- New sources of pressure on Shell’s oil sands projects
- Europe, slightly losing its climate cool
- Tullow, Uganda and more in energy headlines
- ‘Neither Texas nor Pickens has turned away from wind energy’
- US independents hunt for onshore oil
- Fossil fuel use 2034? Not much different
- Iraqi oil and gas production: Geopolitical compromises and Kurdish autonomy
- Socially responsible investing will either become universal, or ever more marginal
- Are electric cars coming too soon?
- Earnings dropping, energy prices rising
Europe has long viewed itself as a leader in tackling climate change, with deeper emissions cuts promised than any comparable developed world power. But in the aftermath of Copenhagen, its confidence is crumbling somewhat.
Some of the tension is over the bloc’s variable commitment on those cuts – either 20 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020, or 30 per cent if an agreement was struck at Copenhagen. Discussions on whether that 30 per cent should be offered have continued since the conference ended with a weaker agreement than many had hoped for. Poland and Italy, as Bloomberg reports, oppose raising the targets while the UK, France and Germany want to keep holding out the promise. France, meanwhile, is keen on a carbon border tax, something the broader EU appears less keen on.
By Neil Hume
It is 40 minutes since trading on the London Stock Exchange got under way on Monday morning — and still no statement from either International Power or GDF-Suez on the Sunday Times bid report, reproduced in part below.
FRANCE’s state-controlled power giant GDF Suez has made a takeover approach to International Power, the £5 billion energy group.
The company has appointed Rothschild, BNP Paribas and Goldman Sachs to work on the structuring of a cash-and-share bid. Nomura, the investment bank, is believed to be providing advice to International Power but the company has not yet formally appointed an adviser. It is likely to come under pressure to issue a clarifying statement to the stock exchange in the near future. Both companies declined to comment on their talks.
Given that both will have come under pressure from the Takeover Panel to say something, could the reason for the radio silence be the simple fact that there are no takeover talks at the moment?
Some investors are getting riled that the prospect of Shell’s investment in expensive oil sands production could run foul of both the moral and economic costs of the high-emissions fuel source.
Greenpeace last year put together an interesting report arguing that the confluence of cost factors – both direct and as a result of carbon pricing – could make the oil sands projects uneconomic. Now it seems a number of investors in Shell are picking up on the theme.
The Guardian reports that 141 individual and institutional investors have added a resolution on the agenda for the oil major’s AGM, in May.