The Game Is On: EU Asks Members To Cap Russia's Oil at $60

"The executive body of the European Union has asked its 27 member countries to cap the price of Russian oil at $60, officials and diplomats involved in the discussions said.

The plan, using the clout of the EU's insurance and shipping industries, is part of the West's effort to crimp Moscow's economy while keeping global crude prices steady.

But whether that plan can go forward hinges on a response from Poland. All 27 EU countries need to sign off on the proposal for it to move ahead as planned on Monday -- no other bloc member raised an objection to the plan on Thursday. Poland asked for extra time to consider it, Polish and other EU officials said. A decision from Poland wouldn't come before Friday, they said.

The price cap is a key part of the West's attempt to squeeze the Kremlin's oil revenue while keeping global supplies steady and avoiding price increases. It has been crafted as a way to allow Russia, a top global oil exporter, to supply markets without Moscow getting the full benefit of its sale.

If the EU agrees on the price cap, the Group of Seven nations -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, U.K. and the U.S. -- will then need to sign off. The G-7 and Australia aim to have the unprecedented sanctions in place by the time a European embargo on seaborne Russian crude imports begins after the weekend.

Selecting the level of the price cap has required the U.S. and its allies to try to balance its two goals for the plan. Ukrainian and Eastern European officials favored a lower cap to cut off more of Russia's revenue. The Biden administration, oil traders and financiers have sought a higher cap that would still induce Russia to sell its oil at the capped price.

Poland has been at the center of long negotiations in Brussels over whether to agree to the price cap over the last 10 days. While Polish officials have been clear they support the plan and don't want to cause a delay in the mechanism's introduction, they have pressed for the price cap to be set far below the price at which Russian oil is being sold.

To win Warsaw over, the European Commission presented a new text on Thursday that included a promise to review the price cap every two months starting in January and to aim to keep the price cap at least 5% below the price at which Russia is exporting crude. The commission is also seeking to speed up its preparations for new sanctions on Russia, for which Warsaw has been calling.

European officials remained confident Thursday night that the plan can be signed off on Friday, but were concerned if G-7 partners, including Japan, would have enough time to put in place preparations for the cap before the weekend. Officials across the G-7 were preparing to announce an agreement at $60 a barrel on Friday. That level would set Russian crude prices significantly below the international benchmark, called Brent, which traded at about $87 a barrel on Thursday.

Biden administration officials who have led the price-cap push indicated they were supportive of setting the cap at $60 a barrel. Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary, said Thursday that the U.S. supported reviewing the price every two months.

Russian crude trades at a significant discount to Brent, but since many buyers have shunned it altogether, price transparency has been more difficult. In some cases, Russian crude has traded well under $60 a barrel. Russia's Urals crude fetched $48 a barrel when exported from the Baltic port of Primorsk on Wednesday, according to Argus Media, which assesses prices in commodity markets.

U.S. officials have argued that individual price estimates are misleading because of the market's opacity, saying they believe Russian crude is currently trading above $60 a barrel.

Under the price-cap system, companies shipping Russian oil outside of Europe would be able to access EU insurance and brokerage services only if they sell the oil at or under $60.

In addition to the proposed cap, a separate EU embargo on Russian vessel-bound crude oil imports takes effect Monday. U.S. officials had worried that the embargo, combined with the threat of cutting off EU insurance and other services for vessels shipping Russian oil, could send prices higher, generating fresh revenue for Kremlin. They crafted the price cap as a way to relax the EU's original plan to completely ban the financing and insurance of Russian oil shipments.

Russia has threatened to refuse to sell its oil at prices below the cap, a step that could take a sizable chunk of supplies off the market and raise prices globally.

But last week, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov signaled there might be wiggle room in Moscow's threats.

"It feels like they are just trying to make a decision for the sake of a decision. For the time being, we proceed from the directive of President [Vladimir] Putin, that we will not supply oil and gas to those states that will introduce and join the ceiling. Of course, we must analyze everything before formulating a position," Mr. Peskov said.

Many Russian oil sales would likely be able to continue without complying with the new price cap, if Russia and its buyers in Asia and elsewhere use ships, insurance and financing outside the jurisdiction of the G-7.

Biden administration officials have said they are comfortable with Russia selling its oil outside of the cap. Using non-Western shipping, insurance and banking services would likely be more costly for Russia, they said.

Still, Moscow won't be able to sell any of its seaborne crude to Europe after Monday. Traders said there are signs Russia is struggling to find buyers for more than a million barrels of crude each day that are currently sold into the EU." [1]

 

Landsbergiukas begged to pay the Russians less. Apparently, a dog's voice does not go to heaven.

 

1. EU Asks Members To Cap Russia's Oil at $60 --- Move aims to hinder Moscow's ability to conduct sales while keeping prices steady
Norman, Laurence. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 02 Dec 2022: A.1.

Kaip Europa grąžinama į Akmens amžių, nenaudojant jokių branduolinių ginklų

„Artėjant žiemai, europiečiai vis labiau nerimauja dėl savo galimybių šildyti namus ir aprūpinti energija gamyklas. Nors gamtinių dujų saugyklos beveik užpildytos, o kainos atlėgo, dujų kaina Europoje vis dar keturis ar penkis kartus didesnė už vidutinę pastaraisiais metais – ir Rusijos prezidentas Vladimiras Putinas ką tik pagrasino nutraukti į Europą vis dar tiekiamą mažą Rusijos dujų kiekį.

 

Nepaisant ekonominio skausmo ir didžiausių V. Putino pastangų, Vakarai išliko iš esmės vieningi kovojant su Rusija. Tačiau dabar transatlantiniame aljanse ima ryškėti įtrūkimai, nes Europos lyderiai, ypač Prancūzijos prezidentas Emmanuelis Macronas, kuris šią savaitę lankėsi Vašingtone, kaltina JAV energetikos ir klimato politiką pabloginus Europos ekonominę padėtį.

 

Neseniai prancūzų verslo lyderiams sakydamas E. Macronas skundėsi suskystintų gamtinių dujų importo iš JAV kaštais ir „didžiulėmis JAV valstybės pagalbos schemomis“, turėdamas omenyje JAV Infliacijos mažinimo įstatyme numatytas subsidijas švariai energijai. „Manau, kad tai nėra draugiška“, - sakė jis.

 

Kiti Europos lyderiai prisijungė, pasitelkdami kurstančią retoriką, kaltindami tris JAV politikos aspektus.

 

Kai kurie Europos pareigūnai apkaltino JAV įmones pasipelnymu, nes pardavinėjo palyginti nebrangias JAV gamtines dujas daug didesnėmis kainomis Europoje. Šie kaltinimai yra nepagrįsti. Amerikietiškos suskystintos gamtinės dujos, arba SGD, Europoje parduodamos rinkos nustatyta kaina. 

 

Nors ši kaina yra daugiau, nei penkis kartus didesnė už JAV gamtinių dujų kainą šiandien, didžioji dalis šios SGD parduodama tarpininkams, paprastai už JAV kainą ir šiek tiek antkainių. 

 

Tie tarpininkai, o ne JAV eksporto įmonės, gauna naudos, kai užjūrio dujų kaina yra daug didesnė. Dauguma šių perpardavėjų nėra amerikiečiai. Didžiausios yra Europos bendrovės – TotalEnergies ir Shell.

 

Europos išpuoliai prieš JAV yra ypač gluminantys, turint omenyje, kad amerikiečių SGD suvaidino tokį lemiamą vaidmenį padedant Europai pakeisti dujas iš Rusijos, kuri prieš karą tiekė apie 40 procentų Europos importo. Iš tiesų, daugelis Europos lyderių suabejojo ​​Amerikos pasipriešinimu „Nord Stream 2“ dujotiekiui, kuris būtų dar labiau padidinęs priklausomybę nuo Rusijos energijos. JAV buvo ne tik didžiausia SGD pirmąjį 2022 metų pusmetį eksportuotoja pasaulyje, bet pirmąjį pusmetį tiekė ir daugiau nei tris ketvirtadalius papildomų Europos Sąjungos poreikių. Skirtingai nuo daugelio kitų SGD tiekėjų iš kitų šalių, kurių sutartyse ribojama, kur galima parduoti suskystintas gamtines dujas, didžioji dauguma sutarčių dėl dujų iš Jungtinių Valstijų neturi apribojimų jų paskirties vietai, todėl dauguma tų SGD kroviniai buvo nukreipti į Europą padėti įveikti krizę.

 

Keletas Europos lyderių taip pat kritikavo labai dideles JAV švarios energijos subsidijas, numatytas JAV Infliacijos mažinimo įstatymo nuostatose dėl klimato kaitos. „Niekas nenori dalyvauti lenktynėse dėl subsidijų“, – neseniai sakė Airijos prekybos ministras Leo Varadkaras. „Tačiau tai, ką padarė JAV, iš tikrųjų neatitinka laisvos prekybos ir sąžiningos konkurencijos principų."

 

Naujasis įstatymas tikrai turės įtakos Europai. Pavyzdžiui, konsultacinės bendrovės BCG teigimu, Jungtinėse Valstijose bus pigiau gaminti mažai anglies dioksido į aplinką išskiriantį kurą, pavyzdžiui, vandenilį ir amoniaką, nei beveik bet kurioje kitoje vietoje. Europiečiai nerimauja, kad tai gali paskatinti įmones perkelti investicijų planus į Jungtines Valstijas arba perkelti daug energijos suvartojančias pramonės šakas, pvz., plieno, ten, kur yra pigi mažai anglies dioksido į aplinką išskirianti energija.

 

Suprantama, kad europiečiai nerimauja dėl Europos deindustrializacijos bangos.

 

Tačiau kaltas Europos konkurencingumo stoka be pigių rusiškų dujų, o ne naujasis Amerikos klimato įstatymas. Po daugelio metų kritikos JAV už tai, kad jos atsilieka nuo kovos su klimato kaita, Europos lyderiai smerkia šalį dėl per didelių investicijų į švarią energiją. Nauji Amerikos klimato mandatai gali pradėti konkurencijos ciklą švarios energijos technologijose, kurios pagreitina dekarbonizaciją, o ne paskatins ją stabdyti protekcionistine politika.

 

Galiausiai, Europos lyderiai baiminasi, kad JAV Infliacijos mažinimo įstatymas pakenks Europos įmonėms. Kad būtų galima gauti mokesčių lengvatas, švarios energijos produktai dažnai turi būti pagaminti Jungtinėse Valstijose arba kai kuriais atvejais kaimyninėse ar sąjunginėse šalyse. Pavyzdžiui, naujasis JAV klimato įstatymas reikalauja, kad elektrinės transporto priemonės būtų renkamos Šiaurės Amerikoje, kad būtų galima gauti subsidijas, ir kad jų akumuliatoriai būtų gaminami iš vis didesnio procento komponentų, išgaunamų ar perdirbtų Jungtinėse Valstijose arba jos laisvosios prekybos partneriuose. Europos Sąjunga nėra viena iš tų partnerių.

 

Europiečiai teisūs, reikšdami susirūpinimą dėl protekcionizmo. Pramonės politika grįžta į madą, o JAV Infliacijos mažinimo įstatymas yra naujausias veiksmas augančioje tendencijoje, kuria siekiama skatinti savo šalies pramonę, kurti darbo vietas savo šalyje ir užtikrinti savo šalies tiekimo grandines – tai taip pat daro Europos žaliasis susitarimas. Pačios Kinijos protekcionizmas ir jos pramonės panaudojimas geopolitinei įtakai privertė Vakarų vyriausybes palankiai vertinti prekybą su sąjungininkais – taip vadinamą gamybą pas draugus.

 

Tačiau dabartinė Europos energijos krizė neturi nieko bendra su naujomis JAV subsidijomis švariai energijai. Be to, nuostatos, kurios europiečiams atrodo nepriimtinos, toli gražu nėra universalios; pavyzdžiui, komercinėms transporto priemonėms, tokioms, kaip pristatymo furgonai ir sunkvežimiai, netaikomi vidaus gamybos reikalavimai subsidijoms gauti. Vis dėlto, JAV pareigūnai turėtų pasinaudoti savo nuožiūra, įgyvendindami įstatymą ir derybose dėl prekybos, kad sumažintų galimą žalą Europai ir kitoms sąjungininkėms, tokioms, kaip Pietų Korėja ir Japonija.

 

Vykdant gudrią prekybos diplomatiją, naujos JAV Infliacijos mažinimo įstatymo nuostatos dėl klimato turėtų sudaryti daugiau galimybių bendradarbiauti su Europos Sąjunga, nei kelti pavojų transatlantiniams santykiams. Pavyzdžiui, JAV ir E.S. pareigūnai gali panaudoti ryžtingus veiksmus klimato kaitos srityje abiejose Atlanto pusėse, kad įvykdytų neseniai sudarytą susitarimą apriboti plieno ir aliuminio importą, ypač iš Kinijos, kurie neatitinka tam tikrų išmetamųjų teršalų standartų, ir dirbti kartu, kad sukurtų lengvatines prekybos sąlygas šalims, kurios atitinka šiuos standartus arba taikyti anglies dioksido mokestį importui, kuris to nedaro.

 

Ketvirtadienį prezidento Bideno ir E. Macrono susitikime vyko diplomatija. Prancūzijos prezidentas kalbėjo apie būtinybę „iš naujo sinchronizuoti“ savo šalies ekonominę partnerystę su JAV, kad „kartu pavyktų laimėti“. Bidenas sakė, kad „neatsiprašo“ dėl JAV Infliacijos mažinimo įstatymo, bet taip pat pripažino, kad įstatyme yra „trikimų“ ir pasakė: „Galime daug ką išspręsti“.

 

Tai teigiamas žingsnis. Transatlantinis bendradarbiavimas bus reikalingas labiau, nei bet kada, norint paspartinti perėjimą prie švarios energijos ir užtikrinti tas naujas tiekimo grandines. Tai taip pat reikalingas, norint tvirtai laikytis prieš Rusiją. Europos lyderiai turėtų sušvelninti retoriką ir bendradarbiauti su JAV kolegomis, kad paspartintų klimato kaitos veiksmus, padidintų energetinį saugumą ir padėtų Europai susidoroti su energijos krize."

 

Gaminkite, broliai, sunkvežimius vežioti mėšlą. Pravers, dvokiančio mėšlo prikaupėte daug. O dar gausite truputį subsidijų...

 

How Europe is returned back to Stone Age without using any nuclear weapons

"As the depth of winter approaches, Europeans are increasingly worried about their ability to heat homes and power factories. Although natural gas storage levels are nearly full and prices have eased, the European gas price is still four to five times higher than average in recent years — and President Vladimir Putin of Russia has just threatened to cut what little Russian gas still flows to Europe.

Despite the economic pain and Mr. Putin’s best efforts, the West has remained largely united in confronting Russia. Yet fissures are now beginning to show in the trans-Atlantic alliance as European leaders — especially President Emmanuel Macron of France, who has been visiting Washington this week — blame U.S. energy and climate policy for worsening their energy predicament.

In recent remarks to French business leaders, Mr. Macron complained about the cost of U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas and “massive state aid schemes,” referring to the clean energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act. “I think it is not friendly,” he said.

Other European leaders have joined in, using inflammatory rhetoric to blame three aspects of U.S. policy.

Some European officials have accused U.S. companies of profiteering for selling relatively inexpensive U.S. natural gas at much higher prices in Europe. These accusations are baseless. American liquefied natural gas, or L.N.G., is sold in Europe at a price set by the market. While that price is more than five times the U.S. natural gas price today, most of that L.N.G. is sold to middlemen, usually at the U.S. price plus some markup. Those middlemen, not U.S. export companies, benefit when the overseas gas price is much higher. ‌Most of these resellers are not American. The largest are European companies — TotalEnergies and Shell.

European attacks on the United States are particularly perplexing given that American L.N.G. has played such a pivotal role in helping Europe replace gas from Russia, which had supplied around 40 percent of Europe’s imports before the war. Indeed, many European leaders questioned America’s opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would have further increased that dependence on Russian energy. The United States not only was the largest L.N.G. exporter in the world in the first half of 2022 but also supplied more than three-quarters of the European Union’s additional needs in the first half of the year. Unlike most other L.N.G. suppliers from other countries, whose contracts restrict where the liquefied natural gas can be sold, the vast majority of contracts for gas from the United States have no constraints on their destination, and thus most of those L.N.G. cargoes were diverted to Europe to help with the crisis.

Several European leaders have also criticized the very large clean energy subsidies in the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. “Nobody wants to get into a tit-for-tat or subsidy race,” the Irish trade minister, Leo Varadkar, said recently. “But what the U.S. has done really isn’t consistent with the principles of free trade and fair competition.”

The new law does have implications for Europe. It will, for instance, make it cheaper to produce low-carbon fuels, such as hydrogen and ammonia, in the United States than in nearly any other place, according to the consultancy BCG. Europeans are concerned this may encourage companies to shift investment plans to the United States or relocate energy-intensive industries, such as steel, to where the cheap low-carbon energy is.

It is understandable that Europeans are worried about a wave of deindustrialization.

But the culprit is Europe’s lack of competitiveness without cheap Russian gas, not America’s new climate law. After years of criticizing the United States for being a laggard on climate action, it is puzzling to see European leaders condemning the country for investing too much in clean energy. America’s new climate mandates can begin a cycle of competition in clean energy technologies that accelerate decarbonization rather than lead to protectionist policies that retard it.

Finally, European leaders fear the Inflation Reduction Act will disadvantage European companies. To qualify for the tax incentives, clean energy products often must be made in the United States or, in some cases, neighboring or ally nations. For example, the new climate law requires that electric vehicles be assembled in North America to qualify for the subsidies and that their batteries be made from an increasing percentage of components mined or processed in the United States or its free-trade partners. The European Union is not one of those partners.

Europeans are right to express concerns about protectionism. Industrial policy is back in vogue, and the Inflation Reduction Act is the latest action in a growing trend aimed at boosting domestic industries, creating jobs and securing supply chains — something the European Green Deal does too. China’s own protectionism and use of its industries for geopolitical influence have made Western governments favor trade with allies — so-called friend-shoring.

Yet Europe’s current energy crisis has nothing to do with the new U.S. clean energy subsidies. Moreover, the provisions Europeans find objectionable are far from universal; for example, commercial vehicles, such as delivery vans and trucks, have no domestic manufacturing requirements to receive subsidies. Still, U.S. officials should use what discretion they have in putting the law into effect and in trade negotiations to allay potential harms to Europe and other allies such as South Korea and Japan.

With deft trade diplomacy, the Inflation Reduction Act’s sweeping new climate provisions should create more opportunities for cooperation with the European Union than it creates risks to the trans-Atlantic relationship. For example, U.S. and E.U. officials can leverage strong climate action on both sides of the Atlantic to carry out a recent agreement to restrict steel and aluminum imports, notably from China, that do not meet certain emission standards and work together to create preferential trade terms for countries that do meet such standards or impose a carbon fee on imports that don’t.

Diplomacy was underway Thursday in a meeting between President Biden and Mr. Macron. The French president spoke of the need to “resynchronize” his nation’s economic partnership with the United States to “succeed together.” Mr. Biden said he makes “no apologies” for the Inflation Reduction Act but also acknowledged the law had “glitches” and said, “There’s a lot we can work out.”

This is a positive step. Trans-Atlantic cooperation will be required more than ever to accelerate the shift to clean energy and secure those new supply chains. It is also what’s required to hold firm against Russia. European leaders should tone down the rhetoric and work with their U.S. counterparts on collaborative approaches to accelerate climate action, enhance energy security and help Europe cope with its energy crisis."

 

Make, brothers, trucks to carry manure. It will come in handy, you have accumulated a lot of stinky manure. And you will also get a little bit of subsidies...