Can wealthy nations stop buying Russian oil?

Illustration from the book Sketches in crude-oil; some accidents and incidents of the petroleum development in all parts of the globe, ... 3rd Edition. Source: McLaurin, John J. (John James), b. 1841, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Illustration from the book Sketches in crude-oil; some accidents and incidents of the petroleum development in all parts of the globe, … 3rd Edition. Source: McLaurin, John J. (John James), b. 1841, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

One option the U.S. and other nations have for ratcheting up pressure on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine is reducing their Russian energy purchases. U.K. Foreign Minister Liz Truss has proposed that the G7 nations – the U.S., U.K., Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan – impose limits on their Russian oil and gas imports. Global energy policy expert Amy Myers Jaffe explains how this strategy might work and how it could affect international oil markets, which have already been roiled by the conflict.

By Amy Myers Jaffe, The Conversation US, Inc. (CC BY-ND 4.0).

How important is Russia as a global oil supplier?

Russia produces close to 11 million barrels per day of crude oil. It uses roughly half of this output for its own internal demand, which presumably has increased due to higher military fuel requirements, and exports 5 million to 6 million barrels per day. Today Russia is the second-largest crude oil producer in the world, behind the U.S. and ahead of Saudi Arabia, but sometimes that order shifts.

About half of Russia’s exported oil – roughly 2.5 million barrels per day – is shipped to European countries, including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria. Nearly one-third of it arrives in Europe via the Druzhba Pipeline through Belarus. These 700,000 barrels per day in pipeline shipments would be an obvious target for some kind of sanctions, either by banning financial payments or refusing deliveries via spur lines at the Belarus border.

In 2019, European stopped accepting deliveries for several months from the Druzhba line when crude oil flowing through it became contaminated with organic chlorides that could have damaged oil refineries during processing. Russia’s oil shipments fell noticeably as it redirected flows to avoid the Druzhba line.

The remaining export shipments of Russian crude oil to Europe come mainly by ship from various ports.

China is another large buyer: It imports 1.6 million barrels per day of Russian crude oil. Half comes via a special direct pipeline, the Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean pipeline, which also services other customers via a port at its end point, including Japan and South Korea.

How would Russia be affected if other nations reduce imports of its oil?

Sanctions against Russia’s oil industry would have a greater impact than limiting natural gas flows because Russia’s oil receipts are higher and more critical to its state budget. Russia earned over US$110 billion in 2021 from oil exports, twice as much as its earnings from natural gas sales abroad.

Since oil is a relatively fungible global commodity, much of Russia’s crude exports to Europe and other participating G-7 countries might wind up being sent somewhere else. That would free up other supplies from sources such as Norway and Saudi Arabia to be redirected back to Europe.

Russia’s oil has high sulfur and other impurities, so refining it requires specialized equipment – it can’t be sold just anywhere. But other Asian buyers can take it, including India and Thailand. And Russia has special supply arrangements with countries like Cuba and Venezuela.

It’s already clear, though, that Russia is having trouble redirecting its crude oil sales. At the start of the invasion of Ukraine, European refiners began shunning spot cargoes for fears that sanctions might be forthcoming.

India bought Russian crude cargoes that were already at sea, at a sharp discount. Markets would likely respond to a G-7 oil ceiling by further discounting Russian crude. We saw the same pattern in the past when countries sanctioned Venezuelan and Iranian oil: Those nations still found buyers, but at reduced prices.

Top 10 world oil producers, 2020 Chart: The Conversation, CC BY-ND Source: EIA Get the data
Top 10 world oil producers, 2020 Chart: The Conversation, CC BY-ND Source: EIA Get the data

Can European nations get oil from other sources?

Oil shipments are arguably easier to reroute than natural gas, which has to be super-chilled to liquefy it for ship transport, then converted back to gas at its destination port. That means Russia’s crude oil may potentially be easier for European countries to replace and reroute than its natural gas, which relies more heavily on pipeline delivery, depending on market conditions.

To ensure replacement barrels are available, Europe and the U.S. could simultaneously increase crude oil sales from their national strategic stocks to lessen the blow of any restrictions on Russian crude oil imports to the G-7. The U.S. is already selling 1.3 million barrels per day from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and it could increase these flows. China has also released oil from its national strategic stocks to help ease oil prices.

The U.S. and other G-7 members would also likely ask Middle East countries to relax destination restrictions on their crude oil shipments and press countries like China and India to redirect other oils of similar quality to Russian oil back to Europe if and when they increase their purchases from Moscow. Such steps would lower the chances of G-7 restrictions on Russian oil imports raising global prices.

It’s not certain that China and India would cooperate, but it would be in their interests to do so. They are major oil importers and would not want to see higher crude oil prices.

How would global oil prices be affected if G-7 nations buy less Russian oil?

It would depend on what other steps governments take in response to rerouting of Russian oil exports. Nations are already acting to prepare global markets for shifts in liquefied natural gas flows in case of reduced purchases from Russia.

G-7 energy diplomacy is likely to involve other oil capitals that might be willing to export more oil to alleviate disruption of crude oil sales from Russia. Most exporters are maxed out in terms of crude oil production, but a few of the largest Middle East producers could surge their output in the short term to put an extra 1 million barrels per day or more onto the market.

U.S.-Saudi relations could face a test. Riyadh has access to large stores of crude oil in its vast global tank system and its tankers that float at sea. In 2014, when Russia invaded Crimea, U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf held over 70 million barrels in storage near Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates. They did this as a threat to Russia that a price war would ensue if Russian troops moved beyond that peninsula. Russia stayed in Crimea, so the oil was not released.

Saudi Arabia has instituted price wars that hurt Russia’s economy in 1986, 1998, 2009 and again briefly in 2020. But today’s oil market conditions make a price war an unlikely outcome, given the existing tight balance between supply and demand. The only scenario that could trigger a price war now would be if global demand were to contract suddenly because of a recession.

The Conversation

1 in 5 Deaths Globally Caused by Fossil Fuel Pollution, a New Study Reveals

Photo by Johannes Plenio on Unsplash
Photo by Johannes Plenio on Unsplash

By Douglas Broom, Senior Writer, Formative Content, World Economic Forum (Public License).

  • Burning fossil fuels is causing nearly one in five of all deaths worldwide.
  • A new study found the death toll is almost twice as high as previously thought.
  • China’s clean-air initiatives have saved 1.5 million lives, but the country still has the highest death toll.
  • The researchers call on policymakers to make the switch to clean energy.

Fossil fuel pollution was responsible for almost one in five deaths in 2018, according to a new study which has prompted calls for governments and businesses to do more to switch to clean energy.

More than eight million people died as a result of breathing in minute particulate matter from burning fossil fuels in 2018, according to research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London.

They found that particulate pollution was responsible for 18% of deaths in 2018, almost twice the level previously estimated. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) put the global death toll from air pollution at 4.2 million.

We already know that more than nine out of 10 people live in areas where air pollution exceeds WHO safety levels. So how did the researchers arrive at such alarming figures for fossil fuel-related deaths?

The study took a new approach, using a 3D atmospheric modelling tool to pinpoint the greatest concentrations of fine particulate (PM2.5) pollution around the world, and combined that data with more accurate measurements of its effects.

Death toll underestimated

As well as confirming that regions with the worst air pollution have the highest rates of mortality, the study, published in the journal Environmental Research, found that the number of deaths in these regions had been underestimated.

Although China has achieved a dramatic reduction in particulate pollution – numbers almost halved between 2012 and 2018 – the country still emerged with the highest death toll (3.9 million) followed by India (2.5 million).

The study found that without its clean air initiatives, the death toll in China would have been even higher. As well as saving 1.5 million lives in China, the measures had also reduced deaths from particulate pollution outside the country by almost a million as well.

North America, Europe and Asia were also shown to suffer more deaths from particulates than previously thought. Overall, the study found higher mortality rates among people who suffered long-term exposure to fossil-fuel emissions, even at comparatively low levels.

Switch to clean energy

“Our study adds to the mounting evidence that air pollution from ongoing dependence on fossil fuels is detrimental to global health,” said Professor Eloise Marais of University College, London, one of the report’s authors.

“We can’t in good conscience continue to rely on fossil fuels, when we know that there are such severe effects on health and viable, cleaner alternatives,” she added.

Harvard Professor Joel Schwartz, another of the report’s authors, said that often discussion of the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels focused on CO2 emissions and climate change and overlooked the damage to health from pollutants emitted along with greenhouse gases.

“We hope that by quantifying the health consequences of fossil fuel combustion, we can send a clear message to policymakers and stakeholders of the benefits of a transition to alternative energy sources,” he said.

Global leaders, surveyed for the World Economic Forum’s 2021 Global Risks report, ranked human environmental damage, like air pollution, as one of the top 10 clear and present dangers facing the planet. They also ranked it the third most likely risk to materialize in 2021.

World Makes Haste Too Slowly on Cutting Energy Use

The annual report card on the global energy industry says progress towards lower energy use must be much faster.

By Kieran Cooke, Climate News Network (CC BY-ND 4.0).

A rich source of methane: Gas hydrate beneath a rock in the Gulf of Mexico. Image: By US Geological Survey (public domain), via Wikimedia Commons
A rich source of methane: Gas hydrate beneath a rock in the Gulf of Mexico. Image: By US Geological Survey (public domain), via Wikimedia Commons

The world is dragging its feet on efforts to tackle the climate crisis by reducing its energy use, according to a global watchdog.

In its World Energy Outlook 2020, the lnternational Energy Agency (IEA) says that while emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main climate-changing greenhouse gas), are falling, the reduction needs to be far steeper to make any meaningful impact.

“Despite a record drop in global emissions this year, the world is far from doing enough to put them into decisive decline”, says Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director.

The Agency says energy demand is set to drop by 5% in 2020, with an overall decline of 7% in emissions of CO2 from the global energy sector. This means that annual emissions of CO2 are back to where they were a decade ago, the report says.

Oil demand this year is likely to be down by 8%, while coal use will fall by 7%.

Solar projects now offer some of the lowest-cost electricity ever seen.”

That’s the headline good news: the bad news is that emissions of methane – among the most potent of greenhouse gases – are rising, says the report.

Total global investment in the energy sector is also falling dramatically, and is set to be down 18% year on year.

That means that despite the rise of renewable energy, particularly of solar power, governments, utilities and corporations around the world are still not spending enough to bring about a major transition in energy use – and to meet the challenge of catastrophic climate change.

“Only an acceleration in structural changes to the way the world produces and consumes energy can break the emissions trend for good”, says the IEA.

Problem grids

While hydropower is still the leading source of renewable power, solar is described as the new king of electricity.

“With sharp cost reductions over the past decade, solar PV [solar photovoltaic energy] is consistently cheaper than new coal- or gas-fired power plants in most countries, and solar projects now offer some of the lowest-cost electricity ever seen.”

A major problem is that as solar and wind projects are installed and expanded, other parts of the energy sector also need to be developed, particularly infrastructure associated with electricity grids.

In many parts of the world energy utilities are in severe financial straits and have little or no money to maintain or invest in achieving more efficiencies and in infrastructure.

“Electricity grids could prove to be the weak link in the transformation of the power sector, with implications for the reliability and security of electricity supply”, says the IEA.

Covid-19’s effects

The report says it’s not just the energy industry that has to change. “To reach net-zero emissions, governments, energy companies, investors and citizens all need to be on board – and will all have unprecedented contributions to make.”

The Covid crisis is a major factor in assessing the global energy outlook.

The pandemic, says the IEA, has caused more disruption in the energy sector than any other event in recent history, with impacts for years to come.

“It is too soon to say whether today’s crisis represents a setback for efforts to bring about a more secure and sustainable energy system, or a catalyst that accelerates the pace of change”, the report says. —Climate News Network, LONDON, 16 October, 2020