Connect with us

Emerging Markets

Rosneft’s massive Arctic oil push undermines BP’s green turn



BP’s chief executive Bernard Looney has staked his leadership on the oil company producing less oil. Rosneft’s chief executive Igor Sechin is taking the opposite side of that bet, with a planned Rbs10tn ($134bn) wager on a vast new project in the Arctic.

That BP owns nearly 20 per cent of the Russian oil producer appears to make no difference to the pugnacious Mr Sechin’s faith in crude. But perhaps it should to Mr Looney.

Mr Sechin officially announced Rosneft’s Vostok Oil project was under way in November during a tête-à-tête with his old friend President Vladimir Putin. It is in many ways the antithesis of Mr Looney’s commitments to make BP a net zero company by 2050, and reduce its reliance on fossil fuel revenues.

The scale of the project is huge. Seeking to tap an estimated 6bn tonnes of crude, Rosneft will create 15 new towns to house the 400,000 people required to both build the wells and infrastructure and operate them. A fleet of ice-capable tankers is being built.

When fully operational, Rosneft hopes to export 100m tonnes of oil a year. Trafigura, the trading house, has purchased a 10 per cent stake in the project, which is also being pitched to potential Chinese and Indian investors.

Mr Looney, who became chief executive of BP in February 2020, joined Rosneft’s board in June, one of two seats the British company holds thanks to its 19.75 per cent shareholding — the largest stake after that of Mr Putin’s government. By then, the details of the project were at a rubber-stamping stage, having that month been initially approved as “ambitious and promising” by Mr Putin.

But the jarring dichotomy between his vision of the oil industry’s future and the one on which Mr Sechin is staking the investment of BP and every other Rosneft shareholder must have been obvious.

Less than a month before Mr Looney joined Rosneft’s board, he told the Financial Times that the slump in oil demand caused by the coronavirus pandemic may have meant that “peak oil” demand had already passed. Mr Sechin appeared not to be listening: around the same time, in another meeting with Mr Putin, he was requesting tax breaks for exploratory drilling. 

BP has said that it needs to continue participating in some lucrative hydrocarbon projects to fund its investments in cleaner energy. And Rosneft certainly provides Mr Looney with strong reasons to ignore the gulf between the two companies’ outlook on their industry.

BP earned $785m in dividends from its Rosneft stake in 2019 and booked $2.3bn of pre-tax profit arising from that investment. Rosneft’s wells account for about a third of BP’s entire annual hydrocarbon production.

In its annual report, BP justifies incorporating Rosneft’s business and its vast reserves on an equity basis by arguing that it exerts “significant influence” over the Russian company, “including BP’s participation in decision-making”. But continuing to make that assertion while also preaching a business model that its partner clearly disagrees with could get tricky.

Indeed, Didier Casimiro, Rosneft’s first vice-president, said in September that BP’s new green turn was creating “an existential crisis” for the oil market, and that state-backed giants such as Rosneft would benefit from the move.

BP declined to respond to questions regarding Vostok Oil but told the FT that Rosneft was a “strategic partner” and that the shareholding “is an important part of our broader portfolio, providing us with a strong position in Russia which has some of the most resilient hydrocarbon resources in the world”.

Rosneft did not respond to questions from the FT. Last month, it unveiled its own “climate goals”, which are far from BP’s ambitions: a plan to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 20m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over the next 15 years is a slower rate of reduction than the 3.1m tonnes the company managed to shed in 2018-19.

Handily, BP has said Rosneft is exempt from its emissions pledge. In other words, the company will bank its dividends and share in its profits but overlook its carbon dioxide. 

That stance may become unsustainable, in all senses of the word. Mr Looney may struggle to rebrand BP as a sustainable energy group while a company over which it claims “significant influence” is digging up the Arctic to secure billions of barrels of oil.

Turning a blind eye to Mr Sechin’s quest to keep pumping, selling and burning more hydrocarbons is one thing. But condoning a massive new project in the Arctic, where rapidly rising temperatures and retreating ice have made it ground zero in the war on climate change, is quite another.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Emerging Markets

Toyota faces Thai bribery probe over tax dispute




Toyota is under investigation in Thailand over allegations that consultants hired by the world’s largest carmaker tried to bribe local officials in a tax dispute, according to Thai authorities, court documents and a person with knowledge of the matter.

The probe followed a filing last month in which Toyota revealed that it had reported “possible anti-bribery violations” related to its Thai subsidiary to the US Department of Justice and Securities Exchange Commission.

Toyota is one of the biggest foreign investors in Thailand, where it makes a large range of cars, vans and pick-up trucks for the local market and for export. The country is Toyota’s biggest manufacturing hub in south-east Asia. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, car sales had been strong in a market, where it has a 31 per cent share.

This month, Thailand’s Court of Justice said in a statement that it would take action against any of its judges found to have taken bribes. The statement, which the court described as a move to “clarify facts” in a news report on a foreign website, directly referenced a tax dispute involving Toyota.

“If the Court of Justice has received information or explicitly found that any judge committed an act of corruption to their duty, whether it is about bribery or not, the Court of Justice will resolutely investigate and punish any action which dishonours judges, undermines the neutrality of the court, or causes society [to] lose faith in the Thai justice system,” it said.

According to the court, the case involved a tax dispute worth Bt10bn ($320m) between Toyota Motor Thailand and tax authorities over imports of parts for its Prius hybrid model. 

The affair dates back to 2015, when Toyota’s Thai subsidiary was accused by local customs authorities of understating taxes by claiming that the imported Prius vehicles were assembled from completely knocked down kits, or imported parts that were later assembled in Thailand.

CKDs would have been subject to a discounted tax rate under a Japanese-Thai free trade agreement, but if the cars were fully assembled before being imported they would have attracted a much higher rate. 

Toyota appealed against a decision by customs authorities to impose a higher duty in 2015, but lost. 

Thailand’s Court of Justice has said that it had accepted a petition to review the case, but had not yet begun hearing it.

In its regulatory filing last month, Toyota warned that the US investigations regarding its Thai subsidiary could result in civil or criminal penalties, but the company has not disclosed any detail on the allegations.

In a statement, Toyota said it was co-operating with the investigations and declined to comment on the tax dispute in Thailand. “We take any allegations of wrongdoing seriously and are committed to ensuring that our business practices comply with all applicable government regulations,” it said.

The SEC and the DOJ declined to comment.

Source link

Continue Reading

Emerging Markets

Boris Johnson cancels India trip after Covid cases surge in country




UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s trip to India this month has been cancelled as the country battles a new variant and a surge in coronavirus cases that is overwhelming hospitals.

A joint statement by the British and Indian governments said the decision to scrap the visit scheduled for next week was prompted by the “current coronavirus situation”.

The trip, during which Johnson had hoped to discuss the prospects of a closer trading partnership with India, was initially planned to run for four days but had been scaled back. The two leaders will speak remotely instead, with plans to meet in person later this year.

The cancellation came as India’s capital city region has been put under lockdown and authorities have prohibited the use of oxygen except for essential services, as the country battles a surge in coronavirus cases that is overwhelming hospitals.

India continues to set single-day records of coronavirus cases, reporting more than 273,000 new infections and 1,619 deaths on Monday, with the number of new cases growing by an average of 7 per cent a day, one of the fastest rates in any big country.

The surge is believed to be linked to a new B.1.617 variant that was first discovered in the country.

British health officials are investigating whether the variant should be reclassified from a “variant under investigation” to a “variant of concern” following the discovery of 77 cases in the UK.

“To escalate it up the ranking we need to know that it’s increased transmissibility, increased severity, or vaccine-evading, and we just don’t have that yet, but we’re looking at the data on a daily basis”, Dr Susan Hopkins, a senior medical adviser at Public Health England, said on Sunday.

Officials in Delhi announced it would impose a strict lockdown for a week, following Mumbai and other cities that have already placed curbs on movement.

States are running short of beds, drugs and oxygen, leading the central government to restrict use of the gas. “The supply of oxygen for industrial purposes by manufacturers and suppliers is prohibited forthwith from 22/04/2021 till further orders,” the central government said.

Arvind Kejriwal, chief minister of Delhi, said “oxygen has become an emergency” in the region because its quota had been diverted to other states. He warned there were “less than 100 ICU beds” available.

The new restrictions have been imposed even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ruling Bharatiya Janata party have hosted huge political rallies and allowed religious festivals attended by tens of thousands of maskless people in recent weeks.

Amit Shah, India’s home minister, told the Indian Express newspaper that he was “concerned” about the variant and the “surge is mainly because of the new mutants of the virus”. But he was “confident we will win” over the disease and said there was not yet a need to impose a national lockdown.

Bed shortages in India have forced authorities to re-establish emergency coronavirus hospitals in banquet halls, train stations and hotels that had been shut down following the previous peak in September. Crematoriums in the state of Gujarat and Delhi are running 24 hours a day, while cemeteries are running out of burial spaces.

Coronavirus patients have also been struggling to access medicines. More than 800 injections of remdesivir, an antiviral drug commonly used in India as part of Covid-19 treatment, were stolen from a hospital in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, at the weekend.

India is also facing a vaccine supply crunch and has frozen international exports of jabs to meet domestic demand. New Delhi pledged on Friday to increase monthly production of Covaxin, a vaccine made by Indian manufacturer Bharat Biotech, to 100m from 10m by September. The government also said last week that it would fast-track the approval of foreign vaccines in an attempt to boost supply and cleared Russia’s Sputnik V for use in the country.

The majority of the more than 120m Indians that have been vaccinated have received the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab manufactured by Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest manufacturer. The Serum Institute has struggled to increase its monthly capacity of more than 60m doses a month due to a fire at its plant earlier in the year and equipment supply shortages from the US.

Additional reporting by John Burn-Murdoch in London

Source link

Continue Reading

Emerging Markets

The limits of China’s taming of tech




The record fine handed out this month to Alibaba, the Chinese ecommerce giant, was a welcome step toward combating anti-competitive behaviour. The $2.8bn penalty put Alibaba and other tech companies on notice that creating siloed fiefdoms designed to trap customers and merchants within their ecosystems will not be tolerated.

It was addressing a longstanding problem. Many of China’s ecommerce companies operate “walled gardens” that prevent interactions with rival platforms. For example, Alibaba’s Taobao ecommerce app keeps users from paying for goods using the payment app of rival Tencent. Tencent’s social media app, WeChat, prevents clips from being shared directly from ByteDance’s video-sharing app. 

Last week China’s internet and market regulators signalled the seriousness of their intent. They gave tech companies one month to fix anti-competitive practices, telling them to conduct “comprehensive self-inspections” and “completely rectify” problems, following which they would need to publicly promise to abide by the rules. The aim is create a commercially open and competitive internet.

It is tempting to argue that regulators in the west could take a leaf out of China’s book. But to hold China up as an example of competitive best practice would be to ignore the elephant in the room. Although Beijing is giving its monopolistically-minded internet companies — which are almost all private enterprises — a rap on the knuckles, it shows no sign of applying the same standards to vast swaths of the economy that have been dominated by state-owned giants for decades. 

The market dominance of these behemoths of state capitalism is an issue that affects not only domestic competitors but also foreign multinationals that operate in China. A trenchant joint paper last week from the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank, and the Rhodium Group, a consultancy, took aim at the increasingly unfair advantages that this system gives China.

While it is true that China has opened up sectors such as financial services to foreign capital in recent years and allowed foreign brands to win market share in luxury goods and pharmaceuticals, broad sectors of the economy remain fully or partially closed or to overseas investors. 

Often the barriers erected to block or stymie competition are informal. Authorities can deliberately favour domestic companies in public procurement, are more ready to grant approval for licenses, subject foreign firms to arbitrary inspections or require them to re-engineer products to meet idiosyncratic domestic standards.

Such drawbacks are not new. But they are taking on an extra urgency as Chinese companies become leaders in an increasing number of industries and the country’s technological prowess draws level with the US and Europe in a list of industries. The key problem now, says the ECFR/Rhodium report, is that Chinese multinationals are using the advantage of a protected home market to build up resources that they then deploy in competition with western counterparts abroad.

This sets the scene for friction. China should extend its anti-monopolistic scrutiny from its own privately owned internet companies to several state-dominated sectors of its economy, taking care to open to foreign multinationals as much as domestic competitors. If it decides against doing this — as is likely — it will be furnishing Europeans and Americans with ammunition to argue against extending access to Chinese corporations in their own markets.

Source link

Continue Reading