As the sun rises and the world slowly awakens, my mind drifts to the philosophical concept of the "Principle of Sufficient Reason."

It was four o'clock in the morning, and the light of the new day was present here in Karlstad, Sweden, a beautiful city near the border of Norway, just one hundred and fifty-eight kilometres from Oslo. The light of early dawn reminded me of a piece I wrote last year on the famous chess match between Fischer and Spassky in Reykjavik, Iceland, back in 1972.

The article, "Fischer vs. Spassky, draw, game no. 20”, an analog on the present natural gas supply crisis rocking Europe, drew comparisons between the intensity of the match and the ongoing energy crisis in the continent:

—”To be more precise, it is tucked away in the icy Atlantic Ocean in its northern universe, far from the economic and geopolitical nightmares of its smaller cousin, the Baltic Sea. If there is one fascinating thing because of its complexity and inexplicable intelligence, it is the creation of the biospheres in which we live and, why not say it, the conception of man. The same unknowns arise concerning the diversity of the ecosystems that envelop the planet and never cease to amaze us with their insightful and mysterious compositions. In Iceland, many of these paradigms converge. The light of the solar constellation shines with such intensity during the summer, causing a strange phenomenon - for those of us who are not from there, of course - during which night disappears, and brightness spreads throughout the twenty-four hours of the day. Then, that same stream of brightness fades as autumn approaches and disappears entirely in winter, turning into eternal darkness that troubles the human soul.

When I read some perceptive journalistic observations this morning from various sources throughout the world. Among them, an essay published in Le Monde Diplomatique, entitled: —“The global South defies the West on Ukraine… Pursuing self-interest in a multipolar world, caught my attention as it presented a unique perspective on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The truth belongs to everyone; no media outlet should ever be judged for their views. The "your truth" or "my truth" concept is intriguing but ultimately flawed. As individuals, we are all seekers of truth and not possessors. It's crucial to remember that even if we don't fully comprehend the truth, we can still stand up for it or reject it.

That said, speaking of Ukraine, its history dates to the year 882 when Kievan Rus was established, a federation of several East Slavic tribes, with the territory of Ukraine in the centre. It soon became the largest and most powerful state in Europe. However, in 1256, it was invaded by the Mongols, meaning there is little knowledge about it today. After its disintegration from Kievan Rus, one of the principalities of Galicia-Volhynian became the Kingdom of Ruthenia. It joined Lithuania in 1349, forming the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenian, and Austinian. This territory was incorporated into the Republic of the Two Nations two centuries later, which joined present-day Poland and Lithuania. In 1648, the Cossack Ukraine was formed after the Khmelnytskyi rebellion, lasting until the mid-eighteenth century, when it would disappear after years of progressive division. Most of the Ukrainian territory would remain within the Russian Empire created in 1721.

Also, the history of Ukraine can be analyzed through literature, and what better choice than the story of Anton Chekhov: “The Lady with the Dog", first published in 1899, it describes an adulterous affair between an unhappily married Moscow banker and a young married woman that begins while both are vacationing alone in Yalta. Or its political history with “The Yalta Conference” in the Russian resort town of Crimea from February 4-11, 1945. It was a meeting of the minds between U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin. They came together to create a new geopolitical order during World War Two. This conference played a crucial role in shaping the post-war world, and its far-reaching implications are still felt today. 

Without a doubt, every situation can be simple or difficult depending on your point of view. Who is more difficult to pin down than former US President Donald Trump. President Trump is currently the focus of multiple articles in the worldwide press since the Durham report severely condemns the FBI's 2016 Trump campaign investigation. However, before passing any judgments, it is imperative to consider everything.

We all have unique complexities that exist within us. These intricacies can be a mixture of fears, insecurities, frustrations, and anxieties we carry throughout life. As Confucius said, some individuals enjoy finding faults in others. These insecurities can be especially damaging when it comes from a loved one, such as a partner, mother, father, or even a politician. However, it's important to remember that politicians have been the same throughout history (BC or AC), no matter who's in power.

Humans have always been interested beings that seek explanations for the world's mysteries. The "Principle of Sufficient Reason " has greatly influenced our understanding of causality and how things happen. It suggests that everything that occurs must have a reason behind it and that it defines the outcome. This concept is fundamental in philosophy and has helped us develop a more rational and logical approach to understanding the world. By using this approach, we can examine events and phenomena more effectively and come up with logical explanations that satisfy our needs; regrettably, this hasn't always been the case.

If we apply the "Principle of Sufficient Reason," we could determine whether it had sufficient justification in the first case, which refers to Ukraine, to limit it to the following assertion:

— It is undeniable that stable and reliable power and fuel supply are crucial for the electric industry. We must not overlook this fact. However, we can be hopeful that politicians have learned from past mistakes. A prime example is Europe, which once relied on a single pipeline and a lone supplier, resulting in a tragic error.

—In the instance of former President Donald Trump, who has the well-deserved moniker "hard to kill, the antagonistic media, to the point of losing consciousness, have made the former head of state a victim with all the possibilities of being president again in 2024 as described in the article of the Spiegel: Horror Scenario Germany Prepares for Possible Re-Election of Donald Trump. Berlin is preparing for the possibility that Donald Trump could beat Joe Biden in the next election. That outcome would likely be a disaster for Ukraine, NATO, and the looming climate crisis. Diplomats have begun establishing contacts with the former president's camp to avoid being blindsided as they were in 2016.

Most read…

Pursuing self-interest in a multipolar world

The global South defies the West on Ukraine

The US and the West claim Russia’s war on Ukraine is a clash between democracy and autocracy. Elsewhere, past US military interventions, and self-serving failures to act, produce different conclusions.

Le Monde Diplomatique by Alain Gresh

Durham report sharply criticizes FBI’s 2016 Trump campaign probe

Special counsel says “extremely troublesome” failures appear to stem from bias that kept agents from carefully examining evidence

WP By Devlin Barrett and Perry Stein, May 15, 2023 

China’s Demand for Oil Hits Record as IEA Raises Global Forecasts

Outlook highlights widening divide between booming demand in the developing world and lackluster requirements in Europe and North America

WSJ By Will Horner, May 16, 2023

French bank BNP to stop funding new gas projects

The move follows repeated criticisms from activists that the banking giant is falling short on climate protection.

Le Monde with AFP,  May 11, 2023

Macron’s calls for ‘regulatory pause’ in EU environmental laws wink at conservatives

He said that, compared to other nations, "we have already approved several environmental legislation at the European level."

POLITICO EU BY FEDERICA DI SARIO AND GIORGIO LEALI, MAY 12, 2023 

Vietnam approves plan to boost wind, LNG by 2030

According to government estimates, the plan will require $134.7 billion in capital for new power plants and grids, with some of that money likely to come from foreign investors.

By Khanh Vu and Francesco Guarascio

How can strategic investment achieve both economic growth and social progress?… What is the role of renewable energy and battery storage in achieving the goals of the low-carbon economy?…

The AES Corporation President Andrés Gluski, Dominican Republic Minister of Industry and Commerce Victor Bisonó, and Rolando González-Bunster, CEO of InterEnergy Group, spoke at the Latin American Cities Conferences panel on "Facilitating Sustainable Investment in Strategic Sectors" on April 12 in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

Pursuing self-interest in a multipolar world

The global South defies the West on Ukraine

The US and the West claim Russia’s war on Ukraine is a clash between democracy and autocracy. Elsewhere, past US military interventions, and self-serving failures to act, produce different conclusions.

Le Monde Diplomatique by Alain Gresh

Is the war in Ukraine a global ‘battle between democracy and autocracy’, as US president Joe Biden calls it, a view echoed by almost all Western commentators and politicians? No, says American journalist Robert D Kaplan, ‘however counter-intuitive that seems. After all, Ukraine itself for many years has been a weak, corrupt, institutionally underdeveloped basket case of a democracy.’ Reporters Without Borders ranked it 97th out of 180 in its 2021 World Press Freedom Index. ‘The fight,’ Kaplan continued, ‘is for something broader and more fundamental: the right of peoples the world over to determine their own futures and to be free from naked aggression’ (1). And he makes the obvious point that many dictatorships are US allies.

As positions become entrenched in wartime, dissenting voices on Ukraine are rarely heard in the richer North. But in the South, the so-called ‘rest of the world’ to which the majority of humanity belongs, people see this conflict quite differently. World Health Organisation president Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus lamented that the world does not give equal importance to Black and white lives, or to those of Yemenis and Tigrayans compared with Ukrainians: ‘Some are more equal than others’ (2). He drew the same conclusion during the Covid-19 crisis.

This is one of the reasons why many countries, especially in Africa, have abstained from UN resolutions on Ukraine — and not just dictatorships but also South Africa, Armenia, Mexico, Senegal, Brazil and India (3). A small number of non-Western countries have adopted sanctions on Russia.

As Trita Parsi (4), executive vice-president of the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft thinktank, pointed out in late March after the Doha Forum (a gathering of more than 2,000 international politicians, journalists and intellectuals), the countries of the South ‘largely sympathise with the plight of the Ukrainian people and view Russia as the aggressor. But Western demands that they make costly sacrifices by cutting off economic ties with Russia to uphold a “rules-based order” have begotten an allergic reaction. That order hasn’t been rules-based; instead, it has allowed the US to violate international law with impunity.’

Why Saudi Arabia backs ‘neutrality’

The stance of key US ally Saudi Arabia, which didn’t join the campaign against Russia and instead called for negotiations between the two parties, is emblematic. A series of factors has encouraged its ‘neutrality’. The creation of OPEC+ in 2020, which brought Russia into negotiations on oil production quotas, has resulted in fruitful cooperation between Moscow and the kingdom, which even sees the relationship as ‘strategic’ (5) — doubtless over-optimistically. Observers noted that in August 2021 Saudi deputy defence minister Prince Khalid bin Salman attended the Moscow arms fair and signed a military cooperation agreement complementing his country’s longstanding collaboration with Russia on civil nuclear development.

Today we are witnessing the beginning of a shift towards a multipolar system. The position of some countries on this war does not seek to defend the principles of freedom and democracy but their interests in maintaining the existing world order.

Al-Riyadh

More broadly, Russia has become a key interlocutor in all regional crises as the only power with ongoing relations with all participants, including those at odds, or even at war, with each other: Israel and Iran; the Houthis and the United Arab Emirates (UAE); Turkey and Kurdish groups.

At the same time, relations between Riyadh and Washington are deadlocked. The dominant view in Saudi Arabia is that the US is no longer a trustworthy ally, given its abandonment of Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak in 2011, its abject withdrawal from Afghanistan, its willingness to negotiate the Iran nuclear deal without considering its regional allies’ reservations, and its silence in the face of Houthi drone attacks on Saudi oil installations, even when their friend Donald Trump was still president. And things have only got worse since the election of Joe Biden, who threatened to treat Saudi Arabia as a pariah following journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder in October 2018, for which US intelligence agencies blame the all-powerful Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman (MBS). Biden has also criticised the Saudis’ role in the war in Yemen.

These US positions brought no policy shift from the Democratic administration, except for Biden’s refusal to have any direct contact with MBS. This went down badly in Riyadh. When President Biden finally tried to contact MBS, specifically to ask the kingdom to increase oil production to offset the embargo against Russia, MBS refused to take his call, according to the Wall Street Journal  (6). Riyadh wonders why it was contacted last and its support taken for granted.

The Saudi press has been critical of the US too. As the influential Saudi daily Al-Riyadh said, ‘The old world order that emerged after the second world war was bipolar; then it became unipolar after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today we are witnessing the beginning of a shift towards a multipolar system.’ And it added, pointedly, ‘The position of some countries on this war does not seek to defend the principles of freedom and democracy but their interests in maintaining the existing world order’ (7).

‘Last chance for US hegemony’

A similar position is widely shared in the Middle East, based on two sets of arguments. First, that Russia does not bear sole responsibility for the war, which is above all a confrontation between great powers for world hegemony, and that what is at stake is not respect for international law, and therefore it does not concern the Arab world. An op-ed in Al-Ahram, the unofficial daily of the Egyptian government (another US ally), described ‘a broader confrontation between the US and Western countries on one side and countries that reject their hegemony over the world on the other. The US seeks to recalibrate the world order after realising that — in its current form — it does not achieve its interests, but rather strengthens China at its expense. The US is terrified of the impending end of its dominion over the world, and it is aware that the current conflict in Ukraine is the last chance to preserve this position’ (8).

The Arab media’s other line of argument is that the West has double standards. Democracy and freedom? War crimes? Peoples’ right to self-determination? Is the US, which bombed Serbia and Libya, and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, best qualified to defend international law? Hasn’t it also used cluster munitions, phosphorous bombs and depleted uranium projectiles? The US military’s crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq have been widely documented but never prosecuted. And, without denigrating the Ukrainians’ suffering, thus far the destruction inflicted on Afghanistan and Iraq far exceeds the current tragedy.

Should Vladimir Putin be brought before the International Criminal Court? Washington has yet to ratify its statute. One op-ed noted the ironic contrast between the 2003 Economist front cover of George W Bush post-Iraq invasion under the headline ‘Now, the waging of peace’ and its recent cover showing Putin in profile, with a tank for a brain, and the headline ‘Where will he stop?’ (9).

Palestine has been completely occupied for decades (whereas Ukraine has only been partially occupied for a few weeks) and remains an open wound in the Middle East. Yet it inspires no solidarity among Western governments, which continue to give Israel carte blanche. Mohammad Kreishan writes, ‘It is worth remembering the chants shouted at demonstrations, the angry declarations that, over years and decades, have begged for help for the Palestinian people, bombed in Gaza or living under the threat of incursions, murders, assassinations, land seizures and house demolitions in the West Bank, an area that all international resolutions regard as occupied territory’ (10).

President Zelensky’s appeal to the Knesset, drawing a parallel between his country’s situation and that of an Israel ‘threatened with destruction’, outraged many. But he didn’t get the expected support from Tel Aviv, which remains close to Moscow (11). And finally, the differential treatment given to white European refugees from Ukraine and those from the ‘rest of the world’ — brown, Black and mixed race — has caused bitterness in the Middle East and throughout the South.

It can be countered that this is nothing new: Arab opinion and media have always been anti-Western; ‘the Arab street’, as European and North American governments sometimes contemptuously call it, carries little weight. After all, in the first Gulf war (1990-91), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria let themselves be drawn into the war alongside the US against the wishes of their people. However, in the case of Ukraine, these countries, even long-standing US allies, have distanced themselves from Washington — Saudi Arabia is not alone. On 28 February, a few days after the Russian invasion, UAE foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan met his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Moscow and welcomed the close ties between their countries. And Egypt did not respond to G7 ambassadors’ undiplomatic injunction to condemn the Russian invasion. Even Morocco, another faithful US ally, conveniently missed the 2 March UN General Assembly vote on Ukraine.

At the same time, the US, with tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in the Gulf, bases in Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE, and the Fifth Fleet on constant patrol, remains a major player in the region and it may be risky to ignore or even antagonise it. Especially since the various Arab countries — and the South more broadly — have not adopted their stance with the purpose of restructuring the world or mounting strategic opposition to the North — unlike the non-aligned movement in the 1960s and 70s, which allied with the socialist camp — but out of perceived self-interest. To paraphrase Palmerston, in the post-cold war era, states no longer have permanent friends or sponsors, they have fluctuating, faltering, time-limited allies. Will Russia’s setbacks and the sanctions imposed on it lead some of them to rethink their indulgence towards Moscow?

As old ideological divisions fade, and with Washington’s promises of a ‘new international order’ made after the first Gulf war (1990-91) abandoned in the Iraqi sand, a multipolar world is emerging amid the chaos. It offers greater room for manoeuvre to the ‘rest of the world’. But the flag of revolt against the West and its disorder does not (yet) constitute a roadmap for a world run according to international law rather than the rule of the strongest.

*Alain Gresh is a journalist and director of the online journals Orient XXI and Afrique XXI.

Durham report sharply criticizes FBI’s 2016 Trump campaign probe

Special counsel says “extremely troublesome” failures appear to stem from bias that kept agents from carefully examining evidence

WP By Devlin Barrett and Perry Stein, May 15, 2023 

Special counsel John Durham has issued a long-awaited report that sharply criticizes the FBI for investigating the 2016 Trump campaign based on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence” — a conclusion that may fuel rather than end partisan debate about politicization within the Justice Department and FBI.

Durham was tapped in 2019 by President Donald Trump’s attorney general, William P. Barr, to reexamine how government agents hunted for possible links between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere in the presidential election. The very appointment — of an investigator to reinvestigate the investigators — led to significant criticism from current and former law enforcement officials.

The report, coming almost four years to the day since Durham’s assignment began, will probably be derided by Democrats as the end of a partisan boondoggle. Republicans will have to wrestle with a much-touted investigation that has cost taxpayers more than $6.5 million and didn’t send a single person to jail, even though Trump once predicted that Durham would uncover the “crime of the century.”

On Monday, Trump nevertheless claimed victory, posting on social media that the report showed “the American Public was scammed, just as it is being scammed right now by those who don’t want to see GREATNESS for AMERICA!”

Much of the FBI conduct described by the Durham report was previously known and had been denounced in a 2019 report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, which did not find “documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct.”

Durham goes further in his criticism, however, arguing that the FBI rushed to investigate Trump in a case known as Crossfire Hurricane, even as it proceeded cautiously on allegations related to then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In particular, the report notes that while the FBI warned Clinton’s team when agents learned of possible evidence by a foreign actor to garner influence with her, agents did not give a similar defensive briefing to the Trump campaign before quickly launching an investigation.

The FBI’s handling of key aspects of the case was “seriously deficient,” Durham wrote, causing the agency “severe reputational harm.” That failure could have been prevented if FBI employees hadn’t embraced “seriously flawed information” and instead followed their “own principles regarding objectivity and integrity,” the report said.

As examples of confirmation bias by the FBI, Durham cites: the FBI decision to go forward with the probe despite “a complete lack of information from the Intelligence Community that corroborated the hypothesis upon which the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was predicated”; agents ignoring information that exonerated key suspects in the case; and the FBI being unable to corroborate “a single substantive allegation” in a dossier of Trump allegations compiled by British former spy Christopher Steele.

Durham’s appointment as special counsel was unusual, in that Barr essentially tasked him with investigating the work done for a prior special counsel: Robert S. Mueller III. Durham’s probe produced paltry results in court: Two people that he charged with crimes were found not guilty, while a former FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to altering an email used to help a colleague prepare a court application for surveillance of a Trump adviser.

After the second acquittal last year, Democrats and some lawyers urged the Justice Department to shut down Durham’s office as a waste of taxpayer money and time.

The report issued Monday said Durham and his team conducted more than 48o interviews, reviewed more than 1 million documents, executed seven search warrants and, with a grand jury, served more than 190 subpoenas.

It ended with a short recommendation for the FBI: Create a position for an FBI agent or lawyer to provide oversight of politically sensitive investigations. That person would be tasked with challenging every step of such investigations, including whether officials appropriately adhered to the rules governing applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which handles matters of national security.

After the inspector general’s 2019 report criticizing the FBI’s conduct, Director Christopher A. Wray implemented many changes at the agency, which has been at the center of fierce political debates since the 2016 election.

The senior FBI officials who ran the Crossfire Hurricane investigation left the agency years ago. But they have long said the bureau had a duty to investigate the allegations against the Trump campaign.

Durham sent his report to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday, and Garland sent it to top members of the Senate and House judiciary committees on Monday afternoon, a Justice Department official said. The report contains no classified information, and Garland told lawmakers he released the report with no “additions, redactions, or other modifications.” Garland did not submit to Congress a 29-page classified appendix but said he would arrange for members to view it.

In a statement responding to the report, the FBI said the conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Durham examined “was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time. Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented. This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect.”

A longtime federal prosecutor who was U.S. attorney in Connecticut during the Trump administration, Durham had previously taken on politically sensitive investigations in Washington — including cases involving the CIA and the FBI. But the special counsel appointment was his highest profile and most politically charged undertaking.

When the inspector general, Michael Horowitz, issued his findings in 2019, Durham took the unusual step of publicly disagreeing with him on a key point — disputing Horowitz’s finding that the decision to open the investigation into Trump’s campaign was justified.

“Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened,” Durham said at the time.

Yet on Monday, he appeared to back away from that criticism, writing “there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine” allegations brought to the agency by an Australian diplomat who told them of alarming statements made over drinks by a low-level Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos.

The status of key investigations involving Donald Trump

Durham’s report suggests he thinks the FBI should have opened a preliminary investigation, rather than a full investigation, based on the Australian’s tip. The report highlights a conversation between two FBI officials at the time who appeared to bemoan the weakness of the new case.

“Damn that’s thin,” wrote one FBI official in early August 2016. “I know,” replied another, “it sucks.”

Durham’s final report comes against a backdrop of two failed prosecutions. Igor Danchenko — a private researcher who was a primary source for a dossier of allegations about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia — was acquitted in October of lying to the FBI about where he got his information. Durham personally argued much of the government’s case in that trial, in federal court in Alexandria.

Last year, a jury in D.C. federal court acquitted cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann, whom Durham also had charged with lying to the FBI. A former FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, was sentenced to one year of probation after admitting in a 2020 plea deal with Durham that he had altered a government email used to justify secret surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page.

The report means Durham’s time as a special counsel is coming to an end, while two other special counsels continue: one to investigate Trump and people close to him for classified documents found at his home, as well as events leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, and another to investigate President Biden and people close to him for classified documents found at his home and office.

China’s Demand for Oil Hits Record as IEA Raises Global Forecasts

Outlook highlights widening divide between booming demand in the developing world and lackluster requirements in Europe and North America

WSJ By Will Horner, May 16, 2023

China’s insatiable demand for oil is growing at a faster-than-expected pace, threatening to tighten crude markets and send oil prices higher as supplies struggle to keep up, the International Energy Agency said.

The Paris-based agency’s latest outlook points to a widening divide between booming demand for crude across the developing world and lackluster demand in Europe and North America where economic prospects look bleak.

It also highlights a growing disconnect between oil prices—which have tumbled to their lowest levels in around 16 months in recent weeks—and expectations that strong demand for oil and limited supplies will prompt a sharp deficit that many analysts expect to lift oil prices.

In its closely watched monthly oil market report, the IEA raised its forecast for global oil demand growth this year by 200,000 barrels a day, to 2.2 million barrels a day. It said total demand would stand at 102 million barrels a day, 100,000 barrels a day more than it forecast last month.

China’s share of that increase, already expected to be large, appeared to be growing and “continues to surpass expectations,” the IEA said. The nation’s crude demand hit a record 16 million barrels a day in March while China will account for 60% of all oil demand growth this year, the IEA said.

While demand is set to boom in China and across the developing world, high interest rates and lingering inflation in developed nations are keeping demand for oil there in check. Efforts by Western governments to encourage a shift away from polluting fossil fuels are further heightening that gap as developing economies continue to see oil and coal as more affordable fuel sources.

Oil demand in the developed nations that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development will grow by just 350,000 barrels a day this year, the IEA said—around 16% of the total expected oil demand growth. The rest, around 1.9 million barrels a day, will come from non-OECD nations, primarily in Asia.

As oil demand grows this year, the IEA expects the oil market to slip into a large deficit as oil producers struggle to keep pace. Demand is expected to exceed supply in the current quarter for the first time since early 2022, with that gap growing to around 2 million barrels a day by the end of the year.

China will account for 60% of all oil demand growth this year, the IEA said. PHOTO: CFOTO/ZUMA PRESS

For 2023, global supplies are expected to average 101.1 million barrels a day, 1.2 million barrels a day more than in 2022.

Recent steps by major oil producers have only added to that growing gap. A plan by some of the largest members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to cut production by more than a million barrels a day began this month. Meanwhile, oil producers in the U.S. have been reluctant to invest money in new production.

Those OPEC cuts could see output from the group and its allied producers—known collectively as OPEC+—fall by 850,000 barrels a day between April and the end of the year, the IEA expects. Meanwhile, output from non-OPEC+ nations is expected to rise by 710,000 barrels a day in that time.

Despite the IEA’s forecasts for a tightening oil market, crude prices have remained subdued, offering some relief to economies and consumers struggling with high inflation. Concerns about the health of the U.S. banking system have been the latest issue to dog the outlook for global economic growth and weigh on crude prices.

Meanwhile, supplies from Russia have remained stronger than expected, helping to further depress prices. Russian oil exports hit 8.3 million barrels a day in April, their highest level since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, as Moscow doesn’t appear to have fully followed through on a plan to slash output by 500,000 barrels a day, the IEA said.

Brent crude oil, the international oil benchmark, hit its lowest level since December 2021 this month. It ticked up 0.6% to $75.71 a barrel on Tuesday, following the release of the IEA report.

The forecast of strong Chinese demand and a growing deficit from the IEA—and from other major energy forecasters such as the Energy Information Administration and OPEC—is why many analysts are expecting oil prices will rebound this year.

“The current market pessimism…stands in stark contrast to the tighter market balances we anticipate in the second half of the year,” the IEA said.

French bank BNP to stop funding new gas projects

The move follows repeated criticisms from activists that the banking giant is falling short on climate protection.

Le Monde with AFP,  May 11, 2023

French banking giant BNP Paribas said on Thursday, May 11, that it would stop financing new natural gas field projects following repeated criticisms from activists that it is falling short on climate protection.

Although the policy change is a break from the past, when BNP had pumped cash into gas projects, the group did not rule out continuing to finance firms doing such work as long as its money does not go directly to fossil development.

The bank also made official Thursday that it is "no longer providing any financing dedicated to the development of new oil fields" − although it said in January that it has made no such investments since 2016.

Similarly to gas, BNP will not withhold money from firms opening up new oil fields as long as its cash is not directly used for that purpose.

But as part of a longer-term plan stretching to 2030, the bank is "phasing out financing to non-diversified oil exploration and production" companies.

The steps contribute to BNP's wider aim to reduce its investments in oil exploration and production by 80% by the end of the decade.

With an eye on 2050 net zero targets from the International Energy Agency, the bank announced new objectives for its investment in steel, aluminum and cement production.

BNP aims to reduce so-called intensity of emissions − the amount of carbon dioxide emitted to create each tonne of the final product − by 25% for steel, 10% for aluminum and 24% for cement by 2030, compared with 2022 levels, or 2021 for cement.

The bank said it was "on track" for similar reductions announced last year for oil and gas, power generation and the car industry.

Seaboard: pioneers in power generation in the country

More than 32 years ago, back in January 1990, Seaboard began operations as the first independent power producer (IPP) in the Dominican Republic. They became pioneers in the electricity market by way of the commercial operations of Estrella del Norte, a 40MW floating power generation plant and the first of three built for Seaboard by Wärtsilä.

Macron’s calls for ‘regulatory pause’ in EU environmental laws wink at conservatives

He said that, compared to other nations, "we have already approved several environmental legislation at the European level."

POLITICO EU BY FEDERICA DI SARIO AND GIORGIO LEALI, MAY 12, 2023 

BRUSSELS/PARIS — It’s been months that EU centre-right lawmakers have been championing a backlash against environmental regulation, arguing it’s at odds with other — more strategic — EU objectives.

Now, a senior voice is adding to the chorus of those asking for a freeze. 

During a speech on how to revive the French industry on Thursday at the Elysée, President Emmanuel Macron called for “a European regulatory break.” 

“We have already passed lots of environmental regulations at European level, more than other countries,” he said. “Now we should be implementing them, not making new changes in the rules or we are going to loose all our [industrial] players.”

He insisted that, when it comes to the regulatory side, the EU is “ahead of the Americans, the Chinese and of any other power in the world.”

"We must not make new changes to the rules," he added, warning that an unstable regulatory environment would only cause harm to investments. 

Macron’s calls for putting a break on a new stream of laws aiming at reversing environmental damage look oddly in line with the arguments that emerged at last week’s gathering of the European People’s Party (EPP),, where senior MEPs gathered in Munich took a hard stance against new rules on pesticides and nature restoration. Moving ahead with them, they claimed, meant endangering the EU’s long-term food security.

In an interview with POLITICO, German MEP Christian Ehler, who leads the Parliament’s work on the Net-Zero Industry Act, which aims at boosting the bloc's manufacturing capacity of clean energy technologies, repeatedly cautioned against a fast-tracked phaseout of per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) — harmful chemicals that linger in the environment. He was clear that, with no easy way to replace them, a speedy ban could end up delaying the continent’s green industry ambitions. 

That’s a position that EPP’s main political rivals — the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) — slam as disingenuous. 

“That being pro-industry or pro-farmers means that you cannot protect climate, environment and biodiversity at the same time [is] a myth,” said Mohammed Chahim, S&D vice chair. He stressed that hitting pause on environmental laws until next years’ elections would only result in a “year thrown away” in the fight against climate change. 

Elysée’s officials were quick to make clear that Macron was not attacking any existing or upcoming EU environmental text.

“He never talked about a moratorium or repeal of rules that already exist or are under negotiation,” stressed an Elysée official, noting that Macron’s point was mainly about implementing existing rules before adding new ones. 

His comments sparked immediate criticism not only from the opposition but even from his more climate-friendly allies.

"Any speech that gives the feeling that we have done enough and that it is sufficient is a dangerous speech in the phase that is starting," said Barbara Pompili, a former French environment minister with Macron, currently an MP. “You should never send slow-down messages,” she warned.

French MEP Pascal Canfin from Macron’s Renew Europe Group told Le Monde that Macron made an “unfortunate” [malheureux] comment, as it could have caused misunderstanding, while stressing that, unlike the EPP,  Macron was not calling for freezing environmental texts that are under discussion in Brussels. 

Centre-right politicians immediately stressed that they have been the first ones calling for less rules and to argue that Macron’s comments are in contradiction with its green policies.

“For months, we the EPP have been demanding a legislative moratorium to put an end to the excess of standards that hits all those who produce and work in Europe,” Francois-Xavier Bellamy, a French MEP for the EPP, said in a written statement, arguing that “the Macronist elected representatives, on the other hand, are pushing with the left and the Greens for the most restrictive regulations.”

The fact that Macron’s comments sparked mixed reactions and fuelled misunderstanding is no surprise for Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, an energy expert and director at the Institute for Climate Economics (I4CE) in Paris. Macron is not new to using catchy expressions — such as the ones on not being “America’s followers” or on NATO’s brain death — which “agitate the media.”

“If Macron is suggesting to first focus on implementing the existing EU green rules and those that are being adopted in this mandate, then that's also what the European Commission is saying," he noted, adding that the use of the term "regulatory pause" was "maybe a bit clumsy, given its meaning in the EU context."

Cooperate with objective and ethical thinking…

Vietnam approves plan to boost wind, LNG by 2030

According to government estimates, the plan will require $134.7 billion in capital for new power plants and grids, with some of that money likely to come from foreign investors.

By Khanh Vu and Francesco Guarascio

HANOI, May 16 (Reuters) - Vietnam said on Tuesday it has approved a long-awaited power plan for this decade, in a move meant to boost wind energy and gas, while reducing reliance on coal.

Known as PDP8, the plan aims to ensuring energy security for the Southeast Asian country while it begins the transition to becoming carbon-neutral by mid-century.

The plan needs $134.7 billion of funding for new power plants and grids, the government estimated, with part of the money expected to come from foreign investors.In December, the Group of Seven (G7) nations and other wealthier countries pledged $15.5 billion in initial funds to support Vietnam's transition away from coal.

Amid internal squabbles and work on complex reforms, the plan had been delayed for more than two years. It has seen a dozen of draft versions before being approved by Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh, and now needs approval from the rubber-stamp parliament, possibly this month, before its final adoption.

A diplomat from the G7 donors' group, who declined to be identified as he not authorised to speak to media, said on Tuesday the approval was an important step and necessary to unlock funding for renewable projects, especially offshore wind. It was, however, not completely in line with G7 goals, the diplomat added, as Vietnam will still be heavily reliant on coal this decade.

To complete its planned transition to carbon-neutrality with total phase-out of coal by 2050, the government estimates it needs up to $658 billion, of which one-fifth would have to be disbursed this decade.

The plan would more than double Vietnam's power generation capacity to more than 150 GW by 2030 from 69 GW at the end of 2020.

GAS, WIND AND COAL

Power plants using domestic gas and imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) are set to become a crucial source of power by 2030, with a combined installed capacity of 37.33 GW, or 24.8% of the total, with LNG accounting for the lion's share, according to a government document seen by Reuters and not yet published.

That is a fourfold increase from 2020, when the country produced just about 9 GW of natural gas from fields in the South China Sea. It is not importing any LNG at the moment.

Wind, solar and other renewable sources, excluding hydropower, are set to cover at least nearly 31% of the country's energy needs by 2030, the government said, from about 25% in 2020. Their contribution could raise to 47% if G7 pledges are fully implemented, the document said.

Wind will account for 18.5% of the total power mix, most of it onshore, whereas the contribution from solar energy would fall nearly threefold to 8.5%.

Offshore wind power capacity, which is of particular interest to foreign investors, is expected to reach six GW by the end of this decade from zero now and at least 70 GW by 2050. The plan slightly revised down the initial target of seven GW by 2030, as Reuters reported earlier in May.

But it is unclear how fast new projects could be launched, as the country may still need to approve new legislation on the use of marine space.

In the energy mix by 2030, hydropower would account for 19.5%, down from over 30% in 2020.

Coal would remain a crucial energy source, accounting for 20% of the mix by 2030, but down from nearly 31% in 2020. However, because of the expected jump in total output, energy generated from coal would increase to more than 30 GW by the end of the decade, from 21 GW in 2020.