ReportWire

Tag: Kadri Simson

  • Europe braces for a winter of two wars

    Europe braces for a winter of two wars

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    Last winter, Europeans faced exorbitant energy bills as the Continent rapidly weaned itself off Russian gas. This year the EU is better prepared — but now a second war also threatens to roil its energy markets.

    The conflict between Israel and Hamas threatens to disrupt Europe’s relationships with the Middle East, or even draw Iran into direct confrontation with Israel and its Western partners. While markets are relatively calm for now, either of those scenarios could cause chaos.

    Nevertheless, Europe is “equipped to face oil and diesel global market tightness,” Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson told POLITICO in an interview. Officials have learned lessons from Russia’s war on Ukraine, and are working to build “a good understanding of all our vulnerabilities to best address them and how we can be prepared for any incidents or emergencies.”

    EU officials have held a slew of meetings with oil-producing nations in recent weeks, both old friends like Norway and emerging partners such as Algeria and Nigeria, to get ahead of any potential disruptions, she said.

    “After the Gaza crisis unfolded, we are faced with two conflicts in the European neighborhood. The Eastern Mediterranean is an important theater for European energy security, as Europe’s energy transition is still entangled in geopolitical uncertainties,” Simson said, attributing the lack of drama in the markets to “the preparedness and crisis management that the EU put in place to respond to Russia’s energy blackmail.”

    Fighting in Gaza and, to a lesser extent, along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon has had only a limited impact on oil markets. Prices initially rose on the news of the attack by Hamas militants on October 7 and Israel’s massive response, but key crude benchmark Brent dropped back by 4.2 percent this week to around $81 per barrel, around the levels seen before the start of the violence.

    Markets have avoided a repeat of 1973, when the Yom Kippur War between Israel and its neighbors prompted the big Arab producers, led by Saudi Arabia, to embargo their exports to Israel’s allies. Gulf country relations with Israel have improved markedly in the past 50 years: The UAE and Bahrain recognized its sovereignty under the 2020 Abraham Accords, while Saudi Arabia is in negotiations to do the same.

    Traders are therefore betting that as long as the conflict doesn’t expand, supplies of oil will remain more or less stable, said Viktor Katona, lead crude analyst at energy intelligence firm Kpler.

    The risk stems more from Iran, he said. In the worst case, an expansion of the conflict could cause Iran to disrupt shipping from Gulf Arab countries through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s own crude oil, while sanctioned by the West, is exported in large quantities to China. “If Israel starts to strike the Iranian territory and Iran as a consequence needs to export less, then China doesn’t have enough crude and needs to buy from somewhere else,” sending global prices rocketing, Katona said. “It’s an entire spiral that gets triggered immediately.”

    While Iran’s theocratic leadership has consistently vowed to destroy the state of Israel and publicly endorsed Hamas’ attacks last month, it denies involvement in their planning and execution. The Israel Defense Forces say they have carried out strikes on militant groups in Syria with close links to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, but have so far stopped short of hitting targets inside Iran itself.

    Lessons learned

    Gas markets felt a more immediate impact from the war. Israel turned off the taps at its Tamar offshore gas field in the hours following Hamas’ surprise attack, amid reports that it was a target for rocket attacks. While Israel produces only relatively small quantities of natural gas — around 21 billion cubic meters last year, compared to Russia’s 618 billion — it is a key exporter to neighboring Egypt, and the downtime worsened regular rolling power outages there. The flow has since been resumed, albeit in smaller quantities.

    Any escalation with Iran could affect gas as well as oil markets, given a third of the world’s liquefied natural gas and a sixth of its oil is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. “If things stay as they are there’s no problem, but if there’s a war where Iran was included and they [block trade through] the Hormuz strait then prices will go up for sure,” said one EU diplomat with knowledge of internal energy strategy talks, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

    However, “all the big players want to avoid escalation, Iran wants to avoid this” because of threat of sanctions, the envoy insisted.

    Absent that dire scenario, the impact on EU gas markets is likely to be limited, says Tom Marzec-Manser, head of gas analytics at commodities intelligence company ICIS — but more because of the last conflict than the most recent one.

    “From a European gas pricing perspective, we’re still looking relatively OK and that’s been driven largely by weak demand. Many industrial consumers continue to use noticeably less gas than they did prior to the energy crisis last year, so consumption in Europe has remained low,” he said.

    According to the European Commission, member states collectively shaved almost 20 percent from their natural gas use in the run-up to last winter, with industry slowing output and renewable power playing a much larger role in electricity generation. Despite that, consumption actually rose in October for the first time since the start of the war, in an early sign that businesses could be tentatively trying to restore lost productivity.

    But even though the bloc’s gas reserves are more than 99 percent full ahead of schedule, prices have still remained stubbornly high across the Continent compared to other regions. That means Europeans are more at risk of short-term spikes in the cost of energy, with industry potentially having to slow down again if bills become unaffordable.

    “We are in a much better situation than in 2022,” said Georg Zachmann, a senior fellow at the Bruegel energy think tank. “We have more heat pumps, power plants are back in the picture that we didn’t have available last year, and we’ve built more liquified natural gas terminals.” However, he warned, if member states lose focus on reducing demand and try to give their own industries a head start with subsidies, that could spark a wasteful race “that is essentially to everyone’s detriment.”

    At the same time, winter in Europe isn’t what it used to be. Record-breaking temperatures have been recorded across the globe for the past four months, according to an EU Copernicus satellite monitoring report published this week, while last winter was the second-warmest ever recorded on the Continent. While that might be good news for conflict-prone fossil fuel supplies in the short term, it’s probably bad news for just about everything else in the not-so-much-longer term.

    Geoffrey Smith contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Gabriel Gavin and Victor Jack

    Source link

  • Putin is staring at defeat in his gas war with Europe

    Putin is staring at defeat in his gas war with Europe

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    There’s more bad news for Vladimir Putin. Europe is on course to get through winter with its vital gas storage facilities more than half full, according to a new European Commission assessment seen by POLITICO.

    That means despite the Russian leader’s efforts to make Europe freeze by cutting its gas supply, EU economies will survive the coldest months without serious harm — and they look set to start next winter in a strong position to do the same.

    A few months ago, there were fears of energy shortages this winter caused by disruptions to Russian pipeline supplies.

    But a combination of mild weather, increased imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), and a big drop in gas consumption mean that more than 50 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas is projected to remain in storage by the end of March, according to the Commission analysis.

    A senior European Commission official attributed Europe’s success in securing its gas supply to a combination of planning and luck.

    “A good part of the success is due to unusually mild weather conditions and to China being out of the market [due to COVID restrictions],” the official said. “But demand reduction, storage policy and infrastructure work helped significantly.”

    Ending the winter heating season with such healthy reserves — above 50 percent of the EU’s roughly 100bcm total storage capacity — removes any lingering fears of a gas shortage in the short term. It also eases concerns about Europe’s energy security going into next winter.

    The positive figures underlie the more optimistic outlook presented by EU leaders in recent days, with Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson saying on Tuesday that Europe had “won the first battle” of the “energy war” with Russia.

    EU storage facilities — also vital for winter gas supply in the U.K., where storage options are limited — ended last winter only around 20 percent full. Brussels mandated that they be replenished to 80 percent ahead of this winter, requiring a hugely expensive flurry of LNG purchases by European buyers, to replace volumes of gas lost from Russian pipelines.

    The wholesale price of gas rose to record levels during storage filling season — peaking at more than €335 per megawatt hour in August — with dire knock-on effects for household bills, businesses’ energy costs and Europe’s industrial competitiveness.

    Gas prices have since fallen to just above €50/Mwh amid easing concerns over supplies. The EU has a new target to fill 90 percent of gas storage again by November 2023 — an effort that will now require less buying of LNG on the international market than it might have done had reserves been more seriously depleted.

    “The expected high level of storages at above 50 percent [at] the end of this winter season will be a strong starting point for 2023/24 with less than 40 percent to be filled (against the difficult starting point of around 20 percent in storage at the end of winter season in 2022,” the Commission assessment says.

    Analysts at the Independent Commodity Intelligence Services think tank said this week that refilling storages this year could still be “as tough a challenge as last year” but predicted that the EU now had “more than enough import capacity to meet the challenge.”  

    Across the EU, five new floating LNG terminals have been set up — in the Netherlands, Greece, Finland and two in Germany — providing an extra 30bcm of gas import capacity, with more due to come online this year and next.  

    However, the EU’s ability to refill storages to the new 90 percent target ahead of next winter will likely depend on continued reduction in gas consumption.

    Brussels set member states a voluntary target of cutting gas demand by 15 percent from August last year. Gas demand actually fell by more than 20 percent between August and December, according to the latest Commission data, partly thanks to efficiency measures but also the consequence of consumers responding to much higher prices by using less energy.

    The 15 percent target may need to be extended beyond its expiry date of March 31 to avoid gas demand rebounding as prices fall. EU energy ministers are set to discuss the issue at two forthcoming meetings in February and March.

    [ad_2]

    Charlie Cooper

    Source link

  • Putin threatens Europe again as Brussels braces for winter

    Putin threatens Europe again as Brussels braces for winter

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    The EU’s energy crisis response is getting bigger, slowly. But so, too, is the threat posed by Russia’s freeze on Europe’s gas supply.

    A new package of measures to bring down the price of gas and protect consumers this winter and beyond — including plans to fully leverage the EU’s collective buying power — will be formally proposed by the European Commission next week.

    But there remains uncertainty about key aspects of the package — including whether the preferred intervention of many countries, an EU-wide cap on gas prices, will be part of it, and if so, in what form. It could also take until November to get next week’s proposals fully signed off and operational, officials said.

    Even as energy ministers deliberated over the measures in Prague on Wednesday, Russia issued new, veiled warnings about the depths of Europe’s vulnerability.

    Speaking at an energy conference in Moscow, the head of Gazprom Alexey Miller warned European homes could still freeze this winter even though EU countries have nearly filled their gas storage capacity.

    At the same event, Vladimir Putin discussed the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines — an act that many Western governments suspect was the work of Russia. Then he added pointedly that the incident had shown how “any critical infrastructure in transport, energy or communication infrastructure is under threat — regardless of what part of the world it is located, by whom it is controlled, laid on the seabed or on land.”

    Noting that one of the pipelines is still potentially operational after the attack, Putin insisted Russia was ready to send gas through it to ease Europe’s pain this winter — bringing his overarching strategy of gas blackmail against Europe right up to date.

    “The ball, as they say, is on the side of the European Union. If they want it, let them just open the tap,” Putin said. “We are ready to supply additional volumes in the autumn-winter period.”

    Putin may still be hoping that when the reality of winter without Russian gas begins to bite, European governments will be more open to such overtures ­— and more willing to rein in support for Ukraine in exchange for an energy lifeline.

    For the EU’s part, Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson was clear that while the bloc faced “difficult times,” countries would withstand the challenges ahead if they “act together, decisively and in solidarity.”

    Speaking at the close of an informal summit of EU energy ministers on Wednesday, she added that the next crisis package will also contain a proposal for a new benchmark price for gas and further measures to reduce demand across the bloc.

    But while a row over capping the price of gas has dominated the debate in recent weeks, momentum has shifted to the idea of joint purchasing on the international market. It is hoped that through this measure the bloc can avoid the situation seen this year when member states outbid one another for supplies when filling gas storage facilities ­— driving up the price for all.

    European Commissioner for Energy Kadri Simson | John Thys/AFP via Getty Images

    In an informal policy paper issued on Wednesday, Germany and the Netherlands set how such a measure could work, by beefing up the existing EU Energy Platform, which was established months ago but then barely used. Efforts to buy gas jointly should be coupled with better EU-wide coordination of gas storage next year, the German and Dutch paper said.

    The proposals point to the extent to which the EU is no longer simply planning how to survive this winter without rolling blackouts. It’s now firmly planning for a crisis next winter too.

    Executive Director of the International Energy Agency Fatih Birol, who also attended Wednesday’s summit in Prague, warned ministers that “the next winter may well be even more difficult.”

    That message was echoed in a sobering briefing from the EU Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, which outlined how challenging 2023 and potentially 2024 could be for the bloc’s energy supply. Amid an expected surge in demand in Asia for liquefied natural gas (LNG), the EU will face greater competition for limited LNG supplies from sources such as the U.S. and Qatar.

    In short, every molecule of gas that remains in European storage after this winter might be vital — and Vladimir Putin knows it.

    Victor Jack and America Hernandez provided additional reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Charlie Cooper

    Source link

  • 8 things to know about the environmental impact of ‘unprecedented’ Nord Stream leaks

    8 things to know about the environmental impact of ‘unprecedented’ Nord Stream leaks

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    The apparent sabotage of both Nord Stream gas pipelines may be one of the worst industrial methane accidents in history, scientists said Wednesday, but it’s not a major climate disaster.

    Methane — a greenhouse gas up to 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide — is escaping into the atmosphere from three boiling patches on the surface of the Baltic Sea, the largest of which the Danish military said was a kilometer across.

    On Tuesday evening, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen condemned the “sabotage” and “deliberate disruption of active European energy infrastructure.” 

    Here are eight key questions on the impact of the leaks.

    1. How much methane was in the pipelines?

    No government agency in Europe could say for sure how much gas was in the pipes.

    “I cannot tell you clearly as the pipelines are owned by Nord Stream AG and the gas comes from Gazprom,” said a spokesperson for the German climate and economy ministry. 

    The two Nord Stream 1 pipelines were in operation, although Moscow stopped delivering gas a month ago, and both were hit. “It can be assumed that it’s a large amount” of gas in those lines, the German official said. Only one of the Nord Stream 2 lines was struck. It was not in operation but was filled with 177 million cubic meters of gas last year.

    Estimates of the total gas in the pipelines that are leaking range from 150 million cubic meters to 500 million cubic meters.

    2. How much is being released?

    Kristoffer Böttzauw, the director of the Danish Energy Agency, told reporters on Wednesday that the leaks would equate to about 14 million tons of CO2, about 32 percent of Denmark’s annual emissions.

    Germany’s Federal Environment Agency estimated the leaks will lead to emissions of around 7.5 million tons of CO2 equivalent — about 1 percent of Germany’s annual emissions. The agency also noted there are no “sealing mechanisms” along the pipelines, “so in all likelihood the entire contents of the pipes will escape.”

    Because at least one of the leaks is in Danish waters, Denmark will have to add these emissions to its climate balance sheet, the agency said.

    But it is not clear whether all of the gas in the lines would actually be released into the atmosphere. Methane is also consumed by ocean bacteria as it heads through the water column.

    3. How does that compare to previous leaks?

    The largest leak ever recorded in the U.S. was the 2015 Aliso Canyon leak of roughly 90,000 tons of methane over months. With the upper estimates of what might be released in the Baltic more than twice that, this week’s disaster may be “unprecedented,” said David McCabe, a senior scientist with the Clean Air Task Force.

    Jeffrey Kargel, a senior scientist at the Planetary Research Institute in Tucson, Arizona, said the leak was “really disturbing. It is a real travesty, an environmental crime if it was deliberate.”

    4. Will this have a meaningful effect on global temperatures?

    “The amount of gas lost from the pipeline obviously is large,” Kargel said. But “it is not the climate disaster one might think.”

    Annual global carbon emissions are around 32 billion tons, so this represents a tiny fraction of the pollution driving climate change. It even pales in comparison to the accumulation of thousands of industrial and agricultural sources of methane that are warming the planet. 

    “This is a wee bubble in the ocean compared to the huge amounts of so-called fugitive methane that are emitted every day around the world due to things like fracking, coal mining and oil extraction,” said Dave Reay, executive director of the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute.

    Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, said it was roughly comparable to the amount of methane leaked from across Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure on any given working week. 

    A leak was reported near the Nord Stream 2 pipeline off the coast of Denmark’s Bornholm island | Danish Defence Command

    5. Is the local environment affected?

    While the gas is still leaking, the immediate vicinity is an extremely dangerous place. Air that contains more than 5 percent methane can be flammable, said Rehder, so the risk of an explosion is real. Methane is not a toxic gas, but high concentrations can reduce the amount of available oxygen. 

    Shipping has been restricted from a 5 nautical mile radius around the leaks. This is because the methane in the water can affect buoyancy and rupture a vessel’s hull.

    Marine animals near the escaping gas may be caught up and killed — especially poor swimmers such as jellyfish, said Rehder. But long-term effects on the local environment are not anticipated.

    “It’s an unprecedented case,” he said. “But from our current understanding, I would think that the local effects on marine life in the area is rather small.”

    6. What can be done?

    Some have suggested that the remaining gas should be pumped out, but a German economy and climate ministry spokesperson on Wednesday said this wasn’t possible.

    Once the pipeline has emptied, “it will fill up with water,” the spokesperson added. “At the moment, no one can go underwater — the danger is too great due to the escaping methane.”

    Any repair would be the responsibility of pipeline owner Nord Stream AG, the Germans said.

    7. Should they set it on fire?

    Not only would it look impressive, setting the gas on fire would hugely slash the global warming impact of the leak. Methane is made of carbon and hydrogen, when burned it creates carbon dioxide, which is between 30 and 80 times less planet-warming per ton than methane. Flaring, as it is known, is a common method for reducing the impact of escaping methane.

    From a pure climate perspective, setting the escaping methane on fire makes sense. “Yes, definitely — it will help,” said Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds. 

    But there would be safety issues and potential environmental concerns, including air pollution from the combustion. “With land — in particular the inhabited and touristic island of Bornholm — nearby, you would not venture into this,” said Rehder.

    No government has yet indicated that this is under consideration.

    8. How long will it last and what next?

    “We expect that gas will flow out of the pipes until the end of the week. After that, first of all, from the Danish side, we will try to get out and investigate what the cause is, and approach the pipes, so that we can have it investigated properly. We can do that when the gas leak has stopped,” Danish Energy Agency director Böttzauw told local media.

    This article is part of POLITICO Pro

    The one-stop-shop solution for policy professionals fusing the depth of POLITICO journalism with the power of technology


    Exclusive, breaking scoops and insights


    Customized policy intelligence platform


    A high-level public affairs network

    [ad_2]

    Karl Mathiesen and Zia Weise

    Source link