Energy JournalismNicholas is an Oxford based energy expert with many years experience in the topic providing serices as a freelance journalist, broadcaster, editor and copy writer.
I am a freelance energy journalist and member of the Energy Institute. My services include creating bespoke/dedicated/customised media plans for energy companies... ie. not an off- the- shelf solution so typical of advertising and PR companies, write up advertorials/corporate story/project overviews etc.
I also provide primary and secondary research reports and writing for clients.
My writing and publications in the last decade have been focused on the energy sector, specifically power generation, oil and gas exploration and production, energy policy and related fiscal, market, risk and technology issues.
As you will see from my client list http://www.nicnewmanoxford.com/Clients.html , my clients include Hart Energy Exploration and Production, Power Engineering International, Cornerstone, energyrealities.org, datamonitor etc.
Customers include both corporate and media clients.Available for commissions on a wide variety of work. Also provides corporate journalism, copy writing and editorial services for business. Oxford Copy writing
Nicholas's energy journalism aids decision makers, readers and organizations navigate through the many challenges of the energy sector, it is concerned with the business, markets, risk management, technological, environmental issues, geopolitics and policies.Main assets include Nicholas's ability to turn clients complex, technical and financial stories into compelling narratives. Clients?Clients include those in the press both print and online, business, broadcasters, lobby groups and public relations agencies.
|        | ||||||||||
| Some thoughts on Middle East energy journalism Responsible Energy Leadership Workshops Launched |
Sunday, 17 November 2013
Energy Journalism
The end of Gazprom monopoly?
Russia v EU
By: Nicholas Newman
At Oxford's St.Antony College a panel discussion took place about how the EU and Gazprom view the future development of the European gas market. One thing became clear the importance of European competition law was likely to affect the future of relations between Brussels and Moscow. Also, that hopes that Gazprom would loose its monopoly during the current political cycle in Russia, will have to wait for a decision after the next federal parliamentary elections.
Participants were:
Dr Andrey Konoplyanik, Adviser to Director General, Gazprom Export, Professor, Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas, Russia’s former Deputy Energy Minister, former Deputy Secretary General, Energy Charter Secretariat. http://www.konoplyanik.ru/
Professor Alan Riley, City University, London, Chair of the European-wide Competition Law Scholars Forum, Co-editor of the Competition Law Review http://www.city.ac.uk/law/about/our-staff/academic-staff/alan-riley
Androulla Kaminara, St Antony’s College, Oxford, former Head of the European Commission Representation in Cyprus, former Director for Quality of Operations of the European Commission’s Directorate General - EuropeAid http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/seesox/kaminara.html
"Oxford Institute For Energy Studies"
By: Nicholas Newman
Dr Andrey Konoplyanik presenting the Gazprom view about the future of the EU gas market.
Androulla Kaminara giving the European Commission's point of view.
Professor Alan Riley with others
Ashutosh Shastri Enerstrat Consulting and Nicholas Newman Nicnewmanoxford
At Oxford's St.Antony College a panel discussion took place about how the EU and Gazprom view the future development of the European gas market. One thing became clear the importance of European competition law was likely to affect the future of relations between Brussels and Moscow. Also, that hopes that Gazprom would loose its monopoly during the current political cycle in Russia, will have to wait for a decision after the next federal parliamentary elections.
Participants were:
Dr Andrey Konoplyanik, Adviser to Director General, Gazprom Export, Professor, Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas, Russia’s former Deputy Energy Minister, former Deputy Secretary General, Energy Charter Secretariat. http://www.konoplyanik.ru/
Professor Alan Riley, City University, London, Chair of the European-wide Competition Law Scholars Forum, Co-editor of the Competition Law Review http://www.city.ac.uk/law/about/our-staff/academic-staff/alan-riley
Androulla Kaminara, St Antony’s College, Oxford, former Head of the European Commission Representation in Cyprus, former Director for Quality of Operations of the European Commission’s Directorate General - EuropeAid http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/seesox/kaminara.html
Warsaw Climate Change Conference - November 2013
The Warsaw Climate Change Conference officially opened on 11 November. ...
Korolec, Minister of the Environment of Poland
Developing world wants more
money.
Cost of climate change
Cost of taking action
Conclusion
Korolec, Minister of the Environment of Poland
It is clear
that there are high hopes for the UN conference Cop 19 in Warsaw this November.
The question facing many onlookers is will this conference turn into just
another talking shop. Past climate change talks from Rio onwards, have been
hailed as successes, even though they have produced little in the way of
visible results. From a climate change point of view, Oxford Economics
Professor Dieter Helm regards the past three decades up to 2020 as a ‘waste of
time’. Many of the same argument s have been in play, including complaints
about the lack of western ambition to cut emissions and aid adaption in the
third world, the cost of climate change and the price tag for taking action.
Developing world wants more
money.
Many emerging
countries have made known their disquiet at the lack of ambition of rich
nations to aid poor countries in adapting to climate change. The concern, no
one is sure how much aid is necessary. The UNFCCC expected that by 2030 deprived
nations would require between $28 billion and $59 billion a year to adapt. However,
the World Bank recommended between $20 billion and $100 billion; the European
Union Commission advocated between $10 billion and $24 billion a year by 2020. Nevertheless,
despite climate aid growing, a recent World Bank report suggested it only met
5% of current requirements. http://unfccc.int/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/meeting/7649.php
Nevertheless,
providing more cash is not without its problems for developed countries. Due to
the world recession, many advanced economies do not have the spare resources
available to meet third world countries requirements. In addition, “many
developing countries have poor track records in using external assistance funds
in transparent, efficient and non-corrupt ways," commented a 2012 paper,
Financing Urgent Adaptation by the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum, a
non-profit foundation.
As for lack
of motivation in cutting emissions, for many rich economies, making adjustments
is, a difficult and complex task during a period of economic recession for many
rich economies. Part of the problem that developed countries like Britain face
is that of inertia, once you have built a coal power station, it is very
difficult to close such facility down early, before the end of its operational
lifespan. In addition, new energy generating technology often takes at least 50
years before it becomes economically viable.
Cost of climate change
Approximating
the cost of climate change is a difficult and complex undertaking, and the
assumptions the underlying figures are based are open to interpretation and
subsequent dispute. However, according to a study by a European-based NGO
called DARA 12th of September 2012, current failures to act on
climate change are damaging global economic growth. DARA puts the cost of
climate change at some 1.6% of global GDP, this amount to approximately $1.2
trillion in foregone prosperity per annum. Unless action is taken, it is
forecast that the economic damage climate change will have on the global
economy could increase to 3.2% of world GDP by 2030. In terms that are, more
specific climate change is costing both China and the United States over 2% each
of their individual potential GDP and India 5% of its GDP. EU Climate Commissioner
Connie Hedegaard has said, “Climate change is not a distant threat, but a
present danger!”
In 2012, the
major weather disasters, including floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes
cost the United States over US$110 billion, according to the US National
Climate Data Centre. During 2012, this meant a typical major weather disaster
was costing the American economy over $1 billion. This compares with the period
between 2000 and 2011, when the average yearly cost of such disasters was
around US$27 billion. Transport costs using barges have increased by 22%
because of draughts affecting US navigable waterways.
Cost of taking action
Determining
whether taking action on climate change is viable will depend in part, on how
you view the value of currency over time. In other words, what discount rate
will you use in your calculations. Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed said. For instance, if you use a discount rate of
just 1% €1000 today is worth €368 in 100 years’ time, whilst making use of a 4%
discount rate with me that the same €1000 today would be worth just €18 in 100
years. So as Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed said, “What is
possible with $100 billion today will cost ten times more in 2030,” reports
Bloomberg 13 February 2013.
The United
Kingdom Parliament Committee on Climate Change report in 2012, known as
“statutory advice on inclusion of aviation and shipping,” reported that by
2050, UK emission reductions would cost up to 2% of UK GDP. At present, UK
climate policies currently cost 1% of UK GDP. This is the equivalent to the
UK’s budget on new social housing and community amenities. In 2010, the British
government spent nearly 10% of the U.K.’s GDP on the National Health Service
reports the Guardian newspaper second of May 2012.
On a world
scale, according to Nicholas Stern, the British economist, author of the 2006
Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, he projected that preventing
climate change would cost the world economy, the equivalent of just 2% of
global GDP per annum. Gross World Product was $69.99 trillion in 2011.
Conclusion
It is clear
that Cop 19 is part of the World’s on-going debate to tackle climate change.
Why is British Energy Policy led by a bunch of Amateurs?
"Energy comment"
By: Nicholas Newman Energy Journalism
Energy has been much in the news recently, including threatened closure of an oil refinery, high energy bills etc. What we are seeing are symptoms of chaos and confusion in British energy policy and markets. The Grangemouth refinery story for instance has been treated in the media as a simple industrial relations story. However, what is being ignored is the larger story, that the European refinery industry is in trouble, due to competition from abroad caused in part by the US shale gas and oil revolution, construction of new refineries in the Middle East and China, falling demand, high energy costs and productivity issues caused by failures to invest in new technology.
Whilst, the current controversy over high domestic energy prices, is not only about supernormal profits being achieved by the energy companies, but also the failure of government to actively encourage significant new entrants into the UK energy market. Think tank IPPR said Ofgem's data on customer bills shows that profits in 2013 are 6% and operating costs make up 9% of bills. In a competitive market, it should be about 2%, the norm for supermarkets. In addition, European electricity prices have dropped by a third. Similarly, European spot market prices for gas have made similar declines. See table below, indicates that wholesal costs have increased, while customer bills have increased in the UK.
Because of America dumping its cheap coal on the European market, we have seen utilities switch off their gas power stations and instead increased their use of more profitable coal power generation. [i] Europe is planning 69 new coal power plants with a capacity of 60 GW over the next decade.[ii] In addition, UK utilities have made deals with American shale gas producers to deliver cheap shale gas to meet customers heating and power needs, thus helping to improve profit margins further.[iii]
Government policy failure to proactively direct investment in sufficient new generating and distribution capacity has also not helped; it means we could be facing third world energy shortages in the coming years.
The high cost to the taxpayer of energy subsidies is an urgent problem that also needs tackling and reform. Much is made about Green subsidies and taxes; little is made of taxes and subsidies on fossil fuels. The whole system of energy subsidies and taxes needs reform as it distorts the market and is not meeting its objectives. Generating technologies are still getting help even when there is no longer the economic or the technological case to do so.
Another area for reform is government policy on energy saving and efficiency. Government policy is a mess; many new house owners will be surprised that current building standards on energy conservation are at least 20 years behind that of Scandinavia. Vested interests have resisted lobbied against the introduction of the latest in mainland Europe standards. [iv]
In addition, for those in the Government to blame Europe is not justified, however, certainly political expedient to do so. The real question that needs to be asked, is why the government has shown little real energy leadership. [v]It has played a passive rather than proactive role in attempts to reform the European energy sector. I suspect it is because energy is not a politically popular topic for MPs aiming to make a name for themselves in politics. In addition, the issues are very complex and very challenging in terms of decision-making. [vi]Perhaps, this explains why we have had over 10 energy ministers in past 10 years. The trouble is the energy sector is a complex and very difficult topic to manage; the current amateur approach is not in the national interest. [vii]We need politicians able to take a more professional approach, this means a minister for energy needs time to learn about the job and be effective by staying in the job for the life of a parliament, just as the European Commission does for its Commissioners. Until we have expert professional energy ministers, we will continue to have a set of dysfunctional energy policies that fail the interest of both business, hard pressed consumers and tax payers.
See also http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/news/2013_10_29/Britain-s-big-six-energy-bosses-appear-before-MPs-2174/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)