The Race for Green Hydrogen Dominance is Heating Up

• 
  
• By Felicity Bradstock - May 05, 2024
• 
  
• China dominates the green hydrogen sector with over 1000 kilotonnes of electrolysis-based hydrogen capacity in development.
• 
  
• Saudi Arabia is constructing the world's largest green hydrogen project, with a capacity of 600 tonnes per day.
• 
  
• The EU aims to produce and import 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030 to power transport and decarbonize industry.
• 
  

Several regions of the world are battling to achieve green hydrogen dominance by rapidly developing their hydrogen production capacity, transport infrastructure, and hydrogen corridors. While Asia and the Middle East are rapidly building their production capabilities, Europe is focusing on connectivity to ensure it can transport hydrogen across borders. Hydrogen is seen as key to achieving a green transition as, unlike many other renewable energy sources, it is considered a versatile carrier that can be used as a fuel to power transport and other hard-to-abate industries. Decarbonising aviation, freight transport and industries such as manufacturing will depend heavily on regional green hydrogen production, which has encouraged both heavy public and private investment into the sector in recent years to accelerate production and spur technological innovation. 

Most of the hydrogen produced globally is derived from fossil fuels, with green hydrogen contributing less than one percent of global production at present. However, in line with climate pledges and aims for a green transition, several state governments have introduced green hydrogen policies and funding support to develop widescale green hydrogen projects in the coming decades. There is a global green hydrogen capacity of around 180 kT at present, with 14,000 kT more expected to be completed by 2030. There is a significantly larger global project pipeline that could be deployed pending investment and permitting. At present, China is by far the biggest consumer and producer of hydrogen. 

The countries with the most ambitious green hydrogen production pipeline include China, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Vietnam, Australia, Oman, France, and Canada. In 2023, China had 1060.9 kilotonnes of electrolysis-based hydrogen capacity in the final stages of development. While the second biggest green hydrogen power, Saudi Arabia, had 339 kT, followed by Sweden with 230.8 kT, demonstrating China’s dominance of the sector. Saudi Arabia is currently constructing the world’s biggest green hydrogen project to date, a facility that is expected to include ?up to 4 GW of solar and wind energy to produce up to 600 tonnes of green hydrogen per day, or up to 200 GW of green hydrogen every year. 

The European Union aims to produce 10 million tonnes and import a further 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030, which it will use to power transport and decarbonise industry. Germany has big plans for a future in green hydrogen, with almost $14.2 billion in state funding earmarked for the development of around two dozen hydrogen projects. Meanwhile, Sweden opened its largest electrolyser facility last year, with more expected to follow. In the U.K., the government believes “low carbon hydrogen has a critical role to play in [its] transition to net zero.” The U.K. plans to develop 5 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030, equivalent to the amount of gas consumed by over 3 million households annually.  

In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, several states are developing their green hydrogen capacity, supported by state and private funding. This month, in Oman, the state-owned group overseeing green hydrogen development, Hydrom, surpassed its annual funding aims with the signing of two new projects in Dhofar worth $11 billion. Oman’s total green hydrogen production is now expected to reach 1.38 million tonnes per year (mtpa) by 2030. The second round of green hydrogen auctions by Hydrom attracted more than 200 companies looking to invest in the sector in Oman. 

Meanwhile, in March, the Moroccan government stated that it would be allocating one million hectares to green hydrogen projects, with 300,000 hectares designated for the first phase of development. This is expected to attract greater private investment in the sector. The Prime Minister of Morocco said he expected to help the North African country “play a major role in the field of energy transition globally.” Over 100 investors have already shown interest in producing green hydrogen in Morocco, encouraged by the country’s favourable conditions for solar and wind energy production. 

In Asia, China is rapidly developing its green hydrogen capacity, with an estimated installed capacity of 1.2 GW at the end of 2023. The Hydrogen Council and McKinsey predict that China will be the biggest single market for clean hydrogen by the mid-century, transporting most of its supplies via pipeline for domestic use. Meanwhile, in Vietnam, the government launched its national hydrogen development strategy in February. Vietnam aims to produce between 100,000 MT and 500,000 MT a year of hydrogen, derived from renewable energy and carbon capture by the end of the decade. This is expected to increase to between 10 million MT and 20 million MT a year by 2050. 

In most regions of the world, green hydrogen is in the nascent stage of development. However, several countries have significant green hydrogen production pipelines, which they hope to develop over the next decade. This is expected to support the decarbonisation of hard-to-abate industries such as transport and heavy industry. While China will no doubt remain the biggest green hydrogen producer, several other countries are developing green hydrogen strategies to support regional development to reduce their reliance on foreign powers for their renewable fuel supply.  

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

 

Why the U.S. Must Support Critical Mineral Exploration in High-Risk Countries

By Irina Slav - May 07, 2024

The United States must provide support to Western companies that are reluctant to mine critical minerals in risky jurisdictions, energy advisor to the White House Amos Hochstein said this week.

"We can all live in the capitals and cities around the world and say 'I don't want to do business there.' But what you are really saying is we're not going to have an energy transition," Hochstein said at the Milken Institute Global Conference, as quoted by Reuters.

"Because the energy transition is not going to happen if it can only be produced where I live, under my standards," he added.

The energy transition will require massive amounts of metals and minerals. Some of these are concentrated in jurisdictions such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where Western miners are wary of treading.

Other mineral-rich countries that are politically unstable are also potential sources for transition materials but Western miners are reluctant to go in and start exploiting their resources.

At the Milken Institute event, Hochstein slammed banks for contributing to this reluctance that could, it seems, cost the U.S. the transition.

"If you want to invest in, whether it's Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Mexico, Congo, Zambia, DRC, etc, Angola - these are different profile countries that have different kinds of risks associated with them. And Western finance has basically said we will not be able to absorb this risk," he said.

To remedy this, Hochstein suggested that capital flows through state-owned entities such as the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, as well as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

"The government has a real role here of incentivizing private capital by taking more risk in this initial work, in a responsible manner, but more risk to allow the private sector to come in, augment it and allow the investment so that we have a diversified, sustainable and equitable energy transition," he explained.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

 

Russian Fuel Cargos Pile Up at Sea as South Korean Buyers Grow Cautious

By Charles Kennedy - May 07, 2024, 

Russian oil product cargos are piling up at sea as their South Korean buyers grow reluctant to go through with their deals amid a government crackdown on sanction evasion, Bloomberg has reported, citing unnamed sources.

According to Kpler data, there are over 2 million barrels of Russian naphtha sitting off the coast of Oman, which is significantly higher than the weekly average for January and February, which came in at some 790,000 barrels.

The Bloomberg sources said that the buildup was caused by the South Korean government’s closer scrutiny of incoming fuel cargos, which has made local refiners and petrochemical producers wary of buying Russian naphtha.

The tightening sanctions on Russia's oil exports are raising freight costs for moving Russian crude. The estimated direct cost to deliver Russian cargoes now is around 6-8% of the price of a barrel of crude leaving the western ports in Russia for Asia, according to data from commodity price reporting agency Argus crunched by Bloomberg.

Argus estimated in March that shipping a barrel of Russian crude from a port in the Baltic Sea to China has cost around $14.50 since December, with more than half of this per-barrel cost attributable to the Western sanctions.

The likely directly related-to-sanction cost to hire tankers to transport Russian oil is estimated at about $773 million since the end of December 2023, based on shipments tracked by Bloomberg.

Before the war in the Ukraine Russia was the top supplier of naphtha for South Korean petrochemicals makers but the war has changed this, per the Bloomberg report. Now South Korean plastics producers are importing more naphtha from places such as the UAE, Malaysia, Singapore, and Tunisia. South Korean processors are also importing more naphtha from Kuwait and Oman.

Russia, for its part, is shipping more naphtha to China, according to Kpler, as well as Taiwan. Last month, Russian imports accounted for more than half of the total naphtha shipments that Taiwan took in.

Biden Administration Bans Fossil Fuels in Federal Buildings
By Robert Rapier - May 06, 2024,

• 
  
• 
  
• The rule, mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, requires federal buildings to phase out fossil fuel usage by 2030.
• 
  
• The focus is on transitioning to cleaner electricity sources like wind and solar power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• 
  
• Despite opposition from natural gas utilities, the rule is projected to significantly reduce carbon and methane emissions, equivalent to those of nearly 310,000 homes annually.

The U.S. Department of Energy has finalized a rule banning fossil fuels from new and renovated federal buildings. The Clean Energy for New Federal Buildings and Major Renovations of Federal Buildings Rule, mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, mandates a phased reduction in fossil fuel usage in these buildings. The law requires federal buildings and major renovations to phase out fossil fuel-generated energy consumption by 2030. This provision had been pending due to regulatory delays until now.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm highlighted the significance of this rule, emphasizing the federal government’s commitment to energy efficiency and cost savings: “The Biden-Harris Administration is practicing what we preach. Just as we are helping households and businesses across the nation save money by saving energy, we are doing the same in our own federal buildings.”

With commercial and residential buildings contributing 13% of direct greenhouse gas emissions in 2022, primarily from burning natural gas, the focus has shifted towards electrification. This entails transitioning from gas to cleaner electricity sources like wind and solar power.

Given the absence of regulations enforcing the removal of gas-fired appliances, some federal buildings continue to install them. For instance, Independence Hall in Philadelphia plans to switch to gas-fired boilers instead of remaining connected to a city-wide steam loop for heating.

While projects that are already underway, like Independence Hall, are exempt from the new rule, its implementation aims to accelerate the electrification of federal sites as envisioned in EISA’s Section 433. Advocated by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), this provision sought to leverage government leadership to drive technological advancements and cost reductions in climate-friendly measures.

Complemented by Executive Order 14057 and other Federal Sustainability Plan initiatives, the new rule is aimed at the goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2045, supported by DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). Through supplemental guidance and resources, FEMP will assist agencies in achieving compliance, facilitating clean energy deployment and phasing out on-site fossil fuel usage. This milestone reflects extensive engagement with federal stakeholders, underscoring the collaborative effort to accelerate the adoption of clean energy within the federal building sector.

The Energy Department faced delays in implementing the rule, largely due to opposition from natural gas utilities concerned about potential business losses. The American Gas Association criticized the final rule, citing cost increases and lack of environmental benefits.

However, the Energy Department’s analysis countered that the rule is projected to reduce carbon emissions by 2 million metric tons and methane emissions by 16 thousand tons, equivalent to the emissions of nearly 310,000 homes annually.

By Robert Rapier

Steel Producers Make Major Move to Improve Market Transparency

• Nucor and Cliffs start publishing weekly and monthly HRC prices.

• Mixed Q1 results for steel mills, with shipments up from Q4 but down from Q1 2023.
• 
  
• U.S. Steel acquisition by Nippon Steel faces political hurdles and potential antitrust scrutiny.

Via Metal Miner   May 06, 2024

The Raw Steels Monthly Metals Index (MMI) moved sideways, with a modest 1.86% decline from April to May. U.S. flat-rolled steel prices found a bottom at the close of March and proceeded to move sideways. HRC prices saw a modest increase but ultimately closed the month at $838 per short ton. Meanwhile, HRC Midwest Futures saw a strong decline throughout April, which saw the delta between MetalMiner HRC prices and futures narrow to a mere $1 per short ton as of May 1. This signals that markets expect the sideways steel price trend to continue near current levels.

Nucor, Cliffs Publish Weekly HRC Prices

Two major steelmakers recently announced new initiatives to publish HRC spot prices. Nucor led the market, publishing weekly prices on Monday, April 8. Cleveland-Cliffs followed Nucor, releasing a monthly “Cliffs Hot Rolled Market Price” on Friday, April 26. According to reports from World Steel Dynamics, Steel Dynamics (SDI) does not intend to follow moves by Nucor or Cliffs.

By Friday, May 3, Nucor’s price stood at $825 per short ton, while Cliffs stood at $850 per short ton. Meanwhile, HRC prices currently stand at $826 per short ton. Both Nucor and Cliffs cited increased “market transparency” as the rationale for the moves. Nucor stated its published pricing aimed to reduce market volatility and they did not intend it to replace other HRC indexes. 

A few takeaways:

• It remains safe to assume that Nucor and Cliffs do and will continue to operate in their own best interest. While both companies stated that their weekly published pricing would benefit customers, the mills likely hope to influence HRC indexes at the very least.
• Nucor’s first published price ($825 per short ton) stood at the bottom of the market. Opening at a lower cost was likely part of a plan to boost the credibility of its newly published steel prices. However, this could shift over time as establishing an inflated market floor would benefit domestic mills.
• Increased control over domestic prices may indeed help reduce volatility, which has been apparent over recent years. However, it is worth noting that Nucor’s decision came immediately following a nearly 26% quarterly decline in steel prices as mills lost control of the price trend. This suggests that mills appear primarily concerned with steel price volatility to the downside.
• Other major domestic producers, particularly SDI and U.S. Steel, declined to publish their own prices. However, this will allow both to fall in line with Nucor and Cliffs without risking the legal implications of price fixing. 
• It remains unclear to what extent negotiations will impact the prices buyers pay. Historically, larger buyers have greater bargaining power. Nonetheless, the ability of mills to influence market conditions will continue to require them to manage the supply-demand balance through capacity discipline. 

Mill Quarterly Reports Show Mixed Results

Q1 2024 saw mixed results among steel mills with steel prices. Overall, shipments from the four leading domestic producers trended up from the previous quarter. Both Nucor and SDI saw an increase in total shipments, which offset quarterly declines from both U.S. Steel and Cleveland-Cliffs.

Historically, Q1 typically sees an uptick in steel shipments, so the increase is unsurprising. However, shipments fell across all mills from Q1 2023. This suggests weaker conditions on an annual basis. Despite the nearly 3% decrease in shipments from Q1 2023 to Q1 2024, the average Q1 MetalMiner HRC price rose 8.62% year over year.

Source: MetalMiner Insights,

Risks Mount for Nippon’s U.S. Steel Acquisition

The future of U.S. Steel remains in limbo as election-year politics continue to see Nippon’s potential acquisition draw ire from both sides of the aisle. Once the crown jewel of American manufacturing, U.S. Steel shrunk from its place as the world’s largest steel producer and corporation. By 2022, U.S. Steel’s position fell to the 24th-largest steel producer following years of underperformance. 

Trump promised to block the sale if elected, while President Biden vowed to keep U.S. Steel a “totally American company.” Although there is no guarantee that either candidate will fulfill their campaign promises, the mill remains a bargaining chip that could derail Nippon’s plans.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice opened an antitrust investigation into the takeover. By early May, the ongoing investigation triggered Nippon to delay the closing of the acquisition despite approval from U.S. Steel’s shareholders. The company now expects closing to occur in December, after previous expectations that it would be complete by September. However, this new timeline would push the deal beyond November’s presidential election.

Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves Fires Shots at Nippon Steel

After losing the initial bidding war for U.S. Steel, Cliffs remains interested should the deal fall apart. In fact, Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves continues to critique the sale. During the steelmaker’s Q1 earnings call, the outspoken CEO stated, “It still baffles me to this day that the clueless individuals representing Nippon Steel in this embarrassing event felt that they could do this without union support.” He noted later that the White House “has different ways to terminate the Nippon transaction, and we believe that will be done sooner rather than later.”

The sale’s blockage would seemingly guarantee a domestic buyer. This would increase mill consolidation in the U.S., which has historically given domestic producers greater control over prices. The ongoing challenges could also cause Nippon to look for a U.S. partner in the deal, although this remains merely speculative.

Want to know more about changing steel prices? MetalMiner should-cost models give your organization levers to pull for more price transparency from service centers, producers and part suppliers. Explore the models now.

By Nichole Bastin

FTC's Attack on Pioneer Sends Ripples Through Shale Industry


• By Irina Slav - May 06, 2024,
• The Federal Trade Commission last week gave the green light to Exxon’s acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources.
• 
  
• The FTC alleged that Sheffield had colluded with OPEC and OPEC+ members to limit production and increase oil prices.
• 
  
• In a response to the FTC allegations, the company defended its founder, saying he had always had the U.S. oil industry’s best interest at heart.
• 
  

The Federal Trade Commission last week gave the green light to Exxon’s acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources. There was one condition attached to the approval of the $60-billion deal: that Scott Sheffield, the former CEO of Pioneer, does not join the combined company’s board.

The FTC alleged that Sheffield had colluded with OPEC and OPEC+ members to limit production and increase oil prices. The allegations shook the shale oil world, where several large consolidation deals are awaiting the trade watchdog’s approval. Now, the consolidation drive that has marked the last year in U.S. shale may have to slow down.

First, the allegations. According to a news release from last week, the Federal Trade Commission had informed Exxon that it would only approve the merger with Pioneer if Sheffield, who was going to become an Exxon board member as part of the deal, stayed out of it.

“Mr. Sheffield’s past conduct makes it crystal clear that he should be nowhere near Exxon’s boardroom. American consumers shouldn’t pay unfair prices at the pump simply to pad a corporate executive’s pocketbook,” the deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, Kyle Mach, said in the release.

“Through public statements and private communications, Pioneer founder and former CEO Scott D. Sheffield has campaigned to organize anticompetitive coordinated output reductions between and among U.S. crude oil producers, and others, including the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”), and a related cartel of other oil-producing countries known as OPEC+,” the Commission in a formal complaint.

The regulator then went on to motivate the attachment of its condition to the Exxon-Pioneer deal approval, saying that it sought “to prevent Pioneer’s Sheffield from engaging in collusive activity that would potentially raise crude oil prices, leading American consumers and businesses to pay higher prices for gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil and jet fuel.”

Naturally, Pioneer had something to say about the allegations. In a response to the FTC allegations, the company defended its founder, saying he had always had the U.S. oil industry’s best interest at heart. The response also suggested that any communication Sheffield may have conducted with OPEC and OPEC+ members had been to the same end—to protect the U.S. shale industry.

“Mr. Sheffield and Pioneer believe that the FTC’s Complaint reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the U.S. and global oil markets and misreads the nature and intent of Mr. Sheffield’s actions,” the response said.

The actions in question were conversations with OPEC and OPEC+ officials in 2020, when pandemic lockdowns decimated global oil demand, pushing U.S. oil prices briefly below zero. At the time, Sheffield was an advocate of production cuts in the shale patch as well, in a bid to minimize the damage that the demand drop was already causing the industry, Pioneer also said.

It didn’t make any difference, however. The FTC had already made up its mind and acted on it. As a result, Bloomberg and the Financial Times are reporting that shale executives are getting spooked about future mergers in case they get caught in the crosshairs of the regulator, which has not exactly been a fan of the oil industry since 2020.

“The implications go far beyond Sheffield,” James Lucier, an analyst at Capital Alpha Partners, said in a note to clients following the news, as quoted by the Financial Times. “The FTC has not to date taken an adversarial approach toward oil industry mergers . . . This relative hands-off policy is no more.”

In a sense, the FTC’s move against Sheffield is the other shoe dropping as far as the oil industry is concerned. The regulator has been looking for a way to interfere with the consolidation drive prompted by strong financial results and limited untapped inventory. Until recently, it has been unable to find one. But now, it seems, it has.

Not everyone agrees the FTC’s attack on Sheffield needs to be taken particularly seriously. “This is the government trying to save some face — it’s irrelevant to the whole issue of antitrust,” the managing director of investment bankers Roth MKM, Leo Mariani, told Bloomberg. “This whole thing is just politics ultimately. In an election year it helps to be tough on Big Oil.”

President Biden and his fellow Democrats have repeatedly made it clear that the anti-oil lobby is a key voter demographic and they have been busy tending to its needs. Earlier this year, Biden’s White House paused approval of new LNG export capacity as part of these efforts. Then, just this month, Democrats in Congress announced the completion of an investigation into Big Oil that, while it did not contain anything in the way of a revelation, sought to reinforce an image of the industry as the hydrocarbon equivalent of Big Tobacco, deserving of an identical treatment.

Whether any of this will help Biden win the November vote remains to be seen, but judging by the latest in his approval ratings, there may be a possibility that most Americans have bigger problems than climate change and oil.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

Deepwater Exploration Is Booming Again

The majors are investing more in deepwater exploration as they are doubling down on their pledge to continue delivering oil and gas to meet global demand. The high offshore drilling activity is already showing in the rising profits and backlogs of the world's top oilfield services providers and rig charterers.  

The oil and gas majors—ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, TotalEnergies, and Eni—are winning more acreage in frontier basins for deepwater drilling in the Atlantic Margin, the Eastern Mediterranean, and Asia, with Namibia and South America standing out, according to estimates by consultancy Rystad Energy.

Next year, capital expenditure (capex) on new deepwater drilling is set to jump to the highest level in 12 years in 2025, Rystad Energy reckons. At the same time, capex on all-new and existing deepwater fields could surge by 30% in 2027 compared to 2023, to $130.7 billion, per the consultancy's estimates cited by Reuters.

here have been some major recent exploration successes in offshore areas. These include Guyana's Stabroek block, where Exxon and partners have already made discoveries estimated at a total of 11 billion barrels of oil equivalent in place, as well as Namibia, where Shell, TotalEnergies, and Portugal's Galp have announced major oil discoveries in the past two years, including one giant find just last month.

At the end of April, Galp Energia said that the first phase of its exploration in the Mopane field offshore Namibia could contain at least 10 billion barrels of oil.

Namibia is a key exploration target for Shell, TotalEnergies, and Portugal-based Galp.

TotalEnergies and Shell have already made large discoveries offshore Namibia, kicking off the Namibian oil rush in 2022.

TotalEnergies made a significant discovery of light oil with associated gas on the Venus prospect in the Orange Basin in early 2022. Venus in Namibia could be a "giant oil and gas discovery," the French supermajor said in an investor presentation in September 2022.

Over the past two years, Shell has made four oil and gas discoveries in the Orange Basin offshore Namibia.

TotalEnergies and QatarEnergy are also expanding their efforts to explore for oil and gas in the Orange Basin offshore Namibia by acquiring a nearby license in the basin in South African waters. 

"Following the Venus success in Namibia, TotalEnergies is continuing to progress its Exploration effort in the Orange Basin, by entering this promising exploration license in South Africa," Kevin McLachlan, Senior Vice-President Exploration of TotalEnergies, said in March.

Just last week, a BP-Eni joint venture, Azule Energy, announced an agreement to take 42.5% in an offshore block in Namibia, which Azule Energy CEO Adriano Mongini described as a "highly prospective hydrocarbon region."

Despite still uncertain development designs, timing, and production levels, Wood Mackenzie estimates that Namibia's oil economics could be robust, with net present value (NPV) remaining positive even at oil prices as low as $40 per barrel.

Namibia and other deepwater offshore drilling hotspots are pushing demand for offshore rigs and drilling services, as evidenced by the most recent financial results of major service providers.

A rebound in offshore drilling and continued demand for oil and gas helped SLB, the world's largest oilfield services provider, boost first-quarter earnings and offset a weaker North American market.

Valaris, a top offshore rig provider, raised its total contract backlog to more than $4.0 billion as of April 30, 2024—the sixth consecutive quarter of backlog growth and a 43% increase from twelve months ago.

"We see strong customer demand for work that is expected to commence in 2025 and 2026, highlighting the longevity of this upcycle," Valaris's president and CEO Anton Dibowitz said.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

Nickel 28 fires founders on ‘serious misconduct’ that they deny

Bloomberg News | May 6, 2024 | 

Anthony Milewski. Image TMX – The View from the C-Suite via YouTube

Nickel 28 Capital Corp. said it has fired its founders, including chief executive officer Anthony Milewski, after an investigation uncovered “serious misconduct” — claims the ousted management team says are untrue and part of a years-long battle for control at the Canadian mining firm.


The nickel and cobalt producer removed Milewski, along with president Justin Cochrane and chief financial officer Conor Kearns, with immediate effect, it said Monday, after the board reviewed findings made by an independent special committee. The investigation found evidence the management team had breached their duties and repeatedly lacked judgment, the board said.

Milewski, Cochrane and Kearns denied the allegations in a separate statement and said they believe their terminations are tied to a fight for control led by top shareholder Pelham Investment Partners LP, a New York-based hedge fund. Pelham didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

The upheaval at Nickel 28 comes at a time of turmoil in the wider battery-metal industry, as demand for electric vehicles stagnates in some key markets. The fits and starts of the sector are nothing new for commodities investors like Milewski, whose previous company owned the largest private cobalt stockpile on the planet right before prices crashed in 2018.

Undeterred, he then formed Nickel 28 to continue to invest in the battery-metal sector. The Toronto-based company owns interests and royalties in mining projects in Canada, Australia and Papua New Guinea, with a focus on nickel and cobalt mining.

In March 2023, Pelham launched a tender offer to grow its ownership of the company, citing concerns including a lack of “independent oversight and what we view as excessive executive compensation.” It then pushed to name new directors to the board. In August, Nickel 28 reconstituted its board of directors, including adding Pelham founder Ned Collery and Brett Richards, CEO of Goldshore Resources Inc. Since then, the board has been “second-guessing management decisions,” the founders said.

Shortly after joining the board, Collery and Richards “launched and conducted an investigation tainted by potential conflicts of interest, culminating in the unlawful withholding of earned compensation and these unlawful terminations,” the founders said in the statement, adding that they may pursue legal remedies if the parties can’t work it out amicably.

The special committee was formed in early December 2023 to investigate “historical compensation arrangements, including grants made under the company’s omnibus long-term incentive plan,” the board’s statement said. It also looked into compliance with company policies, including its insider trading and expense policies. It didn’t specify in the statement what specific policies had been violated.

Director Christopher Wallace will step in as interim CEO.

(By Jacob Lorinc)

Manara Minerals’ team in Pakistan for talks on Reko Diq stake

Reuters | May 6, 2024 | 

Barrick Gold has targeted 2028 as the year of first production for Pakistan’s Reko Diq copper-gold mine. Barrick Gold photo

Executives from Saudi Arabian mining company Manara Minerals are in Islamabad to continue talks about buying a stake in Pakistan’s Reko Diq gold and copper project, a Pakistan government document showed on Monday.


Located in Pakistan’s restive southwestern Balochistan province, it is considered one of the world’s largest underdeveloped copper-gold areas by global mining company Barrick Gold Corp, which owns the project jointly with Pakistan.

The Manara officials are part of a large delegation of Saudi investors and companies that arrived in Islamabad on Sunday, according to a document seen by Reuters listing officials in the delegation.

The document listed Manara Minerals’ general manager as wanting to “continue the negotiations on the Reko Diq project”.

Barrick has said it will invest up to $10 billion to develop the project.

Manara Minerals, a joint venture between state-owned Saudi miner Ma’aden and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), declined to comment.

Pakistan’s Petroleum Minister Musadik Malik and Commerce Minister Jam Kamal said on Monday that the Saudi delegation, representing three dozen investors and companies, will meet Pakistani companies to explore investment in sectors including agriculture, mining, aviation and livestock.

They did not name the Saudi companies.

Manara’s acting CEO Robert Wilt told Reuters in an interview in January that the company was in talks to potentially buy a stake in the Reko Diq mine.

Bloomberg has reported that Manara was initially interested in investing $1 billion to take a minority share in the copper mine.

Malik, the petroleum minister, who was also appointed by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif as a focal person for Saudi investments, did not respond to a Reuters request for a comment.

The Saudi delegation’s trip to Islamabad follows Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah’s visit to Islamabad last month, when he was briefed by Pakistani authorities on various avenues to invest in the country.

Pakistan, which is trying to navigate a path to economic recovery after securing an IMF bailout, desperately needs foreign investment to help fight a chronic balance of payments crisis.

(By Asif Shahzad and Pesha Magid; Editing by Susan Fenton)