Connect with us

Published

on

A Russian-chartered oil tanker in the sea off Morocco in an area identified by maritime technology company Windward as a hub for smuggling oil.

Europa Press | Getty Images

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced three vessels and shipping companies being sanctioned for violating the Russian oil sanctions on Thursday, only a few days after Treasury began a separate, larger probe of approximately 30 ship management companies covering 100 vessels suspected of violating a price cap on Russian oil.

“Shipping companies and vessels participating in the Russian oil trade while using Price Cap Coalition service providers should fully understand that we will hold them accountable for compliance,” said Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo in a statement on Thursday. “We are committed to maintaining market stability in spite of Russia’s war against Ukraine, while cutting into the profits the Kremlin is using to fund its illegal war and remaining unyielding in our pursuit of those facilitating evasion of the price cap.”

But as the Treasury seeks to cut off the Kremlin’s access to oil profits, its hunt for crude tankers and shippers violating OFAC guidelines is revealing complexities in its own guidelines and a murky marine industry.

The shipping entities identified on Thursday were United Arab Emirates-based. The vessels were Kazan Shipping Incorporated’s Kazan, Progress Shipping Company Limited’s Ligovsky Prospect, and Gallion Navigation Incorporated’s NS Century. But while those ships are now UAE-based, Matthew Wright, lead analyst of freight at marine intelligence firm Kpler, tells CNBC the location of where the company is based may be different from the location of the beneficial owner. In this case, Wright says the beneficial owner is likely still Russian-based.

“Based on the history of these fleets, these vessels were all owned and operated by Sovcomflot,” Wright said. “Management of all the Sovcomflot ships was transferred to Sun Ship Management in March/April 2022 when their offices in Europe were closed. Those three companies are now managed by a new manager called Oil Tankers SCF Management but it’s just another name. Ownership hasn’t changed since 2006. They’re not part of either the dark or grey fleet really as I consider them still Russian-owned.” 

30 ship owners targeted in new Treasury probe

This is just one example of the murkiness within the Russian oil trade. The probe against 30 shipowners begun earlier this week reveals how identifying and finding proof of vessels traversing the oceans with sanctioned oil is not as straightforward as suggested by initial headlines covering the Treasury allegations. These companies received warning letters from the government about activity deemed suspicious and requests for documentation. There are grey areas in the U.S. government’s Russian oil guidelines, though the efforts can ultimately lead maritime investigators to the truth.

In the U.S. Treasury’s “Preliminary Guidance on Implementation of a Maritime Services Policy and Related Price Exception for Seaborne Russian Oil,” ship owners are under a Tier 2 category. According to the Treasury, this group within the maritime industry are “actors who are sometimes able to request and receive price information from their customers in the ordinary course of business.”

If a ship owner is unable to obtain such pricing information, according to the Treasury’s guidelines, the Tier 2 actors (ship owners) need to request “customer attestations” where their charter customers pledge in a document they will not purchase seaborn Russian oil above the price cap.

This document could provide a “safe harbor” for ship owners who are relying on that customer’s “attestation” to comply with sanctions. This safe harbor is also extended to the ship insurance companies.

“Ship owners rely on the charterer to provide ample proof that the Russian oil on board the vessel has been sold below the price cap,” said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. “The sanctions can easily be circumvented if a dishonest charterer presents documents that falsify the true cost of the oil.”

Lipow said one clue to suspicious paperwork is a price of oil that is well below the market, selling Russian crude oil in Asia today at $50 per barrel when Brent is trading at $80.

“That is a red flag,” Lipow said.  

Based on the safe harbor, if the ship owner or management company can be absolved of wrongdoing, the documents can still lead Treasury to the charterer.

The U.S. Treasury told CNBC it does not comment on current investigations.

Tracking Russian oil

A breakout of the Russian oil trade by Kpler shows around 30% of Russian exports from Western ports are still using commercial shipping with beneficial ownership within the European Union.

Wright said this “dark fleet” is comprised of vessels typically 20 years and older which have loaded or predominantly loaded Venezuelan or Iranian cargoes in the last few years.

“There is often some evidence that they have been disguising their activities by turning off their AIS, but not in all cases,” said Wright, referring to the automatic identification system used by marine vessels to track location. “Ownership is often opaque and the operator does not engage in standard commercial shipping outside of operating these vessels.”

There are also “grey fleet” vessels sold since the Russian invasion of Ukraine with the aim of transporting Russian exports and avoiding sanctions. These vessels, according to Wright, have had EU ownership.

“Most vessels have been sold by owners based in Europe to owners who were not previously active in the tanker market,” he said. “The owners are based mainly in Hong Kong, China, India, and the UAE.”

The price cap rules state that exports of Russian crude or refined products on EU-owned, insured, or serviced tonnage must be below the relevant price cap.

Since July, Wright says most exports from Russia are assumed to be above the caps, yet a large number of ships from within the EU continue to trade. This is because of the way Russian crude is traded.

“It is very likely vessels loading Russian cargoes that are EU-owned will have documentation showing a crude trade below the price cap, even if the cargo was actually traded above the price cap,” Wright said. “This is because a charterer or middleman will have traded it at a price that can be shown to the owner as part of a wider trade with the final buyer. The (vessel) owner is unlikely to have any evidence to the contrary.”

Vessel owners do not produce these documents, he said, but are provided with these documents by the charterer.

“The vessel owners are merely the custodians of information provided to them,” Wright said.

Beks Shipmanagement & Trading confirmed to CNBC it is among the companies that received warning letters from the Treasury this week and is sending documents to the government. The company had been identified in earlier press reports, though Treasury declined to specify companies to receive letters.

In an email to CNBC, the company rejected the Treasury’s allegations. “Despite the fact that the U.S. Treasury Department requested voyage details from 30 different ship management including 100 vessels, it is an obvious bad faith and reputation damaging purpose that only our management company was mentioned in the news recently circulated in the media,” a Beks spokesperson wrote.

The company, based in Turkey, announced in October the deployment of SpaceX’s Starlink satellite connectivity system across its fleet of 40 bulkers and tankers for enhanced vessel tracking.

“Our vessels are traded worldwide with their tracking system always switched to the on position. We employ our vessels by abiding (by) all international laws and regulations without breaching any sanction regime,” the company wrote in the email.

Beks said it has been conducting due diligence procedures on all of its voyages as well as carrying out the necessary sanction checks with its London-based lawyers.

According to Kpler, Beks Shipmanagement’s fleet had numerous tanker port calls to Russia since the start of sanctions on February 24, 2022. One example is the oil products tanker Bek Aqua.

Kpler was able to track the travel of the tanker using the tanker’s satellite beacons through the AIS short-range coastal tracking system currently used on ships.

The tanker Beks Aqua arrived at the Russian Port of Nakhodka on Oct 26 and was loaded with either diesel or Naptha on November 1. The vessel then arrived at the Port of Singapore on November 10 and departed empty on November 14.

But following the satellite data doesn’t allow for understanding of contract prices.

“While we can track the vessel’s journey from Russia to Singapore, unless we have the sales contract, we do not know the price the oil product was purchased for,” Lipow said. “The only fact we have is companies like Beks Shipping are employed to move Russian oil. It is possible that someone filed false paperwork with the shipowner. This is why tracking the Russian oil sanctions is not straightforward,” he said.

Beks Shipmanagement said the requested voyage details will be provided to the U.S. Treasury with full transparency.

We're using sanctions to deny Russians the weapons they need, Deputy Treasury Sec. Wally Adeyemo

Continue Reading

Environment

Solar and wind industry faces up to $7 billion tax hike under Trump’s big bill, trade group says

Published

on

By

Solar and wind industry faces up to  billion tax hike under Trump's big bill, trade group says

Witthaya Prasongsin | Moment | Getty Images

Senate Republicans are threatening to hike taxes on clean energy projects and abruptly phase out credits that have supported the industry’s expansion in the latest version of President Donald Trump‘s big spending bill.

The measures, if enacted, would jeopardize hundreds of thousands of construction jobs, hurt the electric grid, and potentially raise electricity prices for consumers, trade groups warn.

The Senate GOP released a draft of the massive domestic spending bill over the weekend that imposes a new tax on renewable energy projects if they source components from foreign entities of concern, which basically means China. The bill also phases out the two most important tax credits for wind and solar power projects that enter service after 2027.

Republicans are racing to pass Trump’s domestic spending legislation by a self-imposed Friday deadline. The Senate is voting Monday on amendments to the latest version of the bill.

The tax on wind and solar projects surprised the renewable energy industry and feels punitive, said John Hensley, senior vice president for market analysis at the American Clean Power Association. It would increase the industry’s burden by an estimated $4 billion to $7 billion, he said.

“At the end of the day, it’s a new tax in a package that is designed to reduce the tax burden of companies across the American economy,” Hensley said. The tax hits any wind and solar project that enters service after 2027 and exceeds certain thresholds for how many components are sourced from China.

This combined with the abrupt elimination of the investment tax credit and electricity production tax credit after 2027 threatens to eliminate 300 gigawatts of wind and solar projects over the next 10 years, which is equivalent to about $450 billion worth of infrastructure investment, Hensley said.

“It is going to take a huge chunk of the development pipeline and either eliminate it completely or certainly push it down the road,” Hensley said. This will increase electricity prices for consumers and potentially strain the electric grid, he said.

The construction industry has warned that nearly 2 million jobs in the building trades are at risk if the energy tax credits are terminated and other measures in budget bill are implemented. Those credits have supported a boom in clean power installations and clean technology manufacturing.

“If enacted, this stands to be the biggest job-killing bill in the history of this country,” said Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, in a statement. “Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects.”

The Senate legislation is moving toward a “worst case outcome for solar and wind,” Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco told clients in a Sunday note.

Shares of NextEra Energy, the largest renewable developer in the U.S., fell 2%. Solar stocks Array Technologies fell 8%, Enphase lost nearly 2% and Nextracker tumbled 5%.

Trump’s former advisor Elon Musk slammed the Senate legislation over the weekend.

“The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,” The Tesla CEO posted on X. “Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.”

Catch up on the latest energy news from CNBC Pro:

Continue Reading

Environment

Nissan is in crisis mode as job cuts begin and suppliers are caught in the crosshairs

Published

on

By

Nissan is in crisis mode as job cuts begin and suppliers are caught in the crosshairs

Is Nissan raising the red flag? Nissan is cutting about 15% of its workforce and is now asking suppliers for more time to make payments.

Nissan starts job cuts, asks supplier to delay payments

As part of its recovery plan, Nissan announced in May that it plans to cut 20,000 jobs, or around 15% of its global workforce. It’s also closing several factories to free up cash and reduce costs.

Nissan said it will begin talks with employees at its Sunderland plant in the UK this week about voluntary retirement opportunities. The company is aiming to lay off around 250 workers.

The Sunderland plant is the largest employer in the city with around 6,000 workers and is critical piece to Nissan’s comeback. Nissan will build its next-gen electric vehicles at the facility, including the new LEAF, Juke, and Qashqai.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

According to several emails and company documents (via Reuters), Nissan is also working with its suppliers to for more time to make payments.

Nissan-delays-supplier-payments
The new Nissan LEAF (Source: Nissan)

“They could choose to be paid immediately or opt for a later payment,” Nissan said. The company explained in a statement to Reuters that it had incentivized some of its suppliers in Europe and the UK to accept more flexible payment terms, at no extra cost.

The emails show that the move would free up cash for the first quarter (April to June), similar to its request before the end of the financial year.

Nissan-delays-supplier-payments
Nissan N7 electric sedan (Source: Dongfeng Nissan)

One employee said in an email to co-workers that Nissan was asking suppliers “again” to delay payments. The emails, viewed by Reuters, were exchanged between Nissan workers in Europe and the United Kingdom.

Nissan is taking immediate action as part of its recovery plan, aiming to turn things around, the company said in a statement.

Nissan-Micra-EV
The new Nissan Micra EV (Source: Nissan)

“While we are taking these actions, we aim for sufficient liquidity to weather the costs of the turnaround actions and redeem bond maturities,” the company said.

Nissan didn’t comment on the internal discussions, but the emails did reveal it gave suppliers two options. They could either delay payments at a higher interest rate, or HSBC would make the payment, and Nissan would repay the bank with interest.

Nissan-delays-supplier-payments
Nissan’s upcoming lineup for the US, including the new LEAF EV and “Adventure Focused” SUV (Source: Nissan)

The company had 2.2 trillion yen ($15.2 billion) in cash and equivalents at the end of March, but it has around 700 billion yen ($4.9 billion) in debt that’s due later this year.

As part of Re:Nissan, the Japanese automaker’s recovery plan, Nissan looks to cut costs by 250 billion yen. By fiscal year 2026, it plans to return to profitability.

Electrek’s Take

With an aging vehicle lineup and a wave of new low-cost rivals from China, like BYD, Nissan is quickly falling behind.

Nissan is launching several new electric and hybrid vehicles over the next few years, including the next-gen LEAF, which is expected to help boost sales.

In China, the world’s largest EV market, Nissan’s first dedicated electric sedan, the N7, is off to a hot start with over 20,000 orders in 50 days.

The N7 will play a role in Nissan’s recovery efforts as it plans to export it to overseas markets. It will be one of nine new energy vehicles, including EVs and PHEVs, that Nissan plans to launch in China.

Can Nissan turn things around? Or will it continue falling behind the pack? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Elon Musk said to bet on Tesla delivering Robotaxi in June, yet those who did just lost big

Published

on

By

Elon Musk said to bet on Tesla delivering Robotaxi in June, yet those who did just lost big

Elon Musk said just a few weeks ago that betting on Tesla delivering its promised Robotaxi in June is a “money-making opportunity,” and yet, those who listened to him just lost big.

A fan of Musk lost $50,000 betting on Tesla Robotaxi.

With the rise in prediction markets, you can bet on virtually everything these days.

Sites like Polymarket have about a dozen prediction markets related to Tesla, where anyone can bet on events such as Tesla delivering its robotaxi service.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

There have been a couple of specific markets about that, and Musk directly commented on one titled “Will Tesla launch a driverless Robotaxi service before July?:

Less than two weeks ago, the market gave Tesla only a 14% chance of launching the service, and Musk called it a “money-making opportunity.”

At the time, less than $500,000 was traded on this market, but Musk made it way more popular.

Now, over $7 million has been traded on this market, and while Tesla claims to have launched its Robotaxi service on June 22nd, the market currently gives Tesla less than 1% chance today, with less than a day left in June.

Each prediction market has clear “resolution” rules and Musk evidently didn’t read them before suggesting there was money to be made betting “yes”:

This market will resolve to “Yes” if Tesla publicly launches a fully driverless taxi service by June 30, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, it will resolve to “No.”

Any service that allows a member of the general public to summon and ride in a Tesla vehicle operating without any human—onboard or remote—actively controlling the vehicle will count. A human may be present in the vehicle or monitoring remotely for emergency intervention, but they must not be physically positioned to take control (for example, no safety driver in the driver’s seat) and must not actively steer, brake, accelerate, or otherwise drive the car under normal operation.

A program that is restricted to Tesla employees, invite-only testers, closed-beta participants, factory self-delivery features, or the mere release of Full Self-Driving software for private owner-drivers will not qualify. Regulatory permits or approvals, press demonstrations, and prototype unveilings without live public ridership likewise will not count toward resolution.

This market’s resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.

There are a few things in the resolution that disqualify what Tesla launched on June 22nd. First off, there’s a human inside the vehicle ready to take control with their finger on a kill switch. We have already seen interventions from the in-car Tesla supervisor, who are still very much necessary.

Secondly, the resolution requires a launch that is not restricted to an invite-only basis, which is currently the case.

The level of remote operations could also prove challenging to confirm, and it is part of the resolution.

Electrek found someone who lost $50,000 following Musk’s “money-making opportunity”:

Someone else has lost $28,000 and is now betting another $27,000 that Tesla will achieve this by the end of July.

Currently, Polymarket‘s odds only put a 21% chance of Tesla delivering on the service based on the previously mentioned resolution before August:

There’s another market predicting if “Tesla launches unsupervised full self-driving (FSD) by the end of 2025” that has arguably an even more restrictive resolution, and it currently gives it a 59% chance of happening:

With Polymarket, users are not really “betting” on an outcome, but they are trying to beat the current odds by buying shares in “yes” or “no”, which they can sell to other users before the end of the timeline.

Electrek’s Take

It’s quite amusing that Musk was so confident people would believe in his Robotaxi that he didn’t bother to investigate what other people think an actual robotaxi service would entail, like in the Polymarket resolution.

Historically speaking, you are way better off betting against whatever timeline Musk claims about self-driving. He has been consistently wrong about it for a decade now.

Polymarket even has a market about Tesla launching unsupervised self-driving in California this year. I threw some money in that one because California has much stricter regulations when it comes to self-driving, and it requires a lot of testing before being deployed, as described in the resolution.

I doubt Tesla can go through that this year, but it’s not impossible.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending