Wind farms threaten to speed up North Sea decommissioning
Oil and gas operators planning to prolong fields’ lifespan may find themselves increasingly in conflict with wind farm developers
A consortium of Dutch, German and Danish companies wrote in a concept paper on 9 July that the North Sea Wind Power Hub (NSWPH) they are developing would have an estimated capacity of 180GW by 2045, providing clean power to “hundreds of millions of Europeans” in those countries and the UK. “To meet the ambitious targets as set in the Paris Agreement, a large-scale roll-out of offshore wind is required. Increased spatial use by offshore wind energy and transmission infrastructure is then expected accordingly.” Because the turbine foundations deemed the most cost effective need a water depth of less than 55 metres—and as the targeted area is already used extensively for shipping, military exercises and fisheries—there is not currently enough available space for the required number of offshore wind farms (OWFs). “If we take an exclusionary approach, and only install farms in areas that are not currently being used, there simply is not enough room for a cost effective, large-scale build out of offshore wind power in the North Sea” says Peter Larsen, a development consultant at Danish grid firm Energinet. The firm is developing the project with the Dutch power grid operator Tennet, its gas equivalent Gasunie and the Port of Rotterdam.
Competing timeframes
The NSWPH’s first phase would be connected to shore as early the 2030s. But the British authorities expect decommissioning work to continue in the area until 2060. Larsen says the eventual decision on whether projects such as the NSWPH should take precedence over the oil and gas sector in the North Sea is one that must be taken by governments. “Which will be the most cost-effective source of power from a social-economic perspective, as part of the green energy transition?” he asks. It is fair to say that it is a leading question. Currently only 3pc of the area the NSWPH would need is available, or only 14,000 km2, according to the NSWPH researchers’ February feasibility study. The largest spatial risk created by the oil and gas sectors is not platforms themselves, but the helicopter landing safe zone of 2.5 nautical miles around these. In some cases, it may be possible to site an OWF’s turbines to accommodate these zones—but not all. “After drawing OWFs in the GIS mapping tool, it was discovered that there are attractive farm locations that have so much overlap between helicopter zones, that one can actually not adapt the wind farm, so the oil and gas function needs to adapt,” the study says. The authors also say confidentiality on which specific platforms will be gone by the year 2030 makes it harder to make spatial plans. While that information is commercially sensitive, oil producer lobby goup OGUK found last November in a report on decommissioning that higher oil prices and a “relentless focus” on efficiency were pushing field retirements further into the future. Its report forecasts that decommissioning activity will remain relatively stable over the next decade.
Peaceful co-existence
OGUK’s view is that there is no need for conflict between the wind power and oil and gas in the North Sea—and that sharing the spatial resources could be beneficial. “Strong cooperation between different sectors is crucial as the UK invests in all forms of energy production to meet its future energy needs”, OGUK says. “The overlap phase when decommissioning takes place alongside the installation of new offshore wind structures could provide the opportunity for the different sectors to align interests and collaborate on things like logistics costs and stakeholder engagement.” For its part, the NSWPH developers also accept that “co-utilisation” will be necessary in the future, adding that “the extent to which co-utilization will be needed highly depends on future developments such as the decommissioning of oil and gas platforms”. https://www.petroleum-economist.com/articles/politics-economics/europe-eurasia/2019/wind-farms-threaten-to-speed-up-north-sea-decommissioning?hootPostID=271f29a013ef2922e07192d9cb92b6b3
Gerald Butt, Petroleum Economist Two years after the economic and political boycott on Qatar, the Gulf state is pressing on with LNG expansion plans. Qatar Petroleum (QP) in April asked three joint ventures to bid for the main engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract for four mega-LNG trains, each with 8.8mn t/yr capacity, and related facilities. A month later it asked firms to bid to carry out EPC work for LNG storage and loading facilities. QP announced in 2017, after the boycott was imposed, that it planned to increase LNG output capacity from 77mn t/yr to 100mn t/yr, by producing more gas from the vast offshore North field. The following year it unveiled an even more ambitious plan — to target capacity of 110mn t/yr. And despite the fact that there is no end to the political dispute that has destroyed the credibility of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Qatar is not looking back. The consortiums competing for the contracts to build the mega-trains are: Chiyoda and Technip; JGC Corporation and Hyundai Engineering and Construction; and Saipem, McDermott and CTCI Corporation. The announcement of the EPC contract is expected in January 2020, with work to be completed by 2024. Qatar believes that the new development will come on stream just as demand for LNG will start to exceed supply. McDermott International has been given the EPC role for eight new offshore jackets in the North field. Onshore site preparation for the four LNG trains at Ras Laffan is being carried out by Consolidated Contractors Company and Teyseer Trading and Contracting Company. Chiyoda is completing the FEED work for the onshore facilities, and further contract awards related to the expansion project are expected in the coming months. 
Saad al-Kaabi Minister of Energy and Chairman of QP New LNG carriers To cater for the North Field expansion and Qatar’s offtake from the Golden Pass LNG export project in the US, QP in April issued an invitation to tender for the construction of LNG carriers. QP CEO Saad al-Kaabi says the initial order would be to “deliver 60 LNG carriers in support of the planned production expansion, with a potential to exceed 100 new carriers over the next decade”. 110mn t/yr — Qatar’s planned LNG capacity 
Roudi Baroudi Energy Economist During 2018, Qatar maintained its position as the largest exporter of LNG, with 28pc of global market share, according to the International Gas Union. However, with other countries increasing capacity, Qatar’s share has been falling. Australia has now overtaken Qatar as the biggest producer — but will be nudged out of that spot when the Ras Laffan expansion is complete. Call for talks In the meantime, Qatar continues to call for talks to end the political dispute with its neighbours, but they appear to have no interest in ending the boycott. “The countries besieging Qatar know it is ready to sit down at the negotiating table, whether under the aegis of the GCC or any other set-up,” says Roudi Baroudi, a Doha-based energy consultant. “Qatari officials remain hopeful that their counterparts will soon change course and join the search for sovereign, fair and workable solutions.” For now at least, Qatar is prepared to carry on regardless — without undue concern. The IMF said in late 2018 that “significant fiscal and external buffers have enabled Qatar to successfully absorb the adverse shocks from the 2014-16 decline in oil prices and the diplomatic rift. We anticipate overall real GDP growth of 3.1pc in 2019, with still robust non-hydrocarbon growth and recovery in oil and gas production.” 
In Baroudi’s view, “while Qataris continue to face illegal and discriminatory measures attached to the commercial blockade, their country has the wherewithal to sustain the current situation for as long as it takes”. 
ZURICH – Finland’s central bank governor, Olli Rehn, has reiterated his call for the European Central Bank to conduct a long-overdue review of its policy framework. The upcoming change of leadership at the institution – with Christine Lagarde, the International Monetary Fund’s managing director since 2011, likely to succeed Mario Draghi as president – offers an important opportunity to heed that call.
When the ECB was established 20 years ago, central banks were generally not too clear about the details of their policy frameworks. At that time, some ambiguity may have been helpful, because of the flexibility it offered when the ECB started operating. Furthermore, it allowed central bankers with different experiences and perspectives to agree on a framework, even though they may not have agreed on its precise details.
But the world has changed considerably since then, and the public is now demanding far more clarity. How can the ECB offer that, 16 years after the last review of its monetary-policy framework?
Since that review, conducted in 2003, the global financial crisis, and the ensuing European debt crisis, prompted the ECB to adopt a plethora of new policy instruments. These crisis measures – which have been deeply unpopular, particularly in Germany – can be justified only to the extent that they have been effective, and this must be evaluated. Moreover, as Rehn, who sits on the ECB’s governing council, has noted, long-run structural trends – such as population aging, lower long-term interest rates, and climate change – must be considered.
The effectiveness of ECB policy requires the members of the governing council to be singing from the same song sheet. They need a shared understanding of Europe’s long-term goals and the strengths and weaknesses of various policy instruments. And, in order to strengthen accountability and support smart decision-making, they need to be able to spell out the details of their monetary-policy strategies in ways that the public can understand.
As it stands, such clarity is at times hard to find, even when it comes to some of the most fundamental elements of the ECB’s policy strategy. Price stability – the ECB’s primary objective – is currently expressed as “inflation below, but close to, 2%.” Does 1% inflation meet that condition, or is it too low, demanding more monetary-policy accommodation? Different members of the ECB’s governing council may well have different answers to this question, and thus support different policies.
The same goes for the questions of whether the ECB’s inflation target is symmetric – with the authorities intervening as vigorously when inflation is too low as they do when inflation is too high – and whether inflation should be measured over time or at a given moment. If, over some period, the inflation rate ranges from 0% to 4%, but averages to “below, but close to, 2%,” has the objective been achieved?
The answer has major policy implications. If inflation is measured over time, the ECB could accept, or perhaps even aim for, a somewhat higher inflation rate in the medium term, to compensate for the excessively low inflation of recent years. If the public came to believe that a period of above-target inflation was likely, the expected real interest rate would fall, giving a jolt to the economy.
Of course, Draghi has established in speeches and press conferences that, in his view, the inflation target is symmetric; 1% inflation is too low; and the inflation rate should be measured over the “medium term.” But it is not clear whether this view is broadly shared within the ECB’s governing council.
Inflation targeting is hardly the only area where ambiguity is hampering effective policymaking and leaving market participants wondering what to expect. The ECB’s outright monetary transactions (OMT) scheme – whereby the ECB promises to purchase bonds issued by eurozone member states on secondary sovereign-bond markets – is also generating significant uncertainty.
OMT, Draghi’s chosen tool for fulfilling his 2012 vow to do “whatever it takes to preserve the euro,” was controversial from the moment it was announced, with Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann – one of Lagarde’s main rivals for the ECB presidency – arguing fiercely against it in public. But that was seven years ago, and OMT has never actually been used. Is the governing council still committed to it? Or have the events – and council membership changes – of the last few years rendered that commitment obsolete?
With public debt in Greece and Italy still far too high, the eurozone still at risk of slipping into a recession that would significantly worsen both countries’ fiscal positions, and Italian politics as volatile as ever, it would pay to know. A review of the kind Rehn demands would provide the needed answers – and put the ECB on much sounder footing for a new era of leadership.
STEFAN GERLACH