Oil-Powered Ships could carry more fuel, were faster and could cover a larger patrol area. More so, the German Navy was fast catching up, both in quantity and quality. Among the debaters of the coal and oil camp was Winston Churchill, the First Sea Lord of Admiralty and a supporter of Oil. He argued strongly for the Introduction of Oil-powered engines and a move towards an Oil Navy. His detractors argued that there was little to no oil to be found with the British Isles. Among his supporters for the transition, a major concern was that the only source of oil for the Royal Navy was in Persia, separated from the British Fleet Home Bases by a thousand miles. In event of a looming war, it would become a logistical nightmare to supply the ships with oil, safely and securely. Churchill, however, dismissed all these concerns. Ships powered by Coal were being grossly outperformed in Fleet Readiness Exercises. An American Training Fleet powered by oil has just come out on top of a powerful Coal-Fired British Fleet in a training exercise, embarrassing the British Admiralty. The writing on the wall was clear. The future belonged to faster, more nimble ships which could only be possible with oil engines. But how could the mighty British Fleet rely on a single source of oil, that too thousands of miles away. Could the safety and certainty of oil be guaranteed? To this he said, “Safety and certainty in oil lie in variety and variety alone.” Diversification of Energy sources was the only way out of the dilemma. And those words hold true, even to this date.
Today, is Energy a luxury or a necessity?
India, a home to over 1.2 Billion People and counting, is one of the world’s largest economies and arguably the world’s fastest growing economy. Every year, a sizable chunk of the Indian Population is pulled up from the Below Poverty Line and becomes part of the world’s largest Middle Class Population. Incomes are rising, the economy is growing, workers migrate to the cities in search of work, shops open to cater to increasing number of customers, suburbs become the part of the cities and the Indian Juggernaut lumbers along. The Economists and the Financial Markets look towards India as one the drivers of the Global Economies and the undisputed hub of the Global Services Industry. But in the all the light, lays a gaping hole of darkness, something which has the potential to snuff out all the light and put an end to the Indian/global Growth. And that darkness is akin to dilemma that the Royal Navy faced over a century ago. To fuel the temples of Economic Growth, we need Energy and lots and lots of it. To build roads, provide electricity to the ever growing population, to pump clean water for drinking, to move commerce and food stuff, heck we even need energy to create fertilizers and irrigate fields to grow food. Energy has occupied the most important place in our lives. Energy is no longer a luxury but a necessity of Human Life now. A life with energy is impossible to imagine now.
The Dilemma of Energy Supply
While the demand for Energy continues to grow, Governments and Public Utilities struggle to find ways to cope with the supply-demand equation. Also, with the coming of the 21st century and the horrors it is foretold to bring if we do not become caring for the environment, there is a need to come up with cleaner and greener sources of Energy. India, like most other counties in the world, faces the same issues. How to supply a growing Population with the means for a bountiful living balancing it with supplying the adequate means for the economy to grow while having a next to no impact on the environment? The dilemma of the policy makers is palpable. James Schlesinger, who served as the first US energy secretary, once quipped that Americans have only two ways of thinking about energy: “complacency and panic.” We’ll agree with the sentiment and substitute the word “Americans” for “people” because very few people anywhere in the world think much about where their energy comes from? And the gargantuan swings in energy markets over the past couple of years illustrate Dr. Schlesinger’s basic point. Our foremost challenge today is the need to balance energy security, employment and economic growth with the issue of climate change. While it can be possible, but not without first acknowledging that the real problem lies above ground rather than beneath it. Getting the Policy mix right is the surest way to avoid the traps of complacency and panic. So what underpins energy security? What to do to ensure that the Energy always flows? Is there the need for an out of the box thinking? Maybe. But the solution remains the same as were the words of Churchill; only this time it would be “Safety and certainty of Energy Supply lie in variety and variety alone.”
Safety and certainty of Energy Supply lie in variety and variety alone
Reliable and affordable supplies of energy have laid the foundation for the world’s extraordinary economic progress to date. Coal fuelled power plants provide electricity for factories and mills. The patriotic fervor among the coal miners in the United States was very strong as they were right to believe that the coal mined by them made Steel and that if the Steel failed, the entire country would fail. Oil made faster travel and commerce possible. Famines and food panics have been gradually reduced as markets became interconnected and it become possible to buy and sell and move goods fast. Natural Gas has made cooking a delightful experience compared to the soot filed kitchens of the past. However, these bountiful sources were very taken for granted throughout much of the 20th century. But with the coming of the 21st century is that energy security and climate change have become the defining issues. They are most important components in a complex matrix with strategic, economic and environmental dimensions.
We need to look towards the future to find out what that lays ahead. BP’s projections suggest we’ll need around 45% more energy in 2030 than we what we can consume today – and double that by 2050. That’s the rough equivalent of adding today’s biggest energy user, United States nearly twice over to world energy demand, and meeting it will require an annual investment of more than $1 trillion a year, every year till 2050. The question is so how can we deliver on that demand sustainably? Let’s be clear – there are no silver bullets here to take this big bad wolf.
Towards Energy Security
To address it, we must have clarity of thought about where we are, where we want to go and which way to go? There is a need to set out practical pathways which can lead us towards the dreamed destination. And most of all, we need a clear regulatory framework to enable businesses to invest with the confidence in building a lower carbon/ carbon free future. Hydrocarbons have, are and will continue to play the most important role in energy security. Say what the environmentalists and the climate scientists; a future full of energy without hydrocarbon is unimaginable, at least with current available technology and investment base. Despite the entire hullabaloo about renewable, they are unlikely to account for much of the energy basket. Unlike what the proponents of the renewable energy who believe the energy base transition would be as under:
with renewable contributing a significant higher share year on year. As stated, the share of renewable energy will certainly increase, but we have to be realistic about how much it can actually contribute. All of the world’s wind, solar, wave, tide and geothermal power only accounts for around 1% of total consumption. Add up hydropower and the share goes up another 12%. While hydroelectricity can contribute a bigger share of the energy pie, the application is limited by massive population displacements and the ecological impact on the local communities. Projects like the Itaipu Dam (Paraguay) and the Three Gorges Dam (PR China) are becoming fewer to plan and execute and several other projects all across the world are struck in various different stages of construction and the Litigation. Governments are funding newer projects in renewable development and research, although taking at a break neck speed, has yet to come up with a game changer solution, forcing corporate to rely on current generation technology for testing and small scale projects. Given the practical challenges of scaling up such technologies, the International Energy Agency doesn’t see them accounting for much more than 5% of consumption in 2030(excluding Hydropower), even with all the aggressive policy support and governmental funding. Nuclear energy and biofuels will also play a part, and by 2030 carbon capture technology could be deployed at scale in Coal Fired power plants. But there will still be a major role for hydrocarbons, primarily Natural Gas. Indeed, the IEA analysis indicates that even in a low carbon scenario predicated on keeping the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to less than 450ppm, hydrocarbons will remain dominant. Hence, Hydrocarbons, more so, Natural Gas are the most reliable fuel for the future.
Relevance of the Hydrocarbon Sector
So we need hydrocarbons and lots and lots of it, that’s clear. The good news is that we have enough reserves of crude oil – and even more of natural gas – and these reserve estimates are rising as we continuously developing newer ways of unlocking both conventional and unconventional resources. Thereby the cornerstone of ensuring the future’s energy security is the creation of a diverse supply – diverse in the forms it can take and diverse in the places it can come from. The hydrocarbon sector must make investments in both low carbon energy business (the projects for Carbon Capture and Sequestration) and the carbon intensive programs (the production from Heavy Oils and Tar Sands) and mate them together. It’s not so much about not emitting the carbon into the system, its more about minimizing the carbon footprint of the energy. Both programs can be a part of a broad and sustainable energy basket mix that embraces oil, gas, coal and renewable, producing and using them all with innovation and efficiency.
However, the building of such a future demands action both from hydrocarbon sector and from Government. The Hydrocarbon Sector can provide the building blocks and tools – but there is a need for them to work within the architecture provided by governments. This appears to be the most logical way in which the current energy security architecture can – and it should – be strengthened.
There is however a set of unique challenges ahead. First, with continuously increasing pressure on the supply side, it’s important to develop energy resources as efficiently as possible. For the Government, this means opening up areas that had previously been closed for exploration and allowing competitive bidding for operations. Offering access permits to a group of potential operators encourages them to come up with the most efficient solutions and often involves partnerships that develop new and innovative combinations of skills, lest they try it going in alone and losing it all. The key to producing unconventional and stranded conventional resources efficiently lies in application of advanced technology. The prime example of this thought school is the US revolution in shale gas over the past decade that has been made possible thanks to new drilling and fracturing technology. This is a real game-changer when it comes to energy security.
The second area in which policy is critical is in addressing climate change. The hydrocarbon sector along with the government can play a major role, arguably via creating a price for carbon trading through conventional market mechanisms. Needless to stress upon but only an open competition will encourage the most efficient ways of cutting emissions. The Hydrocarbon sector must factor a carbon cost into both, their investment choices and their engineering design of new projects. This is only way of ensuring that their investments are competitive not only in today’s world, but also in a future where carbon has a more robust price.
The question of Climate Change?
There are a lot of detractors and proponents of the role of hydrocarbons in the climate change but the fact remains that the world is going to use a lot more energy in the coming decades and there is a need to take urgent action to mitigate the effects of such an increase. All across the globe, millions of people are leaving poverty behind and enjoying a much better standard of living. While there are some clear signs that governments around the world are sensitive to this and are beginning to do something about it, the process remains disjointed and sometimes even frustrating for the Hydrocarbon Sector to do something positive in this regard. The key to real progress being made is alignment, rather than simple agreements – moving in the same direction, may or may not necessarily in lock-step. If the government provides a clear, stable and sustainable framework for investment, it will start to flow. But if they don’t, they run the risk that spare capacity will dwindle – and ‘complacency’ will give way to ‘panic.’
The quickest way to ensure a low carbon fuel for the future while ensuring minimum investment and with the existing infrastructure and technology is Natural Gas. Gas offers the greatest potential to achieve the largest CO2 reductions – at the lowest possible cost and in the shortest time duration all this, by using technology that is available today. It’s easily the cleanest burning fossil fuel – around 50 percent cleaner than coal. It’s very efficient, and combined-cycle turbines fuelled by natural gas are both quicker and relatively cheaper to build. More so, a lots of it is available and sometimes, more readily so.
The creation of a low-carbon economy will be far from easy and over-time, will require the whole-scale re-engineering of the global economy. It will demand a very significant investment by industry, which in turn requires a clear regulatory regime. There is a need to ensure that our children and grandchildren are not left with the unknown hazards of climate change and can keep their lights on in the future. If both these challenges can be met, it is only then has the Hydrocarbon Sector played a crucial role in this changing energy scenario.
Crunching the numbers: Are we heading for an oil supply shock?
In the detailed energy model that underpins WEO 2018, new sources of oil supply steadily come online at the right time to meet changes in oil demand and keep the system in equilibrium. This smooth matching of supply and demand minimises oil price volatility, which is why our price trajectories in each scenario are smooth, and would likely be a desirable outcome for many of the world’s oil consumers (it could also be better in the long run for many of the world’s producers.
But commodity markets don’t work this way in practice. The oil price drop in 2014 led to multiple widespread impacts on markets, not least of which was that the number of new upstream projects approved for developments plummeted. With the rapid levels of oil demand growth seen in recent years, there are fears that supply could struggle to keep up, bringing with it the risk of damaging price spikes and increased volatility.
On the flip side, with shale production in the United States continuing to grow at record levels and increasing attention on executing upstream projects that can quickly bring oil to market, there are also arguments why a future oil supply “crunch” be safely ruled out. What does the WEO 2018 have to say on this matter?
Why invest in new supply?
The discussion about investment in oil projects typically focuses on the outlook for demand. But this is only a small part of the story – the main reason why new investment is required, in all our scenarios, is because supply at existing fields is constantly declining.
In the New Policies Scenario, there is a 7.5 mb/d increase in oil demand between 2017 and 2025. But without any future capital investment into existing fields or new fields, current sources of supply (including conventional crude oil, natural gas liquids, tight oil, extra-heavy oil and bitumen, processing gains etc.) would drop by over 45 mb/d over this period – this is known as the “natural decline” in supply. If there were to be continued investment into existing fields but still no new fields were brought online – known as the “observed decline”– then the loss of supply would be closer to 27.5 mb/d. A 35 mb/d supply-demand gap would therefore still need to be filled by investments in new fields in the New Policies Scenario in 2025 (there’s also a 26 mb/d gap in 2025 even in the demand-constrained world of the Sustainable Development Scenario).
Part of this 35 mb/d gap is filled by conventional projects already under development. There is also growth in conventional NGLs, extra-heavy oil and bitumen, tight oil in areas outside the United States, and other smaller increases elsewhere. In total these sources add around 11 mb/d new production between 2017 and 2025. Another portion of the gap would be filled by new conventional crude oil projects that have not yet been approved. Around 16 billion barrels of new conventional crude oil resources in new projects are approved each year in the New Policies Scenario between 2017 and 2025: these provide around 13 mb/d additional production in 2025.
This leaves around 11 mb/d. In the New Policies Scenario, this is filled by US shale liquids – also known as “tight liquids” – which includes tight crude oil, tight condensates and tight NGLs. Shale liquids production in the United States in 2017 was just over 7.5 mb/d. If investment were to have stopped in 2017, shale liquids production would have fallen by around 4 mb/d to 2025. However, we have seen that investment and production has actually soared over the course of 2018, and average production in 2018 is set to be close to 9.5 mb/d.
In the New Policies Scenario, shale liquids grow by another 5 mb/d to 2025 (i.e. total growth of 7 mb/d from 2017). So from 2017, and including the production to offset declines, US shale liquids provide the additional 11 mb/d production that is required to fill the remainder of the supply-demand gap. This would represent a huge increase in oil production: the growth between 2015 and 2025 would surpass the fastest rate of growth ever seen previously over a 10-year period (Saudi Arabia between 1967 and 1977).
If conventional investment doesn’t pick up…
It is worth looking in more detail at the assumption that 16 billion barrels resources are approved in new conventional crude oil projects each year from 2018 onwards. In the years since the oil price crash in 2014, the average annual level of resources approved has been closer to 8 billion. The volumes of conventional crude oil receiving development approval would therefore need to double from today’s levels, alongside robust growth in other sources of production, if there is to be a smooth matching of supply and demand in the New Policies Scenario.
What if this does not occur and annual conventional approvals remain at around today’s level? This would mean that some of the supply-demand “gap” would remain and another source would need to step into the breach. The most likely candidate to do so would likely be for US operators to increase tight liquids production at a much faster rate than is projected in the New Policies Scenario.
… then the US would need to add another ‘Russia’ to the global oil balance in 7 years.
In this case, US tight liquids production would need to grow by an additional 6 mb/d between now and 2025. Total growth in US tight liquids between 2018 and 2025 would therefore be around 11 mb/d: roughly equivalent to adding another “Russia” to the global oil balance over the next 7 years.
With a sufficiently large resource base – much larger than we assume in the New Policies Scenario – it could be possible for US tight liquids production to grow to more than 20 mb/d by 2025. However increasing production to this level would require a level of capital investment and a number of tight oil rigs that would far surpass the previous peaks in 2014. It would also rely on building multiple new distribution pipelines to avoid bottlenecks that could prevent or slow the transport of oil away from production areas.
What if demand were to follow a different trajectory?
In the Sustainable Development Scenario, with concerted action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement, demand peaks in the early 2020s and falls by 1 mb/d between 2017 and 2025. We do not yet see the policies in place or on the horizon that would lead to this outcome (if we did, they would be incorporated already in the New Policies Scenario), but it is of course possible that a lower demand trajectory also helps to avoid the risk of market tightening in the 2020s.
In the Sustainable Development Scenario, shale liquids, conventional NGLs and EHOB all grow from today’s levels in this scenario, albeit to a lesser extent than in the New Policies Scenario given a lower oil price. Filling the remainder of the gap would require approvals of around 8 billion barrels between now and 2025. This is very similar to the level seen over the past few years. This places the implications of “peak oil demand” in context. Even with a near-term peak and subsequent reduction in demand of around 1 mb/d by the mid-2020s, there remains a need to develop new upstream oil investments to fill the supply-demand gap.
Is nuclear energy essential for deep decarbonization?
The world is not on track to meet the target of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to ‘well below’ 2°C. Participants at the Ninth International Forum of Energy for Sustainable Development (12-15 November 2018) in Kiev, Ukraine, deliberated on how nuclear energy could contribute to deep decarbonization. Today, some 450 nuclear power reactors in 30 countries provide about 11% of the world’s electricity. Nuclear energy is the world’s second largest source of low-carbon power, with about 30% of the total in 2015, and it displaces about 2 gigatonnes of CO2 every year.
Speaking at the Forum’s workshop on “Nuclear Energy and Sustainable Development: Role of nuclear in a decarbonized energy mix”, Ms. Yuliya Pidkomorna, Deputy Minister for Energy and Coal Industry, Ukraine observed that nuclear energy is the mainstay of energy infrastructure in Ukraine. Experts from Ukraine showcased nuclear energy’s contributions to the country’s achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Participants from United Kingdom and Canada presented national programmes in which nuclear energy contributes to deep decarbonization.
“A dialogue on the energy transition is incomplete without considering nuclear power”, said Mr. Scott Foster, Director, Sustainable Energy Division, UNECE in his opening remarks. “This is why the Forum has included nuclear energy on the agenda for the first time.”
Many countries have chosen to not pursue nuclear energy because they view that the risks of incidents or accidents at nuclear power stations are unacceptable. Other countries have determined that they will not be able to achieve their development objectives without deploying nuclear power. Many countries such as China, India and Russia are expanding their nuclear power base, while countries like Bangladesh, Belarus, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates are building nuclear power plants for the first time.
Advanced nuclear power systems incorporate passive safety features. Reducing costs through economies of scale and deployment of innovative small and medium reactors will have to be accelerated. Over fifty models of such reactors are under design and regulatory approval in different countries.
“Small and medium reactors are a possible game changer for nuclear power”, said David Shropshire, Section Head, Planning and Economic Studies, International Atomic Energy Agency. “They can be deployed by 2030 as a low carbon alternative, meet growing needs for potable water due to the climate change, and support remote and niche applications.”
“Today’s nuclear energy is the product of 60 years of innovation, supplying clean, affordable and reliable electricity on a major scale”, said Ms. Agneta Rising, Director-General, World Nuclear Association, summarizing the deliberations at the workshop. “To meet the growing demand for clean electricity, the global nuclear industry Harmony programme sets out a vision of 25% of global electricity supplied by nuclear by 2050 working alongside other low-carbon energy forms such as renewable energies.”
Deliberations on nuclear energy at the Forum intersected with discussions on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and fossil fuels and the need for finding the right mix suited for different regions and countries. Decarbonizing energy will require contributions from all low-carbon technologies.
The workshop was co-organized by World Nuclear Association and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The impact of U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil industry, market in focus
Right from the day Trump withdrew from Iran’s nuclear deal, announcing his plan for cutting Iranian oil exports to zero, the oil scholars and experts all around the world begun contemplating the impacts of this decision on the Iranian oil industry especially on the country’s oil exports.
Today, near five months after Trump’s announcement and while the U.S. has re-imposed sanctions on Tehran, still nobody has a clear idea about the outcomes of the U.S. actions against Iran, and there is still great disagreement over the magnitude of the impact on Iranian oil industry and especially on crude exports.
However, the oil markets have been through various changes in the past few months based on which we can draw a relatively neat picture of what to expect in the future.
Markets moving toward ‘oversupply’
In January 2017 OPEC and a group of non-OPEC producers including Russia began cutting their output in order to balance an oversupplied market in which the oil prices had fallen from over $100 a barrel to under $30. After OPEC+ agreement the glut was slowly drained and the prices stared to move in an upward trend reaching $80.
The rise in oil prices started to concern Trump’s administration who were close to the midterm elections and also planning to re-impose sanctions on Iran; and the surging oil prices were not at all in line with their interests. This made Trump to begin pushing the U.S. allies in the Middle East to pump more oil in order to lower the surging prices.
In June 2018, led by Saudi Arabia as the biggest U.S. ally in the Middle East, OPEC and non-OPEC group agreed to restore some of their output to help rebalance the market which this time was considered “very tight”.
Afterward, despite the 2017 agreement, some OPEC members were allowed to pump at their maximum levels and also the world’s top three oil producers namely the U.S., Russia and Saudi Arabia, hit new production records.
Oil demand and a broken cycle
After pumping at their highest levels for over four months, Saudi Arabia and U.S. producers had to face the fact that there might not be enough demand for their oil in the markets.
The rising trade tensions between U.S. and China, rising interest rates and currency weakness in emerging markets have raised concerns about a slowdown in global economic growth and consequently in oil demand.
So getting back to the starting point [safe to say in a broken cycle], Saudi’s begun to believe that, once again, the markets were moving toward a glut and even with the cuts in Iranian output, the markets didn’t have the appetite for the new oil flows.
Consequently, in their latest gathering in Abu Dhabi, OPEC+, announced that the current situation “may require new strategies to balance the market.”
Gathered for their 11th meeting on Sunday, the OPEC-Non-OPEC Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee (JMMC) announced that “the Committee reviewed current oil supply and demand fundamentals and noted that 2019 prospects point to higher supply growth than global requirements, taking into account current uncertainties.”
Following the meeting, Saudi Arabia announced its plans to reduce oil supply to world markets by 0.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in December, Reuters reported on Monday.
Iran sanctions and the exemptions
Facing resistance from Saudi Arabia for pumping more oil and pressured by high oil prices, the U.S. government had no choice but to soften their stance against Iran and let go of its “zero Iranian oil” dream.
So, just few days before OPEC+ meeting, when there were talks of a new strategy for cutting output, the U.S. government announced that it has agreed to let eight countries, including China, Turkey, South Korea, Japan and India to continue buying Iranian oil.
With the new waivers coming to effect, a significant amount of the cuts in Iran’s oil exports will be compensated.
The impacts on Iran’s oil industry
So far, affected by the U.S. sanctions, Iran’s oil exports have fallen from an average of more than 2.5 million barrels per day to around 1.5 million bpd in recent weeks.
This means currently near 1 million bps of Iranian crude oil has been wiped from the markets and Iran is currently selling a lot less than what it used to sell before the re-imposition of the sanctions.
So how big the effect of these cuts could project on the country’s economy?
First of all, the oil revenues envisaged in Iran’s current budget for Iranian calendar year 1397 (March 2018-March 2019) is estimated to be 1.01 quadrillion rials (near $26.5 billion) planned based upon $55 oil. This means under a $55 scenario, for this amount of oil revenues to be realized, Iran should sell 2.410 million barrels per day of oil up to March 2019.
What should be taking into consideration here, is the fact that since the beginning of the current Iranian calendar year (March 2018), average oil price has been at least over $60 and according to Reuters ship tracking data, Iran has been exporting 2.5 million barrels of oil and condensate on average during this time span, that is about 400,000 barrels more than what is expected in the country’s budget.
As for the current oil prices, according to the Reuters’ latest report on Sunday, after Saudi Arabia announced a decision for cutting their output by 500,000 bpd in December and considering the U.S. announcement regarding the waivers over Iran sanctions, oil is currently being traded at over $70 per barrel that is still over $15 more than the price based on which Iran’s budget is set.
Aside from the increase which is due to come from the resumption of purchases by the exempted countries, Iranian crude exports are also keeping steady with the demand staying strong in the EU. European buyers including Italy, France, Spain and Croatia continuing their intakes even after announcement of the sanctions.
This indicates that even at the current levels, and even without considering the barrels which are going to be back to Iranian oil exports due to the waivers for the mentioned eight countries, the U.S. sanctions are not having as a severe impact on Iran’s economy and oil industry as they were supposed to.
Let’s not forget the country’s ample domestic storage which can easily absorb the barrels that are not exported. Previously, when the U.S. and EU imposed sanctions on Iran, the country put almost 50 million barrels of crude and condensates on floating storage between 2012 and January 2016.
Meanwhile, the country’s refineries have also been picking up in the past few months. Iran’s gasoline production has surged 50 percent over the last 12 months, with further increases to come, according to the oil ministry.
In the end, considering the global supply and demand patterns, the trade tensions between the U.S. and China and with OPEC+ considering new cuts to be executed in 2019, as well as U.S.’ recent waivers over Iran sanctions, we can see that the odds are quite slim for U.S. sanctions having a significant impact on the Islamic Republic’s economy and its oil industry in the long run.
First published in our partner Tehran Times
Gulf countries pivot towards Israel: Can Arab recognition be foresighted?
The visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Oman surprised the entire world and delivered a message of smoothening...
Turkish Newspaper Implicates UAE’s Crown Prince in Covering Up Murder of Khashoggi
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud, and UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, are close friends and allies,...
WEF initiative pledges to equip 20 million ASEAN workers with digital skills by 2020
A coalition of major tech companies pledged today to develop digital skills for the ASEAN workforce. The pledge, part of...
Revisiting the Qatari crisis
In 2017 the dispute between Qatar and a number of its neighbours Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Oman has...
What Remains of the Relationship between Russia and the European Union
We May Have Stumbled, but We Have Not Fallen Down On Friday November 9, 2018, Chancellor of Austria Sebastian Kurz...
Trump Quietly Orders Elimination of Assange
On June 28th, the Washington Examiner headlined “Pence pressed Ecuadorian president on country’s protection of Julian Assange” and reported that...
High-Growth Firms: Facts, Fiction, and Policy Options for Emerging Economies
Policies to create jobs, promote entrepreneurship and growth are key priorities for many emerging economies. Designing and implementing reforms is...
- Centre and Calm Yourself and Spirit on Restorative Yoga Energy Trail
- Queen Rania of Jordan Wears Ralph & Russo Ready-To-Wear
- OMEGA watches land on-screen in Universal Pictures’ new film First Man
- Experience the Prada Parfum’s Way of Travelling at Qatar Duty Free
- ‘Get Carried Away’ With Luxurious Villa Stays and Complimentary Private Jet Flights
Intelligence3 days ago
Central Asian Jihadists between Turkey and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham
Southeast Asia2 days ago
Letter to heaven: An eulogy to Luang Poo Boonyarith Bundito
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Decoding The MoU Between India And Brunei For Space Research
Africa3 days ago
Zimbabwe’s Platinum Mine Opens For Foreign Investors
Middle East3 days ago
Saudi sports diplomacy: A mirror image of the kingdom’s already challenged policies
Americas2 days ago
Donald Trump and America’s People
Green Planet1 day ago
Why This Planet Is Becoming Uninhabitable
Energy2 days ago
Crunching the numbers: Are we heading for an oil supply shock?