With Hungary, Bulgaria and Serbia to depend on TurkStream, Turkey’s importance to increase in terms of energy security

Yunus Furuncu completed his bachelor’s degree and master’s degree at the Vienna University of Economics and his Ph.D. at Duzce University and works as a researcher at the energy desk of the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA).

ISTANBUL

The inauguration of the TurkStream natural gas pipeline project, which will begin carrying natural gas from Russia to Europe via Turkey on Jan. 8, 2020, is considered a further step in Turkish and Russian relations in terms of energy.

The project, which has two lines, each of which has a carrying capacity of 15.75 billion cubic meters of natural gas, is particularly important for southern European countries. It will mark the first time that Russian natural gas will reach Europe via Turkey. The TurkStream project transfers natural gas directly to Turkey, which the country takes from the West Line, and it means a new route for European countries. Thus, Turkey has strengthened its position as a country that contributes to the energy security of Europe.

Turkey’s energy security increasing

Turkey’s claim of being an energy hub has been strengthened by the TurkStream project, which enables the country to directly take the natural gas coming from the West Line. TurkStream, which will be operated by a company established by BOTAS and Gazprom, is an important route for meeting the natural gas needs of Europe. The project, which increases the mutual dependency between Ankara and Moscow, positively contributes to the advancement of cooperation for future relations between the countries. Thus, TurkStream is significant for revealing that energy sources strengthen cooperation and ensure economic benefits rather than causing conflicts.

The West Line, one of the routes coming from Russia, reaches Turkey by passing through Ukraine and Bulgaria. Political and economic tensions between Russia and Ukraine sometimes lead to an interruption of natural gas transmission from the West Line to Turkey.

This situation poses a great risk for the Turkish economy. Transmitting the annual 14 billion cubic meters of gas from the West Line to Turkey over the first line of TurkStream, without changing terms and conditions of the existing agreements, means reducing this risk. Thus, gas will be directly transmitted from Russia to Turkey without the need for intermediate countries, and the problem of being exposed to potential interruptions caused by third parties will be eliminated. As a result, Turkey’s energy security has increased with this project.

Since the pipelines in Ukraine have reached the end of their service life, they must be repaired and replaced. Some 20,000 kilometers of a total 33,000 kilometers of transmission pipelines are more than 33 years old. A major resource is needed to further operate the pipelines which span approximately 13,000 kilometers and are 11 to 33 years old. Under these conditions, the fact that Russia acts reluctant and is willing to invest in other directions except for maintenance and repair poses another great risk to the countries that benefit from those pipelines.

Even if the TurkStream project is not carried out, it is understood that the West Line will fail to perform its former function in the future. Therefore, the problem of a lack of infrastructure that would arise in the future has been eliminated with TurkStream.

Impacts on dependency

It is understood that Turkey bought an average of 26.4 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year from Russia between 2011-2018. The lowest amount was 24 billion cubic meters in 2018. It is seen that the EU countries import an average of 40% natural gas from Russia. This rate increases to 100% in some EU countries. Turkey continues to take significant steps to decrease its dependency on Russia. Benefitting more from renewable energy sources in Turkey has led to a decrease of the gas rate coming from Russia from around 60% to around 48% in 2018. Moreover, in case of full usage of the capacity of natural gas coming from TANAP allocated for Turkey in 2020, this rate is expected to fall to around 40%.

Turkey consumes an annual average of 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas and procures 99% of this amount from abroad. Not depending on one resource, it puts forward strategies prioritizing diversifying source countries with new pipelines such as TANAP as well as routes.

Likewise, Turkey, which aims to reach a storage capacity for around 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas in 2023, has the technical capacity to procure half of the natural gas it consumes as LNG (liquefied natural gas). Turkey, which follows the policy of reducing natural gas usage rates in electricity generation, increases its standing as a regional actor by participating in international energy projects. While all these developments decrease Turkey’s dependency on Russia, it increases Russia’s dependency on Turkey compared to the past with the TurkStream project.

It is understood that the natural gas structure in the Balkans will change to a certain extent with the arrival of TurkStream to the region. It is stated that the West Natural Gas Pipeline will become dysfunctional due to TurkStream. As Hungary, Bulgaria and Serbia will meet their increasing natural gas demand with TurkStream, Turkey’s importance will increase in terms of those countries’ energy security. Also, the BOTAS and GAZPROM partnership, which will operate the second line that will reach Europe, means that Turkey will economically benefit from TurkStream.

US sanctions and possible results

It is claimed that TurkStream does not align with the strategic goals of the U.S. and the EU’s Third Energy Package legislation. On the other hand, the U.S. shows that it is against TurkStream with its CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) sanctions. The U.S. Congress increased its pressure on TurkStream and Nord Stream 2 with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 it passed in December 2019 and by supporting some sanctions. The implementation of items targeting ships involved in laying pipes on the seabed in these projects may be on the agenda in 2020. However, as Turkish firms do not carry out the sea part of the project, it is not possible to directly implement U.S. sanctions on Turkey. On the other hand, since the TurkStream project was initiated earlier than CAATSA’s enactment, it should not be involved in these sanctions.

While TurkStream brings Ankara and Moscow closer, it also presents gains for Turkey concerning Syria and Libya, which are important issues of foreign policy. The progress and increase in this cooperation will provide significant flexibility to Turkey in foreign policy.

On the other hand, transmission of natural gas, which the EU demands, through Turkey to the EU and the increase of the amount that is carried by time are seen as a result of this cooperation. The EU will have to import more natural gas if Norway’s reserves, which are seen as an insurance due to its closeness to the EU, expire in a short time. While the U.S.’ external natural gas dependence rate was 47% in 2000, this rate increased to 55% in 2017.

It is foreseen that this rate will increase to around 70% in 2030. For this reason, Turkey stands out as one of the most reliable routes at the point for meeting the EU’s energy needs.

Projects such as TurkStream and TANAP have emerged to meet Europe’s natural gas needs. Increasing the number of these projects contributes positively especially to security and economic issues at regional and global levels. New cooperation with countries close to this geography, such as Turkmenistan, which has the largest proven natural gas reserve in Central Asia, may be established. Turkey, which is one of the key countries that will play an active role in transmitting Turkmen gas to Europe, can display its playmaker role easier with the experience it gained through TANAP and TurkStream. Therefore, it can be said that Turkey’s leadership role in energy is being strengthened in terms of the realization of international projects.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu Agency.

BERLIN — Germany on Thursday warned Washington to mind its own business after US lawmakers gave initial approval to a bill that would sanction contractors working on a Russian pipeline to Germany.

“European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the US,” Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said on Twitter.

“We reject external interference,” he said.

The 9.5 billion euro ($10.6 billion) Nord Stream 2 pipeline will run under the Baltic Sea and is set to double shipments of Russian natural gas to Germany.

The German-Russian Chamber of Commerce (AHK) said the pipeline was important for the energy security of Europe as a whole and called for retaliatory sanctions against the United States if the bill passes.

“Europe should respond to sanctions that damage Europe with counter-sanctions,” said AHK chief Matthias Schepp.

Supporters of the 1,230-kilometer (760-mile) line say it will be a reliable source of cheap energy but critics warn it could end up vastly increasing Russia’s political influence in Europe.

The EU joined in criticizing proposed US action.

EU Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan said Brussels “opposes the imposition of sanctions against any EU companies conducting legitimate business”.

“The (European) Commission objective has always been to ensure that Nord Stream operates in a very transparent and in a non-discriminatory way with the appropriate degree of oversight,” he said.

Germany’s Schepp said the sanctions would end up affecting European companies more than Russia.

Half of the project is financed by Russian gas giant Gazprom, with the rest covered by its European partners: Germany’s Wintershall and Uniper, Anglo-Dutch Shell, France’s Engie and Austria’s OMV.

Despite its own diplomatic tensions with Russia, including over the murder of a former Chechen rebel in Berlin earlier this year, Germany has repeatedly defended the long-running project.

The German economy ministry said it was awaiting the result of a US Senate vote expected next week on the bill — part of much wider US defense legislation.

US President Donald Trump has already said he would sign off on the measures if they are approved.

The bill requires the US State Department to report back within 60 days with the names of companies and individuals involved in pipe-laying for Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream, another pipeline from Russia to Turkey.

The sanctions envisioned by the bill include asset freezes and revocation of US visas for the contractors.

One major contractor that could be hit by the sanctions is Swiss-based pipeline laying company Allseas, which has been hired by Gazprom to build the offshore section.

The power of Gazprom and therefore the Russian state is at the center of concerns about the pipeline in the United States and in eastern and central Europe.

Europe is Russia’s main customer for natural gas and critics fear the pipeline, which has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic meters, will increase its reliance.

Countries like Ukraine, a major transit country for Russian gas, also fear they could lose influence.

Russia had hoped to launch the pipeline in late 2019 but the completion has been delayed by difficulties in obtaining permits from Denmark.

In October, Copenhagen gave Russia a permit to build a section of the pipeline on the Danish continental shelf in the Baltic Sea.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak told reporters last month that he expected the pipeline to become operational in mid-2020. — AFP

Coal consumption is set to rise in the coming years as growing demand for electricity in developing countries outpaces a shift to cleaner sources of electricity in industrialised nations. While use of the most polluting fossil fuel had a historic dip in 2019, the International Energy Agency anticipates steady increases in the next five years. That means the world will face a significant challenge in meeting pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. “There are few signs of change,” the agency wrote in its annual coal report released in Paris yesterday. “Despite all the policy changes and announcements, our forecast is very similar to those we have made over the past few years.” While this year is on track for biggest decline ever for coal power, that’s mostly due to high growth in hydroelectricity and relatively low electricity demand in India and China, said Carlos Fernandez Alvarez, senior energy analyst at the Paris-based IEA. Despite the drop, global coal consumption is likely to rise over the coming years, driven by demand in India, China and Southeast Asia. Power generation from coal rose almost 2% in 2018 to reach an all-time high, remaining the world’s largest source of electricity. The steady outlook for coal comes in spite of waning demand in industrialised nations. Europe has set a goal of zeroing out carbon pollution by the middle of the century, which would mean drastic reductions for coal. In the US, competition from natural gas has cut into demand for coal, despite President Donald Trump’s vows to revive the industry. The story is diff erent in Asia, which will more than make up for reductions elsewhere. India, with a population of more than 1.3bn, will see coal generation increase by 4.6% a year through 2024 to help power its growing economy. In Southeast Asia, coal demand will grow more than 5% annually. China, which accounts for almost half the world’s consumption, will also have modest growth with usage peaking in 2022. “How we address this issue in Asia is critical for the long-term success of any global eff orts to reduce emissions,” Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, wrote in a foreword to the report. Any new coal plants added to meet the growing power demand in these countries will likely be in use for decades. Even as China’s coal consumption slows and then declines after 2022, emissions from the fuel would need to rapidly decline in order to meet climate targets. Under current policies, the world is set to warm almost 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. That’s double the rate scientists say is needed to constrain the worst impacts of climate change. To prevent those increases, it would be necessary to use technology that captures and stores carbon as it’s emitted from power plants, the IEA said. While the technology is expensive and untested at scale. But with coal here to stay, it may be the only option to reduce emissions.

Standard Chartered Plc plans to fa- cilitate $35bn of funding for clean technology by 2025, joining rival banks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc that are stepping up their climate-change promises. The London-based bank also vowed to only support those clients who are moving to generate less than 10% of their earnings from thermal coal by 2030, according to a statement on Tuesday. The new target ex- tends the previous 2016 goal that foresaw $4bn of green funding by 2020. “There has not been suffi cient invest- ment into this sector across emerging Asia, Africa and the Middle East,” the bank said. Chief executive offi cer Bill Winters said Standard Chartered is the fi rst bank ac- tive in emerging markets to “confi rm that we will be out of thermal coal by 2030.” Emerging markets are the focus of Stand- ard Chartered’s business, and generally rely more heavily on coal to generate elec- tricity than developed countries do. The bank also said it will withdraw from three coal-fi red power projects that it agreed to fi nance before revising its poli- cies last year. On Monday, Goldman Sachs announced a revision to its own policies, pledging to avoid directly fi nancing new thermal coal mines and upstream Arctic oil exploration. Standard Chartered also released a re- port detailing its progress aligning its lending portfolio with the goals of the Par- is Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to signifi cantly below 2 degrees. Standard Chartered’s plan to withdraw support from clients that aren’t transi- tioning away from coal will be implement- ed in phases, starting in January 2021. In 2018, the bank said it would prohibit direct fi nancing for new coal-fi red power plants.

The European Union agreed on a landmark green-finance regulation, advancing the bloc’s push to embed environmental goals in standards for banks, money managers and insurers.

EU lawmakers approved an accord on the list of sustainable activities late Monday, following an agreement by the bloc’s member states earlier in the day. Policymakers had to overcome last-minute divisions over the kinds of technologies that should be eligible to be classified as green, with nuclear-energy proponents, including France, seeking revisions to an earlier version of the proposed rules.

“With this deal, we now have a common language and new rules for financial markets,” Pascal Canfin, a French member of the EU parliament, said in an email. The final compromise means both nuclear and gas “are neither included nor excluded in principle” from parts of the list, and — like all other activities — would feature only if they comply with the so-called “do no significant harm” principle, he said.

The EU’s definitions of sustainable activities for investment purposes, dubbed “taxonomy,” are the centerpiece of its plan to regulate the fast-growing market of green finance, in the hope of directing trillions of euros to fund a radical overhaul of the region’s economy. It’s meant to define what’s green and what’s not, an effort that could find a range of uses and serve as an example for governments around the world.

The back-and-forth over the rules shows what kind of obstacles the EU has to overcome to meet its ambitious climate targets. Leaders last week agreed that the bloc should achieve zero net emissions by 2050, paving the way for a flurry of legislation that’s needed for the unprecedented clean-up of the economy.

Green Investment

The agreement on the taxonomy is a vital step is it’s meant to help countries shoulder the cost of fighting global warming. “This is the much-needed enabler to get green investments to flow and help Europe reach climate neutrality by 2050,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the European Commissioner in charge of financial-services policy, said on Twitter.

Monday’s agreement on the green investment catalog is just the first step of the process, setting out the overall framework. The concrete list of activities will be drawn up based on recommendations by a panel of experts and adopted by the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm.

All financial products will need to make clear to which extent they comply with the new framework, though issuers can opt-out if they don’t pursue any environmental goals. The first set of definitions will be applied from the end of 2021, with the rest following a year later.

“We are delighted that there is progress in the approval of the EU taxonomy,” Nathan Fabian, chief responsible investment officer at Principles for Responsible Investment, said in an email. “Investors in Europe and around the world see the taxonomy as a major reform in investment practices and are keen to understand their obligations under the framework.”

Gazprom PJSC and Ukraine reached an agreement that will allow Russian gas to flow to Europe via its neighbour through the end of 2024 and settle all of the related legal disputes.
Ukraine’s gas company, Naftogaz PJSC, will organise the transit of Russian gas through the country, with a booked pipeline capacity of 65bn cubic meters for 2020 shipments, Gazprom chief executive officer Alexey Miller said in a statement yesterday.
In 2021-2024, the booked capacities will reach 40bn cubic meters a year, he said. The companies also agreed to mull the possibility of gas transit through 2034, according to a protocol, signed late Friday evening in Minsk. An extension for the following 10 years may be on the same terms as the five-year deal, according to Ukraine’s Energy Ministry.
“The transit via Ukraine will continue and the strategic nature of the transit was understood by everyone and I believe it would help us open a new chapter in this relationship,” EU Commission Vice President Maros Sefcovic told Bloomberg yesterday.
The bilateral agreement paves the way for the continuation of Russian gas flows to Europe via Ukraine, which has been the key transit route for Gazprom even amid the legal spats and political tensions between the two nations.
It also supports Europe’s energy security as Russia has been the European Union’s dominant and often cheapest energy supplier, providing some 37% of the fuel to the region last year. The current 10-year transit deal between Russia and Ukraine expires January 1. “There are very precise deadlines until when everything should happen,” Sefcovic said. “I have no doubt that everything will go smoothly as of January 1 because there was full understanding of what needs to be done.”
Russia and Ukraine reached the deal as the US administration imposed sanctions on Russia’s future subsea gas-export pipeline, Nord Stream 2. The $11bn pipeline is just weeks away from completion, but it has faced criticism from the US, and it wasn’t immediately clear if the pipeline work can be completed without the input of AllSeas Group SA, which said it would halt operations.
Talks to find a deal between Russia and Ukraine intensified in recent days as the deadline loomed. “To be honest we have done almost the impossible in three months,” Ukraine’s Energy Minister Oleksiy Orzhel told reporters in Kiev yesterday.
Under the deal, Gazprom and Ukraine have agreed not to start any new gas lawsuits against each other and to cancel all their current legal claims that haven’t been subject to court rulings, according to Miller. The Russian gas giant will also pay to Naftogaz $2.9bn awarded by the Stockholm arbitration in 2018.
The sum includes a $2.6bn debt and fines accumulated thereafter, a spokesman for Gazprom said in a separate statement. “It is very important that these $3bn in line with Stockholm arbitration will be paid in cash if we implement all the package of proposals before year-end,” Orzhel said. At the same time Ukraine will withdraw its legal claims against the Russian company.
Last month, Naftogaz filed a lawsuit against Gazprom with a court of arbitration in Stockholm, asking to revise transit fees totalling more than $12bn.
Gazprom and the Ukrainian government are also set to sign an “amicable agreement” on cancelling an antitrust claim that has reached about $7.4bn, including fines. All the legal issues should be resolved by December 29, according to the protocol.

Ship owners and refiners are facing the biggest change to their industries in a generation: strict environmental rules for vessel fuel that kick in on January 1, 2020. Technically, it’s just a cap on sulphur content, but the repercussions are sweeping. Governments and companies across the globe have raced to prepare amid concerns about fuel shortages that could affect thousands of ships. Consumers, from cruise ships to truckers, will face higher prices. Some companies are already making a fortune. But the health benefits are expected to be substantial around the globe. If adopted widely – and enforcement is an open question – it may be the biggest single global change for air quality ever.

1. What are the new rules?
Fuel must have a maximum sulphur content of 0.5%, down from the current 3.5% limit in most cases. Known as IMO 2020, the regulation is set by the International Maritime Organization, a UN agency with responsibility for the safety and security of shipping as well as marine pollution by ships. Sulphur emissions are linked to acid rain and medical conditions such as asthma and heart disease.

2. Why does shipping cause pollution?
Because ships use heavy fuel oil – the gunk that’s left over in the refining process once more valuable, less sulphurous products such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel have been squeezed out of crude oil. Although IMO rules have progressively tightened sulphur limits since 2005, there’s a long way to go: A Finnish study in 2016 estimated that air pollution from ships under current guidelines would contribute to more than 570,000 premature deaths worldwide between 2020 and 2025.

3. How are refiners affected by shipping rules?
Even though the rules apply specifically to ships, those vessels have to get their fuel from somewhere. Simply put, if refiners can make more IMO-compliant fuel, they stand to make more money. Complex refiners, such as those on the US Gulf Coast, would benefit. So-called simple plants, which can’t adjust as easily, could be at risk. Demand for so-called sweet (low sulphur) crude such as Brent is set to rise, at the expense of sour (high sulphur) crude produced mainly in the Middle East. Refiners’ economics from making a range of fuels – from gasoline to jet fuel – are being upended.

4. Which fuel will shippers switch to?
As of now, they seem to be favouring a somewhat broad group of products called very-low sulphur ship fuel, or VLSFO. Another option is marine gasoil, a distillate-based fuel. For this reason, analysts expect distillate demand to increase when the rules take effect. However, no single, IMO-compliant benchmark fuel has emerged. The market is still evolving, and companies including  Exxon Mobil Corp and Royal Dutch Shell Plc plan to offer a range of products. Shell has already made $1bn from fuel oil trading this year.

5. Will there be enough
compliant fuel?
It depends who you ask. In recent months, a flotilla of vessels storing compliant fuel has gathered near Singapore, the world’s largest bunkering port. Shipping company Euronav NV has even filled a supertanker with oil to help it comply with the rules and sent it to the region – for a profit of $52mn by one estimate. In other places, such as Gibraltar, there’s been a back-up of vessels. Researcher EnSys Energy & Systems Inc – an early sceptic of fuel availability – thinks that even if there’s enough compliant-fuel at the outset, stockpiles will wind down within months.

6. Do shippers have any other options?
Yes, they can install pollution-reducing scrubbers that can handle oil with a higher-sulphur content. But here’s the thing: Fitting a scrubber can cost as much as $6mn per ship. New orders for scrubbers have dwindled, and only 3,000 new orders are expected to be installed by the end of the year, according to BloombergNEF. That means the vast majority of ships will need to switch to using more expensive, low-pollutant fuel.

7. How will these changes be enforced?
The IMO says it expects strict enforcement of the rules, and it’s up to ports to make sure that happens. Some, such as Greece, have pledged strict adherence and potential sanctions for violators. Others, like Fujairah, the Middle East’s main bunkering hub, are taking a much softer approach. In places like Denmark and Norway, drone aircraft are being used to sniff out those who run afoul of the IMO’s mandate. Still, it’s going to be tricky – about half of the IMO’s members didn’t sign up for the switch.

8. Who will suffer?
Potentially anyone who buys petroleum products – including cruise ships, trucking companies and automobile drivers. That’s because the extra demand for cleaner fuel from shippers could mean refiners may produce lower quantities of products such as jet fuel and gasoline. Some shippers contend that the new rules have the potential to upend world trade, since the cost of compliance will be high for many.

A defining moment in the history of the oil-refining and shipping industries is at hand.
In fewer than two weeks, thousands of ships the world over will be forced to use fuel containing less sulphur in order to comply with global rules set out by the International Maritime Organization. Those who don’t could face penalties and even imprisonment. Ports are deploying drones to – literally – sniff out wrongdoers. The regulations are having a profound effect on oil refineries and the cost of seaborne trade looks set to rise.

What’s the big deal?
For decades, shipping has been the oil market’s dumping ground for a pollutant blamed on aggravating human health conditions including asthma and causing acid rain. That’s because refineries have struggled to eradicate it when turning crude into fuels. Even so, when the regulations were mandated back in October 2016, they came as a shock to many observers who had expected a later start date. While a panic about getting ready has subsided, there’s clearly still work to do – as a slump in the price of non-compliant fuel demonstrates.
“IMO 2020 is the most fundamental and dramatic product specification change the oil industry has experienced, with an impact on both shipping and refining,” said Torbjorn Tornqvist, the chief executive officer of Gunvor Group, one of the world’s largest oil and gas traders. “It has the potential to change every product and crude differential out there.”
The cost of shipping a twenty-foot box-load of goods from Latin America to Europe could rise by $26, according to IHS Markit, a consultancy. A week-long ship cruise could go up by $130 per cabin, the firm estimates. Add 5 cents onto a crate of bananas.
It’s still too early to say exactly who the biggest winners and losers will be among refineries because there are thousands of variables that shape their profit – more than 600 grades of crude, and many ways of setting up the plants.

Safety concerns
The shipping industry has been consistent in flagging a safety concern about the rules. As yet, there’s no single global standard. The new fuel must simply have certain properties – including sulphur and other important metrics – that don’t exceed specified levels.
But the lack of a single global product means refineries can make a compliant fuel in different ways. It’s thought that some will essentially be low-sulphur crudes that are carefully mixed with other oils, for example. Another way of making the product is to mix the residues from crude that have gone through what’s known as vacuum processing in a refinery with other material. These different approaches mean the ships’ chief engineers will need to be vigilant so as to avoid mixing incompatible fuels.
Proof of the greater risks have emerged in northwest Europe, where supplies of the new fuel have been found to contain too much sediment. If such fuel found its way onto ships, it could potentially clog filters and lead to engine problems.
“We still have concerns over safety and availability of compliant fuels,” said Guy Platten, secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping, an umbrella group for maritime trade associations. “This is a pressing issue.”

Trade impact
There are already signs that the changeover is having an impact on maritime logistics.
In Singapore, the world’s biggest refuelling centre, vessels have had to wait longer than normal to collect bunker fuel. Likewise, the government of Gibraltar said that a lack of refuelling barges has emerged.
“When you consider that 90% of global trade is carried out by seas, it is very important,” said Robert Hvide Macleod, the chief executive officer for the management unit of Frontline Ltd, one of the world’s biggest supertanker owners. “It will surely be disruptive and create some supply chain bottlenecks in the early goings and logistics constraints when it comes to sourcing marine fuels.”
In broad terms, fuel represents shipping’s single biggest expense and the new types are trading at several hundred dollars per tonne more than the old variety. So the cost of seaborne trade could creep up if owners manage to pass on the higher prices.
“I think we will see its impact on global trade in terms of waiting days and increased costs,” said Sadan Kaptanoglu, president of BIMCO, the world’s largest shipping association. “There could even be chaos in extreme situations, where fuel shortages could delay cargo deliveries and non-compliance by ships ending in port state punishments and court cases.”

Compliance complications
It’s important to remember that oil refineries and shipping companies have spent billions getting ready.
Some ship owners installed scrubbers, units that can cost several million dollars each and allow carriers to remove sulphur from fuel as it’s burnt. This enables them to keep using today’s cheaper product. Likewise, refineries have invested in technology to convert sulphur-rich crude into higher-quality fuels.
For compliant companies, cheating by others is a problem. Yet there could be non-compliance, at least initially. Industry estimates are that something like 10%-15% of the fleet won’t comply with the rules at the start.
Not every country in the world signed up to the regulations, including some large coastal states with significant refining capacity. Even among those that did, not all look likely to start with strict enforcement. There’s also a disparity between what penalties will be imposed from one nation to the next.
South Africa, which sits on a shipping lane connecting eastern and western hemispheres, doesn’t yet have the domestic laws in place to punish non-compliant vessels.

Bottom line
Nevertheless, these rules should work.
Full enforcement may happen more slowly than the IMO and some in the shipping and refining industries would like. There’s a big financial incentive to cheat, and an opportunity to do so on selected trades.
Barring any obvious safety concerns though, the overriding view of analysts is that there should nonetheless be substantial compliance.
That means less airborne pollution and be a positive for those companies that invested in conforming.
“There’s almost certainly never been a simultaneous global specification change in the oil industry,” said Spencer Welch, oil markets and downstream director at IHS Markit. “For the whole world to change specification of a product on the same day is almost unheard of.”

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.

Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) secretary-general Dr Yury Sentyurin spoke at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP25) that concluded in Madrid recently.
Addressing the participants, the GECF official reaffirmed the crucial importance of challenges posed by climate change, alongside with the shared values and joint efforts undertaken by the international community to deal with the environmental issues.
Speaking on behalf of the organisation’s member countries – 19 major natural gas producers, Sentyurin emphasised that the natural gas industry looks seriously to technology options that can further promote decarbonisation potential of natural gas, including carbon capture, utilisation and sequestration options, and production of hydrogen from natural gas.
This adds to other progress in efficiency and digitalisation that enables a substantial reduction of greenhouse gases emissions along the entire supply chain.
Furthermore, the current expansion and technology progress of natural gas vehicles (NGVs) across the world offers a valuable opportunity to reduce emissions in the transportation sector.
GECF’s strong belief in the role of constructive international co-operation as a driver for effective global responses to climate change and sustainable development was specifically highlighted by the speaker.
Meanwhile, the professional community’s main concern is that in the era of energy transitions, introduction of discriminatory regulation against cleaner hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas, disturbs overall gas markets design, undermines investment in critical gas transport infrastructure and new gas supply projects. Natural gas is a balanced solution that contributes substantially to reducing carbon intensity and pollution resulting from energy-related activities, supports access to modern energy, improves availability of supply, and provides affordable energy.
The “blue fuel” can also be a vector of increased co-operation and technology transfer between energy stakeholders. These credentials have been explicitly recognised in the G20 Ministerial Meeting on Energy Transitions and Global Environment for Sustainable Growth in Japan early this year.
The GECF engagement in the UNFCCC as an observer organisation marks the willingness to contribute to scale up the Member Countries’ collective actions in order to reduce the environmental footprint of natural gas.
In this context, the GECF has initiated the Environmental Actions Framework that aims to create a supportive platform allowing Member Countries to share best practices dealing with the environmental challenges, building capabilities and establishing progressive research collaborations on various environment-related topics. This commitment is largely anchored in the GECF Heads of State Declarations including the recent one adopted in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea and the Organisation’s Long-Term Strategy.
In line with this environmental ambition, the GECF has reinforced its co-operation with various organisations to strengthen its research activity, exchange expertise and develop studies related to the interactions between energy and our environment.
Study outcomes are to be translated into concrete recommendations on energy policy actions for the GECF Member Countries.
At the same time, the recently established GECF Gas Research Institute is set to become a pivotal project for the organisation with the aim to develop technical knowledge and innovative technologies that reduce GHGs emissions.