The small pipeline playing an oversized role in the energy crisis

Published

2 years ago

December 8, 2022

admin

The chances are you haven’t heard of the BBL pipeline.

It’s a 235km steel tube which runs under the North Sea between Balgzand in the northern tip of the Netherlands and Bacton in Great Britain.

It’s one of those bits of innocuous infrastructure which, most of the time, no-one except energy analysts pay all that much attention to.

But let’s spend a moment pondering this pipe, because it could prove enormously consequential for all of us in the coming months.

Indeed, BBL has already played a silent but essential role in the Ukraine war and, for that matter, the fate of Europe, because this is one of the two main pipelines transporting gas between the UK and Northern Europe.

Actually, BBL is the smaller of the two pipes, the other of which is the rather unimaginatively-named “Interconnector” pipe. But the reason it’s worth focusing on BBL is because in the past few days something rather interesting happened there.

Before we get to that, though, it’s worth reminding ourselves of the big picture here, the challenge facing Europe: a desperate shortage of energy.

Here’s the best way of understanding it: this time last year, Europe (including the UK) was consuming roughly 85 billion cubic metres of natural gas a month. Of that, about 21 billion cubic metres (bcm) – roughly a quarter – came via Russian pipelines.

That gas didn’t just go into our boilers and gas-fired power stations.

It was a feedstock which helped us manufacture chemicals and fertilisers.

It fed us, it fuelled industry, it helped keep the lights on.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, suddenly Europe couldn’t take that 25% of its energy for granted any more. And indeed, most of the Russian supply has since dwindled (it’s now down 81% to about 4bcm a month).

And so much of what might today be categorised as economic news – the rocketing rate of inflation, the squeeze on household incomes and the recession we’re now sliding into – really comes back to this gap, between the gas we used to consume and the gas we can now lay our hands on.

And the short answer is that getting hold of that extra gas isn’t easy at all.

Partly that’s because most of the non-Russian sources which are already pumping gas into European pipelines (which is to say: mainly Norway but, to a lesser extent, the UK, Netherlands and Algeria) are already producing about all they can.

These days you can ship gas (in the form of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), a supercooled liquid) across the ocean from Qatar and the US, but that depends on a few things.

The first is actually getting hold of that gas. The UK on Wednesday published details of a new “US-UK Energy Security and Affordability Partnership” which aims to provide more LNG to the UK. That matters because Britain and Europe are essentially competing with China and other Asian nations on global markets for these cargoes.

The second (and perhaps even more important) factor is having terminals where you can receive and re-gasify the LNG and then feed it into your domestic pipeline network.

But there are only so many of these ports and regasification facilities in Europe. Germany, for instance, has none (though it’s got some temporary capacity coming up soon). The UK has lots. Indeed, it has more LNG capacity in its three ports (two at Milford Haven, one at Isle of Grain) than Belgium and the Netherlands have in total.

The logic of this was that back at the start of the conflict, it looked quite plausible that the UK would become a sort of energy “land bridge” across which gas could be transited to Europe. And that indeed is precisely what happened, which brings us back to the pipeline crossing from the UK to the north of Europe.

Over the past year, a stupendous amount of LNG has been coming into UK ports, drawn in by the stupendously high gas price, from where it has been transferred across the UK’s pipeline network and thence into the European system.

To put this into perspective, in the four summers since 2017, the average amount of natural gas transferred from the UK was around 5.7 trillion cubic metres. This past summer the total was 20.5 trillion cubic metres.

It’s worth dwelling on this for a moment, for it represents one of the under appreciated stories of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Much of the gas which replenished the storage facilities in Europe, which should help them survive the coming winter while keeping homes heated, despite the absence of Russian gas, came via the UK – via the BBL and Interconnector pipelines.

And that’s actually understating it, because those pipelines were only so wide, and so could only carry a certain proportion of the LNG flowing into the UK, but what also happened this summer is that UK gas power plants went into overdrive, burning that gas and turning it into electricity, which was also fed via undersea cables into Europe.

This mattered. Much of France’s nuclear power fleet was out of action this summer as water levels in French rivers ran too low to provide the necessary coolant. British electrons were part of the explanation for why the lights never went out in France.

This astounding flow of gas (which of course has its own climactic consequences) caused some interesting price fluctuations this past year. As we reported earlier in the summer, it helped suppress UK day-ahead gas prices down to surprisingly low levels.

For a period in May and June, the UK wholesale gas price was less than half the level in continental Europe – because the UK was awash with all these natural gas molecules trying to fit themselves into these steel pipes coming out of Bacton.

But in recent weeks those flows have begun to drop, which brings us to the interesting thing that changed in the past few days.

For the first time since the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the extraordinary rollercoaster in the gas market, a small quantity of natural gas begun to flow back into the UK.

It’s important not to overstate this. The numbers are very small indeed. But it’s a reminder that actually, in “normal” times, these pipelines serve a very different purpose from the one they’ve served in recent months.

Britain doesn’t have much domestic storage for natural gas. While Germany has about 266 terawatt-hours of storage capacity, the UK has only 53, barely enough to keep boilers going for more than a week or two.

However, the UK strategy in recent years has been to use Europe as a kind of storage system. Think of these underground caverns as a kind of bank.

You deposit gas in them in the warm months and take it out when it gets cold. And in “normal” times the UK has “deposited” its gas in Europe in the summer, sending much of the stuff that came out of the North Sea (and some stuff from those LNG terminals) across the two pipelines and those molecules went into European storage.

And in winter, the UK would typically “withdraw” the gas from Europe when it got cold and it needed a little more for peoples’ boilers. Into Europe in the summer; out of Europe in the winter.

But that brings us to this winter. The UK has put an extraordinary amount of gas into European storage in the summer. What happens if it gets really cold? In any normal winter, it would need to get that gas out of Europe via those pipelines. But this, of course, is not a normal winter. There is a chance that the remaining flows of gas from Russia dry up further, meaning there could be a real shortage. In such circumstances, what happens?

If the market carries on working, then that would push up prices high on continental Europe, but the logic is that in order to attract that gas across the channel, the UK would have to pay even higher prices than continental Europe. In other words, while prices in the UK have been lower than Europe for most of the summer, they could well be higher than Europe for most of the winter.

There is a sign that this is already happening.

In the past couple of days, those prices have converged. But there is also a scarier question: what if the market doesn’t function, because of political interference? What if European nations decide that storage in, say Germany (or for that matter the European Union) cannot leave? Where does that leave the UK, which tends to rely on those pipeline flows from Europe in the event of a cold snap.

The short answer is that no-one really knows. What we do know is that this story isn’t over yet. Gas prices are already eye-wateringly high, especially when you consider that the Government is effectively subsidising them. It’s not implausible that they get even higher.

Business

Trump trade war escalation sparks global market sell-off

Published

1 day ago

April 3, 2025

admin

Trump trade war escalation sparks global market sell-off

Donald Trump’s trade war escalation has sparked a global sell-off, with US stock markets seeing the biggest declines in a hit to values estimated above $2trn.

Tech and retail shares were among those worst hit when Wall Street opened for business, following on from a flight from risk across both Asia and Europe earlier in the day.

Analysis by the investment platform AJ Bell put the value of the peak losses among major indices at $2.2trn (£1.7trn).

The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite was down 5.8%, the S&P 500 by 4.3% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average by just under 4% at the height of the declines. It left all three on course for their worst one-day losses since at least September 2022 though the sell-off later eased back slightly.

Trump latest: UK considers tariff retaliation

Analysts said the focus in the US was largely on the impact that the expanded tariff regime will have on the domestic economy but also effects on global sales given widespread anger abroad among the more than 180 nations and territories hit by reciprocal tariffs on Mr Trump‘s self-styled “liberation day”.

They are set to take effect next week, with tariffs on all car, steel and aluminium imports already in effect.

Price rises are a certainty in the world’s largest economy as the president’s additional tariffs kick in, with those charges expected to be passed on down supply chains to the end user.

The White House believes its tariffs regime will force employers to build factories and hire workers in the US to escape the charges.

Economists warn the additional costs will add upward pressure to US inflation and potentially choke demand and hiring, ricking a slide towards recession.

Apple was among the biggest losers in cash terms in Thursday’s trading as its shares fell by almost 9%, leaving it on track for its worst daily performance since the start of the COVID pandemic.

Concerns among shareholders were said to include the prospects for US price hikes when its products are shipped to the US from Asia.

Other losers included Tesla, down by almost 6% and Nvidia down by more than 6%.

Many retail stocks including those for Target and Footlocker lost more than 10% of their respective market values.

The European Union is expected to retaliate in a bid to put pressure on the US to back down.

The prospect of a tit-for-tat trade war saw the CAC 40 in France and German DAX fall by more than 3.4% and 3% respectively.

The FTSE 100, which is internationally focused, was 1.6% lower by the close – a three-month low.

Financial stocks were worst hit with Asia-focused Standard Chartered bank enduring the worst fall in percentage terms of 13%, followed closely by its larger rival HSBC.

Among the stocks seeing big declines were those for big energy as oil Brent crude costs fell back by 6% to $70 due to expectations a trade war will hurt demand.

The more domestically relevant FTSE 250 was 2.2% lower.

A weakening dollar saw the pound briefly hit a six-month high against the US currency at $1.32.

There was a rush for safe haven gold earlier in the day as a new record high was struck though it was later trading down.

Sean Sun, portfolio manager at Thornburg Investment Management, said of the state of play: “Markets may actually be underreacting, especially if these rates turn out to be final, given the potential knock-on effects to global consumption and trade.”

He warned there was a big risk of escalation ahead through countermeasures against the US.

Sandra Ebner, senior economist at Union Investment, said: “We assume that the tariffs will not remain in place in the
announced range, but will instead be a starting point for further negotiations.

“Trump has set a maximum demand from which the level of tariffs should decrease”.

She added: “Since the measures would not affect all regions and sectors equally, there will be winners and losers as in 2018 – although the losers are more likely to be in the EU than in North America.

“To protect companies in Europe from the effects of tariffs, the EU should not respond with high counter-tariffs. In any case, their impact in the US is not likely to be significant. It would be more efficient to provide targeted support to EU companies in the form of investment and stimulus.”

Business

British businesses issue warning over ‘deeply troubling’ Trump tariffs

Published

1 day ago

April 3, 2025

admin

British businesses issue warning over 'deeply troubling' Trump tariffs

British companies and business groups have expressed alarm over President Donald Trump’s 10% tariff on UK goods entering the US – but cautioned against retaliatory measures.

It comes as Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds launched a consultation with firms on taxes the UK could implement in response to the new levies.

Money blog: Pension top-up deadline days away

A 400-page list of 8,000 US goods that could be targeted by UK tariffs has been published, including items like whiskey and jeans.

On so-called “Liberation Day”, Mr Trump announced UK goods entering the US will be subject to a 10% tax while cars will be slapped with a 25% levy.

The government’s handling of tariff negotiations with the US to date has been praised by representative and industry bodies as being “cool” and “calm” – and they urged ministers to continue that approach by not retaliating.

Business lobby group the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) said: “Retaliation will only add to supply chain disruption, slow down investment, and stoke volatility in prices”.

Industry body the British Retail Consortium (BRC) also cautioned: “Retaliatory tariffs should only be a last resort”.

‘Deeply troubling’

While a major category of exports, in the form of services – like finance and information technology (IT) – has been exempted from the tariffs, the impact on UK business is expected to be significant.

Mr Trump’s announcement was described as “deeply troubling for businesses” by the CBI’s chief executive Rain Newton-Smith.

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) also said the tariffs were “a major blow” to small and medium companies (SMEs), as 59% of small UK exporters sell to the US. It called for emergency government aid to help those affected.

“Tariffs will cause untold damage to small businesses trying to trade their way into profit while the domestic economy remains flat,” the FSB’s policy chair Tina McKenzie said. “The fallout will stifle growth” and “hurt opportunities”, she added.

Companies will need to adapt and overcome, the British Export Association said, but added: “Unfortunately adaptation will come at a cost that not all businesses will be able to bear.”

Watch dealer and component seller Darren Townend told Sky News the 10% hit would be “painful” as “people will buy less”.

“I am a fan of Trump, but this is nuts,” he said. “I expect some bad months ahead.”

Industry body Make UK said the 25% tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium would in particular be devastating for UK manufacturing.

Cars hard hit

Carmakers are among the biggest losers from the world trade order reshuffle.

Auto industry body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said the taxes were “deeply disappointing and potentially damaging measure”.

“These tariff costs cannot be absorbed by manufacturers”, SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said. “UK producers may have to review output in the face of constrained demand”.

The new taxes on cars took effect on Thursday morning, while the measures impacting car parts are due to come in on 3 May.

Business

Trump trade war: The blunt calculation that should have spared UK from reciprocal tariffs

Published

1 day ago

April 3, 2025

admin

Trump trade war: The blunt calculation that should have spared UK from reciprocal tariffs

Economists immediately started scratching their heads when Donald Trump raised his tariffs placard in the Rose Garden on Wednesday.

On that list he detailed the rate the US believes it is being charged by each country, along with its response: A reciprocal tariff at half that rate.

So, take China for example. Donald Trump said his team had run the numbers and the world’s second-largest economy was implementing an effective tariff of 67% on US imports. The US is responding with 34%.

Trump latest: UK considers tariff retaliation

How did he come up with that 67%? This is where things get a bit murky. The US claims it studied its trading relationship with individual countries, examining non-tariff barriers as well as tariff barriers. That includes, for example, regulations that make it difficult for US exporters.

However, the actual methodology appears to be far cruder. Instead of responding to individual countries’ trade barriers, Trump is attacking those enjoying large trade surpluses with the US.

A formula released by the US trade representative laid this bare. It took the US’s trade deficit in goods with each country and divided that by imports from that country. That figure was then divided by two.

So, in the case of China, which has a trade surplus of $295bn on total US exports of $438bn, that gives a ratio of 68%. The US divided that by two, giving a reciprocal tariff of 34%.

This is a blunt measure which targets big importers to the US, irrespective of the trade barriers they have erected. This is all part of Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the country’s deficit – although it’s US consumers who will end up paying the price.

But what about the small number of countries where the US has a trade surplus? Shouldn’t they actually be benefiting from all of this?

That includes the UK, with whom the US has a surplus (by its own calculations) of $12bn. By its own reciprocal tariff formula, the UK should be benefitting from a “negative tariff” of 9%.

Instead, it has been hit by a 10% baseline tariff. Number 10 may be breathing a sigh of relief – the US could, after all, have gone after us for our 20% VAT rate on imports, which it takes issue with – but, by Trump’s own measure, we haven’t got off as lightly as we should have.