Oil (Petroleum) and Gasoline

More stories

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Economic Ties Among Nations Spur Peace. Or Do They?

    by

    The Russian invasion of Ukraine strains the long-held idea that shared interests around business and commerce can deflect military conflict.Russia’s war in Ukraine is not only reshaping the strategic and political order in Europe, it is also upending long-held assumptions about the intricate connections that are a signature of the global economy.Millions of times a day, far-flung exchanges of money and goods crisscross land borders and oceans, creating enormous wealth, however unequally distributed. But those connections have also exposed economies to financial upheaval and crippling shortages when the flows are interrupted.The snarled supply lines and shortfalls caused by the pandemic created a wide awareness of these vulnerabilities. Now, the invasion has delivered a bracing new spur to governments in Europe and elsewhere to reassess how to balance the desire for efficiency and growth with the need for self-sufficiency and national security.And it is calling into question a tenet of liberal capitalism — that shared economic interests help prevent military conflicts.It is an idea that stretches back over the centuries and has been endorsed by romantic idealists and steely realists. The philosophers John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant wrote about it in treatises. The British politicians Richard Cobden and John Bright invoked it in the 19th century to repeal the protectionist Corn Laws, the tariffs and restrictions imposed on imported grains that shielded landowners from competition and stifled free trade.Later, Norman Angell was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for writing that world leaders were under “A Great Illusion” that armed conflict and conquest would bring greater wealth. During the Cold War, it was an element of the rationale for détente with the Soviet Union — to, as Henry Kissinger said, “create links that will provide incentive for moderation.”German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Moscow last month. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, policies by Germany and other European countries have been partly shaped by the idea that economic ties with Russia could deflect conflict.Pool photo by Maxim ShemetovSince the disintegration of the Soviet Union three decades ago, the idea that economic ties can help prevent conflict has partly guided the policies toward Russia by Germany, Italy and several other European nations.Today, Russia is the world’s largest exporter of oil and wheat. The European Union was its biggest trading partner, receiving 40 percent of its natural gas, 25 percent of its oil and a hefty portion of its coal from Russia. Russia also supplies other countries with raw materials like palladium, titanium, neon and aluminum that are used in everything from semiconductors to car manufacturing.Just last summer, Russian, British, French and German gas companies completed a decade-long, $11 billion project to build a direct pipeline, Nord Stream 2, that was awaiting approval from a German regulator. But Germany halted certification of the pipeline after Russia recognized two separatist regions in Ukraine.From the start, part of Germany’s argument for the pipeline — the second to connect Russia and Germany — was that it would more closely align Russia’s interests with Europe’s. Germany also built its climate policy around Russian oil and gas, assuming it would provide energy as Germany developed more renewable sources and closed its nuclear power plants.Benefits ran both ways. Globalization rescued Russia from a financial meltdown and staggering inflation in 1998 — and ultimately smoothed the way for the rise to power of Vladimir V. Putin, Russia’s president. Money earned from energy exports accounted for a quarter of Russia’s gross domestic product last year.The Nord Stream 2 plant in Germany. The pipeline had been seen as a way to align Russia’s interests with those of Germany. Now it has been shelved.Michael Sohn/Associated PressCritics of Nord Stream 2, particularly in the United States and Eastern Europe, warned that increasing reliance on Russian energy would give it too much leverage, a point that President Ronald Reagan made 40 years earlier to block a previous pipeline. Europeans were still under an illusion, the argument went, only this time it was that economic ties would prevent baldfaced aggression.Still, more recently, those economic ties contributed to skepticism that Russia would launch an all-out attack on Ukraine in defiance of its major trading partners.In the weeks leading up to the invasion, many European leaders demurred from joining what they viewed as the United States’ overhyped warnings. One by one, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi talked or met with Mr. Putin, hopeful that a diplomatic settlement would prevail.There are good reasons for the European Union to believe that economic ties would bind potential combatants more closely together, said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. The proof was the European Union itself. The organization’s roots go back to the creation after World War II of the European Coal and Steel Community, a pact among six nations meant to avert conflict by pooling control of these two essential commodities.“The idea was that if you knit together the French and German economies, they wouldn’t be able to go to war,” Mr. Haass said. The aim was to prevent World War III.Scholars have attempted to prove that the theory worked in the real world — studying tens of thousands of trade relations and military conflicts over several decades — and have come to different conclusions.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Russian Oil Finds Few Buyers Even at Deep Discounts

    by

    Some European buyers, shippers, banks and insurers have grown leery of doing business with the country in recent days.HOUSTON — The United States and the European Union have been unwilling to put sanctions on Russian energy exports in response to the country’s invasion of Ukraine. But some oil traders appear to have concluded that buying oil from Russia is just not worth the trouble.One of the three top oil producers in the world, after the United States and Saudi Arabia, Russia provides roughly 10 percent of the global supply. But in recent days traders and European refineries have greatly reduced their purchases of Russian oil. Some have stopped altogether.Buyers are pulling back because they or the shipping companies, banks and insurance companies they use are worried about running afoul of Western sanctions in place now or those that might come later, energy experts said. Others are worried that shipments could be hit by missiles, and some just don’t want to risk being seen as bankrolling the government of President Vladimir V. Putin.Russian exporters have been offering the country’s highest-quality oil at a discount of up to $20 a barrel in recent days but have found few buyers, analysts said. Buyers, in Europe in particular, have been switching to Middle Eastern oil, a decision that has helped drive the global oil price above $100 a barrel for the first time since 2014.“The enablers of oil exports — the banks, insurance companies, tanker companies and even multinational oil companies — have enacted what amounts to a de facto ban,” said Tom Kloza, global head of energy analysis at the Oil Price Information Service. Mr. Kloza said it could take weeks before it was clear how significantly Russia’s oil exports had fallen and whether the drop would be sustained, but “clearly the Russian contribution to world oil supply has been constricted.”On Tuesday, the International Energy Agency said its members, which include the United States and more than a dozen European nations, had agreed to release 60 million barrels of oil from their strategic reserves. The announcement had little impact on global oil prices, probably because the amount was modest, amounting to roughly three days of consumption by the United States. The White House and Energy Department signaled that more oil could be released later by describing the I.E.A. agreement as an “initial release.”Much of Russia’s oil is shipped out of Black Sea ports for use in Europe. Some shipping companies carrying oil and commercial goods are afraid that their vessels will be fired on. Congestion in sea lanes is interrupting the shipping of not only oil but also food. On Friday, an unidentified missile hit a Moldovan-flagged tanker carrying oil and diesel.“Russia’s flagship Urals blend was one of the first to break through the $100-per-barrel mark this year,” said Louise Dickson, senior oil market analyst at Rystad Energy, a research and consulting firm. “But the country’s incursion into Ukraine has now made it one of the most toxic barrels on the market.”As European refiners buy more oil from places like Saudi Arabia, Russian companies are increasingly trying to sell their crude to refineries in China and other Asian countries by offering them discounts.Most of Russia’s roughly five million barrels of daily oil exports go to Europe. About 700,000 barrels a day are consumed in the United States, roughly 4 percent of the U.S. market.Several Scandinavian refiners, including Neste Oyj of Finland and Preem of Sweden, have said they halted purchases of Russian oil.“Due to the current situation and uncertainty in the market, Neste has mostly replaced Russian crude oil with other crudes, such as North Sea oil,” said Theodore Rolfvondenbaumen, a Neste spokesman. As the company watches future sanctions and “potential countersanctions,” he said, it is preparing “for various options in procurement, production and logistics.”Energy experts say the international oil trade could be rejiggered in ways that are similar to what happened in 1956 when Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt and closed the Suez Canal. For a time, oil tankers were rerouted around Africa. Similarly, over the next few months Russian oil once shipped to Europe could go to China.Russia’s Attack on Ukraine and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6A rising concern. More

  • 163 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    A Key Inflation Gauge Is Still Rising, and War Could Make It Worse

    by

    A measure of inflation closely watched by the Federal Reserve is expected to show that prices continued to rise in January, accelerating on a monthly basis and increasing from a year earlier at the fastest pace since 1982.Economists expect that the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, which the Fed targets as it aims for 2 percent annual inflation on average over time, rose 6 percent from the previous January. Prices probably climbed 0.6 percent from December, up from 0.4 percent the prior month, based on the central estimate in a Bloomberg survey.The Commerce Department will release the data at 8:30 a.m. on Friday.High inflation remains stubborn at a tense moment. With consumers already struggling with rising costs, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine this week promises to push inflation even higher as prices for oil and other commodities increase.The Fed has been preparing to steadily pull back its pandemic-era economic support in an effort to cool off consumer demand and tame prices. The White House is monitoring inflation closely as rising prices for food, rent and gas shake consumer confidence and dent President Biden’s approval ratings ahead of midterm elections in November.The fresh inflation reading won’t surprise economists or policymakers — the Personal Consumption Expenditures number is fairly predictable because it is based on Consumer Price Index figures that come out more quickly, along with other already available data. But it will reaffirm that price increases, which were expected to prove temporary as the pandemic economy reopened, have instead lasted almost an entire year and seeped into areas not affected by the coronavirus.Price increases have hit a wide array of products and services, including used cars, beef, chicken, restaurant meals and home furnishings, and several trends risk keeping inflation elevated. Notably, wages are rising rapidly, and employers are finding that they can pass their climbing labor costs along to shoppers.Grocery shopping in Queens this month. Price increases are sweeping a growing array of products and services, and several trends could keep them elevated.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesEconomists are also warily eyeing the conflict in Ukraine, which has already caused oil and gas prices to rise and is likely to push commodity costs higher still.Researchers at Goldman Sachs estimate that an increase of $10 per barrel of oil would increase headline inflation in the United States by a fifth of a percentage point while lowering economic output by just under a tenth of a percentage point.Brent crude oil, the global benchmark, rose as much as 6 percent to more than $100 per barrel after Russia invaded Ukraine and could climb further as Russia reacts to sanctions from the United States and Europe. Russia is a major exporter of energy to Europe.“Potentially, Russia could retaliate by limiting oil exports,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said on Thursday. Prices at the pump are likely to reflect repercussions from the conflict almost immediately, he said.Russia’s Attack on Ukraine and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6A rising concern. More

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Why the Toughest Sanctions on Russia Are the Hardest for Europe to Wield

    by

    Moscow relies on the money it makes by selling oil and gas, but that energy fuels Europe’s economy and heats its homes.The punishing sanctions that the United States and European Union have so far announced against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine include shutting the government and banks out of global financial markets, restricting technology exports and freezing assets of influential Russians. Noticeably missing from that list is a reprisal that might cause Russia the most pain: choking off the export of Russian fuel.The omission is not surprising. In recent years, the European Union has received nearly 40 percent of its gas and more than a quarter of its oil from Russia. That energy heats Europe’s homes, powers its factories and fuels its vehicles, while pumping enormous sums of money into the Russian economy.How each country’s dependence on Russian gas has changedShare of total natural gas imports from Russia More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Ukraine Crisis: What Happens Next for the Rest of the World?

    by

    Europe faces a new refugee crisis, and harsh economic penalties to punish Russia are expected to reverberate worldwide.WASHINGTON — Much of the world woke up on Thursday to the specter of an all-out war in Europe after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia ordered his troops to invade Ukraine. That left millions of people — in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, but also in the United States and elsewhere — wondering how the conflict would affect their lives.At least 40 Ukrainian solders were reported killed in the hours after the invasion, with estimates of tens of thousands of deaths over the course of the conflict. But beyond the anticipated bloodshed, economic penalties to punish Russia will reverberate worldwide.Rising energy costs and potentially slowing supply chains will take their toll on consumers. Russian cyberattacks could cripple electronic infrastructure. A new refugee crisis will require international assistance. And an era of relative calm in the West that has pervaded since the end of the Cold War might be coming to a close.Here is what might happen next on the military, economic and diplomatic fronts.More military forces head to NATO’s eastern borders.Many of the U.S. troops who arrived in Poland this month have been working with Polish forces to set up processing centers to help people fleeing Ukraine.Czarek Sokolowski/Associated PressNATO announced on Thursday that it was sending reinforcements to its eastern flank, joining some 6,500 U.S. troops the Pentagon has already dispatched to Eastern Europe and the Baltics.“We are deploying additional defensive land and air forces to the eastern part of the alliance, as well as additional maritime assets,” NATO said in a statement. “We have increased the readiness of our forces to respond to all contingencies.”The Pentagon is also repositioning about 1,000 troops in Europe. About 800 U.S. troops are moving to the Baltics from Italy; 20 Apache helicopters are heading to the Baltics from Germany, and 12 Apaches are going to Poland from Greece. Eight F-35 strike fighters are heading to Lithuania, Estonia and Romania from Germany, the Pentagon said.In addition, U.S. Army troops, including those from the 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions, are preparing to move closer to Poland’s border with Ukraine to help process people fleeing the country, an Army spokesman said on Thursday.Many of the 5,500 troops from the 18th Airborne Corps who arrived in Poland this month have been working with the State Department and Polish forces to set up three processing centers near the border to help deal with tens of thousands of people, including Americans, who are expected to flee Ukraine.In Jasionka, Poland, an indoor arena has been outfitted with bunk beds and supplies for up to 500 people; U.S. officials say that capacity could be quickly expanded. In Austria, Chancellor Karl Nehammer said on Wednesday that he was prepared to accept refugees. The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development are funding relief organizations that are currently providing food, water, shelter and emergency health care to people in the region who have fled to escape the violence.In the days to come, the C.I.A. will assess what kind of assistance it can provide to Ukraine. If a Ukrainian resistance develops in parts of the country that Russia seeks to control, the agency could secretly supply partisan forces with intelligence and, potentially, armaments.“We need to support the resistance to the invasion and the occupation in all ways possible,” said Mick Mulroy, a former C.I.A. paramilitary officer and senior Pentagon official in the Trump administration. “Our special operations and intelligence assets with an extensive knowledge base from 20 years of fighting insurgencies should be put to immediate use.”‘Severe’ sanctions from the U.S. and Europe.The Treasury Department is likely to put one or more Russian state-owned banks on the agency’s list for the harshest sanctions.Natalia Kolesnikova/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesPresident Biden on Thursday plans to announce “severe sanctions” against Russia to try to deter Moscow from carrying out further violence in Ukraine and to punish it for its actions, U.S. officials said.The next set of economic sanctions is expected to be much harsher than what U.S. officials had described as a first tranche that was imposed on Monday and Tuesday. Mr. Biden is likely to order the Treasury Department to put one or more large Russian state-owned banks on the agency’s list for the harshest sanctions, known as the S.D.N. list. That would cut off the banks from commerce and exchanges with much of the world and affect many other Russian business operations.The Biden administration said on Tuesday that it was imposing that kind of sanctions on two banks, VEB and PSB, but those are policy banks with no retail operations in Russia.Administration officials have studied how sanctions would affect each of the big banks, including Sberbank and VTB, Russia’s two largest banks. Sberbank has about a third of the assets in the country’s banking sector, and VTB has more than 15 percent. Some experts are skeptical that the administration would put those two banks on the S.D.N. list for fear of the consequences for the Russian and global economies. For now, U.S. officials are not ready to cut off all Russian banks from Swift, the important Belgian money transfer system used by more than 11,000 financial institutions worldwide.The Treasury Department has other sanctions lists that would impose costs while inflicting less widespread suffering. For example, it could put a bank on a list that prevents it from doing any transactions involving dollars. Many international commercial transactions are done in U.S. dollars, the currency that underpins the global economy.The Treasury Department is also expected to put more Russian officials, businesspeople and companies on the sanctions lists.By Thursday afternoon in Russia, the nation’s stock market had fallen nearly 40 percent.The Commerce Department has been making plans to restrict the export of certain American technologies to Russia, a tactic that the Trump administration used to hobble Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications company. The controls would damage the supply chain for some Russian sectors. U.S. officials said their targets included the defense industry and the oil and gas industry.European officials are expected to announce sanctions similar to many of the ones planned by the United States, as they did this week. However, they have been more wary of imposing the harshest sanctions because of the continent’s robust trade with Russia.Although Mr. Biden has said he will contemplate any possible sanctions, U.S. officials for now do not plan big disruptions to Russia’s energy exports, which are the pillar of the country’s economy. Europe relies on the products, and surging oil prices worldwide would cause greater inflation and more problems for politicians. However, Germany announces this week that it would not certify Nord Stream 2, a new natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Western Europe. On Wednesday Mr. Biden announced sanctions on a subsidiary of Gazprom, the large Russian energy company, which built the pipeline and had planned to operate it.Understand Russia’s Attack on UkraineCard 1 of 7What is at the root of this invasion? More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Russian Conflict in Ukraine is Reshaping the Climate Debate

    by

    Energy security has gained prominence while the conflict in Ukraine raises concerns over the possible interruption in the supply of oil and natural gas.It was only three months ago that world leaders met at the Glasgow climate summit and made ambitious pledges to reduce fossil fuel use. The perils of a warming planet are no less calamitous now, but the debate about the critically important transition to renewable energy has taken a back seat to energy security as Russia — Europe’s largest energy supplier — threatens to start a major confrontation with the West over Ukraine while oil prices are climbing toward $100 a barrel.For more than a decade, policy discussions in Europe and beyond about cutting back on gas, oil and coal emphasized safety and the environment, at the expense of financial and economic considerations, said Lucia van Geuns, a strategic energy adviser at the Hague Center for Strategic Studies. Now, it’s the reverse.“Gas prices became very high, and all of a sudden security of supply and price became the main subject of public debate,” she said.The renewed emphasis on energy independence and national security may encourage policymakers to backslide on efforts to decrease the use of fossil fuels that pump deadly greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.Already, skyrocketing prices have spurred additional production and consumption of fuels that contribute to global warming. Coal imports to the European Union in January rose more than 56 percent from the previous year.In Britain, the Coal Authority gave a mine in Wales permission last month to increase output by 40 million tons over the next two decades. In Australia, there are plans to open or expand more coking coal mines. And China, which has traditionally made energy security a priority, has further stepped up its coal production and approved three new billion-dollar coal mines this week.“Get your rig count up,” Jennifer Granholm, the U.S. energy secretary, said in December, urging American oil producers to raise their output. Shale companies in Oklahoma, Colorado and other states are looking to resurrect drilling that had ceased because there is suddenly money to be made. And this month, Exxon Mobil announced plans to increase spending on new oil wells and other projects.A coal-fired power station in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, in January.Martin Meissner/Associated PressIan Goldin, a professor of globalization and development at the University of Oxford, warned that high energy prices could lead to more exploration of traditional fossil fuels. “Governments will want to deprioritize renewables and sustainables, which would be exactly the wrong response,” he said.Europe’s transition to sustainable energy has always been an intricate calculus, requiring it to back away from the dirtiest fossil fuel like coal, while still working with gas and oil producers to power homes, cars and factories until better alternatives are available.For Germany, dependency on Russian gas has been an integral part of its environmental blueprint for many years. Plans for the first direct pipeline between the two countries, Nord Stream 1, started in 1997. A leader in the push to reduce carbon emissions, Berlin has moved to shutter coal mines and nuclear power plants, after the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan. The idea was that Russian gas would supply the needed fuel during the yearslong transition to cleaner energy sources. Two-thirds of the gas Germany burned last year came from Russia.Future plans called for even more gas to be delivered through Nord Stream 2, a new 746-mile pipeline under the Baltic Sea that directly links Russia to northeastern Germany.On Tuesday, after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia recognized two breakaway republics in Ukraine and mobilized forces, Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany halted final regulatory review of the $11 billion pipeline, which was completed last year.The Nord Stream 2 pipeline was set to deliver Russian gas to Lubmin, Germany.Stefan Sauer/picture alliance via Getty Images“I don’t think the threat from Russia is outweighing the threat of climate change, and I don’t see coal mines opening up across Europe,” said James Nixey, director of the Russia-Eurasia program at Chatham House, a research organization in London.Certainly, the path of energy transition has never been clear. Five climate summits have taken place over the past 30 years, and progress has always fallen short. This latest setback may just be the latest in a long series of halfway measures and setbacks.Still, without a more comprehensive strategy to wean itself off gas, Europe won’t be able to accomplish its goal of reducing emissions 55 percent by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, or to reach the Glasgow summit’s target of cutting net greenhouse gases to zero by 2050.As Mr. Nixey acknowledged, “this debate is changing” as leaders are forced to acknowledge the downsides of dependency on Russian energy.Even in Germany, where the progressive Greens have gained a more influential voice in the government, there has been a shift in tone.This month, Robert Habeck, Germany’s new minister for the economy and climate change and a member of the Greens, said events had underscored the need to diversify supplies. “We need to act here and secure ourselves better,” he said. “If we don’t, we will become a pawn in the game.”Energy prices started to climb before Mr. Putin began massing troops on Ukraine’s eastern border, as countries emerged from pandemic closures and demand shot up.But as Mr. Putin moved aggressively against Ukraine and energy prices soared further, the political and strategic vulnerabilities presented by Russia’s control of so much of Europe’s supply took center stage.“Europe is quite dependent on Russian gas and oil, and this is unsustainable,” said Sarah E. Mendelson, the head of Heinz College in Washington. She added that the United States and its European allies had not focused enough on energy independence in recent years.Overall, Europe gets more than a third of its natural gas and 25 percent of its oil from Russia. Deliveries have slowed significantly in recent months, while reserves in Europe have fallen to just 31 percent of capacity.Mateusz Garus, a blacksmith at a coal mine in Poland. “We will destroy the power sector,” he said, “and we will be dependent on others like Russia.”Maciek Nabrdalik for The New York TimesFor critics of the European Union’s climate policies, the sudden focus away from greenhouse gas emissions and on existing fuel reserves is validating.Arkadiusz Siekaniec, vice president of the Trade Union of Miners in Poland, has long argued that the European Union’s push to end coal production on the continent was folly. But now he hopes that others may come around to his point of view.The climate policy “is a suicidal mission” that could leave the entire region overly dependent on Russian fuel, Mr. Siekaniec said last week as American troops landed in his country. “It threatens the economy as well as the citizens of Europe and Poland.”For Mateusz Garus, a blacksmith at Jankowice, a coal mine in Upper Silesia, the heart of coal country, politics and not climate change are driving policy. “We will destroy the power sector,” he said, “and we will be dependent on others like Russia.” More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Russia’s Moves in Ukraine Unsettle Energy Companies and Prices

    by

    Oil and gas prices are up, and Western energy giants with operations and investments in Russia could find it harder to keep doing business there.Russia’s recognition of two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine could threaten important investments of Western oil giants and further drive up global energy prices in the next few weeks.Since the closing days of the Cold War, Russia’s energy-based economy has become entwined with Europe’s. European energy companies like BP, TotalEnergies and Shell have major operations and investments in Russia. Though expansion of those holdings was largely halted after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, they remain important profit centers and could now be at risk.Seeking to isolate President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Biden and the European Union imposed new sanctions on the Russian government and the country’s political and business elite on Tuesday. The measures do not directly target the energy industry. That’s why oil and gas prices settled only modestly higher on Tuesday afternoon in New York.But analysts said the energy industry could still be hurt if the crisis dragged on, particularly if Mr. Putin decided to send troops into the rest of Ukraine or sought to take control of the capital, Kyiv. Such aggressive action would most likely force Mr. Biden and other Western leaders to ratchet up their response.European leaders are already taking aim at some Russian energy exports. Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Tuesday that Germany would halt certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is supposed to deliver Russian gas. The decision will not have an immediate impact on European energy supplies because the pipeline is not yet operating. But Russian gas shipments through Ukraine could be halted, especially if Mr. Putin’s troops push farther into Ukraine or if he cuts off gas to Europe in retaliation for Western sanctions.Russia supplies one out of every 10 barrels of oil used around the world. After Western officials said Russian troops had entered eastern Ukrainian regions held by separatists, oil prices quickly jumped early Tuesday to nearly $100 a barrel, their highest level in more than seven years, before moderating.Energy experts say oil prices could easily rise another $20 a barrel if Mr. Putin seeks to occupy more or all of Ukraine. Such an outcome would also cause huge problems for Western oil companies that do business in Russia.“In that environment, the legal and reputational risk faced by Western energy companies operating in Russia will rise sharply,” said Robert McNally, who was an energy adviser to President George W. Bush and is now president of the Rapidan Energy Group, a consulting firm. “For oil markets, this means slower supply growth and even tighter global balances and higher prices in the coming years.”TotalEnergies, which is based near Paris, owns nearly 20 percent of Novatek, Russia’s largest liquefied natural gas company, and Shell has a strategic alliance with Gazprom, Russia’s natural gas monopoly.The Salym oil field, which Shell operates jointly with Gazprom in western Siberia.Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr./BloombergThe Western oil company most involved in Russia is BP, which owns nearly 20 percent of Rosneft, the state-controlled energy company managed by Igor Sechin, who is widely considered a close Putin ally and adviser. BP’s chief executive, Bernard Looney, and its former chief executive Bob Dudley sit on Rosneft’s board with Mr. Sechin and Alexander Novak, Russia’s deputy prime minister.Rosneft contributed $2.4 billion in profits and $600 million in dividends to BP in 2021, and has a secondary listing on the London Stock Exchange. About a third of BP’s oil production, or 1.1 million barrels a day, came from Russia last year.BP executives have so far expressed calm. “We have been there over 30 years and our job is to focus on our business, and that is what we are doing,” Mr. Looney said in a recent conference call with analysts. “If something comes down the road, then obviously we will deal with it as it comes.”Most oil companies have been reporting bumper profits because of rising oil and gas prices. European firms are using some of their profits to invest more in wind, solar, hydrogen and other forms of cleaner energy. But the current crisis could be a major distraction, if not worse.Doing business in Russia has always been complicated, especially as Mr. Putin reasserted state control over energy, squeezing private investors.Shell was forced to give up control of its premier Russian liquefied natural gas project on Sakhalin Island, in eastern Russia, to Gazprom in 2006. Shell retains a modest stake in the facility, and it appears to want to keep the door open to more business in Russia. Along with four other European companies, it helped finance the estimated $11 billion Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany.TotalEnergies has continued investing in a $27 billion natural gas complex in the Yamal Peninsula, in the Arctic, that Novatek controls. The project sidestepped earlier Western sanctions by obtaining financing from Chinese banks. It began producing gas for European and Asian customers in 2017.Share prices of BP and Total closed on Tuesday down more than 2 percent, and Shell was down about 1 percent.Prospects for Western oil companies seeking to do business in Russia were once far brighter. Exxon Mobil, Italy’s ENI and other foreign oil companies teamed up with Rosneft in 2012 and 2013 to explore Arctic oil and gas fields.BP owns nearly 20 percent of Rosneft, which operates this refinery in Novokuibyshevsk, Russia.Andrey Rudakov/BloombergBut U.S. and European Union sanctions imposed after Russia’s seizure of Crimea forced many Western companies to stop expanding in Russia in part by limiting access to financing and technology for deepwater exploration.Exxon formally abandoned exploration ventures with Rosneft in 2018, and took a $200 million after-tax loss.Understand How the Ukraine Crisis DevelopedCard 1 of 7How it all began. More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Officials Appear Unlikely to Change Course Amid Ukraine Conflict

    by

    Conflict in Ukraine appears unlikely to shake Federal Reserve officials from their plans to pull back support for the economy at this point, but the rapid escalation in tension is sure to draw policymaker attention and could make for even higher inflation in the near term.The central bank has two jobs — fostering full employment and stable prices — and it has been preparing to raise interest rates and make other policy adjustments too cool down the economy as inflation runs at its fastest pace in 40 years.Oil and gas prices have already risen during the conflict and could continue to climb, leading to a higher peak in headline inflation, which includes prices at the pump. The Fed typically avoids reacting to fluctuations in energy prices when setting its policy, given the volatility of fuel costs, but the potential disruption could make ongoing inflation trends all the more painful for consumers.“The Federal Reserve pays very close attention to geopolitical events, and this one of course in particular as it’s the most prominent at this point,” Michelle Bowman, a Fed governor, said on Monday.Ms. Bowman noted that the U.S. has minor banking, financial, and trade interests with Russia, and that “we don’t believe that would have a significant impact” on the economy given the small size of those relationships.“But we do recognize that there are significant opportunities for potential impacts on the energy markets, as we’re moving forward, if things were to deteriorate,” Ms. Bowman added. “Obviously we’ll continue to watch that, and if we believe that might have some influence on the global economy, we’ll take that into account as we’re going into our meetings and discussing the economy more broadly.”High fuel prices could weigh on consumer spending on other goods and services as families devote more of their monthly budgets to energy. If the potential for war makes consumers uncertain about the future or sends stock prices plummeting, it also could weigh on demand as nervous shoppers retrench.Central bankers noted in minutes of their most recent meeting that geopolitical risks “could cause increases in global energy prices or exacerbate global supply shortages,” but also that they were a risk to the outlook for growth.But officials have painted it as more of one risk among many than as a pivotal point of concern.“We actually have seen fighting in this area of the world in the past,” James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said on CNBC last week. “I do think it’s quite an important foreign policy issue, but I’m not seeing it as a leading macroeconomic issue, at least at this point.”Assessing exactly what the conflict between Russia and Ukraine will mean for the American economy is challenging because it is unclear how much tensions will escalate and because it is not obvious how Russia might respond as the U.S. and Europe prepare sanctions.Plus, while rising fuel prices could push up inflation, global unease is likely to push the value of the dollar higher as global investors move into what they see as “safe-haven” assets. That could make imported goods cheaper, working in the opposite direction to rising fuel costs. More