The S-400 has never been used in combat, but it’s already causing geopolitical turmoil.

By Henry Meyer and Ilya Arkhipov

Russia’s S-400 missile system has never been used in combat. Yet it’s already provoking fights around the world, as Russia searches for buyers in markets long dominated by American weapons makers. China’s neighbors are fretting as the country bolsters its military reach with Russian hardware, encouraging India to follow suit. Tensions between rivals Saudi Arabia and Qatar have ratcheted up as both countries negotiate with Moscow on possible deals, while the recent decision by NATO member Turkey to buy the S-400 has drawn threats of U.S. sanctions.

With Algeria, Belarus, Iran, and Vietnam also likely customers, Russia could generate $30 billion in sales over the next 12 to 15 years, according to the Moscow Defense Brief, a leading publisher of Russian military information. That’s all part of President Vladimir Putin’s plan to use the Russian weapons industry not only to earn billions of dollars but also to drive a wedge between the U.S. and some of its key allies. “The S-400 has both commercial and geopolitical dimensions,” says Vladimir Frolov, a former Russian diplomat who’s now a foreign policy analyst in Moscow. “It creates an opening for Russian influence for years to come.”

The Russian weapon has a few advantages over the only other comparable missile system on the market, the MIM-104 Patriot, made by U.S. company Raytheon Co., according to defense research group Jane’s by IHS Markit Ltd. Both are surface-to-air systems designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles. But the S-400 has a longer range than the Patriot, 250 kilometers (155 miles) vs. 160 kilometers. An upgrade coming later this year is expected to stretch the S-400’s range to 400 kilometers. It also has a more powerful radar, can destroy targets moving twice as fast, and is quicker to set up. While both systems are mounted on trucks, the S-400 can be ready for action in five minutes, compared with an hour for a Patriot battery. The S-400 is also slightly cheaper than the Patriot, on a per-battery basis.

The S-500, an advanced version comparable to the U.S. Thaad anti-ballistic-missile system that’s capable of downing hypersonic cruise missiles, is expected to enter production by 2022. The S-400 is manufactured by the state-run company Almaz-Antey, which has been sanctioned by the U.S. over Russia’s military support for separatists in eastern Ukraine. Despite that, Almaz-Antey is opening two sites elsewhere in Russia to supplement its Moscow plant. The Russians don’t shy away from talking up the S-400 to potential buyers. It “has no equal,” says state arms trader Rosoboronexport’s spokesman Vyacheslav Davidenko. “Russian air-defense systems don’t allow anyone to attack without paying a price.”

The Patriot has superior anti-ballistic-missile capability, says Omar Lamrani, senior military analyst at Stratfor Enterprises LLC, a Texas consultant. It can also be integrated into other U.S.-made missile-defense systems, increasing its effectiveness. The Patriot has a long and successful track record on the battlefield, having come to fame during the 1991 Gulf War. But its performance recently has come under scrutiny. In March video footage appeared to show a failed Patriot launch as Saudi Arabia intercepted a barrage of rockets fired by Yemen’s Houthi rebels. One missile did an abrupt U-turn and crashed into the ground in the Saudi capital, and another one exploded midair. It’s unclear whether the Patriots malfunctioned or the Saudi crew failed to operate them properly. Whatever the cause, it hasn’t stopped Romania, Poland, and Sweden from pursuing plans to buy them. Raytheon declined to comment on the misfire footage, and says that the Patriot’s “performance in testing scenarios and in combat speaks for itself.”

Russia has a history of producing strong air-defense systems, dating to the Cold War, when it needed to counter NATO’s air forces. In the early 1990s the U.S. paid Boris Yeltsin’s cash-strapped government $120 million for an air-defense launch complex to study the technology. Now the U.S. faces a growing threat from the sale of Russian advanced weaponry to its strategic rivals and erstwhile allies.

In 2014, China signed a $1.9 billion deal to buy 32 S-400 launchers, each equipped with four missiles, half of which were delivered last year, the Moscow Defense Brief says. New contracts with China may be in the pipeline, it adds; these acquisitions will allow the country to threaten aircraft in Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a rebel province, as well as challenge Japan and neighbors in Southeast Asia for control of the skies in disputed areas. “It poses big challenges for the U.S., Taiwan—which it is obliged to protect—also for American allies and anybody who challenges Chinese territorial claims in the South China Seas,” says Alexander Gabuev, chairman of the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Russia in the Asia-Pacific Program.

India, which has had sporadic skirmishes with China since the countries fought a bloody border war in 1962, is in the final stages of negotiating a $6 billion S-400 deal. According to Indian media, the contract may be signed before an October summit between Putin and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Turkey risks U.S. sanctions over its $2.5 billion deal, financed with Russian loans, to buy the S-400. Under a 2017 law, the White House has to penalize countries that conduct a “significant transaction” with Russia’s defense sector. A defense spending bill passed by the U.S. Senate on June 18 calls for a freeze in arms sales to Turkey in response to its S-400 purchases. The bill also calls for the removal of Turkey from the F-35 joint strike fighter program, a multicountry, $400 billion plan to build and sell tactical jets to allies. Turkey was a key member of the program; it had ordered 100 F-35s and was slated to co-produce the jet. Some of its companies are the sole producers of essential parts in the supply chain. “The Turks have got to decide whether they’re going to be in NATO or aligned with Russia,” says Senator James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican.

Despite the threats, Turkey’s foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, says the deal to buy the S-400 is done. On June 13, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey and Russia may also co-produce the next-generation S-500. “Russia seems to have communicated to Turkey that it’s in their interest in one way or another to align with them,” says Thomas Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. “This is one of several ways in which they seem to be hugging their friends to the northeast.” The deal is a major milestone toward improving ties between the two countries after Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet near its border with Syria in 2015.

On June 21, the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations passed an amendment attached to the annual Department of State funding bill that prohibits spending money to transfer the F-35 to Turkey until the secretary of state certifies that Turkey isn’t buying the S-400. “This provision makes it clear that if Turkey ignores the concerns of its NATO allies and moves forward with this partnership with Putin, it will no longer receive F-35s,” Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, said in a statement.

Although losing Turkey as a customer would be a hit to F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp., there are concerns that Russia will gain valuable intelligence—insights into U.S. air defense and aerial capabilities—if the country remains in the program. Senior U.S. defense officials have said that if Turkey operates both the F-35 and the S-400, it could compromise the F-35’s security, including its stealth capabilities. “It is in the American national interest to see Turkey remain strategically and politically aligned with the West, and we believe it is also in Turkey’s interests,” Assistant Secretary A. Wess Mitchell said at a congressional hearing in April.

As for Saudi Arabia, the increasingly warm ties it’s enjoyed with Russia, particularly over coordination in the oil markets, have also provoked alarm in the U.S. President Trump’s nominee for assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, David Schenker, said during his Senate confirmation hearing on June 14 that he would “tell Saudi Arabia not to do it” when asked about the kingdom’s talks to buy the S-400. During an historic visit by King Salman to Russia in October, Saudi Arabia agreed on other arms purchases, including antitank weapons and multiple-rocket launchers, and licensed Saudi production of Kalashnikov assault rifles.

Neighboring U.S.-allied states Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates are also acquiring Russian weapons. The advanced Russian missile system has turned into a major bargaining chip in the region as rival powers seek to cement new relations with Russia to balance U.S. influence. In a letter to the French president, Saudi Arabia warned of “military actions” against Qatar if it buys the S-400, as Le Monde reported in early June.

The S-400 still has an element of “hype,” says Stratfor’s Lamrani. Still, “it has a very promising future—there are places where opportunities are opening up for Russia.” —With Stepan Kravchenko, Daniel Flatley, and Erik Wasson.

VIENNA (Reuters) – OPEC agreed with Russia and other oil-producing allies on Saturday to raise output from July, with Saudi Arabia pledging a “measurable” supply boost but giving no specific numbers.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries had announced an OPEC-only production agreement on Friday, also without clear output targets. Benchmark Brent oil rose by $2.5 or 3.4 percent on the day to $75.55 a barrel.

On Saturday, non-OPEC oil producers agreed to participate in the pact but a communique issued after their talks with the Vienna-based group provided no concrete numbers amid deep disagreements between OPEC arch-rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran.

U.S. President Donald Trump was among those wondering how much more oil OPEC would deliver. “Hope OPEC will increase output substantially. Need to keep prices down!” Trump wrote on Twitter after OPEC announced its Friday decision.

The United States, China and India had urged oil producers to release more supply to prevent an oil deficit that could undermine global economic growth.

OPEC and non-OPEC said in their statement that they would raise supply by returning to 100 percent compliance with previously agreed output cuts, after months of underproduction.

Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said OPEC and non-OPEC combined would pump roughly an extra 1 million barrels per day (bpd) in coming months, equal to 1 percent of global supply.

Top global exporter Saudi Arabia will increase output by hundreds of thousands of barrels, he said, with exact figures to be decided later.

“We already mobilized the Aramco machinery, before coming to Vienna, pre-empting this meeting,” Falih said, referring to the Saudi state oil company.

Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said his country would add 200,000 bpd in the second half of this year.

Asked to what extent the decision to increase supply had been driven by pressure from Trump, Novak said: “It is obvious that we are not being driven by tweets but base our actions on deep market analysis.”

Iran, OPEC’s third-largest producer, had demanded OPEC reject calls from Trump for an increase in oil supply, arguing that he had contributed to a recent rise in prices by imposing sanctions on Iran and fellow member Venezuela.

Trump slapped fresh sanctions on Tehran in May and market watchers expect Iran’s output to drop by a third by the end of 2018. That means the country has little to gain from a deal to raise output, unlike Saudi Arabia.

Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh said the real increase could amount to as little as 500,000 bpd because Saudi Arabia would not be allowed to pump more on behalf of Venezuela, where output has collapsed in recent months.

“Each country which has produced less (than its allocation) can produce more. Those which cannot, will not… This means that Saudi Arabia can increase its production by less than 100,000 bpd,” Zanganeh told Argus Media.

But Falih said pro-rata quota reallocations did not have to be strict, meaning Saudi wanted to fill the gaps left by others.

“Some of the countries … are not going to be able to produce, so the others will. And that implies there will be indirectly a reallocation,” Falih said.

He also said OPEC could hold an extraordinary meeting before its next formal talks due on Dec. 3 or adjust deliveries in September, when its monitoring committee meets, if global oil supply fell further because of sanctions on Iran.

But unexpected outages in Venezuela, Libya and Angola have effectively brought supply cuts to around 2.8 million bpd in recent months.

Falih has warned the world could face a supply deficit of up to 1.8 million bpd in the second half of 2018.

“Both Saudi and Iran can show that they won,” an OPEC delegate said.

“Zanganeh can go back to his country and say ‘I won’, because we are keeping the original agreement unchanged. Falih can go back and say ‘we will be able to raise production to meet market needs’.”

The United States, which rivals Russia and Saudi Arabia for the position of world No.1 oil producer, is not participating in the supply pact.

The climate crisis we now face is a reflection of a broader crisis: a global confusion of means and ends.
We continue to use fossil fuels because we can (means), not because they are good for us (ends). This confusion is why Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew are spurring us to think deeply about what is truly good for humanity, and how to attain it.
Earlier this month, the Pope and patriarch each convened business, scientific, and academic leaders, in Rome and Athens, respectively, to hasten the transition from fossil fuels to safe renewable energy.
In most of the world today, the purposes of politics, economics, and technology have been debased.
Politics is regarded as a no-holds-barred fight for power, economics as a ruthless scramble for wealth, and technology as the magic elixir for more economic growth.
In truth, according to Francis and Bartholomew, we need politics, economics, and technology to serve a far greater purpose than power, wealth, or economic growth.
We need them to promote human well-being today and for future generations.

America may be the most confused of all.
The United States today is rich beyond imagining, with median household income and gross domestic product per capita each equal to nearly $60,000.
The US could have it all.
Instead, what it has is widening income inequality, falling life expectancy, a rising suicide rate, and epidemics of obesity, opioid overdoses, school shootings, depressive disorders, and other grave ills.
The US incurred $300bn in losses from climate-related disasters last year, including three massive hurricanes – the frequency and intensity of which has risen, owing to fossil-fuel dependence.
The US has vast power, wealth, and growth, and yet diminished well-being.
The US economy and politics are in the hands of corporate lobbies, including Big Oil.
Resources are relentlessly allocated to developing more oil and gas fields not because they are good for America or the world, but because the shareholders and managers of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco Philipps, and others demand it.
Trump and his minions work daily to undermine global agreements and domestic regulations that have been put in place to accelerate the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
Yes, we can produce more oil, coal, and gas.
But for what? Not for our safety: the hazards of global warming are already upon us.
Not because we lack alternatives: the US has ample wind, solar, hydro, and other sources of primary energy that don’t cause global warming.
The US economy, alas, is an out-of-control juggernaut, chasing oil wealth and jeopardising our very survival.
Of course the US is not alone in the mad pursuit of wealth over well-being.
The same get-rich-quick confusion of means and ends is causing Argentina, host of the G20 Summit later this year, to pursue fracking of natural gas, with all the associated climate and environmental risks, instead of tapping its bounteous potential in wind, solar, and hydro power.
The same corruption of purpose is causing the Canadian government to guarantee a new pipeline to export output from its polluting and expensive oil sands to Asia, while under-investing in Canada’s vast renewable energy sources.
In his meeting with the CEOs of major oil and gas companies, Francis told them, “Our desire to ensure energy for all must not lead to the undesired effect of a spiral of extreme climate changes due to a catastrophic rise in global temperatures, harsher environments, and increased levels of poverty.” He noted that the oil companies are engaged in “the continued search for new fossil fuel reserves, whereas the Paris Agreement clearly urged keeping most fossil fuels underground.” And he reminded the executives that, “Civilisation requires energy, but energy use must not destroy civilisation!”
Francis underscored the moral dimension of the problem:
“The transition to accessible and clean energy is a duty that we owe toward millions of our brothers and sisters around the world, poorer countries and generations yet to come.
Decisive progress on this path cannot be made without an increased awareness that all of us are part of one human family, united by bonds of fraternity and solidarity.
Only by thinking and acting with constant concern for this underlying unity that overrides all differences, only by cultivating a sense of universal intergenerational solidarity, can we set out really and resolutely on the road ahead.”
As Francis was meeting the CEOs in Rome last week, Bartholomew was similarly convening leaders of scientific institutions, UN agencies, and major faiths in Athens and the Peloponnese, to chart a path to environmental safety.
Bartholomew also underscored the fundamental moral concern. “The identity of every society and measure of every culture are not judged by the degree of technological development, economic growth or public infrastructure,” he said.“Our civil life and civilisation are defined and judged primarily by our respect for the dignity of humanity and integrity of nature.”
The 300mn faithful of the Eastern churches led by the Ecumenical Patriarch are in lands facing extreme dangers from global warming: intense heat waves, rising sea levels, and increasingly severe droughts.
The Mediterranean region is already beset by environmental distress and forced migration from conflict zones.
Unchecked climate change – which has already contributed to conflict – would spell disaster for the region.
Bartholomew’s conference opened at the Acropolis, the very heart of ancient Athens, where 2,300 years ago Aristotle defined ethics and politics as the quest for well-being.
The political community, wrote Aristotle, should aim “at the highest good,” to be achieved by cultivating the virtues of the citizenry.
Aristotle famously contrasted two types of knowledge: techne (technical know-how) and phronesis (practical wisdom). Scientists and engineers have given us the technical knowledge to move rapidly from fossil fuels to zero-carbon energy.
Francis and Bartholomew urge us to find the phronesis, the practical wisdom, to redirect our politics and economies toward the common good. – Project Syndicate

*Jeffrey D Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

ISLAMABAD: In a major breakthrough, Pakistan and Russia are poised to sign a $10-billion offshore gas pipeline deal, a project planned by the latter to capture the energy market of Pakistan.

Sources told a local newspaper that the cabinet had approved the signing of the gas pipeline laying deal and Pakistan ambassador to Russia had been authorised to ink a memorandum of understanding with Moscow.

The envoy is likely to ink the understanding in Moscow on Monday. Final cost of the project will be assessed following a feasibility study to be conducted by Russian energy giant Gazprom.

Russia has nominated Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom for implementation of the project. Pakistan’s cabinet has also permitted the company to conduct the feasibility study at its own cost and risk.

Inter State Gas Systems (ISGS) – a state-owned company of Pakistan established to handle gas import projects and is already working on gas pipeline schemes like Tapi, has been nominated by Pakistan to execute the offshore pipeline project along with Gazprom.

ISGS is also working on the $10-billion Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (Tapi) gas pipeline to connect South and Central Asia and construction work on the scheme in Pakistan will start in March next year.

These projects are called a game changer for Pakistan as they will not only lead to regional connectivity, but will also meet growing energy needs of the country.

Amid a long-running tussle with Europe and the United States over the annexation of Ukrainian region of Crimea, Russia is looking for alternative markets and wants to capitalise on the growing energy demand in South Asia.

Russia, which controls and manages huge gas reserves in energy-rich Iran, plans to export gas by laying an offshore pipeline through Gwadar Port to Pakistan and India, which are seen as alternative markets because Moscow fears it may lose energy consumers in Europe over the Crimea stand-off.

Russia has been a big gas exporter to European Union (EU) countries and Turkey since long and despite US anger the European bloc has continued to make imports to meet its energy needs.

Moscow receives gas from Turkmenistan and then exports it to EU states. Later, it has got gas deposits in Iran as well and is looking to gain a foothold in markets of Pakistan and India.

Pakistan has been experiencing gas shortages, particularly in winter, for the past many years as domestic production has stood static with new additions being offset by depleting old deposits.

In a bid to tackle the crisis, the previous government of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) kicked off liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from Qatar under a 15-year agreement two and a half years ago and is bringing supplies through other sources as well.

According to a government official, after signing the MoU for the offshore pipeline, work on the feasibility study will begin in an attempt to assess viability of the project. Russia is even ready to finance the study. Russian gas exports touched an all-time high in 2017.

According to Gazprom, gas flows to Europe and Turkey, excluding ex-Soviet states, hit a new daily record at 621.8 million cubic metres.

Annual exports touched 179.3 billion cubic metres (bcm) in 2016, a significant jump from the previous high of 161.5 bcm in 2013 and well above the 2015 total of 158.6 bcm.

Iyad el-Baghdadi is president of the Kawaakibi Foundation, a nonprofit organization focused on the future of liberty in the Muslim world.

It’s been two years since Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman announced a national transformation project to structurally overhaul the Saudi state. His “Vision 2030” reform program aims to change the kingdom into a “normal country,” with a post-oil economy and a post-Wahhabi Islam.

Economic reform is the driver behind Vision 2030 – the International Monetary Fund has warned that Saudi Arabia will run out of cash without serious structural reform – but other reforms are no less important. Increasing labor participation by women, for example, requires lifting such restrictions as the driving ban (which is set to end on June 24).

Perhaps the most head-turning change is the transition away from Wahhabism, the arch-conservative version of Islam that had long been allied with the Saudi state. The government has recently stopped all funding to Wahhabi institutions outside Saudi Arabia and severely curtailed the powers of the religious police. Curbing the Wahhabis is great news for everyone. They are extremist, regressive, sectarian, and had received Saudi state support to spread their ideology across the globe, often to destructive effect.

The rest of the international community has a direct stake in the success of Saudi Arabia’s reform effort. Should Vision 2030 fail, we’ll be facing an explosion of instability at the very heart of the Arab and Muslim world. Unfortunately, the 32-year-old in charge of Vision 2030 – Mohammed bin Salman himself – has become a threat to his own project.

Vision 2030 represents, at its core, a new Saudi social contract. But the way the crown prince is rewriting this contract should give us pause.

The Saudi system of governance prior to his rise could be described as a consultative authoritarianism. The king would seek and receive advice from senior members of the royal family, as well as trusted court advisers. In a series of drastic steps, including the roundup of rival princes, the crown prince has effectively dismantled the old structure. Saudi Arabia is now the absolute monarchy that it wasn’t under King Abdullah, King Fahd or any of their predecessors.

Some have argued that serious reform would be impossible without a consolidation of power. But the crown prince’s efforts have gone from the decisive to the destabilizing. His recent shakedown of leading business figures had nothing to do with the rule of law and may have spooked investors. Recent figures show that foreign direct investment hit a 14-year low in Saudi Arabia last year (compared to an 8 percent rise in the neighboring United Arab Emirates).

In any case, the crown prince should have done away with the old system by allowing citizens space to have a say in the new Saudi Arabia that he is envisioning for them – allowing them to co-sign their new social contract. He is doing precisely the opposite.

Among those arrested so far is Essam Al Zamel, a young economist who ran the figures on Vision 2030 and offered criticisms and suggestions for improving it. Recent reports indicate he is being set up for serious charges that would justify long-term imprisonment.

He has also arrested moderate religious figures, including the young intellectual Abdullah Al Maliki, and ex-Wahhabi Muslim reformer Hassan Farhan Al Maliki. These figures could be effective advocates for religious reform, but instead they are facing charges that could put them away for a long time, alienating their support base.

Most recently, the crown prince has arrested Saudi Arabia’s leading women’s rights activists – including Loujain Al Hathloul, Eman Al Nafjan, and Aziza Al Yousuf – charging them with treason. These women have a long history of advocating for social reforms. But the government has treated them like threats instead of potential allies.

In short, the crown prince is promising economic reform while imprisoning economic reformers; he’s promising religious reform while imprisoning religious reformers; he’s promising social reform while imprisoning leading feminists. As he silences the once dynamic Saudi public sphere, note how these voices are being replaced: thousands of bots are flooding Saudi social media, many with pictures of the crown prince, cheering his every move.

The decision-making of the world’s largest oil exporter is now in the hand of a small number of individuals with no consultative process in place, and with dissenters immediately jailed.

Many of the crown prince’s big moves have deteriorated into protracted wars of attrition, such as the war in Yemen or the feud with Qatar. His mass arrest of the leading women’s rights activists is another potential quagmire.

Not only does it quite rightly tarnish his image among the global women’s rights community (in the age of #MeToo, no less), but it also threatens his economic reform agenda, considering that the crown prince’s ordered the detentions after a high-profile visit to the United States in which he met leading celebrities and business leaders. A war of attrition with the global women’s rights movement is not one that he is likely to win, despite his huge PR budget.

The crown prince should release the women’s rights activists, drop all charges against them, and allow them to continue their careers freely. That would be the best way to reassure the world that the reforms are real and remain on track.

For the sake of global stability, Saudi reforms need to be saved from Mohammed bin Salman’s absolutism and heavy-handedness. History shows that governments with no tolerance for dissent usually end up creating disasters.

L’émirat gazier s’accommode sans trop de dégâts du quasi-blocus imposé il y a un an par ses voisins arabes.

One of the key targets of the siege countries was Qatar’s vibrant and resource-rich hydrocarbons industry. The economic blockade was basically aimed at interrupting Qatar’s export of oil, gas and petrochemicals in all ways possible.
Qatar Petroleum (QP) and its group companies immediately managed to absorb the initial impact of those measures, and were able to continue operating and export normally without any disruption across all its oil and gas facilities.
Qatar’s announcement of its offshore North Field expansion has been well-received by the global energy industry, whose major players see great opportunities in partnering with QP on the largest single non-associated gas field in the world.
Qatar’s plan is to develop an export-oriented gas project in the North Field. Qatargas has been entrusted with executing this mega-project on behalf of QP.
The expansion of Qatar’s LNG production from the North Field is an important landmark in QP’s strategic growth plan and objectives of becoming one of the best national oil and gas companies in the world.
QP has already selected Japan’s Chiyoda Corp to execute the Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) of the onshore facilities of the North Field expansion project.

The facilities will produce an additional 23mn tonnes per year (tpy) of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which will raise Qatar’s production from 77mn tpy to 100mn tpy.
QP president and CEO Saad Sherida al-Kaabi said earlier that “the expansion of Qatar’s LNG production from the North Field is an important landmark in Qatar Petroleum’s strategic growth plan and objectives of becoming one of the best national oil & gas companies in the world.
“We are continuing discussions with potential international joint venture partners for this strategic project to determine an optimised arrangement with the objective of delivering maximum value to the State of Qatar and contribute to the optimal utilisation of Qatar’s natural resources.”
Another major project announced by QP recently was the development and operation of a new world scale petrochemicals complex at the Ras Laffan Industrial City.
The petrochemicals complex will include an ethane cracker with a capacity of more than 1.6mn tpy of ethylene, making it the “largest ethane cracker” in the Middle East, and one of the largest in the world.
The petrochemicals complex will also include world-class derivative plants, which will consolidate Qatar’s position among the leading petrochemicals producers in the world markets.
The engineering design of the petrochemicals complex should commence shortly, leading to a planned start-up in 2025.
QP has invited a group of leading international companies, with extensive experiences in the petrochemicals industry, to submit proposals for partnering with it in the development and operation of the new world scale petrochemicals complex.
The feedstock for the petrochemical complex will be ethane produced primarily from the new North Field LNG expansion project that will produce an additional 23mn tpy of LNG, as well as from existing gas projects producing ethane.
On the project, Qatar Petroleum President and CEO Saad Sherida al-Kaabi said, “This development is a first step towards the launch of a new world scale Petrochemicals Complex at Ras Laffan, marking another important milestone for Qatar Petroleum.”
Al-Kaabi added: “Petrochemicals represent a major pillar of our growth strategy to achieve our vision of becoming one of the best national oil companies in the world. This project will complement our efforts to implement our strategy, and will enable Qatar Petroleum to further expand its footprint in the global petrochemicals markets.”