PARIS : Webinaire, La Méditerranée Orientale à la Croisée des Chemins
Le Transatlantic Leadership Network annonce la publication de Maritime Disputes in the Eastern Mediterranean : The Way Forward, de Roudi Baroudi.
La Méditerranée orientale à la croisée des chemins : Les questions énergétiques au premier plan
Jeudi 11 juin 2020 9 H 30 – 11 H 00 EST
Avec la participation de : Dr. Roudi Baroudi, directeur général, Energy & Environment Holding ; Jonathan Moore, U.S. Department of State ; Senior Bureau Official/Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs ; Kurt Donnelly, U.S. Department of State. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Diplomacy, Bureau of Energy Resources. Sous-secrétaire adjoint pour la diplomatie énergétique, Bureau des ressources énergétiques.
Remarques préliminaires : John B. Craig, Ambassadeur, Senior Fellow, Transatlantic Leadership Network.
Modéré par : Debra Cagan, Distinguished Energy Fellow, Transatlantic Leadership Network
« Un commentaire d’expert et un travail de fond ».
John B. Craig, ambassadeur, ancien assistant spécial du président George W. Bush pour la lutte contre le terrorisme, et ancien ambassadeur des États-Unis à Oman
« Baroudi plaide avec force pour un compromis afin que les États de la région puissent dépasser leurs différends coûteux et récolter les bénéfices de la coopération. L’approche de M. Baroudi a beaucoup à nous apprendre et, espérons-le, contribuera à des progrès pacifiques, si seulement les parties adverses l’écoutent ».
Andrew Novo, professeur associé d’études stratégiques à l’Université de la défense nationale
« …Les pays de la région, ainsi que les États-Unis et l’Union européenne, devraient adopter l’approche de Baroudi pour réduire les tensions et profiter des avantages de cette manne d’énergie ».
Douglas Hengel, maître de conférences dans le cadre du programme sur l’énergie, les ressources et l’environnement de l’université Johns Hopkins, SAIS et chercheur au German Marshall Fund
À propos de l’auteur
Roudi Baroudi a 40 ans d’expérience dans les domaines du pétrole et du gaz, de la pétrochimie, de l’électricité, de la réforme du secteur de l’énergie, de la sécurité énergétique, de l’environnement, des mécanismes de commerce du carbone, de la privatisation et des infrastructures. Ses avis sur ces questions et d’autres questions connexes sont fréquemment sollicités par des entreprises locales et internationales, des gouvernements et des médias.
For Oil and Its Dependents, It’s Code Blue
If oil has been laid low by the coronavirus, then the nations whose economies most depend on it might soon be on ventilators. By any prognosis the great oil price collapse of 2020 has pushed the world’s most volatile commodity into Code Blue.
No one expects oil, its peddlers or consumers to emerge wealthier or wiser from this crisis. Oil company bankruptcies, already happening before the pandemic, will escalate. And more petro states will begin to stumble, like Venezuela, down the rabbit hole of collapse.
The pandemic, combined with suicidal overproduction and a brief price war between Russia and Saudi Arabia, has reduced oil consumption and revenues on a scale that is mindboggling.
Prior to the pandemic, the world gulped about 100 million barrels a day, filling the atmosphere with destabilizing carbon. Today it sips somewhere between 65 million and 80 million barrels.
At least 20 to 30 per cent of global demand has vanished and nearly two dozen petro-producing countries including Canada have agreed to withhold nearly 10 million barrels from the market. Few expect this agreement will stop the price bleeding.
In fact, the price of Western Canadian Select or diluted bitumen remains below five dollars a barrel — cheaper than hand sanitizer. That’s a drop of more than 80 per cent compared to the month before.
Because the spending of oil fertilizes economic growth and expands national GDPs, most of the world’s economists now predict a long depression after the pandemic.
A depression, by definition, means less energy spending, which translates into ongoing low energy prices that already no longer cover the cost of extraction in many places.
And what happens if the pandemic comes in three waves like the deadly Spanish flu of 1918?
The patient was already sick
Art Berman, one of North America’s most astute and consistently reliable oil analysts, admits the pandemic is compounding the problems of an industry and global economy already in waning health.
“Energy is the economy, and oil is the largest and most productive part of world energy. The global economy has been dying of accumulated debt for 50 years. Coronavirus has sent it to the intensive care unit.
“If the economic patient survives the ICU, it will need a long period of recovery and therapy before returning to its previous life.”
Wood Mackenzie, the British consultancy, now estimates that 10 per cent of global oil production is uneconomic insanity at prices below $25 a barrel.
Heavy oil of the sort Canada produces requires extensive upgrading and pricey transportation costs. It’s always the first to feel the pinch of any volatility because of its high cost — about $45 a barrel.
In comparison, the petro states of Russia and Saudi Arabia can pour oil into the marketplace for less than $10 a barrel — though as the brief price war attested, not for long. Saudi Arabia actually needs $80 a barrel oil to balance its budget, which like every typical petro state, it is not doing.
The fading dream of Canada as petro-power
Canada, the world’s fourth largest oil exporter, banked its destiny on the export of low-grade bitumen with no strategic risk planning. As a result it will experience huge economic losses and roller-coaster volatility for its currency.
Alberta promoted over-production and pressed for new pipelines to carry the increased flow. Now, as global demand plummets, it can no longer fill the pipelines it has.
Rystad Energy, the proficient Norwegian-based analyst, has already noted that of all the world’s oil producers, Canada will be “the most affected so far.” Lacking buyers at a suitable price, it will produce well below its capabilities this year, “shutting in” nearly 1.1 million barrels per day.
Investment in the oilsands, which reached highs of $30 billion in 2014, has now dropped to below $6 billion this year. In addition, Canadian oil and gas companies have further trimmed their spending by more than $10 billion.
The U.S.-based IHS Markit, another big data firm, describes the price collapse as “unprecedented” and says “the impact on the basin is expected to be protracted” with “long lasting ramifications” for the region.
Canada’s six largest banks, which loaned $58.8 billion to the Canada’s overleveraged oil industry in 2019 — a 59 per cent increase in the last five years — might quietly be panicking in board rooms at an appropriate physical distance.
Robyn Allan is an independent economist who before the pandemic and oil price wars persistently challenged the economics touted to support the Trans Mountain pipeline. She foresees much trouble ahead for the industry.
“After this crisis, things will not return to where they were. All economic activity is affected by the virus outbreak. And just like some people who catch it and move from home to hospital to ICU because of weak systems or pre-existing conditions, the tarsands were already an aging and compromised activity that was on the downside of its life cycle. Big Oil in Canada was going to be hard hit without COVID-19. With it, many companies are going to go under — and go under quickly.”
Allan says the trend lines will sharpen the choices Canada’s political leaders must make. “As long as government continues to pander to the needs of Big Oil at the expense of the needs of society and the environment, it will spend money unwisely.”
‘Gasmaggedon’ hits BC
Natural gas, whose price is often tied to oil, is another sick patient on oxygen. Many analysts refer to that fuel’s price collapse as “gasmaggedon.”
A global glut plunged prices to record lows last year, and now the pandemic has lowered them again. A succession of warm winters has flattened the demand for gas heating, which just adds to the economic storm.
Rystad Energy predicts that if low prices persist — and most forecasts suggest low prices for years — “nearly 42 per cent of Australia’s gas resources would be rendered uneconomic — a scary thought to the world’s largest gas exporter.”
Such prospects must weigh heavily on B.C. Premier John Horgan. His government has actively subsidized the province’s faltering fracking industry, along with Shell’s LNG Canada terminal.
His province’s billion-dollar subsidies include the construction of the Site C dam to provide cheap electricity to the LNG industry. Horgan and his predecessor Christy Clark promised that an LNG windfall of revenue and jobs would justify the low royalties, loosened environmental restrictions, strained First Nations relations and gambled taxpayer money on the emerging export industry.
Now that promise looks undeliverable, as the pandemic rocks B.C.’s economy and a healthy global LNG market recedes from view.
Fracked oil’s business model ‘does not work’
By any measure, the pandemic found the oil industry suffering from the financial equivalent of obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes. Already half the industry, inflated by cheap credit, was struggling with high-cost technology, chronic overproduction and low prices.
Although fracking tight oil formations in the United States turned that country into a temporary oil exporter, the artificial boom contained the seeds of its own bust.
Because fracking requires constant drilling due to rapid depletion of shale formations, most companies have spent more money than they’ve earned over the last decade. In fact, most frackers started as pure speculative plays designed to be flipped like some super-hyped stock.
Even before COVID-19 exploded in the U.S., public lenders and the Wall Street Journal repeatedly flagged the industry as unsustainable.
“By now, it should be abundantly clear that the current shale oil business model does not work — even for the very best companies in the industry,” the investment firm SailingStone Capital Partners explained in a recent letter.
The imminent deaths of ‘zombie companies’
Bankruptcies in both Alberta and Texas have been rife. Bernard F. Clark Jr., a lawyer with Haynes and Boone, explained to the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 27 why so many companies were going broke long before the virus arrived.
“They’re called zombie companies. The creditors would keep them on life support by not calling the notes and just restructuring them and extending the maturity, kicking the can down the road. Now there’s no incentive for the creditors to continue to keep those companies on life support.”
The proliferation of zombie companies, which has left Alberta with tens of billions worth of orphaned and inactive wells, reflects a systemic crisis that has been gnawing away at the industry for years.
In the 1980s, the oil and gas sector occupied 28 per cent of the Standard and Poor’s Index; today it barely accounts for 2.6 per cent. For the last decade the industry has consistently delivered poor returns in the stock market because fracked oil, like bitumen, costs more to extract and requires higher prices to pay off debt, let alone make a profit.
Most importantly, fracked oil and sulfurous bitumen deliver lower energy returns than cheap oil. Lower energy returns mean diminished financial rewards, profits, revenues and taxes.
To understand the importance of energy returns, consider what your own body needs. If you expend more energy procuring dinner than you can extract from it, then your future will likely involve rapid weight reduction or starvation.
One hundred years ago, cheap oil was easy to extract. It was, says Spanish analyst Antonio Turiel, comparable to drinking a glass of water. Today that glass is either full of abrasive sand or so empty that a complex operation to condense water from the air is required.
When civilizations, just like humans or any other animal, experience diminishing energy returns, they either shrink or collapse or do both.
It was once feared that the extra effort and expense needed to extract “tight” or difficult oil would result in such high prices that the economy would be brought to a standstill.
But that’s not how things are falling out. We haven’t run out of oil. Instead, we have run out of demand for oil at high enough prices to smoothly run the petro-economy. This is tied to “excessive wage and wealth disparity,” notes the accountant Gail Tverberg.
In short, “commodity prices that are too low for producers” are in other places too high for consumers.
The financial casualties will surge
In a recent presentation to the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates that state’s oil production, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis noted that North America’s industry is contracting due to high debt, risible cash flows and extreme costs.
IEEFA, which supports a move to cap or “shut in” a million barrels of production a day in that state, described the industry’s future in frank terms. It will consist of fewer companies. They will extract less oil and gas. They will be highly competitive — much like Canada’s top five oilsands producers. They will produce fewer revenues for their dependent states, and as a result their outsized political power will gradually erode.
Art Berman predicts shale plays won’t vanish, but their output will be lower. “Many companies will disappear. I doubt that oil production or prices will return to 2018 levels for many years.”
He ends with this tidy summary of the crisis: “It seems unlikely that what is happening today will cause society to experience some transformative epiphany that will end the age of oil. If anything, we will need inexpensive liquid fuel more than ever in a poorer world. Rather than seeing 2020 as a year of unspeakable loss, it is my sincere wish that we somehow find ways to live better with somewhat less.”
In the meantime, jurisdictions particularly dependent on oil and gas extraction are having to jarringly recalibrate their budgets and expectations amid rising political tensions.
Alaska, which garners about 34 per cent of its revenue from oil, thought the resource would be selling for $66 a barrel right now. Alberta, which depends on oil to cover 10 per cent of its budget, said it needed $58 a barrel. Nigeria, Texas, New Mexico, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, you name it — all made similar projections.
All face plummeted prices — U.S. crude, for one example, tumbled to an 18-year low of $18 a barrel on Friday.
Newfoundland once boasted, in 2009, that 30 per cent of its revenue came from offshore oil. Now it is less than 10 per cent, and as runaway debt due to its hydroelectric megaproject takes its toll, that province sits on the verge of bankruptcy.
Add Newfoundland to the list of petro-states small and large that were already wheezing before Code Blue. Now the pandemic has put them on economic ventilators with no guarantee of quick recovery.
Dodging environmental rules is about to get harder for shippers
A tweak to new environmental rules for the shipping industry is just days from taking effect, closing off a loophole for would-be cheats looking to cut their fuel bills.
Starting March 1, shippers will be prohibited from carrying highly sulphurous marine fuel for later consumption at sea, far from the eyes of regulators. It builds upon broader rules, widely known as IMO 2020, which have restricted vessels from burning such fuel since the start of the year.
The alteration means port authorities the world over can pounce on vessels that have non-compliant fuel on board for use on the high seas. Until now, carrying such cargo has been allowed, meaning individual vessels could save thousands of dollars every day by cheating.
“We expect fairly high compliance in North America and Europe, but lower compliance outside those major bunkering hubs, especially in Asia, Africa the Middle East and, to some extent, Latin America,” said Mark Williams, principal analyst for short-term refining and oil product markets at Wood Mackenzie Ltd.
While most of the big-name shippers are already complying with the sulphur cap, others might not be so scrupulous, Williams said. For example, a tanker carrying high-sulphur fuel could discharge the product onto another vessel via a ship-to-ship transfer in the open ocean. With no regulatory authorities around to interfere, the receiving vessel could then sail away, burning cheap, non-compliant fuel. Still, the actual number of cheats is likely to be small.
The International Maritime Organization, part of the UN, established its low-sulphur rule and the carriage ban as a way to cut down on sulphur, a pollutant that has been linked to issues from acid rain to asthma. It’s the most far-reaching change in years for both the shipping industry and fuel-producing refiners.
This year, Wood Mackenzie expects the vast majority of the world’s marine fuel burned by shippers to comply with IMO regulations. The carriage ban will likely increase compliance, but only to a limited extent, Williams said. As recently as December, a long list of countries hadn’t signed on to the sulphur limit, hampering enforcement of those rules.
The UAE, home to the bunkering port of Fujairah, has said it will take a flexible approach. Others have said the sulphur cap and the accompanying carriage ban will be applied without exception.
While the price gap between the old and new fuels has narrowed, the temptation to cheat for some must still be acute. A 10-year-old Capesize iron ore carrier can consume 62 tons of fuel a day, according to data from Clarkson Research Services Ltd. So far this year, one of the main new products, very-low sulphur fuel oil, costs an average of about $223 a tonne more in Rotterdam than the old kind, meaning a saving of almost $14,000 a day. That saving has declined in recent days.
To put that in context, some of the vessels are now making heavy losses. The carriers are earning just under $2,400 a day from charters, according to data from the Baltic Exchange in London. That’s far below what they need just to cover basic running costs like crew, insurance and repairs – let alone repay bank loans or eke out a profit.
China’s shipping association said this week that it wanted the sulphur cap delayed because the coronavirus has hit the industry’s finances hard. Marine fuel demand in February has been cut by 2mn tonnes amid a halt in activity at the country’s ports, according to Energy Aspects Ltd. The IMO said a delay won’t be possible because the rules are already under way.
The coronavirus has complicated efforts to prepare some ships for the March 1 deadline because of contingency measures at some ports, especially in eastern Asia, according to Lars Robert Pedersen, deputy secretary general of shipping industry group BIMCO.
“We expect that the vast majority of ships are prepared for the carriage ban date,” he said.
US ROLE ‘CRUCIAL’ FOR EAST MED OIL AND GAS BOOM – ENERGY EXPERT
ATHENS, Greece: Keeping the United States engaged in the Eastern Mediterranean is the surest way to help the region get the most out of its hydrocarbon resources, an industry veteran told a conference in Athens on Thursday.
Roudi Baroudi, CEO of Energy and Environment Holding, an independent consultancy based in Qatar, told the first day of the Athens Energy Dialogues that peace and stability were prerequisites for sound development of the sector.
“This part of the world has long and painful experience of instability, and recent events indicate that the ingredients for more conflict are still very much on the table,” he told his audience. “In order to realize the potential offered by oil and gas, we need to learn from our shared history and avoid repeating it.”
While several East Med countries have discovered significant oil and gas deposits off their coasts in recent years, most of the region’s maritime boundaries are yet to be agreed, leaving ownership of the resources in dispute. The uncertainty threatens to discourage investment and delay development on multiple fronts, including the auctioning of offshore blocks for exploration and production, and the construction of processing and pipeline facilities for the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Western Europe. Baroudi’s frequent advocacy of diplomacy to resolve these differences has made him something of an unofficial ambassador for dialogue and other peaceful means of dispute resolution under international law.
With more than four decades in the energy business, Baroudi has helped shape policy and investment choices for companies, governments, investors, and supranational organizations like the United Nations and the European Union. He said the UN and related institutions offered a variety of mechanisms by which countries might find ways to replace politico-military competition with at least tacit cooperation, but also warned that much of the internationalist playbook was under threat.
Citing former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, he noted that UN institutions only work as intended when member states follow the rules and encourage others to do the same.
The effectiveness of the rules-based system developed after World War II, he argued, “stems primarily from the participation and goodwill of all member states, but especially the strongest and most influential among them – and in particular, therefore, the United States.”
“Much of this architecture has recently been undermined by some of the very countries that once championed its suitability for keeping the peace, maintaining stability, and otherwise providing peoples with the tools, the time, and the space they need to govern themselves and grow their economies,” Baroudi warned. “The UN itself can only promote the kind of preventive diplomacy that abets both peacemaking and peacekeeping; actual implementation depends very much on the policies and practices of member states. And then as now, no member state is more crucial to that reality than the United States. It alone has the requisite power, presence, and influence … It behooves all regional states, therefore, to keep the USA engaged in the Eastern Med.”
The Truth About the Trump Economy
t is becoming conventional wisdom that US President Donald Trump will be tough to beat in November, because, whatever reservations about him voters may have, he has been good for the American economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
NEW YORK – As the world’s business elites trek to Davos for their annual gathering, people should be asking a simple question: Have they overcome their infatuation with US President Donald Trump?
Two years ago, a few rare corporate leaders were concerned about climate change, or upset at Trump’s misogyny and bigotry. Most, however, were celebrating the president’s tax cuts for billionaires and corporations and looking forward to his efforts to deregulate the economy. That would allow businesses to pollute the air more, get more Americans hooked on opioids, entice more children to eat their diabetes-inducing foods, and engage in the sort of financial shenanigans that brought on the 2008 crisis.
Today, many corporate bosses are still talking about the continued GDP growth and record stock prices. But neither GDP nor the Dow is a good measure of economic performance. Neither tells us what’s happening to ordinary citizens’ living standards or anything about sustainability. In fact, US economic performance over the past four years is Exhibit A in the indictment against relying on these indicators.
To get a good reading on a country’s economic health, start by looking at the health of its citizens. If they are happy and prosperous, they will be healthy and live longer. Among developed countries, America sits at the bottom in this regard. US life expectancy, already relatively low, fell in each of the first two years of Trump’s presidency, and in 2017, midlife mortality reached its highest rate since World War II. This is not a surprise, because no president has worked harder to make sure that more Americans lack health insurance. Millions have lost their coverage, and the uninsured rate has risen, in just two years, from 10.9% to 13.7%.
One reason for declining life expectancy in America is what Anne Case and Nobel laureate economist Angus Deaton call deaths of despair, caused by alcohol, drug overdoses, and suicide. In 2017 (the most recent year for which good data are available), such deaths stood at almost four times their 1999 level.
The only time I have seen anything like these declines in health – outside of war or epidemics – was when I was chief economist of the World Bank and found out that mortality and morbidity data confirmed what our economic indicators suggested about the dismal state of the post-Soviet Russian economy.
Trump may be a good president for the top 1% – and especially for the top 0.1% – but he has not been good for everyone else. If fully implemented, the 2017 tax cut will result in tax increases for most households in the second, third, and fourth income quintiles.
Given tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the ultrarich and corporations, it should come as no surprise that there was no significant change in the median US household’s disposable income between 2017 and 2018 (again, the most recent year with good data). The lion’s share of the increase in GDP is also going to those at the top. Real median weekly earnings are just 2.6% above their level when Trump took office. And these increases have not offset long periods of wage stagnation. For example, the median wage of a full-time male worker (and those with full-time jobs are the lucky ones) is still more than 3% below what it was 40 years ago. Nor has there been much progress on reducing racial disparities: in the third quarter of 2019, median weekly earnings for black men working full-time were less than three-quarters the level for white men.
Making matters worse, the growth that has occurred is not environmentally sustainable – and even less so thanks to the Trump administration’s gutting of regulations that have passed stringent cost-benefit analyses. The air will be less breathable, the water less drinkable, and the planet more subject to climate change. In fact, losses related to climate change have already reached new highs in the US, which has suffered more property damage than any other country – reaching some 1.5% of GDP in 2017.
The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment. Instead, they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $800 billion in 2018 – by some of America’s most profitable companies, and led to record peacetime deficits (almost $1 trillion in fiscal 2019) in a country supposedly near full employment. And even with weak investment, the US had to borrow massively abroad: the most recent data show foreign borrowing at nearly $500 billion a year, with an increase of more than 10% in America’s net indebtedness position in one year alone.
Likewise, Trump’s trade wars, for all their sound and fury, have not reduced the US trade deficit, which was one-quarter higher in 2018 than it was in 2016. The 2018 goods deficit was the largest on record. Even the deficit in trade with China was up almost a quarter from 2016. The US did get a new North American trade agreement, without the investment agreement provisions that the Business Roundtable wanted, without the provisions raising drug prices that the pharmaceutical companies wanted, and with better labor and environmental provisions. Trump, a self-proclaimed master deal maker, lost on almost every front in his negotiations with congressional Democrats, resulting in a slightly improved trade arrangement.
And despite Trump’s vaunted promises to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, the increase in manufacturing employment is still lower than it was under his predecessor, Barack Obama, once the post-2008 recovery set in, and is still markedly below its pre-crisis level. Even the unemployment rate, at a 50-year low, masks economic fragility. The employment rate for working-age males and females, while rising, has increased less than during the Obama recovery, and is still significantly below that of other developed countries. The pace of job creation is also markedly slower than it was under Obama.
Again, the low employment rate is not a surprise, not least because unhealthy people can’t work. Moreover, those on disability benefits, in prison – the US incarceration rate has increased more than sixfold since 1970, with some two million people currently behind bars – or so discouraged that they are not actively seeking jobs are not counted as “unemployed.” But, of course, they are not employed. Nor is it a surprise that a country that doesn’t provide affordable childcare or guarantee family leave would have lower female employment – adjusted for population, more than ten percentage points lower – than other developed countries.
Even judging by GDP, the Trump economy falls short. Last quarter’s growth was just 2.1%, far less than the 4%, 5%, or even 6% Trump promised to deliver, and even less than the 2.4% average of Obama’s second term. That is a remarkably poor performance considering the stimulus provided by the $1 trillion deficit and ultra-low interest rates. This is not an accident, or just a matter of bad luck: Trump’s brand is uncertainty, volatility, and prevarication, whereas trust, stability, and confidence are essential for growth. So is equality, according to the International Monetary Fund.
So, Trump deserves failing grades not just on essential tasks like upholding democracy and preserving our planet. He should not get a pass on the economy, either.
Greece, Cyprus, Israel sign EastMed pipeline deal
Greece, Cyprus and Israel yesterday signed an agreement for a huge pipeline project to ship gas from the eastern Mediterranean to Europe. The 2,000km (1,200-mile) EastMed pipeline will be able to carry between nine and 12bn cubic metres of gas a year from off shore reserves held by Israel and Cyprus to Greece, and then on to Italy and other southeastern European countries. The discovery of hydrocarbon reserves in the eastern Mediterranean has sparked a scramble for the energy riches.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades joined the ceremony at which their respective energy ministers signed the deal in the Greek capital. The EastMed project is expected to make the three countries key links in Europe’s energy supply chain. The EastMed alliance “is of enormous importance to the state of Israel’s energy future and its development into an energy power and also from the point of view of stability in the region,” Netanyahu said in a statement issued as he left Israel for Greece yesterday. Mitsotakis said the pipeline was of “geo-strategic importance” and would contribute to regional peace. Earlier, Greek Energy Minister Kostis Hatzidakis called it “a project of peace and co-operation”.
Anastasiades said his aim was “co-operation and not rivalry in the Middle East.” Avinoam Idan, a former Israeli government security off icial who is now a geostrategy expert at Haifa University, said of the deal: “It’s important for Israel, it’s important for the transit countries, Greece and Cyprus, and of course Europe.” As the new source of energy would not compete with Russian supplies to the EU, “there is no reason to see it as a big change in the geopolitical dynamic in Europe’s energy market,” he told AFP. The Greek economic daily Kathimerini said on Wednesday that Athens and Nicosia had been in a hurry to finalise EastMed so as “to counter any attempt to stop the project.” The cost of the installation from the eastern Mediterranean to Italy is estimated at €6.0bn ($6.7bn).
Russia halts oil to Belarus, but transit to Europe still flowing
MINSK/MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia has halted oil supplies to refineries in Belarus, the Belarusian state energy firm said on Friday, amid a new contract dispute that is also threatening large Russian oil deliveries to Western Europe crossing the country.
Belarus’s state firm Belneftekhim said deliveries had been halted as of Jan. 1.
Two trading sources told Reuters Russian oil transit to Europe via Belarus was so far continuing uninterrupted.
A Russian industry source familiar with the discussions said Russia could agree to a short-term supply deal with Belarus in the coming days. Supplies would come from small Russian firms until a new, longer-term deal is agreed, the source said.
Europe receives around 10% of its oil via the transit link, known as the Druzhba pipeline, which can supply more than 1 million barrels per day to countries including Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
Moscow and Minsk have had several oil and gas spats over the past decade, in what has been described as a love-hate relationship between presidents Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko.
Putin and Lukashenko have repeatedly toyed with the idea of political integration of the countries, but the autocratic Belarusian leader who came to power in 1994 has backtracked repeatedly.
Russia has cut subsidies to Belarus over many years and is now charging close to international prices for oil and gas, but contracts negotiations are often protracted.
“Deliveries have been suspended … Plants are reducing their workload to the technical minimum,” a spokesman for Belneftekhim said.
Russian pipeline operator Transneft (TRNF_p.MM) said Russian oil companies have not sent any oil to Belarus since Jan. 1, the TASS news agency reported.
“Since Jan. 1, we have not had any applications from oil companies to deliver to Belarusian refineries. However, oil transit through Belarus is continuing in full volumes,” Transneft spokesman Igor Dyomin was quoted as saying.
It was not clear when Moscow and Minsk could resume talks on their 2020 contract. Russia is on a New Year holiday until Jan. 9.
Belneftekhim said on Friday it had temporarily suspended the export of petroleum products as it was lacking the oil. It said it would ultimately fulfill its contractual obligations but did not say how. It also said it had enough petroleum product reserves to supply its domestic market in January and beyond.
Belarus exports around 12 million tonnes of petroleum products annually, primarily to Ukraine and Poland, data from state statistics agency Belstat showed.
In the first 11 months of 2019, imports from Belarus made up 35% of Ukraine’s diesel fuel market and 36% of its petrol market, according to Ukrainian consulting group A-95.
Reporting by Andrei Makhovsky in MINSK, Olga Yagova and Gleb Gorodyankin in MOSCOW, Pavel Polityuk in
Bullish oil bets surge after Opec+ reaches deal on cuts
LONDON, Dec 16 (Reuters) – Hedge fund managers piled back into petroleum last week after Saudi Arabia and its allies in the OPEC+ group of major oil exporters announced deeper-than-expected cuts to their production in the first quarter of 2020.
Hedge funds and other money managers bought futures and options equivalent to 154 million barrels in the six most important contracts linked to petroleum prices in the week to Dec. 10.
Purchases were the largest in any one week for more than two years, according to position records published by ICE Futures Europe and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Friday.
In recent weeks, portfolio managers have struggled to form a consistent view about production and consumption next year, amid conflicting signals about the intentions of OPEC+ and prospects for a U.S.-China trade deal.
The result has been exceptional volatility and reversals in hedge fund positioning on a weekly basis. Last week’s purchases reversed sales of 107 million barrels in the previous week, which in turn reversed purchases of 144 million in the week to Nov. 26, as managers were whipsawed by rumours in the run up to the OPEC+ meeting and conflicting signals on the likelihood of a phase one U.S.-China trade pact.
In the event, funds were buyers across the board last week, including NYMEX and ICE WTI (80 million barrels), ICE Brent (43 million), U.S. gasoline (12 million), U.S. heating oil (11 million) and European gasoil (8 million).
Buying in NYMEX and ICE WTI was the heaviest since the original OPEC+ output deal was announced in December 2016 (https://tmsnrt.rs/2YPLHSM).
The hedge fund community has now accumulated a net long position across the six main contracts equivalent to 775 million barrels, up from a recent low of 437 million in early October and the highest since late May.
Fund managers own 5.3 long positions for every short, up from 2.67 in the middle of October. From a positioning perspective, risks look roughly equal, with the long-short ratio sitting roughly in the middle of its range over the last three years.
The danger of long liquidation causing a setback in prices is matched by the potential for some further short covering and fresh buying pushing the market higher.
From a fundamental perspective, however, fund managers seem increasingly confident the global economy will avoid a recession and OPEC+ will cut output enough to avert a build up in inventories next year.
The result is that hedge funds are gradually loading up on petroleum derivatives, buying a total of 338 million barrels over the last nine weeks, in anticipation of a tighter market and higher prices in 2020.
Russian giant ready to join oil, gas exploration in Pakistan
ISLAMABAD: In a positive development, TatNeft – a Russian state owned oil and gas company that has so far drilled 50,000 wells all over the world is ready to join oil and gas exploration activities in Pakistan in a big way.
The top officials of the said Russian Company came up with their willingness in becoming part of the E&P activities in Pakistan in a meeting of Pakistan Russian Joint Working Group (JWG) on Energy that met here on Monday. It was the 7th meeting of JWG on Energy between the two countries, a senior official who was part of meeting told The News.
The meeting participants discussed oil and gas sector, gas pipelines, power projects and barrages and dams.
In the meeting, Russia was represented by Talyat Aliev, deputy head of department, Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation whereas Joint Secretary Petroleum Division Syed Tauqir Hussain represented Pakistan. This meeting was the part of Inter-Governmental Commission (IGC) between the two countries. A 64-member delegation headed by Minister for Trade and Industries for the Russian Federation Denis V Manturov is visiting Pakistan for four days from December 8 to 11 to attend an Inter-Governmental Commission. Both sides will find out more avenues in cooperation on trade, economic, scientific, and technical areas in IGC meetings. The Joint Working Groups of the countries on Trade and Industry will also meet today (Tuesday).
However, the official said that since its emergence, in toto 1100 oil and gas wells got drilled in Pakistan when it comes to comparing the total wells of 50,000 spud by TatNeft alone. More importantly Bank of New York owns 23 percent shares of TatNeft company, and the government owns 34 percent and over 40 percent shares doled out in Moscow Stock Exchange and London Stock Exchange.
In today’s meeting, the official said, it is also mentioned that subsequent to signing of Inter-Governmental MoU on cooperation for implementation of Offshore Gas Pipeline Project on September 27, 2018, the nominated entities – Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom from Russian side and Inter State Gas System (Pvt) Limited from Pakistan side – signed Inter Corporate MOU on 6th February 2019.
In the meeting, both sides agreed that the nominated entities will expedite execution of the relevant documents and initiate the requisite studies in the near future.
In the oil and gas sector, it is agreed that since the signing of MoU in July 2017 between PJSC Gazprom and Oil & Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL), there is a need to expedite progress on the mutually beneficial projects by both sides.
Both sides encouraged their respective nominated entities Gazprom International and OGDCL to jointly work on the envisaged areas of cooperation. It was noted that Gazprom International is currently reviewing Rajian Field of OGDCL for possible Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) application whereas OGDCL is in the process of evaluating an opportunity in Algeria in which Gazprom is the Operator and OGDCL intends to be JV partner.
The official said, that the Russian side informed of the interest of PJSC NOVATEK to discuss LNG supplies to Pakistan from the portfolio of the company. The official said that Pakistan side appreciated the interest of PJSC NOVATEK and encouraged it to participate in LNG tenders as and when announced.
The Russian side informed about the interest of the Russian State Geological Holding ROSGEO to establish cooperation with the governmental bodies and organisations of Pakistan and expand cooperation in the field of geological exploration with Pakistani institution.
Both Sides appreciated the offer of cooperation of the Russian State Geological Holding ROSGEO for the Pakistani institutions in the creation of a scientific and computational center in Islamabad for the processing and interpretation of geological and geophysical data.
Pakistan side proposed Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP), Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd (OGDCL) and Pakistan Petroleum Limited (PPL) as counterpart entities to further discuss the proposal in detail with Russian State Geological Holding ROSGEO. Both Sides expressed support for the training and professional development of the specialists in Pakistan in the field of oil and gas business on the basis of joint programmes of ROSGEO JSC and the Russian State Geological Exploration University named after Sergo Ordzhonikidze.
Pakistan side informed the Russian side about the forthcoming divestment of government of Pakistan shares in OGDCL and PPL also encouraged Russian side to consider participating in the process to become a strategic partner by acquire the shares.
Pakistan side informed that Pakistan Refinery Limited, a subsidiary of Pakistan State Oil Limited needs revamping and upgradation, any Russian companies which may be interested in equity participation and EPC+F for revamping and upgradation of the refinery may approach.
Coming to Power Sector, the official said that the Russian side expressed its interest to continue work on the inter-governmental agreement on implementation of project of construction of 600MW combined cycle power plant in Jamshoro and expect that Pakistan side will take positive decision on the issue of feasibility of the project from the point of expanding generation of electricity.
Both the sides support the interest of Inter RAO-Engineering to consider the possibility to participate in engineering projects of construction of power generation and rehabilitation of existing power generating capacities in Pakistan.
The Russian side confirmed the interest of Power Machines PJSC in developing cooperation with Pakistani companies in the construction of new and modernisation of existing electrical energy facilities, including Muzaffargarh TPP.
Pakistan side has a the training centre at Muzaffargarh and invited Russian side to participate in the same. Russian side informed that Russian company IED has expressed interest in developing the training centre at Muzaffargarh TPP.
The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint
The Strait of Hormuz, located between Oman and Iran, connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important oil chokepoint because of the large volumes of oil that flow through the strait. In 2018, its daily oil flow averaged 21 million barrels per day (b/d), or the equivalent of about 21% of global petroleum liquids consumption.
Chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global sea routes that are critical to global energy security. The inability of oil to transit a major chokepoint, even temporarily, can lead to substantial supply delays and higher shipping costs, resulting in higher world energy prices. Although most chokepoints can be circumvented by using other routes that add significantly to transit time, some chokepoints have no practical alternatives.
Volumes of crude oil, condensate, and petroleum products transiting the Strait of Hormuz have been fairly stable since 2016, when international sanctions on Iran were lifted and Iran’s oil production and exports returned to pre-sanctions levels. Flows through the Strait of Hormuz in 2018 made up about one-third of total global seaborne traded oil. More than one-quarter of global liquefied natural gas trade also transited the Strait of Hormuz in 2018.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on Short-Term Energy Outlook (June 2019), ClipperData, Saudi Aramco bond prospectus, Saudi Aramco annual reports, Saudi Ports Authority, International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers, and U.N. Conference on Trade and Development Note: LNG is liquefied natural gas; Tcf is trillion cubic feet
There are limited options to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Only Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have pipelines that can ship crude oil outside the Persian Gulf and have the additional pipeline capacity to circumvent the Strait of Hormuz. At the end of 2018, the total available crude oil pipeline capacity from the two countries combined was estimated at 6.5 million b/d. In that year, 2.7 million b/d of crude oil moved through the pipelines, leaving about 3.8 million b/d of unused capacity that could have bypassed the strait.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on ClipperData, Saudi Aramco bond prospectus (April 2019) Note: Unused capacity is defined as pipeline capacity that is not currently used but can be readily available.
Based on tanker tracking data published by ClipperData, Saudi Arabia moves the most crude oil and condensate through the Strait of Hormuz, most of which is exported to other countries (less than 0.5 million b/d transited the strait in 2018 from Saudi ports in the Persian Gulf to Saudi ports in the Red Sea).
EIA estimates that 76% of the crude oil and condensate that moved through the Strait of Hormuz went to Asian markets in 2018. China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore were the largest destinations for crude oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz to Asia, accounting for 65% of all Hormuz crude oil and condensate flows in 2018.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on tanker tracking data published by ClipperData, Inc.
In 2018, the United States imported about 1.4 million b/d of crude oil and condensate from Persian Gulf countries through the Strait of Hormuz, accounting for about 18% of total U.S. crude oil and condensate imports and 7% of total U.S. petroleum liquids consumption.