Connect with us

Energy

Oily Business: Crude Oil, November deal and Uncertainty

Osama Rizvi

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] T [/yt_dropcap] he stage is set. The world waits. There are murmurs and whispers. There are speculations and surmises. On 30th November OPEC and Non OPEC countries engage in a rendezvous in an effort to secure a deal. The whole world looks up to it. But a thwart seems to hang over.

From a month or two there has been a deluge of speculations. Sometimes oil markets reveled and at times tensed. There were “Ayes” and “Nays”. Whenever uncertainty trampled the prices we could see any of the oil producers peddling a “There will be a deal” comment into the news hence striving hard for maintaining the optimism. In these nictitating oil market sentiments, uncertainty lurks everywhere.

There is Russian defection. The Iran and Iranian obstinacy. The Saudi fickleness. All are adding up to the worries. As of today (29th Nov) KSA has proposed a production cut for Iraq and a freeze for Iran. The former has refused and want to freeze and the latter, albeit agreeing to freeze, exceed the ceiling proposed by KSA. They have proposed that Iran freezes at 3.79 million barrels but Tehran says it will not concur to anything less than 3.97 million barrels per day.

The oil prices took a dive Friday (25th Nov) when there was an announcement that fell like a sharp dagger breaking the beautiful picture of a deal into little pieces. I think there has been a sudden realization, a bedazzling epiphany that has put a kibosh (temporarily) on the much awaited November Oil deal.

There has been a ham-fisted attempt at creating a buffoonish illusion. The illusion to make the world buy a production-freeze as a production cut! And the executioner of this oily legerdemain is none other than Russia. It is important here to note that it was Russia’s unconditioned support to a production cut that has been able to drive up the prices from past two months when the party met in Istanbul on the sidelines of International Energy Forum.

In my recent series of articles on this November 30th deal I have always clung to the point that these meetings amount to nothing but a lull to appease the restless markets. The comments serve as a pain-killer for the debt-ridden producers, attrition-smitten and bankrupt oil companies. The recent Trump Triumph is another stock amidst the confounding milieu. His pro-drilling nature and environmental nescience makes many to ponder what effect it will have on the future energy markets. But if we critically analyze it he and his stances are not to affect, at least oil, profoundly. Only the price wields the prowess to change the situation and this bring us to the fundamentals.

The world is still awash with oil. Last time the inventory buildup at Cushing, Oklahoma was termed as “the most bearish report on oil”. However, EIA has provided a little breathing space as it reported a 1.3 million barrel decline in inventory levels at Cushing, Oklahoma for the week November 18. Also, the number of increasing rigs is a continuous worry. This week Baker and Hughes reported an additament of 3 rigs making the total 474 and a week before oil rigs also followed on the heels of Cushing inventory rising by 19, the greatest since July 2015.

The upward tick in prices, whenever it ensues, starts a vicious cycle. As prices aggravate, the nodding donkeys are herded towards the oil fields, resultantly more production, and more supply which, ergo, once again pushes down the supply. There are at-least 5000 DUC wells right now in U.S. if prices rise imagine the deluge. This has been the case from the second half of 2015 and hitherto. And it won’t change either.

Then what is the panacea? It is demand. Unless or until the maw of demand gobbles up the excess supply there is no permanent solution to these predicament. IEA’s Oil market report for November doesn’t helps in this regard. Also the Middle Eastern producers Iran and Iraq are a cause of continuous exasperation as they have not agreed to be a part of any production cut or freeze. Iran says it can freeze their production at 4.2mbpd but the proposition given to them is of 3.2-3.6mbpd. Iraq says it needs to pump in order to have the money to fight IS. Libya and Nigeria has also started to ramp up the production as the attacks in Libya settle down and Niger Delta Avengers have dwindled their strikes. Chinese slow demand is always, once again, a great issue.

With all this being said I opine that KSA will still attend the meeting. But as the current overtures tacitly insinuates. The likelihoods of any deal are very low. What can happen is that there can be a word-play and commitments with hand-shakings and smiles. The chances of even this are also very low. As the days will pass, uncovering the stark reality which was and is always there, the prices will come more down. When they started it was a production cut, then there were few defectors, now it has transmogrified into a freeze and the worse, Russia’s non-participation. These are, certainly, omens that bade ill for the future. These are the signs that show a chronic oil price dip. These signs…are not good.

Let us not be naïve. Let us not be blind. This procrastination. This deliberate defection. This infusion of confusion. To a man cherishing a decent amount of common sense. It clearly indicates: No deal. It seems as it was in a fit of optimism and friendship that OPEC and Non-OPEC producers played with the feelings of the market. No one wants to lose their share. In talks, in news it all sounds and look good. But in reality, in paper, in practice no one wants to do it. This is a bitter truth.

Independent Economic Analyst, Writer and Editor. Contributes columns to different newspapers. He is a columnist for Oilprice.com, where he analyzes Crude Oil and markets. Also a sub-editor of an online business magazine and a Guest Editor in Modern Diplomacy. His interests range from Economic history to Classical literature.

Continue Reading
Comments

Energy

The Bigger Picture: Convergence of Geopolitics and Oil

Osama Rizvi

Published

on

The rising tensions in Middle-East and the rising oil prices only show how strong the link between oil prices and geopolitics is. There are many fronts: Israel and Gaza, Trump and Iran deal, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then there are vested interests, wherein Trump, Saudi Arabia and Israel form one alliance and Russia, China and Iran another. All in all unrest in Middle-East is reshaping relationships and shaking markets. Understanding the bigger picture while delineating relevant factors can help provide us track the potential implications of matters in this region and thereof of oil prices in posterity.

Adding an influential voice to the chorus of energy analyst, Pulitzer Prize winning author, Daniel Yergin recently said that oil prices might hit $85 in July. Bank of America, last week, caused quite a stir saying that oil can hit $100 by next year. Not to mention an oil hedge fund manager who, see oil at $300, a possibility (he deleted his tweets afterwards). Over all the market sentiment is very bullish and rightly so.

What are the underlying reasons? Declining Venezuelan production, sanctions on Iran and of-course the geopolitical wildcards: war in the ever raging Middle East.

Production in Venezuela has been in decline, from 2.3 million bpd in 2016 to 1.5 mbpd in April 2018. However, it is only its combination with Trump’s decision to repudiate Iran deal (with it the fear of sanctions and a reduction in supply) that the oil prices haverallied up to levels not seen after 2014: $80 for Brent and $72 for WTI.

Few days back the inauguration of U.S. embassy in Jerusalem and the ensuing protests, wherein many people were killed, can have spectacular consequences in future and can trigger another rally. One can recall the time of intermittent Arab conflicts between Israel and Muslim countries. Below we dive into a complex geopolitical soup that can shape the future ofoil prices.

Taking Iran as the focal point, we can disentangle the present and future possibilities. Iran and Saudi Arabia have always been vying for the regional balance of power. Any move that is perceived to tilt that balance in either direction has caused protest from the other side. Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Action of Plan (JCPOA) commonly known as Iran deal, was probably one of the most important acts that Saudi Arabia perceived to be threatening to the existing balance of power and therefore, regional stability.Therefore, Trump’s move was welcomed by the Saudi’s. The consequences despite having a strong geopolitical and security dimension have a commensurately important economic side as well: Oil prices. The cancellation of the deal will ease the markets off by anywhere between 300,000bpd to 500, 000 bpd. It is instructive to note that it comes at a time when both Iran and Saudi Arabia are party to what is called the Vienna Agreement—the prime reason for the rebalancing of the markets.

As Saudi Arabia vows to use its spare capacity to offset the effects of sanctions on Iran this represents nothing short of a dilemma for the Kingdom. MbS’ plan to transform the Saudi economy into a diversified one rests on Aramco’s IPO scheduled for 2019. To get desired evaluation the country needs oil prices to rise. $80 is desirable. Now, the question arises why Saudi Arabia would stop oil prices from rising, which suits them, and that too without cutting further production? Also, doing so may hurt the Vienna agreement as other might protest. There is another factor, China, one of the largest buyer of Iranian crude, is exempt from any sanctions by U.S. hence free to do business with Iran. It’s record oil consumption which made headlines few days back, shows that it will not be difficult for Iran to sell those sanctioned barrels to China making the overall effect of supply zero or insignificant. Some have even said that this can threaten Petrodollar dominance in oil trade.

The next front is that of Israel. Further unrest in Gaza will lead to a heated rhetoric about Hamas which brings in Iran that further drags Saudi’s completing the picture for conflict. This can spill over to war in Yemen. All of this can make the geopolitical risk premium stay for a very long time hence, prospects of oil prices sky-rocketing ($100, may be?).

But here is the opposite scenario. One should remember (and expect), quite gleefully, that such tensions cannot go for good. Either they end in a military escalation, a war of sorts, or some agreement is reached. If the latter happens we can bring in another factor into the puzzle that is not temporary: rise in U.S. shale production. The number of rigs, 844, now stands at highest since 2015. The production has surpassed 10.7 mbpd. Shale drillers are exercising restraint and tackling some bottlenecks, but for how long?

We can pose the same question regarding Vienna agreement. How long can the oil producing countries continue cutting production? Can the pact afford a disgruntled Iran which might leave the oil pact? What about Russia’s commitment . . . if matters in Middle-east turn out ugly, Russia will evidently side with Iran rather than Saudi Arabia.

Also, if production is increased that would undermine or even jeopardize the deal and if it doesn’t that will, if on one side serve the Kingdom’s purpose of increasing oil prices (due to a fall in supply), on the other hand help U.S shale producers drill even more. Higher oil prices, if on one side reduce demand; at a certain point can also jeopardize the Vienna pact itself as the countries will have no incentive to continue it.

Lastly, if oil prices continue to rise then demand might slow down, at the same time when Shale production continues to rise. As an article in The Guardian noted, the oil prices might “come back to earth with a bump”. It is therefore quite early to call whether we’ll see a three digit oil price very soon. We are in the middle, prices can go both ways. All depends upon how events will unfold in Middle-East in the days to come.

Continue Reading

Energy

Gas first – energy for peace

Published

on

When history is written, then President Trump’s decision on 8th May to abandon the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement with Iran may well be seen as a historic turning point.

In fact the origins of President Donald Trump’s aggressive stance against Iran may lie in his ‘Energy Week’ speech on June 29 which saw a historic change in U.S. foreign policy doctrine and language, when the world heard from President Trump for the first time in addition to America First, a new U.S. rhetoric of Energy Dominance.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday, May 21, threatened to place “the strongest sanctions in history” on Iran if its government doesn’t comply with Trump Administration policies. He called for a new nuclear agreement with Iran following Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal. He said that the Trump administration prefers for it to be a treaty that is ratified by the U.S. Congress.

In response, Iran’s foreign minister criticized the U.S. secretary of state, tweeting that he saw U.S. diplomacy as a “sham” that was “imprisoned by delusions & failed policies.” Minister Zarif wrote: “It repeats the same wrong choices and will thus reap the same ill rewards.”

An Iranian VIP delegation participated at the pre-eminent European annual Flame natural gas conference in Amsterdam last week, during which speakers and delegates from Mediterranean Sea to Iran, Korea to Kazakhstan (Caspian Sea) and the U.S. to Russia discussed gas market and infrastructure development while elsewhere, heads of state and diplomats were meeting to address the JCPOA fallout, called for depoliticizing the energy industry.

Energy dominance & America first

I asked Chris Cook from University College London who participated at the Flame as speaker about the U.S. new policy on Iran.   He said: “I first analyzed the U.S. Energy Dominance doctrine announced by Trump on June 29, 2017 in an article published on August 2, 2017 and since then this U.S. strategy has become much clearer.”

He added: “ Firstly, the oil price has been re-inflated from around $45/bbl (Brent) & $42/bbl (WTI) to over $80/bbl & $75/bbl respectively as so-called ‘funds’ crowded in, buying over one million barrels of  oil futures contracts of 1,000 barrels each. The outcome for China – who historically overtook the U.S. as the greatest global net buyer – is that they are now paying an additional $30/bbl for 8m barrels per day of imports….this represents an astonishing $250m per day or $7.5bn per month to producers, and this massive cost has recently placed China in a trade deficit for the first time.

Secondly, just weeks after Gary Cohn (the architect of Energy Dominance) and Rex Tillerson left office within a week of each other, a fundamental shift in the foundations of global markets took place, on or around April 18, 2018. At this point unprecedented changes took place in the oil market ‘curve’ (forward pricing structure) while oil and the dollar began to rise together, which is extremely unusual. Meanwhile, the currencies of many emerging and developing nations, including Iran, have fallen dramatically against the U.S. dollar.”

Oil prices and U.S. dollar?

Mr. Cook is correct since while historically, crude oil prices have had an inverse relationship with the U.S. dollar the recent trends has seen crude oil prices increasing as the U.S. dollar rallied along with it.  In fact, by looking at the U.S. dollar rate against other currencies and the crude oil prices, it can be seen that the rally in crude oil prices over the last year has mostly coincided with a decline in the U.S. dollar. But, over the last six weeks, oil prices and the U.S. dollar are rallying in the same cycle: this coincidence has only occurred 11 times since 1983 and is drawing the attention of market commentators & analysts such as Mr. Cook.

Mr. Cook says: “In my analysis, this sudden shift is a result of a new direct linkage of the dollar to the oil price through opaque Enron-style tripartite ‘prepay’ funding of U.S. shale oil reserves. If I am correct (and I invite your readers to bear witness to my forecast) then when (not if) oil prices fall the U.S. dollar will fall with it.”

He continues: “In that context, I do not expect major consumer nations such as China and India to continue to accept market prices set by producers indefinitely. China launched a new physically delivered Shanghai crude oil contract on 26th March 2018 and has accumulated over 700m barrels of strategic oil reserves in the last three years. If I were in China’s position as the largest buyer of oil in the market, I would switch my purchases to Shanghai; invite producers and traders to sell priced against the benchmark contract I had created; and in the event that producers refused to sell, simply draw upon my reserves until they capitulate.”

Declaring war on Iran?
By what the U.S. foreign minister declared on 21st May there is no doubt that the U.S. Iran strategy is to weaponise the dollar by using access to the dollar clearing system to coerce compliance by any country with U.S. secondary sanctions. The effect was evident at Flame, as Total announced they could not risk sanctions, and would have to pull out of Iran’s South Pars natural gas Phase 11 project unless they receive a U.S. exemption, which U.S. foreign minister announced on May 21 that will not be granted.

Meanwhile, discussions continue at the EU Central Bank level as to how Iran may access the euro clearing system. But European companies operating internationally, particularly those who operate in the U.S., point out that simply obtaining Euro payments and finance would not resolve their problems in relation to U.S. control of a dollar system on which they largely rely, and access to U.S. markets.

Russian reaction?
Whereas the relationship between Russia and Turkey has long been strategic, Russia’s relationship with Iran has tended to be tactical, due to competition in respect of gas supply where Russia zealously protects its market in Europe. However, the recent evolution of energy markets suggests that this relationship may be changing in important respects from competition to cooperation.

Dr Ali Vakili – who recently retired from Ministry of Petroleum as a senior, highly experienced and influential Iranian energy official – was among the Iranian VIP delegation to Flame and in his first engagement since retiring as Senior Advisor to Petroleum Minister Bijan Zangeneh and Managing Director responsible for fuel efficiency together with his colleague Mahmood Khaghani outlined how Iran’s strategic energy policy has long been to use natural gas to replace petroleum products wherever possible. Statistics show that as Iran’s natural gas production has grown, it has almost entirely been used domestically, with relatively restricted exports to neighboring countries including Turkey, Armenia, and to Iraq.

As documented in the Tehran Times in the past, at a major conference in Ashgabat in December 2014, Mr. Ramazani, former Director at the NIGEC, gave an early insight into Iran’s evolving energy strategy, as he pointed out that it made more economic sense for Turkmenistan to convert gas to power locally and dispatch electricity regionally in a new High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Caspian Energy Grid, than to export gas thousands of kilometers into Europe, as envisaged in the U.S. & EU sponsored Southern Corridor initiative which aimed to displace Russian and Iranian gas supply.

Iran has 3.5 million cars fuelled by compressed natural gas (CNG) as well as fleets of buses and commercial vehicles. Iran has also massively increased domestic use of natural gas instead of naphtha as a petrochemical feedstock. The original Iranian rationale for domestic use of gas was national security (oil product import substitution). However, as Mr. Cook suggests: “With oil prices at current levels it now makes commercial sense for CNG vehicles to displace diesel & gasoline fuelled vehicles. In fact this point was driven home at Flame by VW’s Group Head of Strategy, Jasper Kemmeyer in his plenary presentation on VW’s strategic move into what VW call CNG Mobility.”

America first or energy first?

During a joint presentation at the Flame, Mr. Khaghani and Mr. Cook put this question at the Flame workshop. Mr. Khaghani began by outlining how during decades of high level experience in Iran’s Petroleum Ministry he had developed what became known as Iran’s energy diplomacy in the Caspian region.

In particular, he outlined innovative Iranian energy swaps, such as the Caspian Oil Swap of Turkmenistan, Russia, Kazakhstan and the Republic of Azerbaijan’s oil into North Iran for Iranian Oil delivered out of the Persian Gulf. Perhaps his proudest achievements were the supply of gas to Armenia in exchange for power to Iran, and the supply of gas to Nakhchivan which was termed Energy for Peace.

While historically producers of upstream oil and gas compete for sales, Mr. Khaghani and Mr. Cook proposed in respect of downstream heat/cooling, mobility & power that is in the interests of all to cooperate in respect of costs. They brought to the attention of the Flame participants that Western energy infrastructure and commodity markets in oil and gas which are capital intensive are now evolving into smart markets in energy services based on intellectual capital rather than finance capital.

GasCoins?

Three weeks earlier in Moscow at the invitation of Russia’s Deputy Energy Minister for Oil & Gas, H.E. Mr. Kirill Molodtsov, and Mr. Cook outlined how generic swaps of gas flow may be combined with issuance of simple credits (GasCoins) by gas producers as financing instruments returnable in payment for gas supplied.

Following an article published in Tehran Times, the GasCoin concept has attracted a great deal of attention in Iran and Mr. Cook during his presentation at the conference in Moscow fleshed out the concept by explaining how such GasCoin instruments may be practically implemented through a Gas Clearing Union (GasClear).  As he explained: “This consists of suitable guarantee (Protection & Indemnity/P&I) agreements for mutual assurance of performance, so that gas producers accept each other’s’ credits, and then account to each other, with administration and risk management by a trusted service provider.”

During a conversation he said: “In this way, a GasCoin, if driven by key gas producers such as Iran and Russia through the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) could mobilize the next Energy Fintech wave of financial technology, building on the current flood of unsustainable Blockchain/Coin initiatives.”

Mr. Khaghani and Mr. Chris Cook in their joint presentation at the Flame on 15th May 2018 suggested that “such a GasClear system is complementary to the existing energy commodity market and opens the way for payments through issuance, exchange, return and settlement (‘clearing’) of energy credits. The beauty of energy credits is that they are not bound by any national government currency or unit of account e.g. $ or €.”

Mr. Cook says: “The same GasClear platform may then be used by investors and consumers to invest directly in gas supplies and even gas savings. In this system, the role of banks is transformed from capital intensive middlemen who take credit risk, to a new and smart role as a risk service provider & administrator who manages credit risk and performance.”

Gas first and the European Union?

We saw only recently how important the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline route through the Baltic Sea is to Germany and Russia, and that U.S. resistance to it is based purely upon narrow commercial considerations of export of cheap shale gas. Both Russia and Germany are well aware that even at the height of the Cold War, the USSR reliably supplied gas to Germany who equally reliably paid for it, and it is ironic that the well documented breakdowns in supply via Ukraine involve difficult and often opaque relationships between oligarchs, particularly in Ukraine.

It was also interesting to hear from officials of the EU Commission that the politically motivated Energy Union initiative originated by Donald Tusk as President of the European Council to aggregate EU energy market power to better negotiate with Russia is, in their view, completely un-implementable. However, according to Mr. Cook: “The ongoing market trend from commodity transactions to services applies as much to energy markets as to all others. I believe that there exists an opportunity to create complementary networked Energy Tech financial infrastructure – a Eurasian Energy Clearing Union – in which all regional nations may participate.”

So, Iranian VIP delegation and Caspian Energy Grid founders participated at the Flame were offered the opportunity to lead the creation of smart markets in energy – where credit is accounted in the positive value of energy rather than the negative value of debt. This enables a new pathway – through energy economics rather than dollar economics – to a Transition through Gas to a low carbon economy.

In such an energy credit clearing system, Mr. Cook says: “Banks would no longer create credit (because they are not energy producers) but may manage transparent credit creation by producers. This opens the way for the € unit of account to be fixed against an agreed amount of energy and for the Euro to explicitly follow Denmark onto an energy standard (based on provision of energy as a service).”

He suggested: “In terms of institutions, countries like Iran could create a new Energy Treasury, in which representatives of oil and energy ministries participate in overseeing issuance by energy companies, alongside representatives of Iran’s Central Bank, who could not of course issue energy credits, but whose role would be as an independent monetary authority.”

Chris Cook concluded: “The current trend which sees oil and the dollar rise together may be an anomaly and the usual relationship between oil prices and the U.S. dollar exchange rate against other currencies may shortly resume. But, if as I suspect the U.S. has essentially fixed the dollar to oil then we may expect the oil price to fall as and when U.S. dollar falls.”

First published in our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Energy

Is the world on track to deliver energy access for all?

MD Staff

Published

on

A solar-powered metro station in Brasilia, Brazil Photo: Paulo Barros/Metro-DF/Handout

Do you have access to reliable electricity at home, at an affordable price? And how is the stove you use – is it an electric one, or does it rely on wood or coal, generating smoke every time you cook?

One billion people (13% of the world’s population) still live without electricity and more than 3 billion (41%) use polluting fuels to cook, undermining their health, productivity, and quality of life. That’s why the United Nations placed universal access to electrification and clean cooking technologies among the energy-related targets to be reached under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

Additionally, SDG #7 calls for a substantial increase in the share of renewable sources (solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal, for example) in the global energy mix, as well as for a more efficient use of energy.

A new report, Tracking SDG7: The Energy Progress Report 2018, provides a snapshot of the world’s advances towards the targets on access to electricity, clean cooking, renewables and energy efficiency. And while the study shows the world is not on track to meet the global energy targets for 2030, it also highlights recent experiences that offer encouraging signs – mostly in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, but also in Latin America.

The report is a joint effort of the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), the World Bank, and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Access to electricity

In Latin America, nearly three-quarters of countries are on track to attain universal access by 2020, and by 2030 the region is expected to achieve near universal access, with Haiti the only country with an access rate below 90%.

More good news comes from Africa, which in recent years saw electrification outpace population growth for the first time. Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania increased their electricity access rate by 3% or more annually between 2010 and 2016. Meanwhile, India provided electricity to 30 million people annually, more than any other country.

However, there is still much work to be done to meet the SDG target for electrification. If the current access trends continue, 8% of the global population will still be in the dark in 2030.

“The experience of countries that have substantially increased the number of people with electricity in a short space of time holds out real hope that we can reach the billion people who still live without power,” says Riccardo Puliti, Senior Director for Energy and Extractives at the World Bank.

Puliti adds, “We know that with the right policies, a commitment to both grid electrification and off-grid solutions like solar home systems, well-tailored financing structures, and mobilization of the private sector, huge gains can be made in only a few years. This in turn is having real, positive impacts on the development prospects and quality of life for millions of people.”

Clean cooking

Of all the four energy targets set up in the Sustainable Development Goals, access to clean cooking technologies lags the furthest behind: if the current trajectory continues, 2.3 billion people will still be burning wood, coal and other types of biomass in 2030. These traditional methods generate household air pollution, which is responsible for some 4 million deaths a year – more than HIV and tuberculosis combined –, with women and children at the greatest risk.

Progress has been slow due to low consumer awareness, financing gaps, slow technological progress, and lack of infrastructure for fuel production and distribution, according to the report. Among the relatively few strong performances that stand out globally, are Indonesia and Vietnam, which provided access to an additional 3% of their populations each year from 2010 to 2016.

The report also highlights that, of the 20 countries that made faster progress between 2010 and 2016, four of them are in Latin America: Guyana, Peru, El Salvador and Paraguay.

Renewable energy

As of 2015, the world obtained 17.5% of its total final energy consumption from renewable sources, of which 9.6% represents modern forms of renewable energy such as geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind. The remainder is traditional uses of biomass (such as fuelwood and charcoal).

While Sustainable Development Goal #7 does not provide a fixed target for renewable energy, it calls for a “substantial increase” in the share of renewable sources in the global mix. Based on current trends, the renewable share is expected to reach just 21% by 2030 (from 16.7% in 2010), falling short of the increase demanded by the SDG7 target.

Transport and heating, which account for 80% of global energy consumption, still need to accelerate progress. In transport, for example, renewable energy consumption reached only 2.8% globally in 2015. The greatest areas of concern remain in aviation, rail, and maritime transport, where penetration rates of biofuels are negligible at the present time. Whereas in heating, traditional use of biomass (such as fuelwood and coal) still accounts for 65% of the share of renewable energy.

Electricity represents the remaining 20% and has experienced better results thanks to the declining costs of wind and solar power. In this particular sector, the renewable share amounted to 22.8% in 2015. Hydropower remains the dominant source of renewable electricity, but wind power grew most rapidly from 2010 to 2015.

In Latin America, Brazil stands out for more than doubling the global energy share in electricity, heating and transportation.

Energy efficiency

Improving energy efficiency means being able to produce more with less energy. And evidence shows that economic growth and energy use are increasingly uncoupling. Between 2010 and 2015, global gross domestic product (GDP) grew nearly twice as fast as primary energy supply. Economic growth outpaced growth in energy use in all regions, except for Western Asia.

One of the most important metrics for this SDG target is energy intensity – the ratio of energy used per unit of GDP –, which fell at an accelerating pace of 2.8% in 2015, the fastest decline since 2010. This improved the average annual decline in energy intensity to 2.2% for the period 2010-2015. However, performance still falls short of the 2.6% yearly decline needed to meet the SDG7 target of doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030.

Industry, the largest energy consuming sector, also made the most rapid progress, reducing energy intensity by 2.7% annually. However, advances in the transport sector were slower. As with renewable energy, this sector will be key to ensuring progress towards a low-carbon energy future.

World Bank

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsdesk6 hours ago

An economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific

On the 23 May, in the run-up to SPIEF, a roundtable held jointly between the Roscongress Foundation and St. Petersburg...

Newsdesk7 hours ago

Russia’s Economic Recovery Continues: Modest Growth Ahead

Russia’s economic recovery continues, amidst relatively high oil prices, enhanced macroeconomic stability, gradual monetary loosening, and ongoing momentum in global...

Green Planet8 hours ago

Governments need to act to encourage plastic recycling markets

Plastic recycling is failing to reach its full potential as low recovery rates of plastic waste, poor quality of recycled...

Economy9 hours ago

Business Chemistry: Practical Magic for Crafting Powerful Work Relationships

Ever wonder what it is that makes two people click or clash? Or why some groups excel while others fumble?...

Newsdesk10 hours ago

UNIDO at SPIEF 2018: Increasing the contribution of women to economic growth and prosperity

On the opening day of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) 2018, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)...

South Asia11 hours ago

What to do with Pakistani militant Hafez Saeed? Pakistan and China grope for ambiguity

Recent remarks by several senior Pakistani officials suggest that Pakistan and China are groping with how to deal with globally...

Energy13 hours ago

The Bigger Picture: Convergence of Geopolitics and Oil

The rising tensions in Middle-East and the rising oil prices only show how strong the link between oil prices and...

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy