Divestment ‘pass the parcel’ poses transition dilemma
Investor and social licence pressure on the international majors is working — their strategies are changing and coalescing, particularly in Europe, around mid-century net zero ambitions. But getting the majors on track for net zero does not do the same for the world at large — a point underscored by recent efforts to trim their carbon footprint through divestments.
With one eye on the success enjoyed by activists and campaigners taking on oil companies in court, and even in the boardroom, many firms have been high-grading their portfolios, trying to sell higher-emissions, higher-cost oil and gas assets. Such divestments last year made up 72pc of the decline in BP's emissions from running the assets under its operational control.
But the approach certainly has its limitations, including some companies potentially deciding to dispose of certain oil and gas assets "at poor valuations in order to tick boxes" just to hit climate targets, Canadian bank RBC Capital Markets suggests.
Moreover, many oil firms do not seem to pay much attention to the type of companies they are selling to, as long as the price is right. Buyers are increasingly likely to be smaller private equity-backed firms or national oil companies, many of which are often under less environmental scrutiny and could be less inclined to maximise emissions reductions.
"Playing ‘pass the parcel' with fossil fuel assets does not get you out of the situation where we need absolute emission [cuts], which essentially translates as fewer projects," think-tank Carbon Tracker Initiative founder and executive chair Mark Campanale says. Oil firms accept this, but say the decision to completely stop production from an oil or gas field ultimately lies in the hands of the asset holder or government. They also see hydrocarbon divestment income and oil and gas proceeds as vital to building low-carbon industries of scale.
Environmentalists and activist investors say that while it matters who international oil companies sell their assets to, they want to see the firms align with the Paris agreement goals, which require absolute global emission cuts — not least because most emissions come from the use of products rather than the extraction of oil and gas. Activists also want to see output cut through government policy.
Buyer be wary
"As more asset owners and managers adopt net zero objectives, implementing strategies to integrate climate stewardship across asset classes, and as regulators tighten their policy responses to climate risk, the financial space for high-emitting assets to operate will shrink," activist investor the Church of England Pensions Board's deputy director for ethics and engagement, Stephen Barrie, says.
And a global fossil fuel constraint, where governments negotiate the cancellation of oil and gas licences, would "start to permanently retire production rights in line with the 1.5°C scenario", Campanale says. Last year, Denmark said it would phase out oil and gas output by 2050 and hold no more licensing rounds. Despite this, UK-based petrochemicals and energy firm Ineos has agreed to buy US company Hess' Danish offshore oil and gas business. The maximum lifespan of these fields is probably through to 2045, Ineos executive chairman — and former BP chief financial officer — Brian Gilvary says. Yet their production will allow Ineos to meet medium-term oil demand while funding a carbon capture project offshore Denmark, he says.
But constraining fossil fuel development in countries abundant with new oil and gas opportunities and dependent on their development for revenues and jobs will be harder to bring about. Achieving energy transition goals will require a co-ordinated push from governments and companies.
Related news posts
US restricts future oil leasing in NPR-A
US restricts future oil leasing in NPR-A
Washington, 19 April (Argus) — President Joe Biden's administration today finalized a rule to prohibit future oil leasing on nearly half of the 23mn-acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), adding to a flurry of recent environmental regulations that have frustrated oil interests. The rule will make it harder for oil producers to expand beyond development in the northeast section of NPR-A, where ConocoPhillips is developing its $8bn Willow drilling project. The rule outright bans new leasing on 10.6mn acres of the reserve, including around the ecologically sensitive Teshekpuk lake "special area" that is believed to hold large volumes of crude. The rule also restricts future leasing on an additional 2mn acres in the NPR-A that includes other special areas. "These natural wonders demand our protection," Biden said. "I am proud that my administration is taking action to conserve more than 13mn acres in the western Arctic." The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) said it received more than 100,000 comments on its proposal to limit oil leasing in the NPR-A, a federal area established in 1923 where commercial oil production began only in 2015. The restrictions came after former president Donald Trump tried to increase drilling in the NPR-A through a plan to allow leasing on an additional 7mn acres, including around Teshekpuk lake. With the rule complete, BLM said it plans to solicit input on whether to revise the boundaries of the "special areas" and identify additional lands in NPR-A that could qualify for protection. Biden administration officials previously described the rule as creating a "one-way ratchet" for conservation that a new administration could not reverse. The rule will not affect existing oil and gas leases in NPR-A, including Biden's decision in 2023 to approve the Willow project, which is expected to reach a peak output of 180,000 b/d and that environmentalists strongly opposed. BLM said the 10.6mn acres of NPR-A that it closed to leasing has only medium or low potential for oil and gas resources. Environmentalists cheered the new NPR-A restrictions, with Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous calling it a "major victory" for the arctic. But oil industry groups say the restrictions are a step in the wrong direction, adding to other recent regulations they say will make it hard to produce energy on federal land. BLM recently finalized more stringent bonding requirements for onshore and offshore land, in addition to finalizing a plan to lease federal land for conservation. "This misguided rule from the Biden administration sharply limits future oil and natural gas development in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve, a region explicitly intended by Congress to bolster America's energy security," American Petroleum Institute senior vice president of regulatory affairs Dustin Meyer said. The administration has been working to finish regulations in recent weeks ahead of an upcoming deadline where any rule could be subject to "disapproval" in 2025 under the Congressional Review Act. The exact deadline remains in flux because it depends on how long the US Congress stays in session, but it could arrive as early as next month. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Limited strike on Iran opens door to de-escalation
Limited strike on Iran opens door to de-escalation
Dubai, 19 April (Argus) — A limited aerial assault on the central Iranian city of Isfahan earlier today could mark the beginning of the end of the latest escalation in the Mideast Gulf. Iranian state media reported in the early hours of Friday, 19 April, several explosions over Isfahan at 04:00 local time. These were later confirmed by the Iranian military to have been the result of air defences bringing down three small drones over the city. Isfahan is the home to a number of strategically important facilities, among them the Shekari airbase that houses some of Iran's F-14 Tomcat fighter planes and SU-24 Sukhoi bombers, and a uranium conversion facility. There was "no impact or damage" to either, according to Iranian army commander-in-chief Seyyed Abdolrahim Mousavi. Other Iranian officials also sought to downplay the strike. Hossein Dalirian, spokesman for Iran's National Center for Cyberspace, said on social media platform X that it was so minor "it would not be considered an attack anywhere in the world." Ice Brent crude futures rose by nearly $3/bl earlier today, but are now trading below the previous settlement level. Iran and the wider Mideast Gulf region were on high alert as Israel weighed its options for a response to Tehran's assault on Israeli territory last weekend. That attack, involving more than 300 drones, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, was the first ever direct assault on Israel from Iranian territory. As yet, there has been no official confirmation from either side that today's attack originated from Israel. Media reports quoted unnamed US and Israeli officials saying Israel had launched the drones, and Oman's foreign ministry condemned Israel "for its attack this morning on Isfahan". Iran's attack on Israel last weekend was itself in response to a suspected Israeli air strike on an Iranian diplomatic compound in the Syrian capital, Damascus, at the start of April. That killed seven members of Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including two generals. Despite its magnitude, the Iranian retaliation was not only highly choreographed, but also telegraphed to key stakeholders beforehand in an effort to limit damage and casualties. Israel said immediately after the attack that almost all of Iran's drones and missiles were intercepted with the help of allied forces in the region and that there were no fatalities, only "light" damage to the Nevatim military base in Israel's Negev desert. De-escalatory strike The limited nature of Iran's strike prompted Israel's western allies to urge it to show restraint. The US appealed to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to "take the win" and claim victory for its defence. But as it became increasingly clear that a response without a military dimension would be unpalatable for Israel, the US and Europe turned their efforts to making sure whatever Israel chose to do was also limited and fell below a threshold that could trigger yet another escalation in tensions. "This was probably the level of attack that on one hand was necessitated by internal Israeli calculations within the security cabinet and broader political coalition, and by virtue of the pressure by allies and what the US was willing to countenance," said Geneva Graduate Institute senior research associate Farzan Sabet. "It was a limited strike with the message that we can hit you anywhere, anytime, and without having to resort to a major strike involving 300-plus missiles." In the days following Iran's attack on Israel, several key IRGC figures said Tehran had "decided to create a new equation with Israel" ꟷ specifically that Tehran would retaliate to any Israeli attack on its interests or citizens from Iranian territory. This would be a shift from the previous status quo, which would see Israel regularly target Iranian interest and officials in third countries, many times without response from Tehran. But the limited nature of Israel's latest attack, and the very concerted effort by Iranian officials, military personnel and media to downplay its severity and impact so far, suggests it could feasibly provide a de-escalatory off-ramp for Iran. "Should Israel's response be limited to this, the Islamic Republic will not be under pressure to retaliate," said Arab Gulf States Institute senior fellow Ali Alfoneh. But is too early to say whether today's incident is the totality of Israel's response. "We're running up to [the Jewish holiday of] Passover [on 22-30 April]. The Israelis may not have wanted to carry out a major retaliation ahead of Passover so as to avoid the threat of war hanging over the country during the holiday," Sabet said. "So it is very possible that more [retaliatory attacks] could come after Passover." By Nader Itayim Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
India mulls using more natural gas in steel sector
India mulls using more natural gas in steel sector
Mumbai, 19 April (Argus) — India's steel ministry is considering increasing natural gas consumption in the sector as it aims to lower carbon emissions from the industry. Steelmakers held a meeting with the steel ministry earlier this month, to discuss challenges and avenues to increase gas allocation to the sector, according to a government document seen by Argus . Steel producers requested that the government set gas prices at an affordable range of $7-8/mn Btu for them, to make their gas-based plants viable, as well as for a custom duty waiver on LNG procured for captive power. India's LNG imports attract a custom duty of 2.5pc. City gas distribution firms sell gas at market-determined prices to steel companies. Representatives from the steel industry also requested for the inclusion of gas under the purview of the country's goods and service tax, and to be given higher priority in the allocation of deepwater gas, which has a higher calorific value. Deepwater gas is currently deployed mostly to city gas distribution networks. Steelmakers are currently undertaking feasibility tests for gas pipeline connectivity at various steel plants. But a gas supply transmission agreement requires a minimum five-year period for investment approval. The steel industry is heavily reliant on coal, and the sector accounts for about 8-10pc of carbon emissions in the country. A task force of gas suppliers including IOC, Gail, BPCL, Shell, and HPCL and steel producers like Tata Steel, AMNS, All India Steel Re-roller Association and the Pellet Manufacturers Association has been set up, and the team is expected to submit a report on increasing natural gas usage and lowering carbon emissions by 15 May, the government document said. This team is one of the 13 task forces approved by the steel ministry to define the country's green steel roadmap. The steel ministry aims to increase green steel exports from the country in the light of the policies under the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which will take effect on 1 January 2026. Under the CBAM, importers will need to declare the quantity of goods imported into the EU in the preceding year and their corresponding greenhouse gas emissions. The importers will then have to surrender the corresponding number of CBAM certificates. CBAM certificate prices will be calculated based on the weekly average auction price of EU Emissions Trading System allowances, expressed in €/t of CO2 emitted. This is of higher importance to Indian steelmakers as the EU was the top finished steel export destination for Indian steelmakers during the April 2022-March 2023 fiscal year with total exports of 2.34mn t, and has been the preferred choice for Indian steel exports in the current fiscal year owing to higher prices compared to other regions. Indian steelmakers have started to take steps to lower their carbon emissions by announcing collaborations with technology companies to decarbonise, and are trial injecting hydrogen in blast furnaces, and increasing the usage of natural gas in ironmaking. By Rituparna Ghosh Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Karoon cuts 2024 guidance on lower US output
Karoon cuts 2024 guidance on lower US output
Sydney, 19 April (Argus) — Australia-listed oil producer Karoon Energy has cut its production guidance for 2024 to reflect lower production from its stake in the Who Dat floating production system in the US' Gulf of Mexico. Who Dat's weaker well and facility performance has led to the lower guidance, with Karoon now expecting to produce 29,000-34,000 b/d of oil equivalent (boe/d) in 2024, down from a previous 31,000-37,000 boe/d guidance. Karoon said it and joint-venture partner LLOG Exploration will continue to prioritise higher value oil production over gas for the remainder of the year. The firm's January-March output rose by 17pc against October-December 2023 . Who Dat's production on a net revenue interest (NRI) basis was 9,000 boe/d for January-March, with Karoon downgrading its forecast NRI production from 4mn-4.5mn boe in 2024 to 3-3.5mn boe. But output from Karoon's Bauna asset offshore Brazil was 15pc lower than the previous quarter because of continuing reliability problems with Bauna's floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel, the shut-in of the SPS-88 well for the full period and natural field decline. Production for January-March at Bauna was 24,000 b/d, down from 28,000 b/d the previous quarter. Karoon expects to resume production from the well during July-September following an intervention, assuming no delays in regulatory approval. Bauna's annual maintenance will take place next month with a three-week shutdown of the FPSO planned to boost reliability. By Tom Major Karoon Energy results Jan-Mar '24 Oct-Dec '23 Jan-Mar '23 y-o-y % ± q-o-q % ± Sales revenue ($mn) 197 209 144 37 -6 Production (b/d) 34,000 29,000 22,000 55 17 Sales volume (b/d) 30,000 28,000 22,000 36 7 Average prices ($/bl) Bauna oil price 76 83 73 4 -8 Who Dat sales gas ($/mn ft³) 2.95 2.22 n/a n/a 33 Who Dat oil, condensate, NGLs 78 73 n/a n/a 7 Source: Karoon Energy Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Business intelligence reports
Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.
Learn more