Thursday, May 23, 2024

 

Why Kinder Morgan is Targeting This Texas Oil Field

American oilfield services provider and pipeline operator Kinder Morgan has acquired nearly 12,000 acres of Texas oil and gas producing assets in its quest to take advantage of carbon capture incentives designed to boost output from producing fields, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing unnamed sources familiar with the deal. 

According to Reuters, the Kinder acquisition indicates the attractive nature of incentives laid out in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, which offers a tax credit for carbon sequestration of $60 per metric ton. That incentive has rendered aging oil and gas fields far more attractive to companies that have the technology to improve production. 

Sources cited by Reuters said that Kinder Morgan already produces around 50,000 barrels of oil per day through the process of injecting carbon dioxide into wells to aid the path of oil to the surface. According to Reuters, that deal, which includes around 265 wells in a large, mature oilfield, is with Avad Energy Partners. One of the unnamed sources said the deal demonstrates that Kinder Morgan is “staying in the E&P business” and has “huge CO2 sources in West Texas”, which the company plans to use to further improve oil output. 

In April, Kinder Morgan said it expected natural gas demand to increase significantly over the next six years. 

The company’s Q1 2024 earnings report showed a 10% increase in earnings per share, though this increase fell slightly below expectations. Kinder Morgan also reported a net profit annual increase, from $679 million in Q1 2023 to $746 million in Q1 2024, with income from the gas pipeline playing a significant role in those numbers. 

Last November, Kinder Morgan also announced its plans to buy NextEra Energy Partners’ natural gas pipeline portfolio for $1.82 billion last November. The NextEra pipeline assets have a 4.9 billion cubic feet per day capacity, according to a Q4 2023 press release from Kinder Morgan.

In November, these assets were described by Kinder Morgan as “highly contracted”, with average contracts running for eight years and with 75% of capacity already under contract. the average length of contract at eight years and that 75% of the capacity was subject to take-or-pay contracts. 

NextEra’s pipeline network sends gas to Mexico as well as to oil producers in Southern Texas.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

 

Petrobras to Stop Selling Refineries

Brazil’s state oil major Petrobras has agreed with the country’s antitrust regulator to stop selling refineries in order to boost its processing capacity.

Five years ago, Bloomberg recalls, Petrobras had announced plans, coordinated with the watchdog, to sell a total of eight refineries. Now, after three sales, the company has ended the divestment, again in coordination with the regulatory organ.

The change in plans comes as the Brazilian government exerts growing pressure on Petrobras to expand its operations and create more jobs, boosting the Brazilian economy in the process. The pressure recently led to the ousting of the company’s chief executive Jean Paul Prates and his replacement with the former head of Brazil’s oil and gas industry regulator, Magda Chambriard.

The change at the top came last week, a day after Petrobras reported a 38% decline in net profits for the first quarter of the year on 15% lower revenues. It also adds to bad news about shareholders after late last year outgoing CEO Prates informed them dividend payments would be kept lower for a while as Petrobras tried to expand into low-carbon directions.

"In our view, the exit of Prates is a deterioration of Petrobras governance and a downside risk for the investment thesis," Citi analysts said in a note quoted in a Reuters report at the time.

"The new CEO arrives with the pressure to fulfill the investment plan and accelerate the capex expansion, which may negatively impact the company's dividend payment."

The Bloomberg report noted that investors were concerned about the reshuffle at the top after Prates had prioritized cost reductions and a focus on only the most profitable business of the company. In contrast, the government wants Petrobras to invest more in things like wind and solar, refining, and fertilizer production.

In fairness, Prates was the one who announced plans to have 50% of Petrobras’ future revenues come from wind and solar. He also cut the company’s dividend payout in order to invest more money into this shift into transition energy tech—which understandably did not sit particularly well with shareholders.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

Judge Greenlights Exxon Lawsuit Against Activist Investor

A U.S. District Judge has ruled that Exxon can proceed with its lawsuit against activist investor Arjuna Capital, which wanted to force the company to make more advanced net-zero commitments.

The judge, however, excluded Follow This, the other target of Exxon’s suit, due to jurisdictional obstacles. The activist investor group is based in the Netherlands and U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction over it, Judge Mark Pittman ruled, as reported by Reuters.

In January, the two activist investor entities filed a proposal for Exxon shareholders to vote at the annual general meeting on May 29 to have Exxon commit to further emissions reductions, including Scope 3 – emissions from the product it sells.

In response, Exxon filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, saying that “Defendants are asking Exxon Mobil to change its day-to-day business by altering the mix of—or even eliminating—certain of the products that it sells.”

Exxon also argues that the two activist investors have “become shareholders solely to campaign for change through shareholder proposals that are calculated to diminish the company’s existing business.”

Some shareholders, notably Calpers, declared their support for the activists investors, with the California pension fund threatening Exxon to vote against the re-election of chief executive Darren Woods unless the company pulled out its lawsuit.

More recently, after Exxon refused to change course, Calpers has threatened to vote against all Exxon board members at the upcoming annual general meeting. It has also tried to influence other shareholders in the company to vote in tune with it. The pension fund holds a 0.19% stake in Exxon.

Commenting on the news about the lawsuit being allowed to proceed, Calpers chief executive Mark Frost said "Exxon's dangerous legal gambit, if successful, would undermine shareholder rights and allow corporate leaders to stifle the ideas of investors with impunity.”

Shell shareholders recently voted overwhelmingly against a climate resolution tabled by Follow This, suggesting a turning tide for Big Oil after two years of generous shareholder returns.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

 

Democrats Urge DOJ to Investigate Oil Majors for Climate Change Disinformation

U.S. Democratic lawmakers have referred the world’s largest international oil companies to the U.S. Department of Justice, urging an investigation into Big Oil’s ‘deceptive claims’ about its products that have misled the public about the effects on climate.

The U.S. House Oversight Committee launched in 2021 an investigation over “the reported role of the fossil fuel industry in a long-running, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.”   

The multi-year investigation, initiated by House Oversight Democrats and now undertaken jointly with Senate Budget, has “unveiled damning new documents that exposed the fossil fuel industry’s ongoing efforts to deceive the public and block climate action,” the office of Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse said this week.

The investigation into ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce “uncovered new evidence of the fossil fuel industry’s pattern of deceptive claims regarding its products, their effects on the climate, and its plans to reduce emissions and combat climate change.”

As a result, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse and House Oversight and Accountability Ranking Member Jamie Raskin called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Big Oil for a decades-long disinformation campaign. 

“The investigation also revealed significant collaboration with trade associations to deceive the public, policymakers, and investors about the fossil fuel companies’ true positions on various climate- and energy-related issues,” Whitehouse and Raskin wrote in the letter to DOJ.

“For these reasons, we formally refer this matter to DOJ and request that you launch an investigation into the fossil fuel industry’s decades-long history of engaging in deceptive practices to determine whether the entities violated any applicable federal statutes.”

The American Petroleum Institute (API) slammed the Democrats’ move with a spokesperson saying “This is another unfounded political charade to distract from persistent inflation and America’s need for more energy, including oil and natural gas.”

“U.S. energy workers are focused on delivering the reliable, affordable oil and natural gas Americans demand and any suggestion to the contrary is false,” according to the API statement carried by Reuters.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

Malaysian Wealth Fund Sues PetroSaudi CEO for $1.8 Billion Over Oil “Sham”

The scandalized Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MBD has filed a lawsuit against PetroSaudi International CEO Patrick Mahoney for $1.83 billion over what it says was a sham oil exploration joint venture. 

According to the lawsuit, 1MBD (1Malaysia Development Berhad) had been led to believe that Petrosaudi was owned by Saudi royalty, which served as the basis upon which the fund agreed to the JV deal. 

The joint venture “was a sham which resulted in 1MDB suffering a complete loss of its investment” of US$1.83 billion, 1MBD said in the lawsuit, calling for Mahoney to be held liable for the damages because of his “dishonest assistance” in relation to the 2009 joint venture, according to 1MBD, as reported by The Malaysian Reserve on Thursday. The lawuit represents lower-level damage control after the Fund became embroiled in a multi-billion-dollar global corruption scandal. 

The lawsuit also names UK-based law firm White & Case LLP as a defendant, claiming that Mahoney colluded with members of the law firm, including with a fugitive businessman, to defraud 1MBD. The Fund also claims that the law firm did Mahoney’s bidding when he instructed them to prepare fraudulent agreements for PetroSaudi Holdings, among other dubious transactions. Last month, the $1.8-billion fraud trial centered around 1MBD opened in Switzerland, with two individuals accused of embezzling $1.8 billion from the sovereign wealth fund on Tuesday. 

In 2022, former Malaysian premier Najib Razak was sentenced to 12 years in prison for offenses related to the scandal, though his sentence was reduced by half earlier this year. 

Swiss prosecutors have accused Mahoney and a Saudi-Swiss businessman also named in the lawsuit of fraudulently claiming to be negotiating on behalf of the late Saudi King Abdullah and of fraudulently claiming to have controlling rights to an oilfield in the Caspian Sea. 

Mahoney and his Saudi-Swiss counterpart will plead not guilty, Agence France Presse reports. 

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

The Harsh Truth About Space Mining and Direct Air Capture


      Kurt Cobb - May 22, 2024

  • As the energy transition gains momentum, there is ever more interest in capturing carbon and securing the critical minerals for new energy technologies.

  • One increasingly popular form of carbon capture is direct air capture, a technology that sounds very promising but doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

  • The value of potential resources available in space is mindboggling to consider, but not as mindboggling as the cost of bringing it back to earth.

The dictionary doesn't quite do justice to the word "boondoggle" according to author Dmitri Orlov, best known for his book Reinventing CollapseA contemporary boondoggle must not only be wasteful, it should, if possible, also create additional problems that can only be addressed by yet more boondoggles. (This does NOT preclude boondoggles from being profitable for certain insiders.)

In Orlov's universe, such boondoggles dissipate the wealth and vitality of a society until it collapses. But if executed properly, boondoggles first grind down society without actually collapsing it. When the collapse finally does come, it is like "falling out of a ground-floor window." In the collapsenik lexicon, this is what passes for a soft landing.

Two important boondoggles were in the news recently: a big set of machines that extract carbon dioxide from the air and companies formed to mine asteroids.

Let's take the carbon dioxide plant in Iceland first. My initial thought is to make this technology modular so any size extractor can be built. Then, declare deployment of this technology mandatory on the premises of any business emitting carbon dioxide directly into the air. Why wait to capture the greenhouse gas until it makes its way to Iceland? Let's trap it everywhere at its source.

However, I fear I may be violating the first rule of boondoggles with this proposal. Boondoggles must NOT be conceived in a way that would actually solve a problem. But it turns out that using this technology in places without ready access to sufficient sources of non-carbon energy would actually force increased use of fossil fuels to power the extractors that remove carbon dioxide from the air. It's a perfect circle that would increase emissions of the very gas it is trying to extract. (Compare to self-licking ice cream cone.)

There is the argument that the world will soon ramp up huge new sources of energy that are carbon-free. As of 2021 after decades of renewable energy deployment, the world now generates less than 2 percent of its total energy from solar and less than 3 percent from wind according to Our World in Data (and based on the BP Statistical Review of World Energy). A little over 6 percent is from hydroelectric. But most of the best sites in the world have been taken. And, the energy from existing hydroelectric plants is already committed anyway.

Other renewable energy (which includes geothermal power of the kind found in abundance in Iceland) contributes 1.3 percent of the world's energy. Moreover, fossil fuel use, particularly coal and natural gas, continue to grow. Renewable energy is adding to world energy capacity, but not substituting itself for existing fossil fuel use on a net basis.

Let us turn to the quest for minerals locked in asteroids which may be a better boondoggle than atmospheric carbon dioxide extractors in one very important way. This is because asteroid mining ventures appear to burn money without producing any tangible result, a characteristic that indicates one has found a pure boondoggle according to Orlov.

Here's how it works:

A sharp promoter gets members of the investing public—ones, for example, who are excited about science fiction stories such as those that make up any of the Star Trek series—to throw their money at the idea of mining asteroids that might be "pure metal" or close to it. (It's also possible that they are NOT pure metal. No one knows for sure.)

It's important for these investors NOT to understand the economics of mining. If they did, they would be investing in terrestrial mining operations or some other sector of the earthbound economy instead of the boondoggle of asteroid mining. Such mining assumes that the costs of extracting earthbound mineral deposits will rise sufficiently to match the cost of asteroid mining, thereby making asteroid mining competitive.

Let's take a general look at what might be involved in mining asteroids by reviewing a current NASA mission to what is thought to be a major metal-containing asteroid called Psyche, which is located in the Asteroid Belt:

  1. The transport distances are enormous. Psyche will be visited by a NASA probe launched in October 2023, one that is expected to reach the asteroid in August 2029 after a journey of 2.2 billion miles.
  2. The cost of the Psyche mission is around $1.2 billion. This is just to get a small craft weighing about three tons to its destination and have it orbit for a couple of years. Mining equipment would be much, much more massive.
  3. Psyche doesn't have to return to Earth. But, metal ore would have to be extracted somehow under near zero gravity, loaded, and then transported billions of miles on a regular basis. (Some refining might take place before transport to reduce the bulk, but that then involves bringing more equipment and expending vast amounts of energy that must come from somewhere, possibly fuel that is also transported.) It's true that other asteroids that might have high metal content are closer to Earth. One of these asteroids, named (6178) 1986 DA, is about 18 million miles away from Earth which is equivalent to about 75 times the distance of the moon—not exactly next door.
  4. Scientists estimate that the value of the metal in Psyche is around $10 quintillion and the metal in the much closer asteroid referred to above is $11.65 trillion. If asteroid miners were able to unlock vast amounts of ore from either of these and get it to Earth, prices of those minerals would likely plummet as huge supplies hit the market. Of course, asteroid miners could transport much smaller quantities, but that would greatly increase the cost per ton. Alternatively, the miners could hold back ore already delivered to Earth and sell only in relatively small quantities so as not to overwhelm the market. But that would add costs for storage and seriously delay any payback to investors who presumably would have already waited decades for a payout.

As my mother used to say about truly crazy ideas that defy logic: "It makes sense if you don't think about it." And the not thinking part is what promoters of asteroid mining are counting on. My mother, of course, was assuming that the purpose of such ideas was to solve a problem. In this particular case, however, we have an ideal vehicle for burning money with virtually no hope of any return—at least on any time frame that might matter to investors. In sum, asteroid mining is one of the best boondoggles available to investors today.

There are some who will say that metals mined from asteroids will, in fact, be used by space colonists and are not for Earth consumption. If that's so, then asteroid mining is an even better boondoggle than I thought it was.

There are many more boondoggles to cover, so much so that commentary on them could fill an entire blog for years. But my purpose here is to give you general tools to identify them and respond accordingly—in case you want to participate in the fun.

By Kurt Cobb via Resource Insights

 Moscow Withdraws Draft That Proposed Expanding its Territorial Waters

      RFE/RL staff - May 22, 2024,

  • Russia has withdrawn the draft from its Ministery of Defense that proposed expanding its territorial waters.

  • The draft, dated May 21, was initially published on an official Russian portal of legal drafts.

  • According to the draft, expanding the border off the coast of Kaliningrad between Baltiysk and Zelenogradsk and in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland would have allowed the corresponding maritime areas to be used as internal sea waters of Russia.

Russia has withdrawn without explanation a Defense Ministry draft that proposed revising Moscow's maritime border in the eastern Baltic Sea and expanding its territorial waters that raised the ire of littoral NATO members Finland, Sweden, Lithuania, and Estonia.

The draft, dated May 21, was initially published on an official Russian portal of legal drafts. It proposed expanding Russia's territorial waters in the Gulf of Finland and around the Kaliningrad exclave near the maritime borders with Finland, Estonia, and Lithuania.

Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, leaving Kaliningrad completely surrounded by members of the alliance.

According to the draft, expanding the border off the coast of Kaliningrad between Baltiysk and Zelenogradsk and in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland would have allowed the corresponding maritime areas to be used as internal sea waters of Russia as vessels made the trip from St. Petersburg.

It also proposed changes off the coast of Lithuania in the area of the Curonian Spit, the crescent-shaped sand dune separating the Curonian Lagoon from the Baltic Sea.

Following the publication of the draft, Lithuania's Foreign Ministry said it was "summoning a representative of the Russian Federation for a full explanation." Moscow has not had an ambassador in Vilnius since April 2022.

Lithuania expelled Moscow's envoy and downgraded its diplomatic relations with Russia following the atrocities allegedly committed by Russian forces in the Ukrainian town of Bucha.

"Another Russian hybrid operation is under way, this time attempting to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about their intentions in the Baltic Sea," Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

“Finland acts as always: calmly and based on facts,” Finnish President Alexander Stubb wrote on X.

Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said Helsinki will monitor Russia's moves, while Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen told reporters that Helsinki was "following the situation."

"We don't have any official information on what Russia is planning," she said.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson reminded Moscow that it was a signatory to the UN convention regulating maritime border changes.

“Both we and Finland assume that Russia -- which is a signatory party to that convention -- lives up to that responsibility,” Kristersson was quoted as saying by the Swedish news agency TT.

The draft was withdrawn without any explanation just hours after the wave of criticism, with an unnamed Russian diplomatic source telling Interfax that Moscow had no intention of revising its maritime borders, while Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters there was “nothing political” in the draft.

“You see how tensions and the level of confrontation are escalating, especially in the Baltic region. This requires appropriate steps from our relevant bodies to ensure our security,” Peskov said.

By RF/ERL



Russia May Try to Redraw its Boundaries in the Baltic Sea

EU
Exclusive economic zones in the Baltic (European Maritime Observation and Data Network)

PUBLISHED MAY 22, 2024 3:27 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

Russia Proposes Controversial Review of Maritime Zones in the Baltic Sea

Russia has riled up its western neighbors with a new proposal to re-draw its maritime borders in the Baltic region. Early this week, reports emerged that the Russian Ministry of Defense is proposing an expansion of its territorial waters in the Baltic Sea. Specifically, Russia is hoping to revise maritime borders in parts of the eastern Gulf of Finland, as well as the territory near its coastal cities of Baltiysk and Zelenogradsk in the Kaliningrad region.

However, this proposal encroaches on the coastal boundaries of Lithuania and Finland, causing concerns amongst the NATO members in the region.

“Another Russian hybrid operation is underway, this time attempting to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about their intentions in the Baltic Sea,” said Lithuania’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis.

Finland also called the review of maritime zones by Russia a form of hybrid influence. The Finnish Foreign Affairs ministry implored Russia to abide by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which discourages unilateral revision of maritime zones.

In the Russian proposal for delineation changes, the authors justify the claim on the basis that the current baselines, established by the USSR Council of Ministers in 1985, “do not fully correspond to the current geographical situation.” That is, the reference points used back then were recorded using small-scale marine navigation charts, which were based on the work from the mid-20th century. According to Russia’s logic, the geographical coordinates ought to be redrawn based on modern cartographical measurements.

While the Kremlin has said there is nothing political in the defense ministry’s proposal, most NATO members bordering the Baltic Sea interpret the move as a form of provocation. Analysts see this as yet another indication of the changing political landscape of the Baltic Sea, with Russia pushing back against increasing NATO control in the region. Currently, eight of the nine countries bordering the Baltic Sea are NATO member states, with the sole exception of Russia.

With the Baltic Sea hosting a growing offshore wind sector, as well as a spiderweb of subsea telecom and energy links, uncertainty in maritime governance would be an unwelcome development for the region – and could provide Russia with new leverage.