERC was “constructing additional road blocks that further delay building out the energy infrastructure our country desperately needs.” Delay is the practical impact of political uncertainty.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appears to be using the same strategy. Last year, the EPA proposed in its power plant rulemaking to mandate two unproven technologies—green hydrogen and carbon capture—for new or reconstructed power plants to meet greenhouse gas emission targets. The EPA proposed that “affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after May 23, 2023” would need to meet the requirements of the final rule.

The electricity generation industry remains in the middle of the uncertainty caused by the EPA’s unworkable proposal. For any new or reconstructed natural gas‐​fired power plant (affected source) subject to EPA’s new standard, a company can construct the unit today and be held—at some future date—to a standard that does not yet exist and may be impossible.

Given the recent track records at DOE, FERC, and EPA, crippling uncertainty is beginning to look like the aim of energy policy rather than an unfortunate side effect.

LNG Export Pause Offers a Lesson in Economic Thinking

The White House listed “potential energy cost increases for American consumers and manufacturers” as one justification for the LNG pause. It is true that, in the very short term, an announcement that the federal government will forcibly restrict the export of natural gas would likely cause its domestic price to fall. But, as French economist Frederic Bastiat implored, we should attempt to foresee long‐​term impacts. Bastiat wrote:

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

Restricting the sale of LNG abroad would send ripple effects up the supply chain, blunting incentives to explore for more natural gas and to produce what’s already been found. Advocates of thwarting the global natural gas trade—and of hoarding domestic natural gas—are focused on temporary, short‐​term impacts to commodity prices and ignoring long‐​term impacts to natural gas supply infrastructure.

Whose Gas Is It Anyway?

Economics aside, what business does the federal government have in dictating the direction of an industry that delivers a product that so many people find valuable? Advances in directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology (commonly referred to as “fracking”) allowed American firms to produce astonishing amounts of useful energy from hydrocarbons trapped over a mile deep in rock formations. (Turn useless, 6,000-foot-deep rock into electricity? Yes, please.)

People here and abroad want to use that energy. Natural gas is a valuable resource—we use it not just to fuel power plants but to cook food, heat homes, and fabricate a dizzying array of plastics, fibers, and even medicines. Natural gas liquids like propane and ethane are especially useful as a material feedstock but also have energy‐​related applications.

The DOE, EPA, and FERC may try to stifle the progress of the natural gas industry in the name of climate change (or industry protectionism), but the demand for energy will always be there. Globally, energy consumption continues to increase, as shown below.

 

(Source.)

The challenge to meet growing demand should be exciting because energy consumption reflects the increasing living standards of countless millions (hopefully billions) across the globe. The US Energy Information Administration stated in its 2023 International Energy Outlook: “as incomes and population rise over time, energy consumption increases as more people can afford to drive, use commercial services, demand goods, and control building temperatures.”

For the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who still lack access to electricity, LNG exports could be the difference between dark and light.

Source: Cato.org

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

 

The post Biden’s ‘Pause’ on LNG Exports Is Impulsive and Destructive appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

(Bloomberg) — The US House of Representatives will vote on overturning the Biden administration’s freeze on liquefied natural gas export approvals, a top Republican said Wednesday.

The vote will take place the week after next, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said during an interview.

“We do have legislation to lift the ban on LNG,” Rodgers said. “It addresses barriers to exports right now.”

The White House announced Friday it was halting approval of new licenses to export LNG while it scrutinizes how the shipments affect climate change, the economy and national security — a moratorium likely to disrupt plans for billions of dollars in planned developments.

The announcement drew the ire of industry as well as top Republicans — including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who called the move “as outrageous as it is subversive” while empowering adversaries like Russia.

While a stand-alone measure would likely be dead on arrival in the Democrat-controlled Senate, it’s possible the issue could emerge as a Republican rider on a emergency-aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan sought by Democrats.

Read More: Biden Freezes Licenses to Export Gas, Imperiling Projects

Among the potential bills being considered is a measure that would strip the Energy Department of a role in granting LNG-export licenses and delegate that authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The legislation, known as the Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act, was approved by the committee last year, and various versions have been included in broader House-passed legislation. It would require FERC to deem the export or import of gas to be consistent with the public interest.

The measure, which would benefit LNG shippers such as Sempra, has the support of trade groups including the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the National Ocean Industries Association, which earlier this week sent a letter to House and Senate leaders urging them to move the bill. The Senate version of the bill was introduced Wednesday by South Carolina Republican Tim Scott and 16 other Republicans.

“Removing DOE from the process will help to ensure that political maneuvers will not interfere with energy supplies,” they wrote. “It is vital that Congress send an immediate message to our allies, and enemies, abroad that US LNG will continue to flow uninterrupted for many years to come.”

Frontline environmental leaders, meanwhile, gathered on Capitol Hill Thursday to declare victory, prior to a White House meeting with officials that were set to include President Joe’s Biden climate adviser Ali Zaidi, Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk and other administration officials, Roishetta Ozane, the founder of the Vessel Project of Louisiana, said in an interview.

Climate activists and others have stepped up pressure to stem the construction of new multibillion dollar LNG export terminals they say will prolong the world’s reliance on natural gas while discouraging cleaner alternatives.

“We are very happy with their decision, but the fight must continue,” Ozane said during a press conference to celebrate the Biden administration’s move.

Source: Bnnbloomberg.ca

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post House to Vote on Overturning Biden’s Natural Gas-Export Freeze appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Morocco has emerged as the major winner from the competition engaged between the United States and China for control of the supply chain of critical minerals, used in clean energy transition and electric vehicle (EV) batteries, says the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In August 2022, the U.S. passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to decarbonize the U.S. economy, re-shore supply chains of critical minerals, and break dependence on China. The legislation contains a series of economic measures designed to incentivize U.S. companies to invest in those supply chains within U.S. borders.
The goal is to secure, develop, and diversify supply chains as Washington and its Western allies see dependence on Chinese supply chains a threat to their national security.
Besides tax credits, the IRA relies on “friend-shoring” where the United States relies on minerals and a supply chain developed in U.S.-friendly countries and those with free trade agreements (FTAs) with the United States.
By leveraging both FTAs sealed between the U.S. and other countries, Chinese companies have found a way to maintain access not only to the U.S. market & Europe but also to avoid the IRA, says the Washington-based think-tank.
In an analysis titled: “Morocco, an Unexpected Winner of China’s Strategy to Circumvent the IRA”, the U.S. center says China chooses Morocco because of its geographical and economic proximity to EU countries and the United States.
Just a few miles away from Europe, Morocco has also the advantage of having free trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, which makes it an ideal hotspot for Chinese and Western/U.S. allies’ companies’ joint ventures in the critical minerals space.
In September 2023, South Korea’s largest chemical company LG Chem and China’s Youshan—a subsidiary of Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt—announced a partnership to build in Morocco a lithium-phosphate-iron (LFP) cathode plant, scheduled to come online by 2026 and produce up to 50,000 metric tons of LFP cathodes.
One key element of China’s overall strategy success is the willingness of U.S. allied countries’ private companies to engage with Chinese companies on different supply chain segments, says the American research center.
Canadian, South Korean and Australian companies are developing joint ventures with Chinese companies in lithium processing projects in Africa. Canada, Australia, and South Korea are all members of the Minerals Security Partnership, a U.S. initiative launched in June 2022 that aims to catalyze public and private investment in responsible critical minerals supply chains globally.
According to CSIS, Morocco comes out as the biggest winner from China’s latest strategic move thanks to its solid industrial landscape, stable political and economic environment, geographical proximity to Europe, FTAs with Europe and the U.S. and finally, its cheap labor cost compared to developed countries such as South Korea and Canada.
Morocco and those other countries thus find themselves as the “collateral beneficiaries” of the Sino-American rivalry in the supply chain of critical minerals, says the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Source: Northafricapost.com

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post CSIS: Morocco, Biggest Winner from U.S.-China Competition for Critical Minerals and Their Supply Chains appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

China permitted more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week. It’s the equivalent of about two new coal power plants per week. The report by energy data organizations Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air finds the country quadrupled the amount of new coal power approvals in 2022 compared to 2021.

That’s despite the fact that much of the world is getting off coal, says Flora Champenois, coal research analyst at Global Energy Monitor and one of the co-authors of the report.

“Everybody else is moving away from coal and China seems to be stepping on the gas,” she says. “We saw that China has six times as much plants starting construction as the rest of the world combined.”

What’s driving the new permitting of Chinese coal plants?

The report authors found the growth of new coal plant permitting appears to be a response to ongoing drought and last summer’s historic heat wave, which scientists say was made more likely because of climate change. The heat wave increased demand for air conditioning and led to problems with the grid. The heat and drought led rivers to dry up, including some parts of the Yangtze, and meant less hydropower.

“We’re seeing sort of this knee-jerk response of building a lot more coal plants to address that,” says Champenois.

High prices for liquified natural gas due to the war in Ukraine also led at least one province to turn to coal, says Aiqun Yu, co-author of the report and senior researcher at Global Energy Monitor.

New coal plant approvals accelerated last summer as China saw historic heat waves that increased demand for air conditioning. The heat and an ongoing drought meant rivers dried up, including part of the Yangtze. China’s grid struggled as hydropower went offline.

Why is China building new coal plants while also increasing renewables?

China leads the world in constructing new solar and new wind, while also building more coal plants than any other country, the report finds.

There are government and industry arguments that the coal plants will be used as backup support for renewables and during periods of intense electricity demand, like heat waves, says Ryna Cui, the assistant research director at the Center for Global Sustainability at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. “That’s being used as an excuse for new projects,” Cui says.

Last year’s boom in new coal didn’t come out of nowhere, says Yu, who notes that the domestic coal industry has long pushed the message that coal is a reliable form of energy security.

“When the energy crisis happened, when energy security is a big concern, the country just seeks solutions from coal by default,” Yu says.

Champenois says the surge in permits last year could be China’s coal industry seizing upon a last chance to get financing for new coal plants, which are increasingly uneconomical compared to renewables.

“We see it as a door opening, maybe one for one last time,” she says. “If you’re a power company, you’re gonna try to put your foot in that door.”

How does permitting new coal plants affect China’s goals to reduce emissions?

China is the world’s biggest emitter of fossil fuels and has pledged for its emissions to peak by 2030. But there are questions over how high that peak will get and how soon that peak will come, says Champenois.

The International Energy Agency recently reaffirmed there must be “no new development of unabated coal-fired power plants” to keep temperatures less than 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid the worst effects of climate change.

It’s too early to know how much the plants will run and how they will impact China’s emissions, says Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and one of the report’s co-authors.

The post China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Today’s world is going through major transformations. Among the most sensitive issues remains the availability of food and the challenges tied to it. In the past few years, such a seemingly basic problem has become more complicated to achieve for many countries.

Global economic challenges and the accompanying politicization of international cooperation, across virtually all areas, have undermined the effectiveness and transparency of existing market mechanisms. Rather than giving way to a new sustainable model, these mechanisms have been replaced by chaotic processes: in this sense, every country does whatever it can and cooperates with whomever it can.

Food security has emerged at the fore of discussions over the past year, especially when imbalances in food and fertilizer markets have become obvious, coupled with logistics challenges and export restrictions. All of that has primarily affected the world’s most vulnerable countries, mostly located in Africa.

Dependency on food imports

This is not some hackneyed slogan but plain facts. Most African countries are now in the phase of active demographic growth—in fact, nations faced with the more acute domestic challenges show the greatest rates of demographic growth. In 2022, the population of Niger grew by 3.71%, that of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) – by 3.2%, and that of Angola and Mali – by 3.1%. In percentages, this may look like a modest increase, but it comes to 5.75 million people, and that’s only in the four countries.

As is often noticed, this situation promises economic growth in the future. In the moment, however, this also places a burden on the existing social system. Africa’s population is getting younger, and children require more nutrient-rich foods. Some 63 million African children under the age of five are stunted. Half of these children come from five countries: Nigeria (19%), the DRC (12%), Ethiopia (10%), Tanzania (5%) and Angola (4%).

Predictably, this means that Africa is increasingly dependent on food imports. 36 African countries spend most of their export revenues on food imports, while food imports swallow up over 40% of export revenues in 19 countries. In Ethiopia, for example, the total value of food imported in 2019-2021 amounted to 81% of the value of the country’s exports. This highlights Addis Ababa’s extreme dependence on the global market. Given that Ethiopia is a landlocked country, the problem becomes even more acute. Dependence of island states on food imports is just as high. Mauritius, commonly considered a “success story in Africa,” spends 38% of its export revenue on food imports, which is 52% more than ten years ago.

Comparing the key indicators of the current state of food security with the case ten years ago (2012), it becomes obvious that things have turned a lot worse. Across the African continent, the estimated number of malnourished people has increased 1.7 times to exceed 262 million people. Such negative dynamics is typical even for the countries of Northern Africa, which are home to 11.1 million malnourished people. This is almost one and a half times more than ten years ago. The situation has to do not only with the difficult humanitarian situation in Libya but also with food supply-related challenges in Egypt and Morocco. Although, of course, on a larger scale, Africa’s main problem lies elsewhere.

How many people in Africa do not have enough food?

The situation is the most complicated in Eastern Africa and Western Africa, where almost 35% and 23% of the population are malnourished, respectively. Over the past 10 years, the situation in Uganda has become twice worse, in Kenya – 1.8 times worse, and in Tanzania and Ethiopia – 1.5 times worse. In Ethiopia, there are at least 26.4 million malnourished people. All of that comes down to a total of 70.5 million people – and that’s not counting Sudan, where the armed conflict that began in April 2023 prevents us from fully assessing the situation.

In Western Africa, the situation is most difficult in Nigeria, a country that has the biggest population in the region. The number of Nigerians who fail to eat properly has increased twofold and reached 34 million people. The situation is also growing worse in countries like Niger, Benin, the Gambia and Sierra Leone.

Unfortunately, reliable data sources are not available for all countries, especially given the wave of political changes that swept through the subregion in 2022-23. The DRC (with almost 34 million malnourished people) and Madagascar (with almost 15 million) remain the major concern.

However, these figures are only the tip of the iceberg, since they show the general trend rather than the real scale of the problem. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) suggests the situation has— in the course of the past 10 years —slightly improved only in Namibia, Eswatini, Djibouti, Ghana, Ivory Coast and Senegal – in other words, in six countries out of 54.

The figures become even more frightening if we replace the official term “undernourishment” with the notion of “severe food insecurity” – an assessment category based on the opinion of Africa’s population, according to household survey responses. Such surveys demonstrate that some 890 million people in Africa face severe food insecurity, which is about 60% of the continent’s entire population. Nigeria (260 million people), the DRC (226 million), Ethiopia (145 million), Tanzania (98 million) and Kenya (85 million) face the greatest challenges, and over 50 million people suffer from this problem in six other countries in the region.

Why water access is important

The food issue is closely associated with water access. There is no life without water, and so the most arid areas prone to climate change should have adequate water access. But another important aspect is effective farming, which is also impossible without water.

Water availability has somewhat improved in recent years, and the average 70% of the population in African countries have access to basic water services. This does not mean, however, that such water sources are completely safe for consumption. According to FAO estimates, only 19% of the population of the DRC, 12.6% of the population in Ethiopia, 6.2% of the population in Central African Republic (CAR), and 5.6% of the population in Chad have access to safe water sources. In the Republic of the Congo, that number is 46% – one of the best indicators in the region.

The people who didn’t make it into the “lucky” categories face an increased risk of cholera, dysentery, hepatitis A, typhoid fever, and other serious diseases. According to official data, in 2019, poor water quality caused 10% of all deaths in Chad, 9.5% of deaths in CAR, 8.2% in Niger and South Sudan, and 7% of deaths in Nigeria.

Take the current situation in Zambia. As a result of an ongoing cholera outbreak, 351 people have died, with more than 9,000 have become sick, schools have been closed and church services paused. Last year, the people of Malawi, too, faced the worst cholera epidemic in the country’s entire history, so this is not an isolated case.

Moreover, the data mentioned only characterizes the period from 2019-2022. In other words, it does not account for the political turbulence and market complications which arose in 2022-2023.

Food security: why importing more food does not equal feeding people

Although food security has come to light rather recently—mainly, against the background of other failures of the international system—the foundation of what is known as “food sovereignty” was laid back in 2007. Symbolically, this happened in Africa, at an international forum held in Mali and attended by participants from over 80 countries. The accepted definition of “food sovereignty”, a key outcome of the forum, contains several important elements that can help us find solution to this acute problem.

First, one of the principles of food sovereignty is that all peoples have the right to healthy and culturally appropriate food. When it comes to Africa, we must note certain details. For example, in recent decades, crop consumption in Africa has been influenced by European and Asian consumption habits. Europeans and Asians mainly consume wheat and rice. Although Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 11.6% of global wheat imports and 21.8% of rice imports, consumption of these products is steadily increasing. Over the past 10 years, wheat imports to Sub-Saharan Africa have grown 1.7 times, which even exceeds the overall growth rate of imported food.

This is a major aspect of food security because wheat and rice are produced outside of Africa, and so imports depend on external suppliers and market conditions, including political aspects. This is and may be a serious blow to Africa’s food sovereignty.

If a country still manages to import the product that is not grown at home, it does not mean that it will feed its people. Unpredictable import conditions often lead to increases in food prices domestically. According to the IMF, food inflation was about 24% in 2020-2022 and increased to 29% over the past year. Countries in Northern and Western Africa are particularly vulnerable when it comes to food inflation, which directly affects their standard of living. Moreover, problems are caused not only by food inflation but also by the shortage of fertilizers.

Sanctions pressure

In 2022-2023, the global fertilizer market found itself in a sort of limbo. Estimates show that sanctions resulted in countries across the world failing to receive 25 megatons (Mt) of fertilizers, and a third of the losses were due to logistics problems caused by the sanctions. The fertilizers were available, yes; but they were shipped with delays and there were many impediments on the way.

A recent Food Security Report, put together with the help of the Pan-African Parliament, shows the shifts that have occurred in the global fertilizer markets and what they mean for countries most in need of these fertilizers. In particular, the report claims that just one undelivered kilogram of fertilizers translates into the loss of seven kilograms of harvest. And shrinking harvests make these governments even more dependent on foreign markets, since they need to compensate for the losses. Ultimately, it’s Africa’s malnourished population that has to pay for all this.

Second, it was determined at the 2007 Mali Forum that all peoples have the right to define their own food and agriculture systems. Yet so far, due to several reasons, few countries have attained this goal.

On the one hand, food markets are controlled by large corporations, which dictate their rules to import-dependent governments. For example, the wheat trade has been monopolized by a group of four companies known as ABCD (Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus).

Since these corporations determine the logistics chains and control information about the quantities of available grain, African countries find themselves largely dependent on supplies from the Euro-Atlantic region, where about two-thirds of all shipments come from. This creates certain disparities between the producers and suppliers of grain.

The report also emphasized that the situation has been aggravated by sanctions. It confirmed the views frequently expressed by Russian diplomats: market challenges have primarily affected the world’s most vulnerable players, since the EU and the US could meet their needs at any cost, simply by increasing purchases of both grain and fertilizers. As a result, though, grain and fertilizers hardly reached African markets, notably because of the considerable increase in prices. It is not surprising that the authorities of Ethiopia, Mozambique, the DRC, Nigeria, and other countries complain about serious humanitarian problems caused by food shortages.

Diversifying food import sources and creating a domestic agricultural base

In any case, a food security system that guarantees the nation’s sovereignty cannot be built without diversifying supply sources and obtaining information about them in a timely manner. Since, market mechanisms don’t always work in the current conditions, solutions more often depend on bilateral agreements at the national level.

For this reason, Russia’s recent free shipments of grain to Africa’s most vulnerable countries may be seen not only as acts of friendship, partnership, and humanitarian relief, but also as a signal regarding further supplies a practical example demonstrating that Russia is able to ship grain to Africa even without the grain deal, and even considering the challenges with insurance and freight chartering.

On the other hand, the diversification of food supplies does not reduce Africa’s overall dependence on other countries. What can help is the development of a domestic agricultural base, which is particularly important for those countries where the soil is not suitable for efficient farming.

On average, 15% of all land in Africa is arable (however, in countries such as Botswana, Namibia, Gabon or the Republic of the Congo this number is less than 1.5%). However, only 1% of these lands are irrigated on average. Traditional farming practices still prevail in many African countries, and this impedes productivity and doesn’t guarantee a stable harvest from year to year.

Using modern fertilizers and developing logistics infrastructure

The situation can be changed only by using modern fertilizers. According to the mentioned report, the 32.9 megatons (Mt) of Ukrainian grain ensured by the Grain Deal has fed 95 million people, while the 10.7 mt of Russian fertilizers that were not delivered could have fed 199 million people. The difference is obvious, and it is not surprising that Africa’s demand for fertilizers is increasing.

In 2020, fertilizer supplies to Africa amounted to 7.2mt, but, due to an 85% price growth, supplies dropped to 3.8 mt by 2022, which is comparable to 2018. So while the region’s population has grown and its needs have increased, the availability of fertilizers has rolled back to 2018 indicators. However, for the situation to really change, fertilizer usage must become more consistent: currently, 60% of the overall volume of fertilizers is used only by five countries (Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Kenya). Logistics usually plays a key role, so food sovereignty is impossible without the necessary infrastructure.

The development of port and railway infrastructure across Africa and its connection with supply channels, as well as the development of processing and packaging facilities, and improved technical literacy are all components of food sovereignty. Russia is ready to share technologies with its partners in Africa, and Russian companies are interested in sharing their experience in precision farming, plant breeding, and digital solutions. Moreover, a growing number of African students are studying agriculture in Russian universities.

Food sovereignty does not imply food autarky. It would not be possible to replace the entire volume of food imports into Africa, given their scale. But the gradual diversification of supplies (which takes into account the concerns of all parties), the construction of the necessary infrastructure, and building internal capacity can help change the situation over time.

In the past year, Russia has demonstrated that it is ready to travel this path together with its African partners and has emerged not only as a reliable supplier but also as a partner willing to share its experience and competencies on an equal footing.

The post Feeding Africa: Sanctions make it worse, imports don’t help, what’s the solution? appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

US LNG exporter Cheniere and compatriot Bechtel have completed more than half of the work on the expansion phase at the Corpus Christi LNG export plant in Texas.

Cheniere’s Corpus Christi liquefaction plant now has three operational trains with each having a capacity of about 5 mtpa.

In June 2022, Cheniere took a final investment decision on the Corpus Christi Stage 3 expansion project worth about $8 billion and Bechtel officially started construction on the project in October the same year.

The project was 48.1 percent complete in November last year.

It includes building seven midscale trains, each with an expected liquefaction capacity of about 1.49 mtpa.

Cheniere’s unit Corpus Christi Liquefaction said in the December construction report filed with the US FERC this week that overall project completion for the Stage 3 project is 51.4 percent.

Stage 3 engineering and procurement are 83.7 percent and 72.2 percent complete, respectively, while subcontract and direct hire construction work are 66.9 percent and 11.1 percent complete, respectively, it said.

Train 1 mixed refrigerant compressor set (Image: Cheniere)

During December, CCL’s contractor Bechtel continued piling activities, road improvements, drainage work, and mobilization of temporary facilities, equipment, and personnel.

Piling and soil stabilization teams are making progress in trains 5, 6, and 7, while concrete work in train 1 is “significantly” complete, the firm said.

Concrete pouring is also underway in train 2 and train 3, and loading of aboveground piping spools is progressing in train 1.

Several large pieces of equipment have been installed including train 1 refrigeration compressors, train 1 liquefaction substation, train 2 cold boxes, the GIS substation, and train 2 utility substation, it said.

In August last year, first cold boxes arrived at the site.

US equipment manufacturer Chart Industries received in 2022 full notice to proceed for the expansion project from Bechtel for its IPMSR process and equipment activities.

OSBL west piperack erection (Image: Cheniere)

Cheniere previously said that LNG deliveries from the expansion project will begin in 2025 with full production in 2027.

However, Cheniere’s CEO Jack Fusco said in August last year that the company is expecting to complete the expansion phase ahead of schedule.

He said in November that construction on Corpus Christi Stage 3 “continues to progress ahead of plan, and I am optimistic first LNG production from train 1 will occur by the end of 2024.”

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Cheniere’s Corpus Christi LNG expansion project more than 51 complete appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

The EU’s industrial powerhouse is plagued by falling orders and growing production costs

 

The post Germany destroying its car industry – Putin appeared first on Energy News Beat.