US Company Becomes World’s Most Valuable Solar Firm After Chinese Rivals Slip


Bloomberg News

Fri, May 17, 2024, 

(Bloomberg) -- A US company has become the world’s most valuable solar manufacturer for the first time since 2018, as Chinese rivals suffer from a profit-slashing price war and an onslaught of trade barriers erected by Washington.

First Solar Inc. gained 1.5% Friday to end trading with a market capitalization of $21.15 billion. The move higher allowed the Arizona-based company to overtake Sungrow Power Supply Co., which saw its shares fall 4.2% Friday in Shenzhen to put its value at about $20.85 billion.

It’s the first time since 2018 a Chinese company hasn’t been the most valuable solar equipment maker. The country dominates global production of panels, and controls more than 80% in every step of the supply chain.

But China’s build-up of factories has come at a cost as capacity has surpassed global demand, leading to falling prices and shrinking profit margins. Longi Green Energy Technology Co., another leading Chinese manufacturer, posted a net loss of 2.35 billion yuan ($325 million) in the first quarter after netting a profit of 3.64 billion yuan the same period of 2023.

China’s solar giants also are increasingly finding themselves in geopolitical crosshairs, with leaders from the US and Germany criticizing their overcapacity for stymieing the development of supply chains in other parts of the world. President Joe Biden this week announced higher tariffs on Chinese solar panels and other moves designed to bolster US manufacturers.

First Solar, the biggest US panel manufacturer, is a prime beneficiary of those actions. It sells its panels in the US, where prices are almost triple the global average because of tariffs against Chinese products. And its expansion plans will be subsidized by the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act.

Of course, market capitalization is just one way to measure companies. By most other metrics, including the vital one of being able to produce enough clean energy to fight climate change, First Solar still has a way to go to catch up with its Chinese counterparts. It produced 12 gigawatts of panels in 2023, compared to 79 gigawatts for Shanghai-based Jinko Solar Co.

First Solar did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

--With assistance from Will Wade.

North Korean-Iranian Military Cooperation Raises Alarm in the West

RFE/RL staff - May 15, 2024,

North Korea and Iran have a history of military cooperation, raising fears of technology sharing amid global tensions.

Western capitals are concerned about Iran acquiring advanced missile and nuclear technology from North Korea.

Allegations of North Korean weapons being used by Iranian proxies in recent conflicts have heightened suspicions.

Iran and North Korea have a long history of working together to advance their respective military arsenals.

Now, increased trade efforts between the two heavily sanctioned countries have raised concerns that they could share advanced missile and nuclear technology.

Coming at a time when Tehran and Pyongyang are playing a central role in heightened global tensions, the prospect of one pariah state in possession of nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles, North Korea, aiding another accused of seeking those capabilities, Iran, has heightened fears in Western capitals.

The visit of a North Korean delegation to Tehran last month only served to increase suspicions.

Washington and Brussels both expressed concerns about any sanctions-violating cooperation, prompting Tehran to insist that the visit by North Korea’s external economic relations minister was aimed only at improving economic ties and assertions that it is seeking to expand cooperation on missile technology were "untrue."

But allegations that North Korean military technology has shown up in the hands of Iranian proxies in the Middle East and aided Iran's missile and drone attack against Israel last month have fueled concerns.

Experts say that the two sides are aligned in an anti-Western stance and most recently in supporting the Palestinian cause. And each has plenty to offer the other in terms of military expertise and experience.

"North Korea's nuclear program is obviously something that the Iranians seek to emulate," said Benjamin Young, a North Korea expert at Virginia Commonwealth University. "North Korea's ability to develop nuclear weapons at a rapid scale is admirable to the Islamic republic."

Pyongyang also has a long-range delivery vehicle in its Hwason-15 intercontinental ballistic missile, which is capable of carrying a heavy payload and of reaching the mainland United States.

"North Korea has made strides with very long-range-capable missiles, and that's something that Iran could be interested in," said Kenneth Katzman, a senior adviser for the New York-based Soufan Group intelligence consultancy and an expert on geopolitics in the Middle East.

Tehran has long insisted that its controversial nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. But amid increased tensions with Israel, Iran has stressed, as recently as May 12, that it may have no choice but to change its nuclear doctrine.

As for what Tehran could offer North Korea, missile and drone attacks launched by Iran and its regional proxies have provided valuable experience.

Katzman noted that "Iranian missiles didn't do too well against Israel" in the April 19 strike, with most of the some 150 cruise and ballistic missiles having failed or been shot down. But he says the attack and others by Iran and its proxies in the region have given Tehran firsthand knowledge of how Western air-defense systems work.

This could be valuable to North Korea, he said, because its missiles "would be facing similar technology if launched against Japan, South Korea, the United States," the East Asian country's main adversaries.

Young says Iran's ability to mass produce Shahed-136 suicide drones, which were launched unsuccessfully by Iran against Israel but have been used extensively by Russia in its war against Ukraine, is also "likely attractive to Pyongyang."

North Korea has cultivated a military partnership with Tehran for decades, including the provision of conventional weapons to the Islamic republic during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s and help in the 1990s in developing Iranian ballistic missiles.

Successors to those missiles were used in Iran's attack against Israel, and South Korean intelligence is reportedly investigating whether North Korean components were used in the attack. South Korean intelligence has also said that North Korean weapons have been used against Israel by Hamas -- the U.S.- and EU-designated terrorist organization that sparked the war in Gaza with its deadly assault on Israel on October 7.

It is unclear when such weapons transfers may have been made, but Katzman said that since Israel launched its retaliatory and controversial invasion of Gaza with the aim of eliminating the Iran-backed Hamas, North Korea has "reiterated Iranian positions on Gaza as a means of standing with Iran."

Young says that Pyongyang's relationships with Iranian proxies are nothing new, noting that North Korea boasts some of the best tunnel-building experts in the world and "most likely" helped Lebanese Hizballah build its own tunnel network in the Middle East.

He says there is no indication of strengthened ties between North Korea and Hamas or Hizballah since the deadly assault on Israel, but that whenever a major military crisis occurs, "North Korean-made arms regularly pop up." This, he says, is in part because "North Korea seeks to exploit these conflicts for their own financial gains and actively tries to find purchasers of their weapons."

The North Korean delegation's visit to Tehran, coming just a month after a similar visit to Moscow, raised concerns that Pyongyang could be entering a broader partnership involving Iran and Russia. That prospect has gained attention with North Korea's reported provision of munitions to aid Russia's war effort in Ukraine.

As to why Iran might seek cooperation with Pyongyang instead of other allies such as Russia or China -- fellow members of the burgeoning bloc of the sanctioned -- Katzman said that "North Korea would be probably the most willing."

"There is that history of relationships on missiles, and North Korea certainly doesn't really care about being subjected to any more sanctions," Katzman said. "So, North Korea would not be hesitant to share that technology."

By RFE/RL 

Caspian Power Trio Aims to Electrify the European Union

By Eurasianet - May 15, 2024

Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan signed an MoU to export electricity to the European Union, utilizing wind and solar power.

Uzbekistan aims to generate an additional 20 Gigawatts of renewable energy by 2030.

The tripartite MoU aligns with the United States' B5+1 initiative to foster Central Asian connectivity and break down regional trade barriers.

Economic integration efforts among CentralAsian-Caspian Basin states are gaining momentum. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are developing a green energy plan to link their power grids with an eye towards exporting electricity to the European Union.

The energy ministers of the three countries announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding in early May to explore their joint electricity export potential by harnessing mainly wind and solar power. Kazakhstan is also aiming to boost its hydropower generating capacity. In outlining cooperation plans, the tripartite memo envisions the laying of a “high-voltage cable” on the Caspian Sea’s seabed. Technical specifications for such a transmission line have already been developed, according to Kazakh Energy Minister Almassadam Satkaliyev.

“A proposed business model will be developed for the development of international transmission corridors (financing, revenue flow and ownership) and for the sale of green energy to the countries of the European Union,” a ministry statement quoted Satkaliyev as saying.

The three countries have wasted little time in pursuing the plan. Satkaliiev said May 10 that a feasibility study was underway. He told journalists that the EU had given the budding consortium an expression of “interest in purchasing clean electricity.” The feasibility study will work out construction and financing details and is expected to produce preliminary estimates by the end of the year. It is too early to put a price tag on the project, or the amount of power exports involved.

“We are talking about a fairly large amount of investment,” Satkaliyev said.

The effort to foster trans-Caspian connectivity inherent in the tripartite memorandum dovetails with an economic blueprint proposed by the United States, dubbed the B5+1, under which Central Asian states take the initiative in breaking down regional trade barriers and forging new networks to boost trade and investment. Since the B5+1’s inception in March, Central Asian states have taken steps to simplify trade rules. The tripartite memo marks a significant step in promoting regional cooperation extending beyond Central Asia to span the Caspian Sea. 

The goal of exporting electricity to the EU fits in with plans unveiled by all three countries to significantly expand renewable energy generating capacity in the coming years.

The chief catalyst for power exports is Uzbekistan, which aims to generate an additional 20 Gigawatts (GW) via renewable sources by 2030. Meeting that target would raise the country’s total renewable capacity to 27 GW. By April, the government had signed deals to develop wind and solar facilities projected to produce 12 GWs. In May, Uzbekistan entered into contracts for another 6 GW. 

“Increasing the efficiency of the energy industry is relevant for our entire region,” Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev said during a Tashkent investor’s forum in early May. 

Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan seem destined to play more of a facilitating role in the power export arrangement. Given its abundance of fossil fuels, Astana’s renewable goals seem more modest than Uzbekistan’s. Kazakhstan currently generates about 2.9 GW of power via renewable sources, and hopes to add at least another 5 GW by 2030, according to Satkaliyev. Much of that capacity may be needed at home, however, as Kazakhstan grapples with a power deficit that saw the country become a net importer of electricity in 2023. 

Azerbaijan has a target of generating 5 GW of solar and wind power by 2030. The MoU Baku entered into with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan potentially builds on a 2023 agreement that Azerbaijan concluded with EU states, including Hungary and Romania, to export power via an underwater cable traversing the Black Sea with a capacity of 1,000 Megawatts. The feasibility study for the Black Sea project was conducted prior to Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in 2022, thus raising questions about its viability under wartime conditions.

By Eurasianet.org

EU Courts Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan for Critical Raw Materials

By Metal Miner - May 15, 2024

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are ramping up investments in rare earth production and plan to cooperate with the EU and US.

China's share of rare earth exports has declined from 90% to 70% in the past decade.

Australia and the US are expanding their critical minerals supply and refining capacity to reduce dependence on China.

Ramped-up offshore exploration for rare earth metals and minerals, vital components in sought-after products like hybrid vehicles and smartphone screens, continues to cut into China’s long-held position as the primary global supplier. Countries like Australia, the United States, Myanmar, and even nations like Malaysia, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan continue to increase their extraction efforts. This directly translates into a reduced global dependence on rare earth minerals from China.

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan Look to Grow Rare Earth Operations

Kazakhstan recently announced it will step up investments in the production of rare earth metals. Under its new “Comprehensive Plan for the Development of the Rare and Rare Earths Metals Industry for 2024-2028,” the country aims to increase investment by 40%, significantly improving production value.

Kazakh Minister of Industry and Construction Kanat Sharlapayev announced the additional investment in rare earth production at an April 29 meeting in the Kazakh Parliament’s lower house. In fact, rare earth mineral production already plays a significant role in Kazakhstan’s foreign and economic policies, as the country hopes to cooperate with both the U.S. and EU on this front.

Kazakhstan’s neighbor Uzbekistan seems to have similar ideas. That country recently launched a slew of rare earth mining projects as well. These projects, worth approximately U.S. $500 million, will likely add more critical raw materials like tellurium, molybdenum, and graphite to the supply chain.

Both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan Hope to Court EU

Like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan wants to use rare earths to enhance its relationship with the EU. Recently, it inked a Memorandum of Understanding with the European Union aimed at guaranteeing a varied and sustainable supply of critical raw materials to support the global shift towards green energy.

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan sit on large stockpiles of rare earth elements, which are crucial for industrial use and the development of digital technologies and clean energy solutions. Kazakhstan, for its part, has about 15 rare earth mineral deposits. On the other hand, some experts claim that Uzbekistan sits on the second-largest reserves of CRMs in the region. If true, that country’s decision to invest in CRM development is very wise. In fact, many analysts claim it will not only help Uzbekistan’s own economic growth, but also provide stiff competition to China.

According to European Commission Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovsis, the new Memorandum of Understanding with Uzbekistan will help the EU get its hands on critical raw materials. The agreement, he said, was part of EU’s global effort to secure partners for the supply of rare earth metals. Read the 5 best practices of sourcing metals, including rare earth metals.

Where is China in All This?

China has long since established highly restricted rare earth mining and supply chains, resulting in a near-complete monopolization of production. Currently, China controls over 80% of rare earth element processing, much of which continues to be conducted within its borders. Beijing likely hopes to leverage this advantage in international relations, aiming to assert dominance in the global economy’s evolving new energy and economic landscape.

As reported by the South China Morning Post, an increase in offshore exploration for rare earths by other nations may soon begin to erode China’s position as the world’s primary rare earth mineral supplier. The report stated that incoming data showed a slowing down of rare earths exports from China to other parts of the world starting in 2020. According to a report by the U.S. Geological Survey, China’s share of total RE exports dropped from about 90% a decade ago to approximately 70% in 2022. Other countries, including Australia, have since filled up this supply chain gap.

Australia in the Rare Earth Metals Supply Game

According to a report in the Financial Times, Australian mining billionaire Gina Rinehart recently upped her total shares in Australian rare earth developer Lynas to about 6%. Within about a week, Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting purchased shares in Lynas as well as a 5% in U.S.-listed MP Materials. The two companies are some of the largest non-Chinese rare earth mineral developers. Meanwhile, both Australia and the U.S. have already announced their intention to expand critical minerals supply and refining capacity in order to reduce dependence on China.

By Sohrab Darabshaw

How Iceland Became a Global Leader in Renewable Energy

By Felicity Bradstock - May 15, 2024


Iceland is a world leader when it comes to renewable energy production, having long developed its natural resources to power a green revolution. The Nordic island nation is home to abundant geothermal and hydropower energy sources, and it has also significantly developed its wind power sector in recent years. Despite huge strides in its renewable energy development, putting it way ahead of most of the competition, the Icelandic government has big plans to develop even more clean energy by harnessing the power of its volcanoes in a first-of-a-kind project.

Iceland aims to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 and is well on its way to doing so. By April 2024, 100 percent of homes across the country were heated using renewable energy, a feat which few countries have managed to achieve. This was largely supported by the rapid development of the country’s geothermal resources. Iceland increased its output of geothermal electricity by 1,700 percent between 1990 and 2014, using the power of its natural resources to fuel a green transition.

Iceland’s geothermal resources provide around 30 percent of the energy mix it uses to power itself. Energy companies transport geothermal water directly to houses from the source, using boreholes to send the hot water through pipelines. This is relatively easy as many of Iceland’s geothermal resources are located at surface level, rather than deep underground. Iceland has a geothermal power generation capacity of around 755 MW, making it one of the world’s largest geothermal energy generators.

Iceland’s Hellisheidi geothermal power plant is one of the top ten largest geothermal plants in the world. It generates 303 MW of electricity and 400 MW of thermal energy. In 2021, the operators launched a capture and storage (CCS) project at the site, claiming it was the world’s biggest direct air CCS plant at the time. This helped to reduce the already low carbon emissions associated with geothermal energy production.

The Nordic country also produces vast amounts of hydroelectricity, which contributes around 70 percent of the energy mix. Iceland uses the meltwater rivers that flow off massive glaciers to produce its hydroelectric power. The country’s extensive experience in hydropower has led Icelandic experts to develop many other hydro projects around the globe.

Known as the land of ice and fire, Iceland plans to use not only its easy-to-access geothermal resources but to also develop new technology to tap into its extremely hard-to-reach energy potential. Iceland is developing the Krafla Magma Testbed (KMT) Project to try to access energy deep inside its volcanoes. The temperatures inside Krafla, one of the world’s most active volcanoes, reach up to 1,300°C, which, if accessed, could provide a vast amount of clean energy. Experts now plan to bore into a volcano’s magma chamber to access its fumes to produce green energy.

Although the Icelandic government is actively pursuing the Krafla project, accessing the volcano’s energy will be extremely difficult as the machinery needed to carry out the project does not yet exist. The temperatures inside the magma chamber as simply too hot for any existing technology to access. However, this is not the first time that scientists have drilled into magma in Iceland, with explorers accidentally hitting magma when drilling the IDD-1 project in 2009. The project ultimately failed due to the technological constraints of the time. Nevertheless, it provided great insight, as when flow tested around a year after the initial drilling, researchers found that it was around ten times more powerful than the average well in Krafla, showing the huge potential for tapping into the power of magma.

The KMT team, supported by the government of Iceland, is currently drilling a KMT-1, a monitoring and volcanic research well, and KMT-2, an energy research well. These will be used to collect data to better understand the scope of the project. The team is working closely with the sensor community to develop new temperature sensors and temperature-resilient technologies to collect and assess samples from within the volcano. This will not only help the team to understand the potential for energy production, but it could also help them to better forecast volcanic events to enhance early warning systems for eruptions.

Björn Þór Guðmundsson, from the KMT project, explained, “Reducing uncertainties about conditions in magma from KMT will decrease start-up costs. KMT aims to revolutionise the geothermal industry by improving geothermal power economics up to an order of magnitude, which was showed to be the difference between a conventional well in Krafla and the IDDP-1 well, which accidentally entered magma. This will be done by designing new innovative production wells that can withstand near-magma conditions.”

While we are likely still a long way off from achieving advanced geothermal energy production from magma chambers in volcanoes, the KMT project could provide the information needed to significantly advance the technology required to access this energy source. In addition, Iceland’s long history with geothermal energy production and its abundant natural geothermal resources make it the optimal environment to develop these ambitious volcano project



By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Banks Remain Financially Committed to Oil Despite Transition Shift

By Irina Slav - May 16, 2024
• 
  
• The world’s 60 largest banks have invested $6.9 trillion in the oil and gas industry since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016.
• Oil Change International reported, $3.3 trillion went towards expanding the production of hydrocarbon energy.
• 
  
• Worse still for climate NGOs, funding for fracking increased last year as well, reaching $59 billion.

There is no large international bank without a net-zero plan. These plans invariably include curbs in lending to the oil and gas industry. Yet despite these plans. Most of the world’s top lenders continue doing business with the oil industry—and they’ve been doing more of it lately.

The revelation comes from the 15^th annual Banking on Climate Chaos report authored by an organization called Oil Change International, part of a group of climate NGOs committed to putting an end to the oil and gas industry.

According to this report, the world’s 60 largest banks have invested $6.9 trillion in the oil and gas industry since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016, marking the official start of the global net-zero shift. Of this, Oil Change International reported, $3.3 trillion went towards expanding the production of hydrocarbon energy.

This is bad enough news from the climate NGO perspective, certainly, but it is not the only bad news. What’s worse than a total of $6.9 trillion in hydrocarbon investment is an investment of $705 billion for 2023 alone—with some segments of the industry seeing increases in bank funding. This, in a world with a net-zero agenda, should not be happening, especially when banks are making decarbonization pledges and officially shrinking their business dealings with oil and gas producers. Yet not all of them are doing it.

Oil Change International, for lack of other tools, uses naming and shaming to sound the alarm of banks financing oil and gas, calling what it sees as the worst net-zero offenders “The Dirty Dozen”.

Those are led by JP Morgan, which invested $430.9 billion in the oil and gas industry between 2016 and 2023. At number two, we have Citi, with oil and gas exposure of $396.3 billion for the period, followed by Bank of America, which invested $333.3 billion between the signing of the Paris Agreement and last year.

The “Dirty Dozen” also includes lenders such as Barclays, MUFG, Scotiabank, and HSBC, as well as RBC and the report includes a lot of language aimed at making these banks feel embarrassed about their business practices. What it doesn’t do is ask the question that this information begs: why are banks investing so much in oil and gas?

The answer, of course, lies in the financial reports of oil companies and news reports such as the one that Global Witness released this February, stating Big Oil majors paid their shareholders a record $111 billion in dividends on the back of record profits for 2022. Those record profits were driven by the energy crunch in Europe that highlighted the importance of energy security in a way that everyone could understand—except climate NGOs, it appears.

The Oil Change International report says that financing for liquefied natural gas increased last year, hitting $120.9 billion. From their perspective, this must be a worrying trend. From the perspective of the banks themselves, this is good business—because demand for LNG is on the rise with Europe switching from pipelines to LNG carriers. Even record electricity generation from wind and solar in 2023 did not depress demand for liquefied gas.

Worse still for climate NGOs, funding for fracking increased last year as well, reaching $59 billion, provided to a total 236 companies by lenders including already named and shamed JP Morgan, Citi, and BofA, along with Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo. The reason this happened was that demand for oil, including shale oil, was also on the rise, just like demand for natural gas.

The energy demand conundrum is the ultimate challenge for the climate NGO crowd. Protests and road-gluing spectacles may attract attention—although sometimes it is the wrong kind of attention—but the net-zero agenda cannot be followed if demand for hydrocarbons remains as strong as it has been in all the years since the signing of the Paris Agreement.

Attempts to destroy this demand, however, have invariably failed. The buildout of alternative sources of electricity to gas and coal are thriving, with governments spending billions on supporting them. Even so, wind and solar have been unable to cope with the rise in electricity demand and now there are warnings that more gas power plants would need to be built to respond to the expected surge in that demand that the IT sector will drive.

In transport, EV sales have grown strongly thanks to equally strong government support and yet even in Norway, which has the highest per-capita adoption rate, oil demand has not declined. Some of the world’s top carmakers are losing hundreds of thousands on the EVs they produce and they only keep doing it because their gasoline and diesel vehicles are still selling well.

Pointing the finger at banks for their lending to the oil and gas industry without acknowledging the reasons they are doing it would, in any other context, be considered sloppy work. Yet in this case, the reasons for banks to continue funding oil and gas are too inconvenient for the activists tracking this funding. These reasons are that oil and gas make money and that it is very good money—because people want reliable, affordable energy.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

Big Banks Have Funded Climate Crisis With Nearly $7 Trillion Since Paris Agreement

"Banks that profit from climate chaos invent new greenwash every year, but we have the receipts that show how much money they put into fossil fuels," said one report author.

Protesters picket outside a Chase Bank branch in November 2019.
(Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)

OLIVIA ROSANE
May 13, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

The world's 60 biggest banks funded fossil fuels to the tune of $6.9 trillion in the eight years following the Paris agreement.

That's the conclusion of the 15th annual Banking on Climate Chaos report, which was published Monday and also found that the financial institutions lavished $705 billion on oil, gas, and coal in 2023—the hottest year on record.

"Financiers and investors of fossil fuels continue to light the flame of the climate crisis," Tom BK Goldtooth, report co-author and executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, said in a statement. "Paired with generations of colonialism, the fossil fuel industry and banking institutions' investment in false solutions create unlivable conditions for all living relatives and humanity on Mother Earth."

U.S. financial giants JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America topped the "dirty dozen" list of the banks that gave the most to fossil fuels since 2016, at $430.9 billion, $396.3 billion, and $333.2 billion respectively. In 2023, U.S. banks provided 30% of total fossil fuel finance, the largest share of any country. JPMorgan also topped the 2023 list at $40.88 billion, with Japanese bank Mizuho Financial overtaking the No. 2 spot with $37.04 billion, and Bank of America remaining in third place with $33.68 billion.




"The science shows that over half of fossil fuels in existing fields and mines must stay underground to limit global warming to 1.5°C, and our Big Oil Reality Check analysis finds that none of the major oil and gas companies we analyze plan to do anything even close to what is needed to hold global warming to 1.5°C," report-co-author David Tong, the global industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, said in a statement. "By injecting a staggering $70[5] billion into fossil fuel financing in 2023 alone, the world's largest banks fund the climate chaos fossil fuel companies wreck on communities worldwide."

The report also tracks how much the financial institutions spent on companies that had fossil fuel expansion plans, according to the Global Oil and Gas Exit List and the Global Coal Exit List. The banks spent $3.3 trillion since 2016 and $347.5 billion in 2023 alone on these companies, or nearly half of total expenditures. Report co-author April Merleaux, research and policy manager at Rainforest Action Network, called the 2023 expansion finance figure "dangerous and inconsistent with real climate commitments."

Overall, Citibank has spent the most on fossil fuel expansion since 2016 at $204 billion, while JPMorgan was the top funder of expansion in 2023 with $19.3 billion.

"As this report is worth nothing if it doesn't turn into action, we call on the banks to finally become fossil free banks, and on the wider climate justice movement to use this data to mobilize for a fossil free banking world."

The researchers also looked at what fossil fuel companies and activities the banks were financing. All told, they considered funding to 4,228 companies. Clients with major expansion plans in 2023 included the pipeline companies Enbridge, TC Energy Corp, and Sempra as well as NextDecade Corp and Rio Grande Valley LNG, which are developing new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity.

Fossil fuel financing did decrease in 2023, down from $778.7 billion in 2022.

"The trend of decreased financing from traditional banks to fossil fuel companies is good news, tempered by the reality that financing for fossil fuel expansion should be zero," the report authors wrote. "But there is little evidence that the decline is driven by voluntary commitments by the banks, especially given the policy rollbacks among major banks."


Indeed, in 2023, Bank of America rolled back commitments to not fund Arctic drilling, thermal coal, or coal-fired plants. Instead, the report authors suggested the downturn in finance was due to external economic and geopolitical factors.

"Unless banks take action to rule out finance for such clients, the decline may not be permanent," they warned.

When it came to the funding of individual high-risk fossil fuel activities, funding for overall expansion, fracking, tar sands, coal- and gas-power plants, and Amazon, Arctic, and deepwater oil and gas all declined. At the same time, funding for metallurgical coal, coal mining, and methane LNG all increased, with LNG funding rising from $116 billion in 2022 to $121 billion in 2023.

"In a year with record climate impacts, I am shocked to see financing for any category of fossil fuels increase. And yet in 2023 this report shows a big increase in financing to companies developing methane gas terminals and related infrastructure," Merleaux said. "Banks should be listening to those on the frontlines and stepping away from these projects."

This year the report—which is a collaboration between Rainforest Action Network; BankTrack; the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development; Indigenous Environmental Network; Oil Change International; Reclaim Finance; Sierra Club; and Urgewald— features updated methodology that primary sources revealing the role of banks in corporate financial deals. The banks were given a chance to review the data and respond.

"Wall Street's top concern is its profit. Our top concerns are the climate and human rights. Banks that profit from climate chaos invent new greenwash every year, but we have the receipts that show how much money they put into fossil fuels," Merleaux said. "Our new methodology uncovers previously unreported details on banks' support for fossil fuels and gives campaigners new tools to hold them accountable."

Accountability is the report's main goal, according to co-author Diogo Silva, who leads the banks and climate campaign at BankTrack.

"As this report is worth nothing if it doesn't turn into action, we call on the banks to finally become fossil free banks, and on the wider climate justice movement to use this data to mobilize for a fossil free banking world," Silva said. "Later might just be too late. Fossil banks, no thanks!"

Europe Imports Russian Oil Products via Turkey, Skirting Sanctions

By Julianne Geiger - May 17, 2024

A recent report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD) reveals that the European Union (EU) has imported EUR 3 billion worth of oil products from Turkish ports that predominantly handle Russian oil—ports that don't have refining hubs.

This trade has effectively bypassed the EU/G7 sanctions on Russian petroleum products.

Since the implementation of the EU/G7 petroleum products ban on February 5, 2023, until the end of February 2024, the EU has sourced 5.16 million tonnes of oil products valued at EUR 3.1 billion from the Turkish ports of Ceyhan, Marmara Ere?lisi, and Mersin. These ports, lacking refining capabilities, imported 86% of their oil products from Russia during this period, turning Turkey into a significant re-export hub.

Turkey's imports of Russian oil have surged nearly fivefold over the past decade. By 2023, Turkey became the largest global buyer of Russian oil products, importing 18% of Russia's total exports. This reliance has grown from 52% in 2022 to 72% in 2023, indicating a deepening dependency on Russian refined products like diesel, gasoil, and jet fuel.

Investigations by CREA and CSD suggest that European entities may have been importing Russian oil products that are either mixed or re-exported from Turkish storage terminals. An example cited is the Toros Ceyhan oil terminal, which received 26,923 tonnes of gasoil from Novorossiysk in May 2023 and subsequently shipped a similar volume to Greece's MOH Corinth refinery. This trade exploits legal loopholes, allowing blended Russian oil products to enter the EU.

The rerouting of Russian oil through Turkey has not only circumvented sanctions but also generated significant tax revenues for Russia, estimated at EUR 5.4 billion, supporting its war efforts in Ukraine. To address this, CREA and CSD recommend tightening EU legislation, enforcing strict rules of origin, and investigating shipments to prevent further sanctions evasion.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com