Big money for Trump by big US oil companies

A new analysis explores the possible payout if fossil fuel companies—who have already shown a willingness to put a price tag on the value of planet Earth—agree to the presumptive Republican nominee's election year "quid pro quo" deal.

The analysis reveals that the alleged US$ one billion election year "quid pro quo" offer that presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump made to executives of major oil company's could, if they agreed to the deal, bank them a handsome profit.

According to the study by Friends of the Earth Action, first reported by The Guardian on Thursday, the "remarkably blunt and transactional" offer from Trump—in which US$ one billion in campaign funding put together by the nation's major oil companies would be repaid upon his election with massive deregulation of the oil and gas sector as well as tax relief for the industry—would yield a major windfall for those same corporations, including an estimated US$110 billion from the tax breaks alone.

Republicans in Congress last year confirmed that if Trump wins back the White House and the GOP resume control of both chambers, they will move aggressively to make the Republican's 2017 tax cuts, which largely benefited the wealthy and corporations, permanent. As some of the most profitable companies in the US, oil and gas companies stand to benefit greatly from that outcome.

In Florida last month, not long before his meeting with oil executives, Trump told a different crowd of "rich as hell" supporters gathered at Mar-a-Lago: "We're gonna give you tax cuts, we're gonna pay of our debt."

The problem with the second half of that claim is presented in a recent CBO report which found that another wave of tax cuts like those passed by the GOP in 2017 would skyrocket the national debt by an estimated US$4.6 trillion over the next ten years.

 

Earlier this week, House Democrats, led by Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin, launched a probe into the "quid pro quo" allegations between Trump and Big Oil, including letters to company executives believed to have been in attendance.

The blatant nature of Trump's corrupt intent, according to some political observers, is an opportunity that Democrats and champions of climate action and other progressive causes should not miss.

Writing about the circumstances in The New Yorker on Wednesday, journalist and veteran climate activist Bill McKibben argued that the stakes of this election are made plain in what Trump has offered the fossil fuel industry in exchange for its financial backing.

"Trump's reported billion-dollar offer to fossil-fuel executives shows that this is the key year to save the planet," McKibben writes.

"Given four years to finish the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, a second-term Biden Administration might finally be able to break the hold of fossil fuel political influence," his essay explains. "Another term of Trump, however—and with all that it means for undercutting global efforts at climate regulation, as well—offers an entirely plausible and entirely opposite outcome: climate chaos combined with continued fossil-fuel dependence."

What's true, according to McKibben, is that the fossil fuel industry "might well decide that defeating Biden in November is worth a lot of money." Citing recent profits by Chevron of US$21 billion and ExxonMobil's US$36 billion, he said the oil giants will "definitely give Trump something, and the return on investment on that donation—if successful—would be better than the luckiest well they ever hit."

Courtesy: Common Dreams

MENA: New proxy war ground for US and China

Tensions between the United States and China are expanding beyond the Asia-Pacific region. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is likely to be one of many venues in what might be a new Cold War between Washington and Beijing.

We can imagine how Washington and Beijing’s respective global outlooks and ability to project (soft and hard) power could affect their future relations with the MENA region.

How MENA countries deal with each other and the role they play in the emerging global energy and economy transitions could influence how the two superpowers engage with the region in ways as interesting and important as what the superpowers are able to do themselves. On the MENA side of the equation, two critical dimensions are likely to shape their role in the future US-China competition in the region:

Intraregional politics

The first is how regional countries relate to each other with functional and practical economic and political integration, or sustained dysfunction and instability. Prior to the current war in Gaza, there was a trend toward de-escalation, stabilization, and integration.

Whenever that momentum might be regained, under the “functional and practical” route, we could imagine MENA nations looking in new ways at the lessons of pan-regional intergovernmental organizations.

The region could explore policies and mechanisms that emulate the practical benefits afforded to member states of other regional blocs like the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Such ideas could first lower trade barriers, then foster closer economic and commercial ties across the region.

Similarly, the thinking behind the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe could influence MENA governments’ approach to their citizens’ human rights and each other’s domestic affairs.

The functional and practical path would represent a MENA equipped with deliberative, consultative decision-making processes to act with agency, putting its own interests before the dictates of the US-Chinese competition.

The alternative path is easy to define, MENA governments continue to support various armed groups in proxy wars, and use that environment to ignore human rights, enabling outside players to exploit that dysfunction.

Levers of the future economy

The fossil fuel resources of Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates ‑ energy-rich club might soon include Egypt and Israel ‑ are likely to remain MENA’s main sources of leverage vis-à-vis Washington and Beijing — at least for the next couple of decades. Given the desire of two superpowers to secure the region’s oil and gas for themselves and their allies, or deny them to adversaries, US and Chinese companies will remain powerhouses in regional markets.

MENA is poised to influence the future global stage, and gain agency in the US-China competition over the region, by leveraging its energy and financial power in different ways in the future.

As the world turns to renewable energy, the region’s petrostates are simultaneously ramping up economic diversification into tech sectors, while also leveraging their wealth to finance climate-friendly energy projects and other green economy endeavors in their neighborhood and around the world.

The new frontier for the region’s resource- and capital-rich countries will be fostering innovation and science/technology/ideas hubs for the post-carbon economy that humanity intends to build in the 21st century.

Beside eventually waning hydrocarbons and ascending green energy, new logistical/transportation/energy networks have proliferated in the region and are likely to further increase its geopolitical and commercial significance.

Be it through long-established routes, such as the Suez Canal, or new and proposed ones, such as the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, India-Middle East Corridor, and the Turkish-Iraqi-Emirati-Qatari Development Road, MENA is going to be sitting at the center of global trade networks. Many of the region’s seaports and airports will also play an expanded role in international affairs.

Shrinking number of OPEC members

Lately, Angola has relinquished its OPEC membership. Earlier Qatar, Indonesia had left the organization. These departures are not likely to have any considerable impact on total world market supply.

Generally, it seems OPEC is facing three challenges these days. The first one is the withdrawal of members. Over the past years, OPEC’s efforts to persuade other oil-producing countries to join it have been unsuccessful.

During the current year, OPEC repeatedly invited Guyana to become a member but the South American country rejected the invitation, apparently based on the assumption that it wants to maximize oil production and profits during an era in which oil demand could be in decline over the coming years.

Not only OPEC has not been able to attract new members it also faces new potential quits. After Qatar decided to exit the organization, at least for the past couple of years, UAE has been the largest threat to the unity of the organization.

The disarray between UAE and OPEC led by Saudi Arabia reached its climax two years ago when the country insisted on a higher baseline to its quota to allow for more domestic production.

If the UAE decides to exit the organization it could weaken the influence of the organization as far as it concerns setting oil prices because the Emirates is OPEC’s third-largest oil producer.

The second challenge of OPEC is that since more than a decade ago, three of its main members have played no role in making decisions in the ministerial meetings of the organization.

These three countries' position in OPEC, as the hawks of the organization, has declined considerably mainly due to the US sanctions.

Two of these countries are non-Arab founding members of the organization: Iran and Venezuela. And the third one is Libya as the most serious advocate of higher prices strategy among the African members of OPEC.

Libya's policies at OPEC were close to Iran and Venezuela which more and less were close to each other at OPEC against Saudi Arabia which mainly defended its market share.

When the three countries' influence eroded at OPEC either through the US sanctions or via the toppling of Qadhafi during the Arab Spring unrest, Riyadh probably felt that these developments have paved the way for its unchallenged dominance in OPEC’s decision-making meetings.

Their absence as members who are being excluded from the quota and limiting oil production mechanism may have weakened Saudi Arabia's stance in setting desired oil prices which has to cut oil production voluntarily in the hope of boosting oil prices.    

The read challenge OPEC faces is not from within but from outside. This challenge culminated at the COP28 in UAE when a great number of participating countries asked for fossil fuel phase-out.

Oil once lubricated the wheels of industrialized countries' economies and was the world's economic growth engine. Now it is considered, mostly by industrialized countries, as something redundant that humans should get rid of as soon as possible to save the planet against global warming, and OPEC’s reasoning that humans should get rid of emissions, not fossil fuels, apparently remains unheard.

 Even though the term phase out was eliminated from the final COP28 communiqué, 198 countries reached an agreement that emphasizes transitioning away from fossil fuels, and United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, “To those who opposed a clear reference to phase out of fossil fuels during the COP28: Whether you like it or not, fossil fuel phase-out is inevitable.”

Now OPEC through cooperation with ten non-OPEC oil producers called OPEC Plus tries to maintain its influence in the oil market but without that, it faces internal and external challenges that threaten the power once it enjoyed in the world oil market. 

 

G20 members fail to reach agreement on cutting fossil oil use

According to Reuters, the Group of 20 (G20) major economies meeting in India failed on Saturday to reach consensus on phasing down fossil fuels following objections by some producer nations.

Major fossil fuel producers Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia are all known to oppose the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.

Scientists and campaigners are exasperated by international bodies' foot-dragging on action to curb global warming even as extreme weather from China to the United States underlines the climate crisis facing the world.

The G20 member countries together account for over three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, and a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonize is crucial in the global fight against climate change.

However, disagreements including the intended tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030 resulted in officials issuing an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communiqué at the end of their four-day meeting in Bambolim, in the Indian coastal state of Goa.

A joint communiqué will be issued when there is complete agreement between member nations on all issues.

"We had a complete agreement on 22 out of 29 paragraphs, and seven paragraphs constitute the Chair summary," Indian Power Minister R.K. Singh said.

Sections urging developed countries to deliver on the goal of jointly mobilizing US$100 billion per year for climate action in developing economies for 2020-25, and description of the war in Ukraine, also eluded consensus.

Fossil fuel use became a lightning rod in day-long discussions, but officials failed to reach consensus over curbing unabated use and argued over the language to describe the pathway to cut emissions.

A draft late on Friday reviewed by Reuters read, "The importance of making efforts towards phase down of unabated fossil fuels, in line with different national circumstances, was emphasized."

However, the chair statement released on Saturday evening included concerns from some member nations which were missing in the Friday draft, noting that "others had different views on the matter that abatement and removal technologies will address such concerns".

Singh, in a press briefing after the conference, said some countries wanted to use carbon capture instead of a phase down of fossil fuels. He did not name the countries.

Sanctions on Iran are because of Southern Pars gas field, not its nuclear program

I started writing these blogs in June 2012. Over the years my focus remained on Iranian nuclear program, which is often termed the main cause of sanctions. However, when I posted my last blog on Leviathan gas field, offshore gas project of Israel, it dawned that the real cause of sanctions on Iran is its Southern Pars gas field, not the nuclear program. I quickly accessed Wikipedia and managed to put together some information.  

Pars field comprising of Southern Pars and North Dome fields is a natural-gas condensate field located in the Persian Gulf. It is by far the world's largest natural gas field, with ownership of the field shared between Iran and Qatar.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the field holds an estimated 1,800 trillion cubic feet (51 trillion cubic metres) of in-situ natural gas and some 50 billion barrels (7.9 billion cubic metres) of natural gas condensates.

On the list of natural gas fields it has almost as much recoverable reserves as all the other fields combined. It has significant geostrategic influence.

This gas field covers an area of 9,700 square kilometres (3,700 sq miles), of which 3,700 square kilometres (1,400 sq mile) (South Pars) is in Iranian territorial waters and 6,000 square kilometres (2,300 sq mile) (North Dome) is in Qatari territorial waters.

The field is 3,000 metres (9,800 feet) below the seabed at a water depth of 65 metres (213 feet), and consists of two independent gas-bearing formations: Kangan (Triassic) and Upper Dalan (Permian). Each formation is divided into two different reservoir layers, separated by impermeable barriers. The field consists of four independent reservoir layers K1, K2, K3, and K4.

According to International Energy Agency (IEA), the combined structure is the world's largest gas field.

In-place volumes are estimated to be around 1,800 trillion cubic feet (51 trillion cubic metres) gas in place and some 50 billion barrels (7.9 billion cubic metres) of natural gas condensate in place. With in place volumes equivalent to 360 billion barrels (57 billion cubic metres) of oil (310 billion boe of gas and 50 billion boe of natural gas condensate) the field is the world's biggest conventional hydrocarbon accumulation.

The field recoverable gas reserve is equivalent to some 215 billion barrels (34.2 billion cubic metres) of oil and it also holds about 16 billion barrels (2.5 billion cubic metres) of recoverable condensate corresponding of about 230 billion barrels (37 billion cubic metres) of oil equivalent recoverable hydrocarbons.

The gas recovery factor of the field is about 70%, corresponding of about 1,260 trillion cubic feet (36×1012 m3) of total recoverable gas reserves which stands for about 19% of world recoverable gas reserves.

The estimates for the Iranian section are 500 trillion cubic feet (14×1012 m3) of natural gas in place and around 360 trillion cubic feet (10×1012 m3) of recoverable gas which stands for 36% of Iran's total proven gas reserves and 5.6% of the world's proven gas reserves.

The estimates for the Qatari section are 900 trillion cubic feet (25×1012 m3) of recoverable gas which stands for almost 99% of Qatar's total proven gas reserves and 14% of the world's proven gas reserves.

Since the field is a common field and the reservoir is highly homogenous, the ultimate recoverable reserves of each country may vary from this technical assessment which only considers the static data and does not include rate of gas migration. Therefore, it is better to say that the ultimate recoverable reserves of each country would be a factor of cumulative gas production by each of them.

The Iranian section also holds 18 billion barrels (2.9 billion cubic metres) of condensate in place of which some 9 billion barrels (1.4 billion cubic metres) are believed to be recoverable, while Qatari section believed to contains some 30 billion barrels (4.8×109 m3) of condensate in place and at least some 10 billion barrels (1.6 billion cubic metres) of recoverable condensate.

The South Pars Field was discovered in 1990 by National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). The Pars Oil and Gas Company, a subsidiary of NIOC, has jurisdiction over all South Pars-related projects. Field development has been delayed by various problems - technical (i.e., high levels of mercaptans and foul-smelling sulfur compounds), contractual issues and, recently, politics.

Gas production started from the field by commissioning phase 2 in December 2002 to produce 1 billion cubic feet per day (28 million cubic metres per day) of wet gas. Gas is sent to shore via pipeline, and processed at Assaluyeh.

As of December 2010, South pars gas field's production capacity stands at 75 million cubic metres (2.6 billion cubic feet) of natural gas per day. Gas production at South Pars rose by nearly 30% between March 2009 and March 2010. The field's reserves are estimated at 14 trillion cubic metres (490 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas and 18 billion barrels (2.9 billion cubic metres) of natural gas condensates.

NIOC is planning to develop the field in 24 to 30 phases, capable of producing about 25 billion cubic feet (710 million cubic metres) to 30 billion cubic feet (850 million cubic metres) of natural gas per day. Each standard phase is defined for daily production of 1 billion cubic feet (28 million cubic metres) of natural gas, 40,000 barrels (6,400 m3) of condensate, 1500 tons of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and 200 tons of sulfur.

However some phases have some different production plans. Each of the phases is estimated to have an average capital spend of around US$1.5 billion, and most will be led by foreign oil firms working in partnership with local companies.

 

 

United States: Gas prices plunge to the lowest levels in 30 years

Gas prices in the United States plunged to the lowest levels in 30 years signaling to dial back new well drilling and maximize combustion by power producers.

Front-month futures closed at US$2.45 per million British thermal units on February 09, 2023 in only the second percentile for all months since 1990, after allowing for the increase in core consumer prices.

Working inventories in underground storage were 17 billion cubic feet, above the prior ten-year average on February 03.

But that was a massive turnaround from a deficit of 427 billion cubic feet recorded as recently as September 09, 2022.

Mild weather has played a relatively small role in erasing the earlier deficit and transforming it into a large incipient surplus.

The number of heating degree days across the Lower 48 states so far this winter has been only 5% below the long-term average.

More important has been loss of exports following the explosion at Freeport LNG’s terminal and reduced consumption stemming from high prices through much of 2022.

Freeport’s eventual reopening should provide an outlet for some excess inventory, but with stocks in Europe also very full, exporters will have to compete for price-sensitive customers in Asia.

Slumping futures prices will discourage drilling and incentivize electricity generators to run their gas-fired units for more hours at the expense of coal.

The number of rigs drilling for gas has been essentially unchanged since the start of September - after increasing by more than 50% in the first eight months of 2022.

Discounted futures prices will also boost combustion from the power sector, helping limit the accumulation of inventories this summer.

The summer-winter calendar spread between July 2023 and January 2024 has slumped into a contango of more than US$1.10 per million British thermal units from a backwardation of more than 50 cents in August 2022.

Gas prices are now trading below the cost of coal, once the superior efficiency of gas-fired units is taken into account, which will encourage maximum gas burn this summer.

 

Battle to shift from fossil fuels to metals

According to a Reuters report, the global trade war will shift from fossil fuels to metals and raw materials. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlighted the risk of relying on autocratic states for energy. Even if Europe’s gas crisis eases, Western manufacturers’ focus will switch to reducing China’s dominance in materials key to a cleaner economy.

Europe needs to cumulatively spend US$5.3 trillion on clean energy projects by 2050. That requires a six-fold increase in the global production of copper, lithium, graphite, nickel and some rare earths by 2040 show International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates.

Yet China dominates the processing, and to a lesser extent the extraction, of many critical industrial ingredients. It refines 58% of lithium produced globally, 65% of cobalt and over one-third of nickel and copper.

Ostracised Russia is also big in nickel, palladium and cobalt.

Europe, which imports between 75% and 100% of most metals, looks particularly vulnerable.

In response, Western companies can strike deals with suppliers in friendly countries, open mines at home, or boost recycling.

The first approach is the fastest and is underway. In 2022 carmakers have ramped up partnerships with mines and invested directly in mining projects, data from Fitch Solutions shows.

General Motors took a stake in Australia’s Queensland Pacific Metals to secure nickel and cobalt for green SUVs.

Opening new mines at home looks safer but takes longer. Take lithium. Europe doesn’t currently mine an ounce of the key electric-vehicle battery component. And the United States only supplies 2% of global demand. But things are changing.

Sibanye Stillwater is aiming to operate Europe’s first lithium mine in Finland in 2025; France’s Imerys is seeking to extract 34,000 tons of lithium hydroxide annually from a mine opening in 2028. If all European lithium mining projects transpire, they could supply around 40% of its expected demand of 600,000 tons of lithium carbonate equivalent a year by 2030, says one European miner.

The United States, which only holds 3% of the world’s lithium reserves, has passed legislation to subsidize domestic extraction of crucial materials.

Neither approach is foolproof. Mining in developed markets may mean pushback from environmentally conscious citizens. Critical metals producers could also make life trickier for buyers by forming cartels.

That’s why Western nations’ best option is ultimately to recycle metals from used appliances. Companies like Umicore and Redwood Materials already own the technology to reuse batteries and smartphones.

Europe recycles 17% of the globe’s battery production. But this share will rise to 48% by 2025, Fitch Solutions suggests.

Unfortunately, recycling is costly. But in a polarized world, protecting Western industries and jobs will merit a premium.

 

Governments urged to phase out fossil fuel

The Investors managing US$39 trillion have called on governments around the world to raise their climate ambition; including setting plans to phase out fossil fuel use and forcing companies to set out science-based transition plans.

The move by some - but not all - top fund firms comes ahead of the next round of global climate talks in Egypt in November this year.

This year's letter is the most ambitious appeal to officials yet, backers of the effort said, with additional requests for action on tackling methane pollution and scaling up finance to poorer countries.

Organized by the Investor Agenda, a group of investor-focused groups that count many of the world's largest fund managers as members, the 2022 Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis was the 13th one to be issued.

Investors are taking action as it is not only permitted by law but is in many cases required to ensure their ability to generate returns in the long-term as a core fiduciary duty and benefit from the opportunities associated with the shift to a net-zero emissions economy.

Other requests by the investors included scaling up low-carbon energy systems; implementing carbon pricing mechanisms that rise over time; establishing new or more ambitious plans to end deforestation.

In all, 532 investors signed the latest iteration including UBS Asset Management, Amundi SA and Federated Hermes.

However, none of the top three US index fund managers BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Corp signed onto this letter.

The reticence comes as the process of investing with an eye on environmental, social and governance-related issues, or ESG, faces growing pressure in the United States.

John Kerry demands action against 'Petrostate Dictators'

According to a report by Reuters, US Climate Envoy John Kerry said on Tuesday Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a warning to nations around the world that they cannot be hostage of oil-rich autocratic governments to meet their energy needs.

Speaking to Reuters on the sidelines of the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon, Kerry said Russia has been using energy as a weapon and would continue to do so in the future but Europe was committed to put an end to its dependency.

"It's a warning to everybody that you do not want to be prisoners of petrostate dictators who are willing to weaponize energy," Kerry said.

Russia launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24 this year, which Moscow calls a "special operation".

Kerry said the world was "running out of time" to tackle climate change but governments should not use the war in Ukraine as an excuse to delay the process even further.

"We have seen people choosing short-term (solutions) in order to respond to the challenge of losing gas for Russia," he said.

"And we cannot allow the war in Ukraine to alter the reality that we need to reduce emissions and we need to deal with speeding up the transition to alternative renewable energy."

Soaring energy costs and supply shocks triggered by the Russian invasion have spurred some countries to bet more on renewables but others to burn more coal, buy up non-Russian gas or pause efforts to reduce fossil fuels.

The European Union (EU) relied on Russia for 40% of its gas before Moscow invaded Ukraine.

"We have to make up some gas for Europe, which the US will work to do with others, but it has be a one for one replacement - not a whole series of new infrastructure with a 20- or 30-year horizon because that will crush the ability to respond to the climate crisis," he said.

He added, "We do not need to have new liquefied natural gas projects that require new drilling."

Germany drew criticism from the United States and others, including EU member states, for supporting the planned Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, designed to deliver Russian gas directly to Germany. The project was halted two days before the invasion started.

Kerry said it was not worth "going backwards" and described the European Union as a "terrific leader" on renewable energies that has set higher goals than many other countries in the world.

 

Shrinking global spare oil production capacity

Spare crude oil production capacity has shrunk significantly due to under-investment, the head of Saudi Aramco said, warning that the potential rebound in jet travel and continued power plant demand for liquid fuels could create a worryingly tight market in 2022. 

"Unfortunately, there is not enough investment in the sector to increase supplies and maintain that spare capacity," Aramco President and CEO Amin Nasser said at the Nikkei Global Management Forum.

He estimated that global oil demand would surpass pre-pandemic levels of some 100 million bpd next year. Jet fuel demand remains about 3 million-4 million bpd below where it was before the pandemic, and a recovery in air travel would quickly consume the world's spare production capacity, he said.

The current high oil prices reflect the healthy economic recovery, as well as energy switching in the power sector from gas to liquid fuels, which could potentially add 1.5 million bpd of oil demand this winter, Nasser said.

Spare capacity can act as the market's buffer against unexpected disruptions to supply, such as hurricanes, political unrest and security incidents.

With many international oil companies seeking to downsize their oil portfolios and some producing countries struggling to revive upstream investment, Saudi Aramco stands to benefit and gain in market share, as it embarks on raising its crude production capacity from 12 million bpd to a world-leading 13 million bpd by 2027. The company is already the world's largest exporter of crude.

The slower pace of the energy transition in many developing countries means oil will remain a major fuel source for several decades, Nasser said.

"Between now until 2050, there are going to be an estimated 2 billion more energy users in the world and population growth would be led by developing countries, where energy transition will be much slower," Nasser said. "Hence, I expect oil and gas demand will be healthy for many decades to come."

Nasser highlighted that there are different needs for less developed countries as consumers in developed countries may be able to afford expensive energy solutions, but the same would not apply for consumers in developing countries.

"The world needs green and clean energy policy that is more inclusive," he said.

Oil and gas would remain Saudi Aramco's key businesses for a long time, though efforts to reduce carbon footprint will be executed with its combination of strategies including carbon capture, gas to hydrogen, liquid to chemical and more, Nasser said. Saudi Aramco recently set a target of bringing its carbon emissions down to net zero from its operations by 2050.

"Aramco's upstream emissions are perhaps one of the lowest in the industry. ... We have done a lot and put in a lot of investments in reduction of GHG emissions and we are confident with our strategy," he said.

Oil chiefs to testify at congressional hearing

Top executives at ExxonMobil and other oil giants are set to testify at a landmark House hearing today (Thursday) as congressional Democrats investigate what they describe as a decades-long, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.

Top officials at four major oil companies are testifying before the House Oversight Committee, along with leaders of the industry’s top lobbying group and the US Chamber of Commerce. Company officials were expected to renew their commitment to fighting climate change.

The much-anticipated hearing comes after months of public efforts by Democrats to obtain documents and other information on the oil industry’s role in stopping climate action over multiple decades. The appearance of the four oil executives — from ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP America and Shell — has drawn comparisons to a high-profile hearing in the 1990s with tobacco executives who famously testified that they didn’t believe nicotine was addictive.

 “The fossil fuel industry has had scientific evidence about the dangers of climate change since at least 1977. Yet for decades, the industry spread denial and doubt about the harm of its products — undermining the science and preventing meaningful action on climate change even as the global climate crisis became increasingly dire, ″ said Carolyn Maloney and Ro Khanna.

Maloney chairs the Oversight panel, while Khanna leads a subcommittee on the environment.

More recently, Exxon, Chevron and other companies have taken public stances in support of climate actions while privately working to block reforms, Maloney and Khanna charged. Oil companies frequently boast about their efforts to produce clean energy in advertisements and social media posts accompanied by sleek videos or pictures of wind turbines.

The industry “spends billions to promote climate disinformation through branding and lobbying″ that is increasingly outsourced to trade groups, “obscuring their own roles in disinformation efforts,” the lawmakers said.

Democrats have focused particular ire on Exxon, after a senior lobbyist for the company was caught in a secret video bragging that Exxon had fought climate science through “shadow groups” and had targeted influential senators in an effort to weaken President Joe Biden’s climate agenda, including a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping climate and social policy bill currently moving through Congress.

Keith McCoy, a former Washington-based lobbyist for Exxon, dismissed the company’s public expressions of support for a proposed carbon tax on fossil fuel emissions as a “talking point.”

McCoy’s comments were made public in June by the environmental group Greenpeace UK, which secretly recorded him and another lobbyist in Zoom interviews. McCoy no longer works for the company, an Exxon spokesperson said last month.

Darren Woods, Exxon’s chairman and chief executive, has condemned McCoy’s statements and said the company stands by its commitment to work on finding solutions to climate change.

Woods is among the chief executives set to testify Thursday, along with BP America CEO David Lawler, Chevron CEO Michael Wirth and Shell President Gretchen Watkins.

Casey Norton, an ExxonMobil spokesperson, said the company has cooperated with the Oversight panel, adding: “ExxonMobil has long acknowledged that climate change is real and poses serious risks.″

In addition to substantial investments in “next-generation technologies,” the company also advocates for responsible climate-related policies, Norton said.

“Our public statements about climate change are, and have been, truthful, fact-based, transparent and consistent with the views of the broader, mainstream scientific community at the time, ″ he said.

Maloney and Khanna compared tactics used by the oil industry to those long deployed by the tobacco industry to resist regulation “while selling products that kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.″

The oil industry’s “strategies of obfuscation and distraction span decades and still continue today,″ Khanna and Maloney said in calling the hearing last month. The five largest publicly traded oil and gas companies reportedly spent at least US$ one billion from 2015 to 2018 “to promote climate disinformation through ‘branding’ and lobbying,” the lawmakers said.

Bethany Aronhalt, a spokeswoman for API, said the group’s president, Mike Sommers, welcomes the opportunity to testify and “advance our priorities of pricing carbon, regulating methane and reliably producing American energy.”

Surging Energy Prices May Not Ease Until Next Year, says IMF

Soaring natural gas prices are rippling through global energy markets and other economic sectors from factories to utilities. 

According to a report by International Monetary Fund (IMF), an unprecedented combination of factors is roiling world energy markets, rekindling the memories of the 1970s energy crisis and complicating an already uncertain outlook for inflation and the global economy. Energy futures indicate that prices are likely to moderate in the coming months.

Spot prices for natural gas have more than quadrupled to record levels in Europe and Asia and the persistence and global dimension of these price spikes are unprecedented. Typically, such moves are seasonal and localized. Asian prices, for example, saw a similar jump last year but those didn’t spill over with an associated similar rise in Europe.

Analysts expect prices will revert back to normal levels early next year, when heating demand ebb and supplies adjust. However, if prices stay high as they have been, this could begin to be a drag on global growth.

Meanwhile, ripple effects are being felt in coal and oil markets. Brent crude oil prices, the global benchmark, recently reached a seven-year high above US$85 per barrel, as more buyers sought alternatives for heating and power generation amid already tight supplies. Coal, the nearest substitute, is in high demand as power plants turn to it more. This has pushed prices to the highest level since 2001, driving a rise in European carbon emission permit costs.

Bust, boom, and inadequate supply

Given this backdrop, it helps to look back to the start of the pandemic, when restrictions halted many activities across the global economy. This caused a collapse of energy consumption, leading energy companies to slash investment. However, consumption of natural gas rebounded fast—driven by industrial production, which accounts for about 20 percent of final natural gas consumption—boosting demand at a time when supplies were relatively low.

Energy supply, in fact, has reacted slowly to price signals due to labor shortages, maintenance backlogs, longer lead times for new projects, and lackluster interest from investors in fossil fuel energy companies. Natural gas production in the United States, for example, remains below pre-crisis levels. Production in the Netherlands and Norway is also down. And Europe’s biggest supplier, Russia, has recently slowed its shipments to the continent.

Weather has also exacerbated gas market imbalances. The Northern Hemisphere’s severe winter cold and summer heat boosted heating and cooling demand. Meanwhile, renewable power generation has been reduced in the United States and Brazil by droughts, which curbed hydropower output as reservoirs ran low, and in Northern Europe by below-average wind generation this summer and fall.

Coal supplies and inventories

While coal can help offset natural gas shortages, some of those supplies are also disrupted. Logistical and weather-related factors have crippled production from Australia to South Africa, while coal output in China, the world’s largest producer and consumer, has fallen amid emissions goals that dis-incentivize coal use and production in favor of renewables or gas.

In fact, Chinese coal stockpiles are at record lows, which increases the threat of winter fuel supply shortfalls for power plants. And in Europe, natural gas storage is below average ahead of winter, adding risk of more price increases as utilities compete for scarce resources before the arrival of cold weather.

Energy prices and inflation

Coal and natural gas prices tend to have less of an effect on consumer prices than oil because household electricity and natural gas bills are often regulated and prices are more rigid. Even so, in the industrial sector, higher natural gas prices are confronting producers that rely on the fuel to make chemicals or fertilizers. These dynamics are particularly concerning as they are affecting already uncertain inflation prospects amid supply chain disruptions, rising food prices, and firming demand.

Should energy prices remain at current levels, the value of global fossil fuel production as a share of gross domestic product this year would rise from 4.1 percent (estimated in our July projection to 4.7 percent. Next year, the share could be as high as 4.8 percent, up from a projected 3.75 percent in July. Assuming half of this increase in costs for oil, gas, and coal is due to reduced supply, this would represent a 0.3 percentage point reduction in global economic growth this year and about 0.5 percentage points next year.

Energy prices to normalize next year

While supply disruptions and price pressures pose unprecedented challenges for a world already grappling with an uneven pandemic recovery, the silver lining for policymakers is that the situation doesn’t compare to the early 1970s energy shock.

Back then, oil prices quadrupled, directly hitting household and business purchasing power and, eventually, causing a global recession. Nearly a half century later, given the less dominant role that coal and natural gas plays in the world’s economy, energy prices would need to rise much more significantly to cause such a dramatic shock.

Moreover, we expect natural gas prices to normalize by the second quarter as the end of winter in Europe and Asia eases seasonal pressures, as futures markets also indicate. Coal and crude oil prices are also likely to decline. However, uncertainty remains high and small demand shocks could trigger fresh price spikes.

Tough policy choices

That means central banks should look through price pressures from transitory energy supply shocks, but also be ready to act sooner—especially those with weaker monetary frameworks—if concrete risks of inflation expectations de-anchoring do materialize.

Governments should act to prevent power outages in the face of utilities curtailing generation if it becomes unprofitable. Blackouts, particularly in China, could dent chemical, steel, and manufacturing activity, adding to global supply-chain disruptions during a peak season for sales of consumer goods. Finally, as higher utility bills are regressive, support to low-income households can help mitigate the impact of the energy shock to the most vulnerable populations.