Thursday, February 16, 2023

Court Seizes Malaysia Oil Firm Assets Amid $15 Billion Dispute

A Luxembourg court has issued seizure orders for two units of Malaysia’s state oil company Petronas as part of an arbitration case brought against the Malaysian state by the descendants of a now-defunct sultanate in the Philippines.

The court case is based on a deal made in the late 19th century by European colonists of Southeast Asia with the then-sultan of Sulu for the use of local land. Now, this land is part of Malaysia, which honored the 19th-century deal until 2013 and, as part of it, paid the descendants of the sultan $1,000 annually.

The descendants of the sultan have sued Malaysia for $15 billion after it stopped making the payments following a violent uprising by supporters of those descendants.

Malaysia has refused to accept the arbitration case ruling, which was made in February 2022 and in favor of the sultan’s descendants, in France. Soon after, the two Luxembourg subsidiaries of Petronas were served with seizure orders. After the news broke, Petronas said it would take steps to protect its overseas assets from seizure.

"Petronas contests the validity of these enforcement actions against its two aforementioned subsidiaries and is taking all necessary measures to defend its legal position," the Malaysian state oil major said last July.

One of these steps was to get a stay of the seizure order from a Luxembourg court yet the stay appears to have not been final.

Meanwhile, at home, Petronas launched a new tender for 10 exploration blocks along with two clusters of so-called discovered resource opportunities. Most of the 10 blocks are in three producing basins—Malay, Sabah, and Sarawak—and there are several in the new Penyu basin.

Earlier this month, the Malaysian state oil major signed production-sharing agreements for nine exploration blocks it awarded in last year’s tender.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

Alberta Is Fighting To Send Its Oil Abroad

  • Alberta’s oil sands have come under pressure in recent years as environmental groups push for the industry to decarbonize and both Biden and Trudeau blocked new pipelines.

  • Now, Alberta plans to establish ‘economic corridors’ to the coast of Canada and Alaska to help export its landlocked crude oil and natural gas.

  • As well as economic corridors to its coast, a new railway merger could create the first direct route from Alberta’s oil sands to Texas, providing yet another outlet.

Despite efforts from Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to move away from tar sands – long hailed as the world's most destructive oil operation – Alberta, the country’s largest oil-producing region, is pushing to open new energy corridors with the U.S. to export its fossil fuels. As the global demand for oil and gas continues, and countries look closer to home to secure their energy needs, Alberta believes it can promote its tar sands as a means of providing the energy needed until enough green alternatives are being produced to meet the rising global energy demand.

The government of Alberta is, as always, backing the state’s oil industry in a big way with plans to establish economic corridors to the coast of Canada and Alaska. This is expected to allow the state to circumvent regulatory restrictions to transporting oil through new pipelines, helping Alberta to export its crude. 

According to Pete Guthrie, Alberta’s energy minister, the energy corridors have already received pre-approved for rail, utilities, and crude oil and gas pipelines. Guthrie’s efforts are being supported by Alberta's Department of Transportation, which has already entered into discussions with British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and First Nations communities and stakeholders. According to Guthrie, “An internal committee has been formed and we are developing a strategy… No timeline has been set as yet for the building of the corridors, with the focus now being on creating a strategic plan.”

New corridors from landlocked Alberta could help the state gain higher revenue from its tar sands, encouraging producers to boost output for export. Once oil products reach the port of Kitimat, British Columbia, or Churchill, Manitoba they could be bound for Asia and Europe, vastly expanding Canada’s energy links. 

The new corridor strategy was established after several new oil and gas pipeline plans were blocked by American President Biden as well as Trudeau. Alberta has been finding it increasingly difficult to continue its production of oil sands due to environmental pressure to decarbonize operations. In addition, with several potential energy links with the U.S. and other parts of Canada halted in recent years, the industry has taken hit after hit. 

But progress is being made with Alberta’s corridor plans, as links between the Canadian province and Texas may soon get the green light. Two major North American railways, Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern have proposed a $27 billion merger, which would help freight move across North America using the first unified continental rail network. The companies have signed a 10-year deal with ConocoPhillips Canada and USD Group to transport the oil across the U.S.  Although the firms are still awaiting U.S. regulatory approval. 

This route would provide the first direct link between oil-producing Alberta and the oil refineries in Port Arthur, on the Texas coast. The vice president of Texas-based midstream company USD Group stated, “We fully expect that the combination of the two railroads will only strengthen their support for this new source of bitumen.” This is not the first new oil rail link to be proposed, with Utah looking to transport oil sands from its Uinta basin. 

But Texas residents and environmentalists across the country have unsurprisingly demonstrated their opposition to the merger. Residents worry about the additional freight traffic in the region causing major disruptions, as well as stating health concerns; while environmentalists are nervous about what impact a potential spill could have on the environment. 

On 3rd February this year, a train carrying chemicals crashed and exploded in East Palestine, Ohio. This led to the evacuation of over 2,000 people and is threatening the local water supply. And according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, there were over 1,000 derailments across the U.S. in 2021, highlighting the severity of the threat. This has led both residents and environmentalists across the country to be cautious of any new freight links, particularly those carrying chemical products.

In addition to concerns about transporting oil sands via rail, environmentalists and politicians are also worried about encouraging greater tar sands production, which could be detrimental to achieving carbon-cutting goals in both the U.S. and Canada. In 2019, Alberta held the world’s third-largest oil reserves with 170 billion barrels. It had around 120 active oil sands projects, pumping 2.6 million bpd. Most of this oil was shipped as diluted bitumen, using light crude and chemicals, to the U.S. to be refined. 

Operations to extract Alberta’s tar sands are causing immense damage to the landscape, as well as emitting extremely high levels of carbon emissions. Indigenous communities in Canada say that oil sands projects have had a “huge impact on caribou, bison, moose, birds, fish, the water, the forest.” Meanwhile, others argue about the anticipated cost of cleaning up after these developments, with the price of fixing mines and tailing ponds projected to cost around $195 billion.

New energy corridors could help the oil-rich Canadian province of Alberta to further develop its oil sands industry, exporting its products across North America and beyond. But political and public opposition continues to pose a threat to any development. Having seen the cancellation of several pipeline projects in recent years, Alberta’s hopes of developing large-scale energy links with Canada’s coastal cities and the U.S. may never play out. But if they do, we could see a massive expansion in Canada’s oil sands sector.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Can Russia Afford To Keep Funding Its Space Program?

  • Russia’s space program is facing mounting economic hurdles.

  • Sanctions against Russia are weighing on its space program and economy as a whole. 

  • Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has also highlighted the failures of the Kremlin’s military space assets.

By 2023, Russia’s budgetary planning for civilian and military space programs was presumed to have changed compared with previous years due to the breakdown in space cooperation with the United States and Europe (with the exception of the International Space Station); the failures of Russia’s military space assets during Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine; and the economic troubles of the space corporation Roscosmos, suffering from sanctions and low economic efficiency. For instance, the corporation received 31 billion rubles ($421 million) with more than 50 billion rubles ($730 million) in net losses for 2021–2022, compared to a 1.8 billion rubles ($28 million) in net losses and 500 million rubles ($7 million) in net profits for 2019 and 2020, respectively. Moreover, the cumulative net losses of the state-owned corporation since its establishment in 2015 as a successor to the Federal Space Agency surpassed 90 billion rubles ($1.3 billion), comparable to Russia’s annual expenditure on civil space exploration (Roscosmos.ru, 2021; Vedomosti, December 21, 2022).

It has become evident that the past few years have been a complete disaster for Roscosmos and that the war has made the situation even worse. Despite this, however, little changes are evident in the Russian space budget. The total annual expenditures on space programs during the previous five years were the following: 212.4 billion rubles ($3.4 billion) in 2018; 251.7 billion rubles ($3.9 billion) in 2019; 258.2 billion rubles ($3.6 billion) in 2020; 250.6 billion rubles ($3.4 billion) in 2021; and 264.2 billion rubles ($3.9 billion) in 2022. For 2023, 2024 and 2025, the current plan presumes 257.5 billion rubles ($3.8 billion, according to the average exchange rate of 2022), 254.5 billion rubles ($3.7 billion) and 253.8 billion rubles ($3.7 billion), respectively (Sozd.duma.gov.ru, September 30, 2020; Sozd.duma.gov.ru, September 30, 2021; Sozd.duma.gov.ru, September 28, 2022). However, the plan for space spending may be revised several times during 2023, and its final annual amount will be clear by the end of this year.

Russia’s military space program consists of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS), other military satellite networks and various projects including communications, optical and radar observation and electronic intelligence. The maintenance and development of the Plesetsk military launch site and other military ground space infrastructure are included as well. The Russian military’s current share of total space spending has become much harder to determine than in the previous decade. But the approximate and rather conservative number for 2023 is no less than 110– 120 billion rubles ($1.6–$1.8 billion)—this assessment being based on official documents and on the differences between openly declared space spending and the total space budget in the previous decade (Vedomosti, May 13, 2014; Sozd.duma.gov.ru, September 28, 2022; Fcp.economy.gov.ru, 2023). Annually, only minor fluctuations were observed in spending, as compared to the previous and current levels of expenditures.

At the same time, this estimation does not include operational spending on military units and military personnel involved in the space program, which are financed by the Russian Ministry of Defense. This prospective figure also does not count dual-use programs and projects in the development of satellites and launch vehicles, which are financed within the civil space program. Moreover, as Russia continues to cut itself off from the global space market and its domestic space market is quite small, the Ministry of Defense may become the main driver even for the civilian space program. This may go so far as to even include manned flights if Russia is able to deploy its own orbital station sometime after 2030 (Roscosmos.ru, July 26, 2022).

Despite Russia’s push toward autonomy in space travel, some level-headed top managers are still present within Roscosmos who realize that Russia must maintain its space partnership with the United States and Europe, instead of buying into illusory thinking about a national orbital station or potential partnership with the People’s Republic of China (Interfax-AVN, December 26, 2022; RIA Novosti, February 10).

Another key point to consider here is the status of GLONASS. The current budget plan still does not presume a significant increase in spending for the program. For 2023, 2024 and 2025, the program is set to receive 24.7 billion rubles ($361 million), 24.5 billion rubles ($358 million) and 28.2 billion rubles ($412 million), respectively, compared with 24.9 billion rubles ($338 million) and 27 billion rubles ($394 million), respectively, in 2021 and 2022 (Sozd.duma.gov.ru, September 28, 2022). These numbers are much lower than in 2009–2010 and 2015–2018, when Russia actively modernized and maintained its satellite navigation system (Fcp.economy.gov.ru, 2023). However, the planned investment in the GLONASS program for the period running from 2021 to 2030 is set at 484 billion rubles ($6.6 billion), as compared with 270 billion rubles ($5 billion) in 2012–2020 (RBC, December 21, 2020).

If this data is true, that means Russia will spend only a quarter of what it once spent during the first five years of the ten-year program. Moreover, as of today, 14 of 25 GLONASS satellites have exceeded their expected lifespans, and it is becoming more difficult for Russia to replace the old GLONASS-M generation of satellites with the next-generation GLONASS-K (Glonass-iac.ru, February 9, 2023). Russia produces 15 to 17 satellites of all types annually, and increasing satellite production rate is considered possible either through additional budget spending or through corporate bonds worth 50 billion rubles ($675 million) that could only be purchased by state-owned entities. As a result, it is hard to say if Russia will be capable of producing any more than one or two navigation satellites per year (RIA Novosti, February 10). Consequently, the absence of growth in spending in this sector most likely means that Moscow still does not have a clear plan for GLONASS. The example of the inertia plaguing GLONASS may be considered an indicator of the actual situation within the Russia’s entire military space program.

By the Jamestown Foundation

Will Electric Vehicles Continue To Thrive Without Subsidies?

  • Sales of electric vehicles in Germany have fallen after subsidies were reduced.

  • Politicians have used subsidies to fuel electric vehicle sales, but governments can’t afford to keep the subsidies in place forever.

  • Electric vehicles also pose a problem for aging power grids, which, if not updated, will not be able to support a full transition.

Sales in Germany plunged after subsidies were reduced...

Think Twice About Electric Vehicles

The Wall Street Journal reports Germans Think Twice About Electric Vehicles

Sales of fully electric vehicles (EVs) fell 13.2% in January compared to January 2022, Germany’s Motor Transport Authority reports. Sales of hybrids declined 6.2%. This compares to an increase of 3.5% in the number of new gasoline-powered cars sold, and a modest decline of 1.2% for diesel.

The main explanation is the end of Berlin’s subsidies for EVs and hybrids at the new year. Until December the subsidy had offered up to €9,000 split between consumer and producer for EVs with a net list price below €40,000. Hybrids in that price range received €6,750. Berlin has ditched the subsidy for hybrids entirely, and cut the payout to €4,500 for EVs below €40,000. 

This year will thus be a market test for electric vehicle demand in the Vatican of climate-change belief. Politicians in the West have used subsidies and mandates to drive EV sales, no matter that they aren’t as green as their advertising. The cars are only as carbon-friendly to operate as the power grids they refuel from, and Berlin’s refusal to embrace nuclear power means Germany is burning more coal to cover for the end of natural-gas imports from Russia. Then there’s the environmental cost of mining for all that cobalt, copper and lithium for EVs and their batteries.

If consumers want to buy EVs, go for it. But what does it say about their appeal if people need subsidies to buy them?

Can the Power Grid Handle a Wave of New Electric Vehicles?

Also consider the question Can the Power Grid Handle a Wave of New Electric Vehicles?

Experts believe EVs will make up a third or even half of all light vehicles sold annually in the U.S. by 2030, up from about 7% in 2022.

If those predictions are correct, that leaves a big question: Will the power grid be capable of charging the batteries in those tens of millions of vehicles?

Some grid operators already are struggling to keep up with demand in certain areas and at certain times—California power authorities, for example, asked residents to avoid charging electric cars in the evening during a heat wave last September to help avoid overloading the grid, while utility officials in other areas have warned at times of possible rolling blackouts to prevent system collapses.

First, the good news: Many experts think the utility industry will be ready to generate enough power for the coming EV wave, thanks to planned capacity increases costing hundreds of billions of dollars.

But that isn’t the whole story. The potential for much more serious bottlenecks looms in the local legs of the grid that transmit electricity to individual homes and businesses. Expensive upgrades could be needed for these neighborhood power-distribution systems. Additional spending will be needed to bolster the wires and transformers serving commercial sites as electric trucks and delivery vans become common.

Combined, all these investments likely would result in higher electric rates, many industry analysts say. “The more they invest in the grid, the more those costs go back to consumers,” says Brad Stansberry, U.S. energy advisory leader at audit and consulting firm KPMG.

Let that last sentence paragraph in. Utilities will have to spend a lot of money to add capacity. It will cost even more if the capacity is a clean energy input source.

Cleaner energy will eventually come from solar, but how do we get that energy to Chicago? At what price?

I still wonder how the heck an evacuation of Florida happens when everyone needs to drive hundreds of miles to escape a hurricane. 

Are you convinced we have enough lithium, nickel, and other materials to make enough batteries? I am not. The more EVs we do build, the more metals we need. At what cost, and at how much pollution mining them?

Distance and Convenience

For me, it's all about distance and convenience. 

It's convenient to charge at home, provided you don't go anywhere. I dive long distances and to the middle of nowhere frequently.

It is not so convenient to have to stop whatever you are doing to charge a vehicle (assuming you can find a charger in the middle of nowhere) or to rent a car if you want to drive five hours straight.

EV Sales Spiked in California

For a different take, Wolf Street reports EV Sales Spiked in California. First Uptick in Electricity Sales after 13 Years of Decline

But what about subsidies and the extraordinarily high price of gasoline in California?

By ZeroHedge - Feb 13, 2023, via MishTalk.com