Clearly, Russia and Turkey is fast moving to build a strong, if not anti- unilateral posture of USA, alliance to improve trade and economic and strategic alliance.
Russia and Turkey have put tensions over Syria behind them to agree a gas pipeline deal which would open a new route for Russian energy to Western Europe. After kissing and making up from a downed Sukhoi fighter jet over Syria, Russia and Turkey are back to being business partners again. Gazprom and Botas Petroleum agreed on Oct. 10 to push ahead with the so-called Turkish Stream pipeline. Russian President Putin received Turkish President Erdogan in a Tsarist-era palace outside his home city of St Petersburg in August, when the two leaders, both powerful figures, announced plans for acceleration in trade and energy ties between two nations.
Russia and Turkey have signed an agreement to build a gas pipeline from Russia, a project that was suspended amid tensions between the two countries. The TurkStream pipeline would bring Russian natural gas to Europe on a southern route that would bypass Ukraine. “The agreement provides for the construction of two lines of the main pipeline across the bottom of the Black Sea,” said Aleksei Miller, head of the state-owned Russian energy giant Gazprom. Miller said the lines would be built by the end of 2019, with the pipeline planned to carry Russian gas to Turkey and possibly European Union member Greece.
Russia froze talks on TurkStream when Turkish-Russian relations plummeted after the downing of a Russian fighter jet on the Syrian border by Turkish forces in November, with Moscow imposing trade and travel sanctions against Turkey and Russian and Turkish officials making personal attacks against each other. But a letter of regret from Erdogan on the death of the plane’s pilot has led to a normalization of ties.
However, progress on Syria, over which they remain deeply divided, has been more problematic. Talking to media, Erdogan described the topic as “very sensitive”, but said he had discussed Turkey’s military operations in Syria with Putin. Both leaders said they had agreed on the importance of delivering aid to the city of Aleppo, whose opposition-held eastern sector has been encircled by Russian-backed Syrian forces for all but a short period since July. “We have a common position that everything must be done to deliver humanitarian aid to Aleppo,” Putin said, adding he had agreed with Erdogan to intensify military contacts.
The agreement between Russian president Vladimir Putin and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Istanbul on October 10 would, if implemented, redraw the energy map of Europe by allowing Russia to bypass some of its gas around Ukraine, though it might hurt a few countries.
The Turkish Stream pipeline was designed by Gazprom as an alternative route into southern Europe instead of through Ukraine. It was to planned to have a total capacity of 63 billion cubic meters (bcm), consisting of four parallel pipelines each with a capacity of 15.75 bcm. Last October, Gazprom said it would cut the capacity by around 25%, citing its planned Nord Stream II pipeline. But that pipeline has now been dealt a mighty blow by a Poland anti-trust ruling. Gazprom claims it will go it alone now that its main European partners, including Shell, are out for now.
TurkStream, to be operated by Gazprom, the Russian state-owned gas monopoly, was proposed by Putin two years ago as a replacement for the abandoned South Stream pipeline which had involved co-operation between Russia and several EU countries. Talks faltered after the crisis triggered by the shooting down of a Russian Su-24 war plane by Turkish forces over the Syrian border in November 2015. But relations have thawed rapidly since June when Erdogan voiced regret for the downing of the Russian jet.
The agreement on October 10 came on the sidelines of the World Energy Congress in Istanbul, where Russian President Vladimir Putin met his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for talks. It was the Russian leader’s first visit to Turkey since November when he attended the G20 summit in Antalya. “I am convinced that the process of normalization of our ties will continue rapidly,” Erdogan told reporters during a joint news conference. The meeting in Istanbul was the third time in three months that Erdogan and Putin have met, stoking fears in the west that Moscow is exploiting tensions between Turkey, a NATO member with hopes of EU accession, and its traditional allies. The Turkish presidency dismissed such fears. “Neither Turkey’s alliance with the West nor its relationship with Nato is up for debate,” she said.
Moscow has become more wary about doing gas deals with Brussels after the EU blocked Russia’s South Stream pipeline, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. “After the failure of South Stream, we will be ready to extend Turkish Stream to the territory of the European Union only after we received an unambiguous formal paper that guarantees the implementation of this project,” Lavrov said, speaking to European businessmen in Moscow. Lavrov stressed that, according to experts, in the foreseeable future it will be very difficult for EU countries to live without Russian energy resources. “For Turkey, this means another natural gas pipeline that will promote the country as a global energy hub. For Russia, the project is important because it will bypass the territory of Ukraine as a transit country, which has repeatedly proven itself as unreliable partner,” said economist Anna Glazova in an interview with Izvestia daily.
The gas pipeline agreement committed both Moscow and Istanbul to construction of two lines of pipes beneath Turkish waters on the bed of the Black Sea, with a combined capacity of 30bn cubic metres of gas. One would serve the Turkish market and the other the rest of Europe. The gas deal would also strengthen ties between Moscow and Ankara at a time of growing mistrust between Turkey and the west in the wake of the coup attempt that plunged the country into turmoil three months ago and killed 270 people.
When the agreement to build the Turkish Stream pipeline was reached in December 2014, it was assumed the pipeline would replace South Stream that had been blocked by the EU. However, after the Turkish air force shot down a Russian jet last year, the project was suspended. The plan for TurkStream emerged after Russia dropped plans to build the South Stream pipeline to Bulgaria due to opposition from the European Union, which is trying to reduce its dependence on Russian gas. Talks resumed after Ankara apologized to Moscow for the incident. In August, Russian President Vladimir Putin met Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The Turkish president said his country is interested in resuming talks on constructing the pipeline, including gas deliveries to Europe once it is in Turkey.
As Turkey and Russia signed the deal for the construction of a major undersea gas pipeline, they vowed to seek common ground on the war in Syria, accelerating a normalization in ties nearly a year after Turkey shot down a Russian warplane. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan hosted Russia’s Vladimir Putin at an Ottoman-era villa in Istanbul for talks which touched on energy deals, trade and tourism ties, defense and the conflict in Syria, where the two leaders back opposing sides. “Today has been a full day with President Putin of discussing Russia-Turkish relations … I have full confidence that the normalization of Turkish-Russian ties will continue at a fast pace,” Erdogan told a joint news conference.
The warming relations between NATO member Turkey and Russia comes as both countries are dealing with troubled economies and strained ties with the West. Putin said Moscow had decided to lift a ban on some food products from Turkey, imposed after the Turks shot down a Russian fighter jet near the Syrian border last November, and that both leaders had agreed to work toward the full-scale normalization of bilateral ties. They signed a deal on the TurkStream undersea gas pipeline, which will allow Moscow to strengthen its position in the European gas market and cut energy supplies via Ukraine, the main route for Russian energy into Europe. Erdogan also said plans for a Russian-built nuclear power plant in Turkey would be accelerated. Time lost on the Akkuyu project because of strained relations would be made up, he said. In 2013, Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom won a $20 billion contract to build four reactors in what was to become Turkey’s first nuclear plant, but construction was halted after the downing of the Russian jet.
The rapprochement continued, with Putin and Erdogan overlooking their differences on Syria to agree closer military and intelligence co-operation. Ankara’s relations with the US and European nations, in contrast, remain strained by what Erdogan perceived as slow and halfhearted backing after the attempt to overthrow him in July. Since then, Turkey has railed against Washington’s refusal to immediately extradite Fethullah Gulen, the exiled Islamic cleric accused of masterminding the coup plot, a claim he strongly denies. It has also been riled by western warnings about the scale of the post-putsch crackdown that has seen more than 100,000 people sacked or dismissed from their jobs.
Russia is also building Turkey’s first nuclear power plant, and Erdogan said the sides agreed to accelerate the project. Putin also said the two leaders agreed on the need to deliver aid to the besieged Syrian city of Aleppo, where Russian air strikes are supporting government forces, although the two sides were at odds over the “security” of the delivery routes.
The Russian leader also said his country was ready to reduce oil production and supports OPEC’s initiative to cut production as a way to increase oil prices. “We believe that a freeze or even a reduction in the production of oil is probably the only appropriate decision for maintaining [the] sustainability of global energy,” Putin said. Putin was due to hold talks with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Istanbul.
The gas pipeline deal is good for both Turkey and Russia. It is not so good for Ukraine and Bulgaria, who will lose out now that the South Stream pipeline is no longer needed. Bulgaria was going to collect transit revenues from that deal. “Turkish Stream hurts Ukraine because it deprives them of the trans-Balkan route that supplied Turkey via Ukraine, Moldova, Romania and Bulgaria. So it also deprives Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania of transit fees. Bulgaria is even unhappier than the others of course since South Stream is dead.
Despite their detente, Presidents Putin and Erdogan remain deeply at odds over Syria. It NATO links and its own separatist movement do not let Turkey come closer to Russia over Syria.
Russia has backed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with a year-long air campaign against the rebels fighting him. Turkey backs the rebels and wants to see Assad out of power. On Saturday, Russia vetoed a French-drafted U.N. Security Council resolution that would have demanded an end to air strikes and military flights over Aleppo. A rival Russian draft text failed to get a minimum nine votes in favor. Erdogan said there would be further talks with Russia over the conflict in Syria. But there was little sign of any concrete progress toward reconciling their differences. “We discussed … how we can cooperate on this matter, especially on humanitarian aid to Aleppo, what strategy can we implement so people in Aleppo can find peace,” Erdogan said. “We will come together with our foreign ministries and top military leaders and intelligence officers.”
Though Turkey has softened its previous demand for the immediate departure of President Bashar al-Assad, it remains a key supporter of rebel forces that are battling the Syrian armed forces and their allies, while Russia is one of the Syrian president’s staunchest allies. Putin said that Turkey and Russia had agreed on the importance of delivering aid to the embattled Syrian city of Aleppo, insisting that they had found a “common position” that everything possible must be done to allow humanitarian supplies as long as their safety could be ensured.
But with Russia accused by the US of bombing a UN aid convoy last month, it remained unclear what this would mean in practice.
The deal Russia and Turkey signed on the pipeline that can handle up to 32 billion cubic meters of gas per year. Gazprom CEO Aleksey Miller said he expects the project will be completed by 2019. On the stock side of the equation, it’s impossible to say whether the pipeline is good for Gazprom’s share price, because the stock hasn’t been over $5 since April.
Obviously, one country that would be extremely disappointed and deeply worried about the growing ties between former Ottoman Empire and former Russian Empire by striking gas deal that indirectly belittles the prowess of USA as the global power and the only surviving super w power. Some of the strategic experts might feel the pinch of the positive consequences of the engineered and failed coup in Turkey and the shooting of a Russian war plane by Turkish forces, apparently on the orders from the Pentagon-CIA high command.
The present trends shows the bilateral economic ties would grow further, deepening in security matters and on global issues. However, how far Turkey, a NATO member, would be able to resist the strenuous pressure tactics of Washington remains to be seen.
Hydrogen Could Be A Key Player In The Recovery And Resilience Plan
Thanks to the contribution of vaccines, the Covid-19 pandemic is slowly beginning to abate and gradually lose its aggressiveness, with the consequent reduction of its impact on people’s health worldwide.
However, while the health effects of the pandemic appear to be fading, the negative economic effects of a year and a half of lockdown and forced closure of many businesses are being felt heavily at a global level and seem bound to last well beyond the end of the health emergency.
With a view to supporting and encouraging the “restart” and revival of the economy, the European Union has launched a “Recovery and Resilience Plan”, allocating a huge amount of funds that shall be used in the coming years not only to help countries in difficulty with contingent measures, but also to stimulate economic and productive growth capable of modernising production models with specific reference to environmental balance, which is increasingly facing a crisis due to the use of non-renewable, highly polluting energy sources.
Italy will receive over 200 billion euros in European funds to develop its own projects to get out of the economic-pandemic crisis and rightly wants to use them not only to plug the leaks caused by the various ‘lockdowns’ in the national productive fabric, but also to implement a series of strategic projects capable of making not only the productive sectors, but also the public administration and the health and judicial systems more efficient.
In short, the “Recovery and Resilience Plan” that is currently coming to the fore may prove to be a powerful driving force for Italy’s development and modernisation.
The projects submitted by Italy to the EU institutions include an initial allocation of over 200 million euros – out of the 47 billion euros planned for the next decade – to promote research and development in the field of renewable energy and particularly in the hydrogen sector.
Hydrogen is potentially the most abundant source of “clean” energy in the universe. It is versatile, safe and reliable; when obtained from renewable energy sources, it produces no harmful emissions to the environment.
Nevertheless, it is not available in nature in its gaseous form – which is the only one that can be used as an energy source – as it is always bound to other elements, such as oxygen in water and methane as a gas.
The traditional processes used to “separate” hydrogen from oxygen in water and from methane use up large amounts of electricity, which makes the processes not only very expensive, but also highly polluting, with the paradox that, in order to produce a clean energy source, the environment is “polluted” anyway, especially if – as has been the case until recently – the electricity needed is produced with traditional non-renewable energy sources (coal, gas and oil).
The best source of hydrogen in gaseous form is the sea. Electrolysis can easily separate hydrogen from oxygen and store it in gaseous form for use as an energy source.
The electrolytic cells used to develop the process use up large amounts of energy and, fortunately for us, science is finding a way to produce it without polluting, using solar, wind and, above all, sea wave energy.
The use of marine energy creates a sort of “circular economy” for hydrogen production: from the practically inexhaustible primary source of ocean water, hydrogen can be extracted with the energy provided by wave and tidal motion.
Forty per cent of the world’s population live within 100 kilometres from the sea and this shows the potential of sea wave and tidal energy as an engine for sustainable development in economic, climate and environmental terms.
Nowadays modern, non-invasive tools are available to extract electricity from sea waves, such as the “penguin”, a device manufactured in Italy, which – placed 50 metres deep – produces electricity without harming marine flora and fauna.
Another example of Italian scientists’ intelligence and creativity is the Inertial Sea Wave Converter (ISWEC), a device housed inside a 15-metre-long hull which, occupying a marine area of just 150 square metres, is able to produce 250 megawatts of electricity a year, thus enabling to cut emissions into the atmosphere by 68 tonnes of CO2.
With these devices and the other ones that technology will develop over the next few years, it will be possible to power electrolytic cells for the production of hydrogen in gaseous form on an industrial scale, at levels that – over the next 15 years – will lead to the production of at least 100,000 tonnes of “green” hydrogen per year, thus enabling to reduce air pollution significantly, with positive effects on the economy, the environment and the climate.
In the summer of 2020, the European Union launched a project called the “Hydrogen Strategy”, with a funding of 470 billion euros, intended for research and production projects capable of equipping EU countries with electrolysis tools to produce at least one million tonnes of “green” hydrogen by the end of 2024.
The fight against CO2 emissions continues unabated: in the United States which, after Trump’s Presidency, has reaffirmed its commitment to reducing emissions; in China which, in its latest five-year plan, has forecast a 65% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere by the end 2030; in Europe, which has always been at the forefront in the creation of devices for producing wave and tidal energy and exports its technologies to the United States, Australia and China.
According to the Hydrogen Council, an association of over 100 companies from around the world that share a common long-term vision for a transition to hydrogen, in the future Europe and China will compete and cooperate in the production of sea wave and tidal energy and in the related production of “green hydrogen”.
With its 14th five-year plan, China, in particular – after having been for decades, during its whirling economic development, one of the main sources of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and of global pollution – has undertaken the commitment “to develop and promote the harmonious coexistence between man and nature, through the improvement of efficiency in the use of resources and a proper balance between protection and development”, as clearly stated by its Minister of Natural Resources Lu Hao.
It might sound like the sweet-talk and set phrases of a politician at a conference.
In the case of China and its Minister of Natural Resources, however, words have been turned into deeds.
As part of the Roadmap 2.0 for Energy Saving Technology and New Energy Vehicles, China has set a target of one million fuel cell vehicles and two million tonnes of hydrogen production per year by the end of 2035.
The China Hydrogen Energy Industry Development Report 2020 forecasts that, by the end of 2050, hydrogen energy will meet 10 per cent of energy requirements, while the number of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will rise to 30 million and hydrogen production will be equal to 60 million tonnes.
With a view to giving substance to these prospects, China has established the “National Ocean Technology Centre” in Shenzhen and developed – with the Italian “International World Group” – the “China-Europe cooperation project for energy generation and hydrogen production from sea waves and from other renewable energy sources”.
These are concrete projects in which – thanks to Italian creativity and Chinese rationality and pragmatism – we must continue to invest and work, not least to give the third industrial revolution a cleaner face than the coal-stained one of the second industrial revolution.
These projects appear to be in line with those envisaged both at European and Italian levels by the ‘Recovery and Resilience Plan’, which should guide us out of the economic doldrums of the pandemic. They deserve to be financed and supported as they can not only contribute to the recovery and revival of the economy, but also to the reconstruction of a cleaner and more liveable world (thus showing that good can always come out of evil).
The ‘energy crisis’ and its global implications
A particular news caught my attention this morning regarding energy crises. Before going into the depth of the news, I would like to introduce you to the concept of energy crisis and its global implications. As introduced by Garrett Hardin in 1968; the tragedy of commons that the resources of world are limited, if the resources are used excessively soon there will come a time when they will become scarce. These resources can only be sufficient through cooperation of people among each other; there’s no other solution. The tragedy of commons is the best way to explain the concept the energy crises.
Now, the population world is growing at an exponential rate and with the growing population there is a need to provide a better lifestyle to the upcoming generations. In a struggle for raising that standard of living, more and more resources of developed world are being utilized. The McKinsey Global Institute forecasted that by 2020 developing countries will demand 80 percent more energy which proved to be true as is evident in recurrent fuel shortages and price hike globally. A MIT study also forecasted that worldwide energy demand could triple by 2050.
Besides petrol, there is also a rise in demand for natural gas with only few reliable reserves all over the world. The natural gas reserves are mostly unreliable because they are usually found in deep oceans and mere accessibility can cost a lot of expense. Henceforth, the supply is limited, the price has fluctuated greatly and recent technological development has reduced dependence upon natural gas by providing alternatives such as fuel efficient or electric cars. Similarly, electricity supply systems are also not very reliable because there have been power blackouts in the United States, Europe and Russia. There have also been chronic shortages of electric power in India, China, and other developing countries.
If we specifically observe the Iraqi oil crises to understand the whole energy crises shebang, then according to today’s news in TRT World, in Iraq alone, $150bn of stolen oil cash smuggled out since 2003. Iraqi oil exports are even 30-40% below prewar levels. The acting president of Iraq is furious because insane amount of corruption is being carried out in Iraq where substantial quantity of oil is being smuggled. President Barham Saleh presented a legislation to parliament, where, under law any transaction over $500,000 would be scrutinized. This step, if materialized, can be very crucial in preservation of oil reserves in Iraq after the Saddam Hussein regime.
In United States, presidents have constantly been avoiding energy problems because they are very controversial. The recent Texas electricity outrage was a one that had been warned about. Before the Arab Oil Embargo Nixon in 1970’s was reluctant about energy and said ‘as long as the air conditioners are working normally, there is no energy crisis’ but after this incident Nixon began to change his tone and said on television that “energy is number one issue”. Then came Carter, who got a number of legislations passed on the issue of energy even when his own party was against it. In the 1970’s the prevalent thought for United States was that the world would run out of energy resources very soon so they started investing more in nuclear armament as an alternative. In 1990’s the combined cycle plants that used natural gas to create electricity were really efficient and economical that even gas at a high price could be competitive, also ethno-industry was crated at that time.
Then, the threat of climate change is also one of great relevance in the context of energy crises. The nonrenewable energy resources such as oil, water and coal must be used carefully and lack of which can be hazardous. It can cause drought, famine, disease, mass migration that will eventually lead to a conflict such as explained in the tragedy of commons theory. The now developed nations exploited natural resources to build its wealth. The resources such as wood, coal, oil and gas where on one hand are very economical, on the other hand they can be the originators of carbon emissions. Climate change also led to loss of biodiversity as well as environmental hazards.
Even though the developed world i.e. north provides a significant amount of assistance to the global North i.e developing countries, they cannot be a replacement for the shortage of resources. Also, they also face extreme price hike in the energy resources even though the developing nations are the ones owning the resources such Iraq for oil. Besides expensive resources, these developed nations also give rise to domestic and political tensions in the third world countries. Organizations like Al-Qaeda have openly declared their intent to attack oil facilities to hurt the interests of US and its close allies.
All in all, the pertaining threat of energy crisis has global implications. One person’s’gain is another person’s loss but this can be made inevitable if cooperation takes places. Sharing is caring and in this context sharing can prevent from future wars and hurricanes, floods and droughts and famines. The extent of seriousness of the problem must be taken into consideration not only be academicians but by policy makers as well.
Stay in Oil or Race to Green Energy? Considerations for Portfolio Transformation
Oil and gas (O&G) companies face a conundrum: capture the remaining value in hydrocarbons, or decide if, when and how much to invest in new, low-carbon energy business models.
The global O&G industry has the opportunity to redeploy as much as $838 billion, or about 20% of cumulative capital expenditures over the next 10 years, to further optimize their hydrocarbon business and/or pursue new growth areas including new energy ventures.
Of low carbon business models, market sentiment is currently strongest for renewable power with growing interest in green hydrogen and carbon capture as well.
Why this matters
In the wake of COVID-19 disruptions and an accelerating energy transition, O&G companies face a conundrum: stay and capture the remaining value in hydrocarbons or embrace new energy business models. Deloitte’s new “Portfolio transformation in oil, gas and chemicals” research series provides valuable insights into portfolio transformation and offers key considerations for companies making capital allocation decisions and exploring future business models.
Finding the right recipe for portfolio transformation
While companies understand the imperative to change, they are grappling with how much to invest and most vexing, in which green technologies? After all, while the high-growth phase of the oil market may have come to an end, oil demand is still projected to remain above 87 million barrels per day by 2030, even in accelerated energy transition scenarios.
How much to redeploy? $838 billion may be a starting point
To determine how much capital to redeploy, O&G companies could start with capital that is not earning the desired return. Deloitte analyzed 286 listed global companies and revealed that in a base case scenario, these companies could have the opportunity to optimize up to 6% of future O&G production which may not generate a 20% return at an average oil price of $55 per barrel. In other words, about $838 billion, or about 20% of future capital expenditures (CAPEX) across the global industry could be redeployed to optimize these projects and/or pursue promising green ventures. The findings suggest that the opportunity to redeploy will not decrease, but rather increase if oil prices stay above pre-pandemic levels. Among the company groups, supermajors, on average, have a potential to redeploy up to 36% of their future CAPEX.
Where to invest? Solar and wind most frequently mentioned
After performing text analytics and sentiment analysis on thousands of news articles to glean a directional sense of which low-carbon and new energy solutions are attracting the most media attention, the study found renewable power (solar and wind) had the highest share (47% among all green energy models). The tide also seems to be turning for green hydrogen (8% share of mentions).
“A confluence of factors, including climate, the pandemic, supply-demand imbalances, changing trends in end-markets, and growing appetite for sustainability investments, has given oil, gas and chemicals companies the need to progress faster around portfolio transformation. Many companies are eager to act but are seeking guidance on the speed and extent to which they expand into new, potentially high-growth areas, be it in new regions, markets, products or technologies. By taking a strategic, purpose-driven approach, companies can sustainably and profitably build a future-ready portfolio.”- Amy Chronis, vice chairman and U.S. oil, gas and chemicals leader, Deloitte LLP
Debunking myths: Turning hindsight into foresight to navigate portfolio transformation
While many O&G companies have transformed their portfolios over the years, not every change has been successful. The Deloitte analysis dispels conventional wisdom about strategic shifts and offers insights and important considerations about portfolio building in the O&G industry.
Myth 1: Agility and flexibility always deliver gains
- Reality: Of the more than 286 upstream and integrated companies analyzed, only 16% of companies that made frequent changes to their portfolios delivered top-quartile financial performance.
Myth 2: Being big and integrated guarantees success
- Reality: Only 28% of big (revenues above $10 billion) and integrated companies figured in the top-quartile.
Myth 3: Oil has lost its luster
- Reality: Oil still delivers significant value for many. Two-thirds of oil-heavy portfolios deliver above-average performance.
Myth 4: Every “green” shift is profitable and scalable
- Reality: Of portfolios that have become greener, 9% delivered top quartile financial performance, underscoring the importance of a strategic, purpose-driven approach to portfolio transformation.
Myth 5: Shale’s pain makes onshore conventional plays an obvious choice
- Reality: Between 18-45% of non-shale portfolios analyzed delivered below-average performance.
Keys to building a future-ready O&G portfolio
There are four components of a forward-looking portfolio: growth engines, cash generators, profit maximizers, and divestment of value strains. Optimizing the energy transition is not just about selecting the correct technologies in which to invest; it also involves upgrading business models to incorporate new metrics, dynamic planning and AI-based analytics to become more agile. Companies should also consider strategic alliances to maximize their strengths and gain from others.
Chemicals and specialty materials (C&SM) face similar urgency for transformation
As the chemicals industry navigates its own portfolio transformations, focus is key. Deloitte’s analysis of more than 200 chemical companies over a 20-year period showed that focused companies — those that prioritize certain end-markets and product categories and derive at least 60% of the total revenue from that category — outperformed diversified chemical companies. In fact, focused chemical companies organically grew revenues at twice the rate, generated 70% higher return on invested capital (ROIC), and delivered 60% higher shareholder returns.
The top-performing chemical companies typically change their portfolio mix more frequently than others —usually changing their portfolio once every business cycle and remaining focused on their over-arching business strategy, be it low cost, differentiated products, or exceptional service.
Keys to building a future-ready C&SM portfolio
The study recommends C&SM companies make critical portfolio choices that create value. The ongoing disruption in end markets requires leaders to make conscious decisions about their competitive advantage and play in products and service categories where they can build and maintain that advantage. Moreover, given the growing emphasis on sustainability, chemical companies should consider investing in recycling technologies and incorporating renewable and recyclable materials in their product offerings.
Kenya Receives $750 million Boost for COVID-19 Recovery Efforts
To reinforce Kenya’s resilient, inclusive and green economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, the World Bank approved $750 million in...
World Bank Supports Croatia’s Firms Hit by COVID-19 Pandemic
Tamara Perko, President of the Management Board of the Croatian Bank for Reconstruction and Development (HBOR) and Elisabetta Capannelli, World...
Assessing the trends of Globalization in the Covid Era
Coronavirus largely represents acceleration in existing globalization trends, rather than a full paradigm shift. Globalization has ebbed and flowed over...
Zimbabwe’s Economy is Set for Recovery, but Key Risks Remain
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in Zimbabwe is projected to reach 3.9 percent in 2021, a significant improvement after a...
Carl Schmitt for the XXI Century
For decades, the scholars of international relations have confused the term “New World order” in the social, political, or economic...
Educating Women in Pakistan: A Necessity For National Development
Education is fundamental to the success of any nation. Almost every developed nation recognizes its importance and lays great emphasis...
How has Russia’s economy fared in the pandemic era?
Authors: Apurva Sanghi, Samuel Freije-Rodriguez, Nithin Umapathi COVID-19 continues to upturn our lives and disrupt economic activity across the world....
Economy2 days ago
Is Bangladesh falling into a China’s Debt-Trap Like Sri-Lanka?
Economy3 days ago
Rare Earth Elements: Elements of the New trade war
Europe2 days ago
Failed Diplomacy: A hot tension between Spain and Morocco
New Social Compact2 days ago
Global Health Security: The need for collective action
East Asia2 days ago
Taiwan: The First and Oldest ‘Thorn’ between China and the West
Intelligence2 days ago
Uranium is being traded freely in the open market in India
Middle East2 days ago
Powershift in Knesset: A Paradigm of Israel’s Political Instability
New Social Compact3 days ago
Sindh Compulsory Marriage Act 2021 in Pakistan