Sunday, February 11, 2024

LINE 5

Enbridge appeals to vacate an order that would shut down its pipeline

MADISON, Wis. — An attorney for the energy company Enbridge tried to persuade a federal appellate court Thursday to vacate an order that would shut down part of a pipeline running through a Wisconsin tribal reservation.

About 12 miles (19 km) of Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline runs across the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa's reservation. The company contends that U.S. District Judge William Conley improperly ordered Enbridge last summer to shut down a section of the pipeline on the reservation within three years. Conley also ordered the company to pay the tribe millions of dollars in trespassing fees, Enbridge attorney Alice Loughran told a three-judge panel at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

She said Conley's order violates a 1977 treaty between the United States and Canada that states no authority in either country shall impede the flow of oil and natural gas through pipelines between the two nations. Enbridge wants to reroute the pipeline around the reservation, but needs more time to secure permits from multiple government agencies, Loughran said.

“The court's shut-down order is prohibited,” she said.

The Bad River tribe's attorney, Paul Clement, implored the judges to go beyond Conley's order. He urged them to shut down the pipeline immediately to protect the environment from a potential spill and increase the financial penalties Conley imposed on Enbridge for trespassing on the reservation.

“Enbridge wants to continue business as usual,” Clement said.

Line 5 transports up to about 87 million litres of oil and liquid natural gas daily. The pipeline runs about 1,038 kilometres from the city of Superior, Wisconsin, through northern Wisconsin and Michigan to Sarnia, Ontario.

The tribe sued Enbridge in 2019 to force the company to remove the portion of Line 5 that crosses its reservation, saying the 71-year-old pipeline is dangerous and land easements allowing Enbridge to operate on the reservation expired in 2013. Enbridge has proposed removing the pipeline from the reservation and rerouting it, but the project depends largely on obtaining permits from multiple government agencies.

Bad River members told Conley in May that erosion around a 3.7 kilometres section of Line 5 has created an immediate risk of rupture and contamination and asked him to immediately shut down that section. The company says there haven't been any spills from Line 5 in Wisconsin since 2002, when a leak was contained at its Superior terminal.

Conley in June ordered Enbridge to shut down that portion of the pipeline but gave the company until June 2026 to do it, saying he wanted to give the energy industry time to prepare for the disruption to oil and natural gas supplies. He also ordered the company to pay the tribe more than US$5.2 million for trespassing and to keep paying as long as the pipeline keeps operating on tribal land.

The appellate judges questioned why government agencies haven't moved faster to grant Enbridge permits to reroute the pipeline. They also chastised the tribe for not taking preemptive steps to protect the area from a possible spill, such as placing sandbags around it.

Loughran said the tribe hasn't allowed Enbridge to take protective steps, while Clement countered that the tribe shouldn't have to do anything since Enbridge is trespassing.

The judges sounded frustrated with the two sides refusing to work together. “The parties have mutually declared war against each other,” Judge Michael Scudder said.

Judge Frank Easterbrook said the panel likely won't issue a ruling for at least several months.

Enbridge has been under scrutiny since 2010, when its Line 6B pipeline ruptured in southern Michigan, releasing 800,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River system.

Michigan’s Democratic attorney general, Dana Nessel, filed a lawsuit in 2019 seeking to shut down twin portions of Line 5 that run beneath the Straits of Mackinac, the narrow waterways that connect Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Nessel argued that anchor strikes could rupture the line, resulting in a devastating spill. That lawsuit is still pending in a federal appellate court.

Michigan regulators in December approved the company's $500 million plan to encase the portion of the pipeline beneath the straits in a tunnel to mitigate risk. The plan is awaiting approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.


Enbridge sees 'tailwind' for its Mainline system as Trans Mountain faces delays

Enbridge Inc. could benefit from increased volumes on its Mainline oil pipeline network if the startup of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is significantly delayed, the Calgary-based energy infrastructure firm said Friday.

Enbridge, like the rest of Canada's energy sector, has been closely watching the latest developments with the Trans Mountain project. The high-profile pipeline expansion will increase Trans Mountain's capacity from 590,000 barrels per day to a total of 890,000 barrels per day, creating new oil shipping competition for Enbridge and its Mainline system, but the project has been marred by delays and construction cost increases.

Most recently, Trans Mountain Corp. announced it has run into new construction challenges in B.C. that will delay the pipeline's expected first quarter startup until sometime in the second quarter of this year. 

Colin Gruending, president of Enbridge's liquids pipelines business, said Friday the company has been assuming an April 1 in-service date for Trans Mountain. He said if that date is pushed back, Enbridge will likely see a small boost in shipping volumes.

"To the extent it (Trans Mountain) is delayed, that's a slight tailwind," Gruending told a conference call to discuss Enbridge's fourth-quarter earnings. 

"We believe we're going to be substantially full anyway, so a slight delay doesn't provide a massive increase for us. But there is some upside to that."

Enbridge's Mainline network is Canada's largest oil pipeline system, providing about 70 per cent of the total oil pipeline transportation capacity out of Western Canada. Demand for shipping on the Mainline — which moves oil to markets in Eastern Canada and the U.S. Midwest — has exceeded capacity over the past few years. However, the network has long been expected to lose barrels to Trans Mountain once the expansion project comes online.

But Gruending said that picture has changed due to Trans Mountain's delays. The pipeline project was originally supposed to be finished in 2022, and the construction delays have meant more time for Canadian oil producers to ramp up production in anticipation of the additional export capacity.

"I think this notion that the Mainline is going to lose a bunch of volume when (Trans Mountain) comes on is a bit of a stale concept. It might have been valid a view years ago, but it's been delayed materially," Gruending said.

"And in that multi-year period of delay, supply has structurally and permanently grown . . . That demand is there. It's basically insatiable."

Statistics Canada data shows oil production in Alberta rose to a new record of 3.82 million barrels per day in 2023. In December alone, Alberta produced 4.19 million barrels per day, a 10 per cent year-over-year increase.

A report released in October by Deloitte Canada said Canadian oil production is expected to grow by about 375,000 barrels a day over the next two years, greater than the total amount added to Canada's production levels over the past five years combined.

Enbridge is forecasting its Mainline system will run essentially at capacity for most of 2024, averaging three million barrels per day.

In December, Enbridge filed an application with the Canada Energy Regulator for approval of its new tolling deal for the Mainline system. Tolls are the fees oil companies pay to ship their product on a pipeline, and are how pipeline operators make money.

Enbridge had been negotiating a new tolling framework with its oil industry customers for a year and a half. Once finalized and approved by the regulator, the new tolling deal will be in place through 2028.

On Friday, Enbridge reported a profit of $1.73 billion or 81 cents per share in its fourth quarter compared with loss a year earlier when it took a large non-cash goodwill impairment charge.

The result compared with a loss of $1.07 billion or 53 cents per share in the last three months of 2022 when the company took at $2.5-billion charge relate to its gas transmission business.

On an adjusted basis, Enbridge said it earned 64 cents per share in the quarter ended Dec. 31 compared with an adjusted profit of 63 cents per share a year earlier.

The company said last month it was cutting its workforce by 650 positions due to what it called "increasingly challenging business conditions" related to geopolitical instability, persistent inflation and rising interest rates.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 9, 2024.


Honda talks test Canada’s desire to move away from blockbuster EV subsidies

Canada’s strategy to lure electric vehicle manufacturing is shifting away from multibillion-dollar production subsidies. But that transition will be put to the test as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government negotiates with Honda Motor Co. over a potential new EV battery plant in Canada.

Last year, Trudeau’s government signed three unprecedented contracts to match production subsidies being offered to companies in the U.S. The numbers were big: as much as $15 billion for Stellantis NV, $13 billion for Volkswagen AG and $4.6 billion for battery-maker Northvolt AB. Provincial governments in Ontario and Quebec are picking up part of the cost. 

Subsidies of this kind will become less central to Canada’s EV manufacturing strategy, the industry minister promises. Having secured so-called “anchor investments,” Canada is turning its attention to building out a broader EV supply chain, said Industry Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne, using tax credits as an incentive to lure investment. 

“What we did in 2023 was to seize the moment,” Champagne said in an interview with Bloomberg News. “There’s only going to be one Volkswagen gigafactory in North America. There’s only going to be one Northvolt factory in North America.”

But he said there’s a difference between what Canada had to do initially to keep pace with the U.S., and what it needs to do over the longer term.

“Over time, because the ecosystem is getting stronger and stronger with each of these investments, you could transition the type of support you’ve provided more to something akin to a tax credit,” Champagne said.

The battery plant deals were highly unusual for Canada because in order to match the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, they subsidize the actual production of the factories — essentially offering money for each battery the plant makes. They were a departure from Canada’s usual practice of offering money to auto companies for capital spending projects — though last year’s subsidy packages included those, too.

The price tags of the subsidies have been criticized by some, especially with signs consumer demand for EVs is flagging. In Germany, for example, EV sales are expected to decline in 2024.

Yet those deals have also boosted Canada’s global standing in the industry, with BloombergNEF now ranking Canada in first place in battery supply chain manufacturing, surpassing China. 

Going forward, Canada plans to offer manufacturers tax credits, unveiled in last year’s budget. They have yet to be finalized, but include a “clean technology manufacturing” credit that would equal 30% of the capital cost of eligible property.

“There are still a few big decisions to be made by major manufacturers, but you’ve seen already pretty much where people are going to put their assets to serve the North American market,” Champagne said. “So it just makes sense to transition to an investment tax credit, which is then available to people who want to come to Canada.”

Champagne did not comment directly on the talks with Honda, which were first reported by Japanese news outlet Nikkei earlier this year. Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and other government officials met with Honda in January.

Honda’s plans for Canada, according to people familiar with the issue, may include not just an expansion of their existing manufacturing facilities in the province of Ontario, but potentially a new battery assembly plant and larger supply chain that stretches into neighboring Quebec. But there’s no assurance a deal will be done. 

Government officials said Honda’s interest in Canada is focused on the country’s critical mineral deposits and low-emissions electricity grid. Still, industrial subsidies will no doubt play a role — raising the question of whether Canada can land the investment without signing another rich production subsidy contract.

Champagne did not rule anything out, but he said it’s always been clear the government has a “limited capacity” to match U.S. green-manufacturing spending. Trudeau’s government is also trying to restrain spending to keep inflation in check and allow for the Bank of Canada to start cutting rates later this year.

Some government officials believe the production subsidies offered to Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt will ultimately cost much less than the sensational headline figures, since those are based on the assumption the plants will have no construction delays and operate at full capacity throughout the contract.

Champagne agreed the contracts will likely be less expensive in the end. But the larger point, he said, is that those plants will ensure that a large EV supply chain exists in Canada, which is why other automakers are looking at investing here.

“Canada is going to be one of the very few jurisdictions in the west where you have basically the full value chain around the battery ecosystem, and that is not lost on investors,” he said.

 


Ontarians have already gambled $1.4 billion on football as industry grows

In advance of Super Bowl LVIII, Ontario sportsbooks have already seen record wagers.

According to data released to BNNBloomberg.ca from iGaming Ontario, Ontario gamblers have already wagered $1.4 billion on football since April 1, 2023, across the 50 legal operators in the province. This represents a 50-per-cent hike from the fiscal year prior and with the Super Bowl still to come this weekend.

These figures are not limited to NFL football, however, and can include wagers on the Canadian Football League, the college ranks and other leagues.

iGaming Ontario said in a statement on Friday the growth in popularity is “a testament to Ontarians being drawn from the unregulated market to sites where their play is protected and from which Ontario’s economy benefits.”

In a statement Wednesday, a spokesperson for FanDuel Canada, one of the major players in online sports betting, said it too expects to see record numbers at this year’s Super Bowl.

“We’re continuing to see interest in the Super Bowl and we’re expecting the game to be the biggest event of the year at FanDuel,” the statement reads. “Unfortunately, we can’t provide actual numbers on bets/handle due to our operating agreement with (iGaming Ontario), but we expect to see year-over-year growth.”

A spokesperson for DraftKings, another major player in the industry, declined to comment.

Online gambling became legal in Ontario in April 2022 and the industry has exploded since. iGaming Ontario’s latest quarterly figures show total wagers amounting to $17.2 billion between October and December 2023, a 22-per-cent increase from the prior quarter. It remains the only province where the industry is legal.

Since legalization, the majority of sports betting has shifted online. A recent survey from the Responsible Gambling Council (RGC) found that 41 per cent of Ontario sports bettors plan to bet on the Super Bowl and 80 per cent plan to use online platforms.

“With most of Ontario’s Super Bowl betting happening online, it’s encouraging to see the majority of bettors using responsible gambling features on regulated sports book websites,” Shelley White, CEO of the Responsible Gambling Council, said in a news release.

The industry has grown even faster in the U.S., where online gambling is legal in more than 30 states. A record 67.8 million people are expected to bet on Super Bowl LVIII, with total wagers amounting to US$23.1 billion, according to research from the American Gaming Association.

These figures include online wagering, bets made with a bookie and casual bets among friends.

Helpline calls spike around big events

The growth in gambling’s popularity is also raising some concerns, as big sporting events like the Super Bowl can be especially troublesome for those with difficulty controlling their wagers. 

Nigel Turner, a scientist with the Institute for Mental Health Policy Research at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) who specializes in gambling addiction, said issues with gambling can arise more frequently this time of year.

“In the United States, the Super Bowl in particular is a huge draw for who gamble and there's always a spike in the number of people who call in having crises related to gambling around the time of the Super Bowl,” he told BNNBloomberg.ca in a phone interview Thursday.

Turner said while he doesn’t see the same February spike in helpline data here in Canada, helpline calls have increased 20 per cent since online gambling was legalized, with an uptick in November, the month of the CFL’s Grey Cup.

For what it’s worth, the Ontario government is cracking down on gambling advertising, as celebrities will be banned from online gambling endorsements on Feb. 24.

“I'm really happy that the government put the ban on celebrities because they're frequently people who appeal to youth, especially sports heroes like Wayne Gretzky was in a lot of the early advertisements,” Turner said.

Turner also applauded the gambling companies themselves for promoting responsible betting but hopes more can be done in the future.

“I think they could make that message stronger,” he said. “The fact is that gambling can be a lot of fun, but if you're spending money you can't afford to lose, then you are going to suffer consequences of that.”

The RGC suggests people understand that knowledge won’t them help beat the odds, setting spending limits and keeping to them, only gambling money you can afford to lose, and avoiding alcohol or drugs while making bets.

“Whether betting on or offline, perceived knowledge of the game, being with friends and family, and substance use can all influence how we play,” White said. “Staying within a pre-set limit and not risking more than you can afford to lose is always a good game plan.”  




 

Korean shipbuilder joins maritime SMR project

07 February 2024


South Korea's HD Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering (KSOE) plans to develop a small modular reactor (SMR) for use in shipping in cooperation with the UK's Core Power and the USA's Southern Company and TerraPower.

A concept for a nuclear-powered cargo ship (Image: Core Power)

The plans were announced following a joint research and technology exchange meeting in Washington, DC, between KSOE - a subsidiary of South Korea's HD Hyundai - and TerraPower and Core Power. In November 2022, KSOE invested USD30 million in TerraPower.

The reactor to be jointly developed centres around TerraPower's Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (MCFR) design. The technology uses molten chloride salt as both reactor coolant and fuel, allowing for so-called fast spectrum operation which the company says makes the fission reaction more efficient. It operates at higher temperatures than conventional reactors, generating electricity more efficiently, and also offers potential for process heat applications and thermal storage. An iteration of the MCFR - known as the m-MSR - intended for marine use is being developed by TerraPower.

KSOE plans to send an R&D team to TerraPower in March to continue cooperation with all the joint research companies from various fields including marine nuclear power plants and new nuclear applications. In addition, KSOE plans to join the establishment of a system for the application of marine reactors with the International Atomic Energy Agency and classification societies ABS and Lloyd's Register.

The shipping industry consumes some 350 million tonnes of fossil fuel annually and accounts for about 3% of total worldwide carbon emissions. In July last year, the shipping industry, via the International Maritime Organization, approved new targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, aiming to reach net-zero emissions by or around 2050.

Core Power President and CEO Mikal Bøe welcomed KSOE's involvement in the project, saying: "Adding their world-class expertise in shipbuilding and process engineering and Core Power's 60+ shareholders from the maritime and energy industries illustrates how a broader understanding that there is no net-zero without nuclear, is now being established."

In January this year, a memorandum of understanding was signed between Lloyd's Register, Zodiac Maritime, KSOE and Kepco Engineering & Construction for the development of nuclear-propelled ship designs, including bulk carriers and container ships. Under the joint development project, KSOE and Kepco E&C will provide designs for future vessels and reactors while Lloyd's Register will assess rule requirements for safe operation and regulatory compliance models.

The partners will work to address the challenges involved with nuclear propulsion, such as applying existing terrestrial nuclear technology to ships, and the project will enable shipping company Zodiac to evaluate ship specifications and voyage considerations around nuclear technology.

In November 2020, a multinational team including Core Power, Southern Company, TerraPower and Orano USA applied to take part in cost-share risk reduction awards under the US Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Programme to build a proof-of-concept for a medium-scale commercial-grade marine reactor based on molten salt reactor technology.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

U.S. Oil Industry Favors Trump for President

The U.S. oil and gas industry has donated $7.36 million to Donald Trump’s campaign, clearly favoring him over his Republican rival for the nomination, Nikki Haley, and over incumbent President Joe Biden who has angered the sector with most of his energy policies since he took office.

Groups outside Trump’s campaign in the energy and natural resources sector have donated $7,365,208 to Trump, compared to just $807,233 to his remaining rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Haley, and only  $634,736 to Biden’s campaign, according to data collected by OpenSecrets.

Some oil and gas industry donors, including shale pioneer Harold Hamm, last year donated to both Haley and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, as they didn’t believe Trump had a chance to win the election, Bloomberg notes.

However, oil industry donors began donating more money to Trump in the latter half of 2023.  

The oil and gas sector hasn’t flocked to donate to President Biden’s campaign, even though American oil and gas production hit record-high levels during his current term serving as president.

U.S. oil and gas production and exports of petroleum and LNG were booming last year, but most in the industry say this was despite Biden’s policies, not thanks to them.

Methane emission rules, too few lease sales on federal land and waters, and the pause in new permits for LNG export projects have been some of the most recent issues that America’s oil and gas industry has picked with the Biden Administration.

The sector associations have frequently criticized Biden’s energy policies as “hostile” to the oil and gas industry and undermining the American economy and jobs.

In the latest Dallas Fed Energy Survey, an executive at an E&P firm said “The administration’s continued war on the petroleum industry has an effect for sure, but we're seeing that the real world needs our industry, and the public is trumping the downward pressure the administration is trying to maintain.”  

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

Big Oil Ties Up with Big Corn Against EVs

  • Bloomberg: EV sales are rising so rapidly that they were threatening two industries that have traditionally been at odds with each other.

  • The oil industry has been against higher blending mandates because more ethanol in the gasoline means less gasoline in the tank, and this is not in their interest.

  • Big Oil has essentially made a U-turn, presumably in order to counter the rise of electric vehicles.




Big Oil is joining forces with biofuel producers in a united front against electric vehicles. The message came from Bloomberg this week, suggesting EV sales were rising so rapidly that they were threatening two industries that have traditionally been at odds with each other.

In fact, what seems to be happening is Big Oil and Big Corn uniting against federal and state policies aimed at promoting electric vehicles as the only option for the future, whatever the cost. Because EVs are not going to make it on their own.

Per the Bloomberg report, the American Petroleum Institute joined forces with the National Corn Growers Association and other industry groups to support a bill authored by Nebraska Republican Senator Deb Fischer, which proposes to mandate the sale of gasoline blended with higher portions of ethanol throughout the year.

The so-called E15 blend is normally only sold during the colder months, while in summer, E10 is used. The number after the E stands for the percentage of ethanol blended into the gasoline. The reason E15 is not sold during the summer is that it increases vaporization and the risk of smog.

The oil industry has been against higher blending mandates because more ethanol in the gasoline means less gasoline in the tank, and this is not in their interest. Now, Big Oil has essentially made a U-turn, presumably in order to counter the rise of electric vehicles—when demand for electric vehicles is beginning to slow down.Related: Silicon Valley Startup Claims Massive Copper Discovery in Africa

By the way, the EV camp is on to them. It was on to them before the API, and the corn growers even made it official, it seems. In March last year, a pro-electrification organization dubbed Transport & Environment published a report titled “The big e-fuel lie” that told the story of how the oil industry is supporting biofuels in order to “derail mass electrification.”

From today’s perspective, it rather looks like mass electrification was doomed to derailment because of its inherent problems. After reaching a record-high portion of over 7% of all car sales last year, EV sales are set for a slowdown this year. Even their fans are admitting the slowdown, although they are doing their best to brush it off as insignificant.

But if it were, Ford would not be slashing its production targets.

The reason that the mass electrification vision is not going to materialize is that EVs have too many features that push potential buyers away. And they are unlikely to make any serious dents in oil demand any time soon—the main motive for Big Oil to get in bed with Big Corn.

In a recent analysis of the EV dream and why it will likely remain a dream, Mark P. Mills, senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, wrote that even in Norway, oil demand has not declined after mass EV adoption. Norway is the country with the highest per-capita EV ownership in the world. Yet oil demand is stable even there—not growing, true, but stable. So why is Big Oil so worried?

The answer to that question comes from the political realm. Big Oil majors, by necessity, keep a finger on the pulse in Washington and now this pulse is telling them that the federal government and its transition allies at the state level are not giving up on their electric dreams so easily. They seem to be willing to spend whatever is asked of them to make that dream happen.

And this is the grave danger that Big Oil seems to be anticipating with its move to support Big Corn. Even though everyday reality shows that people are unlikely to start buying EVs on a mass scale anytime soon. Even though so far, EV sales have only displaced 1.5 million barrels of oil in daily global demand—a tiny portion. And even though with its move, Big Oil essentially goes against its own sector players—the refining non-majors for whom higher blending mandates cost actual loss of profits.

It also, in a way, goes against its own customers by potentially making their life even more expensive. Biofuel crops require large amounts of land to grow on. This land would otherwise be used for food crops. Thus, one of the main arguments against biofuels as an alternative to gasoline is that more biofuel production means higher food prices. And Big Corn wants more biofuel production

The two new allies argue that the bill they are supporting will bring long-term certainty to markets and help avoid supply disruptions. And they have a pretty good chance things will go their way because support for the Fischer bill is extensive—except from small refiners. All because they have believed that the Biden administration’s plan to have half of all new car sales be EVs by 2030 is going to happen. It won’t. Because it can’t happen unless people are being forced to buy EVs at gunpoint.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com


Unpacking the Complex Relationship Between Oil and Agriculture

  • Oil prices, influenced by biofuel quotas, play a significant role in determining the minimum price of key food items, contributing to the current high food prices.

  • The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and the success of the soy and corn lobbies have transformed these crops into both food and energy sources, linking their prices to crude oil.

  • The water-energy-food (WEF) nexus illustrates the interdependencies between food, energy, and water resources, emphasizing the need for responsible management to avoid compromising food and water security.

If you’re wondering what factors influence the price of your weekly grocery bill, you’ll need to look a bit further than general inflation and corporate greed. Yes, those are key factors in the current painfully high food prices, but fluctuations in oil prices are also intimately correlated with the price of food staples. 

To be clear, the petroleum industry isn’t setting prices for food crops, but it is, according to some industry experts, determining the minimum price for key food items. “Petroleum is the floor,” says Owen Wagner, senior grain and oilseeds analyst for RaboResearch. “That’s the best way to think of it; petroleum sets the foundation.” And then those other factors – inflation, commodities trading, greed, etc. – do the rest. 

There wasn’t always a lockstep correlation between oil prices and food prices in the United States, but there has been an extremely clear trend for years now. It all started with minimum biofuel quotas imposed by the government. Since Congress passed the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in 2005, the Federal government has determined each year how much biofuel must be integrated into the national fuel supply. 

“[From] 2006 onward, the relationship wasn’t perfect, but it’s pretty convincing, as one commodity goes up, the other follows,” Wagner told Successful Farming, “and I think it would be naive of us to assume that corn is in the driver’s seat. I mean, it’s petroleum that really makes the world go round…. So that said, it’s really important now. You can’t follow ag commodities without keeping a keen eye on oil prices.” 

This win for big ag shows just how massively successful the soy and corn lobbies in the United States have been in making their products not just food crops, but energy crops as well. “Higher crude oil prices simply meant that ethanol would become more competitive as a substitute for petroleum gasoline, and being a substitute, as the price of crude oil goes up, the demand for corn ethanol would go up and that would feed back into corn,” says Scott Irwin, chair of agricultural marketing at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 

The intimate relationship between food and energy has been recognized for years now in policy and research spaces. In fact, there is an entire theoretical framework and development policy conceptual approach built around the complicated relationship between water, energy, and food. This idea is known as the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus

The three nexus resources are inextricably interconnected and interdependent – making food and energy requires massive amounts of water; chemical fertilizers are made from a petrochemical base; chemical fertilizer runoff is one of the biggest threats toward clean water resources; making energy requires lots of diverted land and even crops otherwise used for food; and on, and on, and on. As demand for all three resources rises rapidly, the interconnections of this nexus become increasingly visible – as do its vulnerabilities. 

Already, we’ve seen hydropower systems fail dramatically and disastrously in the face of drought. We’ve seen agriculture and energy enter into land wars. And we’ve seen the growth of an anaerobic dead zone the size of Delaware in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of petroleum-based chemical fertilizers washed down the Mississippi all the way from Midwestern corn country, causing toxic algae blooms that don’t allow anything else to survive. 

The key to responsibly scaling food, energy, and water consumption is finding the synergies between these bosom buddies, and mitigating the trade-offs inherent to managing these essential natural resources. We’ve already seen some small steps forward in this regard. The use of agrivoltaics, in which solar panels and farms share land and benefit from each other's assets – such as crops growing in the shade of solar panels, and groundcover helping aid the cooling process of solar farms – has proliferated in some areas. 

But there is a lot of work to be done to make sure that indiscriminate energy production growth doesn’t harm our food and water resources – and that high oil prices don’t put families into poverty as they struggle to feed themselves.

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com 


LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for ADM 


 

Kenya’s Ambitious Renewable Energy Revolution

  • Kenya targets 100 percent clean energy by 2030, backed by a $70 million investment from the Climate Investment Funds.

  • The country's renewable energy sector, primarily geothermal and hydro sources, faces challenges in meeting peak demand and grid stability.

  • With expert support and funding, Kenya anticipates becoming a global leader in renewable energy, setting a precedent for other nations.

Kenya aims to transition to 100 percent clean energy by the end of the decade, under one of the world’s most ambitious climate pledges to date. It is being supported – alongside several other countries, by funding from several development banks under a scheme that is expected to support the advancement of a global green transition. As several economically developed countries invest in the shift from fossil fuels to renewable alternatives and decarbonize their economies, greater funding will be required to ensure that the green transition is taking place on a global rather than just a local level. 

The Climate Investment Funds (CIF) will finance a $70 million plan to advance Kenya’s renewable energy capacity in support of a green transition, with an initial payment of $46.39 million. The CIF was established in 2008 as a multilateral climate fund to finance pilot projects in developing countries at the request of the G8 and G20. It expects the financing from its Renewable Energy Integration (REI) investment program to contribute to a reduction in Kenya’s greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent by 2030 and to help the country achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Most of the funds will come in the form of a loan, with $5 million in the form of a grant.  

The CIF investment is expected to spur high levels of additional investment in the green energy sector, with a further $243 million from the public and private sectors expected from implementation partners, including the African Development Bank and the World Bank Group. 

At present, nearly 90 percent of Kenya’s energy comes from renewable resources, with 45 percent coming from geothermal sources and 26 percent from hydropower. However, Kenya’s renewable energy sector faces significant challenges and is still often unable to meet peak demand. Its energy sources do not provide a steady flow of energy, meaning that alternative options must be added to the grid and the country’s battery capacity must be increased, to ensure the growing energy demand is met and excess energy produced outside of peak hours is not lost. 

Although a large proportion of Kenya’s power comes from renewable sources, it currently experiences regular blackouts due to the unstable state of its existing grid system. According to Kenya’s National Bureau of Statistics, it imported 706.9 kWh of electricity from neighboring Ethiopia and Uganda in the first 11 months of 2023, a significant increase from 288.27 kWh in the same period of 2022. 

Expert support from the CIF is expected to help Kenya tackle these challenges and develop its renewable energy, to achieve 100 percent clean energy generation by 2030. The move will help attract investment in innovative storage technologies, such as battery storage and pumped hydropower, to combat the challenge of stable power delivery. It will also see the addition of alternative renewable energy production, such as solar and wind power, which will see an increase of 30 percent and 19 percent respectively by 2030. 

Kenya is one of ten countries to receive funding under the CIF’s REI program, alongside Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Fiji, and Mali. Funding from the CIF is expected to support the green transition of these countries, in support of a global green transition. While several Western countries are investing in the deployment of renewable energy operations, many developing countries cannot afford to do the same without funding from donors and richer countries. Investing in the developing world’s green energy capacity will support the global green transition needed to tackle climate change. 

Anthony Nyong, the Director for Climate Change and Green Growth at the African Development Bank stated, “We are excited to welcome the endorsement of the REI Investment Plan for Kenya, a transformative step towards a sustainable energy future.” He added, “This comprehensive plan represents a strategic blueprint for integrating renewable energy into?the country’s energy landscape. It reflects our collective commitment to fostering innovation, reducing carbon emissions, and creating a resilient energy infrastructure. We?look forward to actively participating in the implementation of this plan, working?hand in hand with all stakeholders.”

Kenya has significant renewable energy potential, as seen through the recent development of its already strong green energy sector. It is home to vast geothermal resources, coming from the African rift, which runs underground. The Somalian and Nubian tectonic plates moved in opposite directions around 25 million years ago, making the surface between two fault lines sink, and transporting magmatic fluids closer to Earth’s surface to create the rift. The valley stretches over 6,400km from Jordan to Mozambique, providing the perfect conditions to generate geothermal energy. 

Peketsa Mangi, the general manager of geothermal development at KenGen, explains, “Kenya has developed the capacity for precision geoscientific studies that help us to identify potential areas to drill. Exploration and drilling are cost-intensive endeavours and investors don’t want to go to a greenfield without confirmed viable resources.” The oil crisis experienced in the 1970s accelerated the deployment of geothermal resources across the country, providing a blueprint for other countries on the rift to follow. 

An abundance of renewable energy sources has already allowed Kenya to develop its green energy sector substantially. Funding from the CIF is expected to help the East African country to achieve 100 percent clean energy by the end of the decade and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. This will put it far ahead of many other countries striving to achieve a green transition and could provide the blueprint for neighboring countries to follow.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

 WW3.0

Venezuela Sends Military to Guyana Border Over Oil Dispute

Venezuela is sending troops to its border with Guyana in an escalation of tensions over Guyana’s recent oil boom, according to reports citing satellite images and videos posted by Venezuela’s military.

Venezuela is attempting to annex an area known as Essequibo, in which Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro in December said he would “grant operating licenses for the exploration and exploitation of oil, gas, and mines.”

The Essequibo region encompasses about two-thirds of Guyana’s territory and is where most of its oil resources lie, and the site of massive discoveries and new production by Exxon and partners. 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) previously ruled that Essequibo is part of Guyana, although this is still not recognized by Venezuela. A written agreement was penned in December between the two that denounced the use of force, instead calling for a commission to address the disputes. 

“We are not surprised by the bad faith of Venezuela,” Guyana’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal regarding the military action. “We are disappointed, not surprised.”

Venezuela has said that it is boosting its defenses in response to U.S. military exercises in Guyana toward the end of the year and the presence of a UK anti-narcotics vessel that is in Guyanese waters. It has criticized ExxonMobil for depending on the U.S. military for its security and for its exploitation of Guyana’s oil resources. 

Maduro had vowed a “forceful response” in the area “that rightfully belongs to Venezuela. The Essequibo is ours!”

The deployment of troops to Essequibo comes as Maduro is facing planned presidential elections this year, with the Essequibo issue a popular one among Venezuelan voters.



By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com