Singapore bank DBS posts 18% jump in third quarter profit, beating estimates

SINGAPORE: Singapore’s largest bank, DBS Group, reported on Monday( Nov. 6 ) a better-than-expected 18 % increase in third-quarter net profit on the back of higher interest rates, which it predicted will also help keep its profit steady next year.

The largest merchant in Southeast Asia, DBS, has already predicted a report full-year profit for the current year.

According to CEO Piyush Gupta in results presentation materials,” Net profit ( for 2024 ) to be maintained around record 2023 level.”

Higher-for-longer interest rates will be beneficial to earnings as we enter the upcoming year, according to Mr. Gupta, while our strong balance sheet, enough liquidity, wise general allowance reserves, and wholesome capital ratios will give us powerful buffers against macro uncertainties.

As full salary increased to a report due to higher interest margins and cost earnings, the bank’s net profit from July to September increased from S$ 2.24 billion( US$ 1.94 billion ) to S$ 2.63 billion.

That exceeded the median measure of S$ 2.5 billion from four LSEG-surveyed experts.

A crucial indicator of success, DBS ‘ net interest tolerance, increased from 1.9 % in the prior quarter to 2.19 percent during the current quarter.

For the fourth quarter, it announced a payout of 48 cents per share, bringing the payment for the nine month of 2023 to S.$ 1.38.

Additionally, Mr. Gupta anticipated that the company’s net interest revenue in 2024 would be comparable to that of this year, with money management and cards continuing the momentum of fee income.

According to the statement, he also predicted that full accommodations would normalize to 17 to 20 basis points of funding and a higher profit for the following year. & nbsp,

Continue Reading

Commentary: Concerns over China-backed high-speed railway do not derail Indonesia’s agency

However, China was not the only nation to provide funding for this endeavor. The Jakarta – Bandung high-speed railway’s financing was initially a contest between China and Japan. A chance to enhance inter-city communication was suggested in the form of the Bandung-Javanese high-speed railway after Japan’s victory in addressing Jakartas population density problem by building the Jakarta Mass Rail Transit System during the 2000s.

Both China and Japan made a charge in 2015. The main factor in Japan’s rejection of the Chinese play was its emphasis on a payment guarantee from the Malaysian authorities, even though there were additional benefits, such as an offer of technology transfer. This demonstrates Indonesia’s efforts to uphold its reign.

Indonesia insisted it may demand the same of China after rejecting Japan’s play on these grounds. Beijing, but, responded harshly when Jakarta asked it to pay the budget surplus, putting a strain on the once-strong economic ties between Indonesia and China.

Chinese companies like Alibaba Cloud first showed interest in similar large infrastructure projects, such as Nusantara, the ambitious project by Indonesian President Joko Widodok to relocate the nation’s capital to East Kalimantan, but these projects ultimately fell through.

Firm IN SOUTHEAST Eastern COUNTRIES

However, the high-speed rail project has shown that Indonesia is determined to keep its agency in charge of such initiatives, as evidenced by the fact that it chose to cover the flooded costs out of its own budget. Despite the promise of significant equipment investments from China, there is a growing trend of nations in Southeast Asia following suit.

Related problems have been encountered with the Export-Import Bank of China-funded East Coast Rail Link in Malaysia. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad renegotiated the project, which had been stalled since 2016 with an initial estimated price of$ 16 billion, to$ 11 billion and a favorable deal for Malay staff in order to make the investment between Malaysia and China more just.

Continue Reading

IN FOCUS: How Israel-Hamas falsehoods on TikTok ‘cloud the public eye’ in Southeast Asia

WHAT TIKTOK SAYS Government

The European Commission has questioned TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp owner Meta about how they combat false information about the conflict. Additionally, it is looking into X for supposedly spreading false information.

The Ministry of Communications and Information in Singapore has” emphasized to social media services the need to step up content moderation efforts during this period, taking into consideration local sensitivities ,” in response to CNA’s inquiries. It didn’t go into detail.

The department acknowledged that Singaporean social media users may be at” heightened risk of being exposed to harmful online information and misinformation ,” and it urged the government to exercise caution, fact-check, and refrain from disseminating information if they are unsure of its veracity. & nbsp,

The limited regulators in Malaysia and Indonesia were also contacted by CNA for their feedback.

Since the start of the war, TikTok has removed more than 925, 000 videos from the turmoil location for breaking its policies on violence, hate speech, misconceptions, and extremism, including content that promotes Hamas, according to its most recent update on its website, which was published on Friday.

Over 24 million fake accounts, more than 500,000 bot comments on content using keywords related to the war, and 50 000 video with” dangerous misinformation” have all been removed from TikTok globally during the same time period.

The platform, which is owned by the Chinese tech company Bytedance, recently announced that it had added more Arabic and Hebrew-speaking moderators to evaluate content pertaining to the conflict. Additionally, it collaborates with outside fact-checking organizations like Agence France-Presse.

Recent media reports and scientific studies have revealed that TikTok’s algorithms does not favor information and that deceptive videos on the platform you” spread quickly thanks to their shock value ,” in addition to content moderation.

The idea that the platform would gain from shock value content is” baseless ,” a TikTok spokesperson retorted to CNA. & nbsp,

According to the spokesperson,” we remove material that contravenes our policies against damaging misinformation and have laws against stunning content, which we either remove or render unsuitable for recommendation into the For You feed.”

According to the interpreter, TikTok reviews content as it becomes more popular on the app in order to stop videos from being recommended that go against its policies.

People were allegedly paying TikTok as little as US$ 7 to spread false information about the Israel-Hamas conflict, according to another content published in October.

According to a TikTok interpreter, the platform blocks search terms in violation of its policies and does not help keyword targeting or topic-based advertising. Additionally,” Israel” and” Palestine” have been added to a list of prohibited search terms.

No NEUTRAL PLATFORMS, DO YOU THINK?

Some fake clips that the journalist came over were finally taken down during CNA’s week-long study of Israel – Hamas information on TikTok.

Some, however, persisted in their online activity, raking in opinions, remarks, and shares while demonstrating the whack-a-mole nature of content moderation.

Malaysian Mr. Harris urged social media platforms to be more open about how they moderate information and to experience greater regulatory scrutiny.

After everything that has happened, the claim that they are only negative platforms is obviously false, and those making it today are dishonest, he told CNA.

Continue Reading

Sustainable pivot needed to secure Laos’ future 

Laos, known for its flowing rivers and abundant biodiversity, is at a critical crossroads. It sits at the heart of Southeast Asia, as part of a very dynamic region that has recently experienced multiple transformative changes to its socio-economic fabric alongside equally rapid climate change. This has created a major shift in opportunities and risks that justify revisiting a development model set two decades ago. 

The ambitious drive for hydropower has transformed the country, bringing some positives alongside more challenging outcomes. One unanticipated consequence is how hydropower projects have contributed to the nation’s significant debt.

It is now critical that Laos pivots and diversifies its foreign revenue streams. By reducing its reliance on selling energy from hydropower, Laos could pursue alternatives that improve its current fiscal vulnerability while lowering environmental and social risks, and improving transboundary water security. 

The Mekong River and its tributaries are lifelines, supporting biodiversity, livelihoods, climate resilience and businesses. The river also offers significant potential for producing hydropower and, not surprisingly, Laos has been eager to tap this resource and establish itself as a significant energy player in Southeast Asia – in line with the country’s aspirations for economic advancement.

With the government setting its sights on achieving a remarkable 12 gigawatts of hydropower capacity by 2025 and an ambitious 20GW by 2030, substantial investments have been funneled into hydropower infrastructure. 

Laos’ pursuit of foreign investment and energy exports have been scrutinized by other riparian countries, gauging its conformity within the framework of Mekong River Commission procedures.

There was much discussion of the impact these hydropower projects would have on water flows, sediment flows, water quality and fisheries, with many analysts predicting that the projects developed through public-private partnerships would be financially profitable. And yet, overall, they have significantly contributed to Laos’ debt commitments that exceed 100% of the country’s GDP.

Hydropower was expected to drag its people out of poverty, but Laos is now walking a financial tightrope and teetering on the edge of a precarious economic situation.

Short-term benefits

Some positive changes have occurred, including temporary job opportunities and better infrastructure. However, these initial gains fall short of meeting needs, with the World Bank reporting in 2022 that total revenue from the power sector represents less than 10% of Laos’ fiscal revenue. 

These short-term benefits of hydropower projects on the nation’s prosperity also need to be further assessed with a wider lens. Local communities have borne the brunt of the social costs through forced relocations and disrupted livelihoods.

This has had an especially harmful impact on women and ethnic minority groups, whose right to land tenure is not explicitly recognized within domestic law, prohibiting them from compensation or access to ancestral lands and livelihoods. 

Not to mention these threats simply add on to existing impacts created by land-use change, unsustainable sand mining and the climate crisis. With fish migration blocked, sediment flows tumbling, and water levels changing more frequently in unpredictable and extreme ways, millions of people living downstream are increasingly impacted.

Pamok, Laos: Life along the banks of the Mekong River. Photo: Nicolas Axelrod / Ruom / WWF

Fish catches are dwindling, fresh water for irrigation is running short, and the delta is sinking much faster than the sea is rising. Countless sectors have taken a hit, but agriculture, tourism and energy have been especially impacted.  

Hydropower generation is also not immune to the uncertain effects of climate change in the region. Vulnerability arises from less predictable river flows, notably more frequent droughts and intense rainfall events, which bring significant risks to both the safety of hydropower projects and their electricity production.

Hydropower infrastructure, promoted as a climate mitigation measure, too often has counterproductive impacts on adaptation performance. Positive long-term climate outcomes are not always significant and may actually end up having unfavorable trade-offs for others.

Continuing on this capital-intensive, high-impact hydropower path bears the risk of further straining Laos’ financial situation and exacerbating tensions with its downstream neighbours. There are alternative, lower-risk, higher-reward paths for Laos that should be further explored.

A path forward

A new report by WWF proposes revisiting three undervalued sectors in Laos to bring in foreign revenue to drive development: agriculture, tourism and distributed energy. Investing in these sectors would create enabling environments for greener and more inclusive private-sector-led growth for Laos, with fewer risks stemming from uncertainty in power purchasing agreements.

It would also give the country a competitive edge on the sustainability front, boost efforts to meet its commitments under the Global Biodiversity Framework and support adaptation to the changing climate.

Fishing on the Mekong in Pamok, Laos. Photo: Nicolas Axelrod / Ruom / WWF

Laos’ agriculture and tourism sectors have already been recognized as areas that boast significant labor-force participation rates and foreign-exchange earning capabilities. The recent launch of the Lao-China railway will not only support increased exports of agricultural products to China, but also open doors to other rail-linked international destinations amid growing demand for healthy food and high-end tourism. 

Alternatives can also be found in distributed renewable energy sources, like solar, wind and sustainably sourced biomass. These can be viable substitutes for some planned hydropower investments and complement existing installed hydropower capacity.

By developing renewable low-impact energy, Laos can strengthen its energy security while also securing a greener, more sustainable future and continue to deliver against its climate mitigation ambitions.

Laos has a tremendous opportunity to leapfrog ahead by diversifying its foreign-revenue strategy and, in doing so, the nation could become a model for integrated economic advancement, climate resilience and environmental conservation.

Continue Reading

Journalists tour ‘once violent’ Xinjiang

Beijing counters negative media narrative on autonomous region, writes Mongkol Bangprapa

Journalists tour 'once violent' Xinjiang
Tourists take photos of the gate to the ancient city of Kashi, a popular tourist destination in Xinjiang. photos by MONGKOL BANGPRAPA

China allowed a number of international media organisations to observe what is hailed as success in containing terrorist-related violence in Xinjiang.

Mongkol Bangprapa, a senior journalist of the Bangkok Post, also in his capacity as president of Thai Journalists Association, was among 22 guests who were invited to visit the Chinese autonomous region. They were drawn from media outlets from 17 countries included in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and included 17 Muslim journalists.

The visitors were from the Middle East, Europe, North America, Australia, India and Southeast Asia. They took a field trip to Urumqi, Ili and Kashgar, arranged by the State Council Information Office of China.

They also attended forums to exchange knowledge with Chinese researchers about their views on Xinjiang.

The topics included “Protecting the Freedom of Religion by Muslims in Xinjiang”, “Cognitive Warfare or Journalistic Practice: Information Manipulation by Some Countries on Xinjiang Issues” and “Fighting Terrorism and Extremism”.

These seminars were aimed at showing the changes which Xinjiang has undergone in the past seven years or so.

With a population of more than 10 million, Xinjiang is also known as home to Uighurs, one of the Chinese autonomous region’s four largest ethnic groups. Once a violence-plagued region, Xinjiang is now seen as an important economic area which serves also as a connecting hub for high-speed train routes in the BRI.

The Chinese hosts pointed to what they said was freedom of religious practices in Xinjiang, such as development of education, healthcare and housing welfare.

They were designed to counter the negative images of Xinjiang and China as a whole by some Western media giants.

Zheng Liang, a Chinese researcher, said the media had been exploited as a tool to make false accusations against China regarding its handling of violence in Xinjiang.

He played an audio clip containing a remark by Lawrence Wilkerson, former US chief of staff to former secretary of state Colin Powell and a retired army colonel, when he was speaking at the Ron Paul Institute in August, 2018.

“The third reason we were in Afghanistan is because there are 20 million Uighurs in Xinjiang. The CIA would want to destabilise China and that would be the best way to do it, to foment unrest and to join with those Uighurs in pushing the Han Chinese in Beijing,” the colonel said in the clip.

A craftsman makes a traditional drum with snakeskin, left, and a traditional musical instrument, right, in Kashi Prefecture of Xinjiang.

Mr Zheng also presented an analysis of the BBC’s coverage of Xinjiang’s past violence which he found to be intentionally distorted.

On one occasion, the BBC claimed its correspondent was ordered by the Chinese police to stop filming around a factory said to be a site of forced labour against Uighurs, said Mr Zheng.

The truth was the police were actually security guards at the factory and were merely trying to warn the BBC team to wear a face mask during the Covid-19 pandemic.

On another occasion, the BBC published mugshots of what it claimed to be 2,000 Xinjiang police found involved in the mass abduction and judicial killing of more than 1,000 Uighurs, he said.

As it turned out, two of the mugshots actually belonged to Hong Kong actors, Donald Chow and Andy Lau, he said.

Wang Jiang, a professor and associate dean at the Institute of China’s Borderland Studies, Zhejiang Normal University, admitted the reduction in violence in Xinjiang in the past seven years resulted partially from measures imposed to fight Covid-19.

They included China’s border closures which lasted for over three years and stringent controls on the internet in China which made it almost impossible for outsiders to incite violence through the internet, he said.

A craftsman makes a traditional drum with snakeskin, left, and a traditional musical instrument, right, in Kashi Prefecture of Xinjiang.

Continue Reading

MSCI makes new client coverage leadership appointments in Asia | FinanceAsia

New York-headquartered financial services provider, MSCI, announced yesterday (October 30) via media note two leadership appointments across the firm’s Asian client coverage teams.

Ryoya (Tera) Terasawa has been appointed as head of Japanese client coverage, based in Tokyo. Meanwhile, Chitra Hepburn has taken on the role of head of South and Southeast Asia client coverage, from Singapore.

Terasawa’s new role takes immediate effect and sees him report to Kazuya Nagasawa, head of Asia Pacific (Apac) client coverage. He will lead the team’s commercial activities in the Japanese market, managing key client relationships.

“Tera will lead MSCI’s go-to-market strategies, drive revenue growth across new business and renewal targets, and represent MSCI in Japan. Teras will also partner closely with key stakeholders and product management globally to deliver a cohesive, solutions-driven strategy for our clients in Japan,” a spokesperson for MSCI told FinanceAsia.

Prior to his new role, Terasawa spent over 23 years with JP Morgan, most recent serving as head of Japan sales and marketing, dealing with institutional clients. His past expertise spans areas including fixed-income derivatives sales, and equity derivatives trading and structuring.

“We will continue to strengthen commercial success in the Japan market and capitalise on accelerating growth across all client segments in Japan,” the spokesperson noted.

In Singapore, Hepburn started her new South and Southeast Asian role on October 16, also reporting to Nagasawa. The new post is an expansion of her current remit as Asia-based leader of environment, social and corporate governance (ESG) and climate client coverage.

“We are confident that under Chitra’s strategic leadership, the South and Southeast Asia region will continue to scale and achieve newer heights,” the contact said. She confirmed that Hepburn will remain responsible for MSCI’s ESG and climate business across Apac.

Hepburn joined MSCI in Singapore in 2019 to lead the firm’s regional ESG and climate business, after over two years serving as managing director with software provider, ESG Global, according to her LinkedIn profile. She has 15 years of project finance experience in investment banking, and over six years of extensive experience in China, focussing on corporate development and cleantech investments.

“I am confident that we will continue to build on our capabilities to support the huge demand from our clients in the region, as institutional investors are increasingly integrating climate transition into their mainstream investment strategies,” she told FA.

MSCI is expected to release its 2023 third quarter (Q3) earnings later today, US-time. 

As of June 2023, the firm’s ESG and climate operating revenues in Q2 stood at $71.2 million globally, up 29.2% from a year ago. The growth was attributed to strong growth from recurring subscriptions related to ratings, climate and screening products. Meanwhile, MSCI’s total operating revenues in 2023 Q2 increased by 12.6% year-on-year to reach $621.2 million.

Commenting on both appointments, Nagasawa noted in the announcement: “This is an important testimony to the value we place on these Apac markets and on our growing commitment to them.”

“I am confident that their wealth of experience working across client segments and deep industry insights, will be key to ensuring we bring the best products and solutions to our established and growing client base in the region.”

¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Why we’re seeing shifting patterns in global manufacturing

The 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Beijing on October 18 witnessed the usual smiles and handshakes. But China’s economic landscape, dependent on robust supply-chain networks, is facing turbulent times.

The US-led trade war had already disrupted Chinese industry and supply chains before the Covid-19 pandemic further backlogged ports and exacerbated disruptions. President Joe Biden’s administration has meanwhile continued to expand policies restricting China’s access to the US market and technologies, including new restrictions on advanced chip exports announced just one day before the BRI summit.

Foreign direct investment into China also plummeted by 43% in 2022, while the United States has persuaded allies to curtail their economic collaborations with China. For instance, Italy, which joined China’s BRI in 2019, announced its withdrawal from the project this April.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands began imposing restrictions on semiconductor exports to China in March. The 2018 arrest of two Canadian businessmen, widely perceived as retaliation for Canada’s detention of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou at Washington’s request, has made foreign executives increasingly hesitant to travel to China.

The greatest concern for Beijing, however, is the threat to China’s manufacturing and export-led economic model, which has driven China’s growth for most of the 21st century. In the first half of 2023, China’s share of US goods imports stood at 13.3%, a decline from 21.6% in 2017, marking the lowest figure since 2003.

Some of this decline can be attributed to “re-shoring” policies, which are encouraging American companies to build factories in the US, with European companies also promoting local manufacturing.

Economic decoupling initiatives have also prompted Western companies to establish manufacturing infrastructure in friendly or nearby countries, often referred to as near-shoring or friend-shoring.

Countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia, India, Mexico and others are vying for Western companies’ attention, offering subsidies, tax breaks, and other incentives. The newest iPhone was assembled in India, for example, while more than half of Nike’s shoes are now made in Vietnam.

Mexico steps up

However, it is Mexico that appears poised to reap the most benefits from this “lifetime opportunity,” according to Bank of America. Its proximity to the US and the USMCA free-trade agreement with the US and Canada has driven American companies to ramp up production in Mexico.

Combined with the growing automation of the US manufacturing sector, these developments have sparked debate about whether China’s “peak manufacturing” has already passed.

Nonetheless, as the “world’s factory,” China’s dominance in manufacturing remains stable enough to support its economy. Its share of global manufacturing actually grew from 26% in 2017 to 31∞ in 2021 (aided by the global decline in manufacturing in the years leading up to and during the Covid-19 pandemic), whereas India, Mexico and Vietnam contributed only 3%, 1.5% and 0.6% respectively.

China’s share of global manufactured exports by value also grew from 17 % to 21% in the same period, and despite some declines in bilateral trade, US-China trade hit a record high in 2022.

China’s resilience to global supply-chain shifts can be attributed to strategic infrastructure investments that have streamlined its manufacturing and export operations. Efficient ports, extensive highways, reliable rail systems, well-established industrial parks, stable governance, a large working-age population, and other factors set China apart from potential competitors.

Although the value of manufacturing in the US has risen and 800,000 manufacturing jobs have been created over the last two years, for example, this has not kept up with job growth in other industries, and manufacturing’s share of US GDP has continued to decline. There are also fears that the US will have a shortage of 2.1 million skilled manufacturing workers by 2030.

India faces challenges related to competition from cheaper imports, high input costs, taxes, and regulatory hurdles, while Mexico contends with corruption and instability from cartels and Vietnam grapples with power outages and bureaucratic red tape.

Resistance to change

Instead, many of China’s manufacturing competitors have opted to collaborate with China, reinforcing traditional supply-chain dependencies that Washington is striving to break. This is exemplified most clearly in Mexico, where the advantageous conditions for US companies have also made it an attractive destination for Chinese companies seeking a nearby gateway to the US market.

Remarkably, 80% of the land leased to foreign companies in Mexican industrial parks is now in the hands of Chinese enterprises (compared with 15% for US companies), allowing Chinese goods to be delivered for final assembly before being exported to the US.

This phenomenon extends beyond Mexico. At the end of 2022, the US Department of Commerce discovered that major solar suppliers in Southeast Asia were barely altering Chinese products before they were sent to the US. Across the region, Chinese green tech companies are making significant inroads into the manufacturing infrastructure.

Even Vietnam, despite its ongoing and historical tensions with China, has cautiously embraced Chinese companies looking to drastically expand their presence in the country.

After spending billions of dollars building economic relations with their Chinese counterparts, US companies have also resisted cutting ties with their Chinese partners. A 2021 Federal Reserve research note suggested that many are underreporting their imports from China to evade tariffs imposed by Washington.

Others are encouraging their Chinese partners to establish factories in North America. Additionally, the cancellation of programs (or those slated to expire in the next few years) allowing goods from many developing nations to enter the US duty-free may leave room for China to step in as a preferred source for US distributors.

Despite the limitations of Western decoupling policies, it’s worth noting that China is also working toward a form of decoupling to reduce its dependence on the West. Announced in 2015, the Made in China (MIC25) initiative seeks to eliminate Chinese companies’ reliance on foreign nations for critical technologies and products.

Policies also continue to be introduced to expand China’s domestic market to compensate for restrictions on overseas markets.

Adjustments to Chinese policy

China’s economy will continue to be characterized by strengths and weaknesses. The rising wages of Chinese workers have steadily eroded the international competitiveness of the country’s shrinking labor pool, while an ongoing property crisis has shaken faith in China’s domestic economy. Moreover, Beijing has become less liberal with capital, opting instead to recover outstanding loans from the BRI.

However, Chinese officials and businesses are increasingly lobbying local governments with “small but beautiful projects” that negate the need for consultation with more suspicious national leaders. China also remains crucial in areas such as rare-earth minerals and is expanding its role in manufacturing higher-end products, from aviation to green tech, to compete with high-tech Western firms.

Chinese endeavors in Latin America and Southeast Asia to adopt Chinese supply chains also position it to sell to these markets.

Although it may seem that we have “already hit or passed the peak share of China in world manufacturing,” no other country has or is projected to rival China’s manufacturing power and export networks. Furthermore, neither China nor the West is able or willing to sever their economic ties.

Even amid the collapse in relations between the West and Russia since 2022, Russian energy has continued to flow to Western countries, Western technology has continued to enter Russia, and Western companies that have said they are leaving Russia have remained.

The massive disruptions required for true economic decoupling from China are unpalatable to the public and the private sector. This reality is reflected in the shifting language of US and EU officials, who now emphasize de-risking instead of decoupling from China.

Chinese and Western companies instead look to continue bypassing restrictions and conducting business, reflecting the resilience of the Chinese manufacturing sector and making it clear that US-Western economic co-dependency is a formidable bond that won’t be easily broken.

This article was produced by Globetrotter, which provided it to Asia Times.

Continue Reading

Redex Group raises  mil Series A funding led by Aramco Ventures

Investors from the Middle East, SEA & Japan also participated in this round
Funds will enable global expansion and streamline REC issuance and digitisation

Redex, Asia’s leading Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) solutions provider, announced the completion of its US$ 10 million (RM47.6 million) Series A funding round, with Aramco Ventures as the lead…Continue Reading

Loved or loathed, carbon capture is here to stay 

Energy, government, and United Nations agencies agree that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an essential weapon in fighting climate change. The technology will be a central part of the debate at the COP28 conference starting in Dubai on Monday.

But most environmental groups – and many environmentally minded journalists – oppose it, seeking out and playing up arguments for its demise

Why is CCS so vital, yet so vilified?

Carbon capture and storage, or its close cousin, carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS), is a suite of technologies for trapping carbon dioxide, the main gas responsible for climate change, from power stations, industrial facilities, and other sites burning oil, gas, coal, biomass, or solid wastes, or emitting CO2 during production, such as in cement-making.

The carbon dioxide is then piped to a location to be safely disposed of thousands of meters underground, in depleted oil or gas fields, or within rock formations containing undrinkable saline water. It also can be used to make fuels, fertilizers, plastics, enhance plant growth in greenhouses, and even to put the fizz into drinks.

The We Mean Business Coalition, 131 companies representing nearly US$1 trillion of yearly revenues, published a letter saying, “We call on all Parties attending COP28 in Dubai to seek outcomes that will lay the groundwork to transform the global energy system towards a full phase out of unabated fossil fuels and halve emissions this decade.” Unabated, in this context, means using capture techniques to keep emissions from warming the planet.

Technology wrongly disparaged

Yet recent articles by Bloombergthe Financial Times (which reported on the coalition’s letter), The Wall Street Journal, and others address the failings, real or alleged, of various carbon-capture projects. Because the technology is promoted by the oil and gas industry, these reports start from the standpoint that CCS is somehow optional, that it must prove itself, and that it’s at best an undesirable necessity.

This is radically wrong and misleading, and dangerous for successful climate policy.

Currently, about 42.6 million tons per year of capture is operating worldwide. Another 198.2 million tons per year is under construction or in advanced or early development. The International Energy Agency’s sustainable development scenario requires an additional 600 million tons of annual capture by 2030; its net-zero scenario has almost 1 billion tons by then.

Carbon capture and storage is rapidly broadening beyond its original deployments in North America and Europe, to the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Australia. Saudi Arabia plans to reach 44 million tons of annual capture at Jubail International City by 2035; the United Arab Emirates’ Abu Dhabi National Oil Company recently doubled its 2030 target to 10 million tons.

This is not an “unproven” or “risky” or “too expensive” method, as it’s often labeled; it’s a well-established technology that is accelerating into mainstream use. 

Why, one might ask, not use renewable energy entirely instead of fossil fuels with CCS?

Entirely renewable-based power systems may be theoretically possible, but they’re rare to date, used only in a few small countries (like Iceland), and largely based on hydropower, which has environmental drawbacks of its own and requires suitable geography.

Systems relying solely on high shares of wind and solar are virtually unheard of and, to the extent they exist, are reliant on significant interconnections with other grids.

Including some share of gas-based electricity in the system lowers overall costs significantly and raises reliability. New gas power stations with integrated carbon capture promise very low-cost clean power.

Even more important, many essential industrial processes don’t have a viable non-fossil alternative. These include iron and steel, cement, fertilizers, chemicals, and refining. 

In the case of cement and many chemical processes, the release of carbon dioxide is an integral part of production. Some of the others have electrical or hydrogen-based options, but these are expensive, often technologically unready, and impossible to retrofit to existing facilities. These could be introduced during the 2030s, but we need decisive action on emissions this decade to be anywhere near net-zero by the UN’s target of 2050.

Carbon capture and storage is indeed backed by the oil and gas industry, just as solar power is backed by the renewables industry, and wind power by windy countries. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Norway, Britain, the United States, Australia, Canada and other important fossil-fuel producers have made it a central part of their climate strategies. This is self-interested, but also practical.

Fossil fuels will continue to be a major part of the global energy mix to 2050 and beyond, even in “net-zero” scenarios – and we are far from being on track for those. The more carbon dioxide we emit now, the more we must remove from the atmosphere in the future. Recent news coverage underlines the dismal record of most biologically based carbon offsets – saving forests that weren’t in danger or that burnt down after credits were issued. 

By contrast, CCS, and its special case, direct air capture of atmospheric carbon dioxide, offer verifiable, measurable, permanent disposal.

Instead of attacking and seeking to halt CCS, journalists and environmental campaigners should be holding oil companies and countries to account, demanding that they deliver on their CCS commitments.

They should be scrutinizing policies that fail to support CCS sufficiently, or don’t put it on a level playing field with renewables, electric vehicles, and other more politically favored climate-friendly options. 

And they should ask where some past unsuccessful projects went wrong, and how to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

This article was provided by Syndication Bureau, which holds copyright.

Follow this writer on X @robinenergy.

Continue Reading