Uncategorized

If Samuel Beckett had made Godot a woman he would have called her Angela. That is the joke in Berlin where every policy is on hold and everyone – from the members of the Eurozone to the prospective nominees for the new European Commission – is waiting for Angela. And she in turn is waiting for the results of the election on September 22nd. Then and only then will we know the shape and balance of the next coalition Government. The result is a period of deep uncertainty, not least over energy policy which is frozen by indecision. Read more

The news that Exxon is to build a $10 bn LNG export facility in Texas marks another significant step forward in the story of shale gas and its disruptive impact on the world energy market. Those who want a parallel for the painful process through which so many of the established forces of the industry on one side and the lobby groups on another have struggled to come to terms with the reality of shale gas over the last three years should read John Heilbron’s fascinating book on GalileoRead more

A report from the Grantham Institute and the Carbon Tracker initiative, titled “Unburnable Carbon”, has produced a studied silence from the energy industry. The study, published last week, is privately being dismissed as the predictable conclusions of people who don’t understand business. But investors should take it more seriously because it opens up some very interesting questions about what energy companies are doing with their money.

In summary, the report says the investment of more capital to find hydrocarbons is a waste of money. More than enough has been already identified to fulfill the world’s needs if we are to meet the carbon limits implied by international agreements on climate change. Under those agreements, carbon use will be reduced over the next four decades, leaving substantial supplies stranded. On this basis, some companies – and therefore the funds which hold them – are carrying dangerous levels of risk, based on the false assumption that the international agreement will never be implemented. The companies are overvalued because some of their assets will never be used.

I have two points of doubt about this thesis. Read more

Is it possible that while one Whitehall Department is constructing a “secret” crisis centre to deal with cyber attacks, another located less than a quarter of a mile away is preparing to sell part of the UK’s national infrastructure to the very people behind those attacks?

The establishment of a cyber security centre was reported by the FT last week. Anyone who doubts that its primary focus is the Chinese should read the report produced a couple of months ago by the specialist US consultancy Mandiant.

The company identified attacks originating in a building occupied by the General Staff Department of the People’s Liberation Army in Shanghai which had targeted 141 companies across 20 major industries. China has denied official involvement but has not yet agreed to stop the attacks.

Unfortunately no one seems to have mentioned these developments to Ed Davey, energy secretary, or EDF, the company which wants to develop new nuclear power stations in Britain. If the price and risk allocation for that deal is agreed, and Mr Davey has said that agreement is close, the next question is how the deal will be funded. EDF does not have the capacity to find the £14bn required and so has been looking to Chinese partners to provide much of the cash. Read more

Sizewell A (left) and Sizewell B (right), two generations of British nuclear power on the Suffolk coast

Sizewell A (left) and Sizewell B (right), two generations of British nuclear power generation on the Suffolk coast

Why is it proving so difficult to close the deal on new nuclear in Britain? In part, of course, there is the normal arm wrestling negotiation. This is focused on the so called “strike price” – an energy price below which the suppliers will get compensation from the state – and on the allocation of risk around a £14bn construction contract.

The UK government wants a strike price of around £65 to £70 per MWh which is high but probably politically defensible. They well remember that in 2008 EDF talked about a price of £45 per MWh. EDF now wants something between £95 and £100, but they can probably afford to accept the Government’s figure and still make a reasonable profit.

The allocation of the risks is even more important than the strike price. Unless the Government is careful it could end up pay enormous sums for capacity which is underused because cheaper supplies will be available to consumers. If the company gets it wrong, a bad deal would overhang its finances for decades. Read more