post

THE IMPLICATIONS OF BRENT LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v SANJAY SHAH & OTHERS

Prospect have won a landmark ruling on the availability of confiscation proceedings brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to convictions for offences involving rogue landlords running overcrowded, unsafe and insanitary Houses in Multiple Occupation under sections 95(2) and 234(3) of the Housing Act 2004.

The attached article by Edmund Robb examines the implications of this ruling in the context of the availability of confiscation pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to various criminal offences under the Housing Act 2004

Copyright © 2018 by Prospect Law Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of Prospect Law Ltd.

Edmund Robb (er@prospectlaw.co.uk) is a public law specialist barrister at Prospect Law with wide experience of planning, environmental and local government case work at public inquiries and at all levels in the Courts.

post

WHOLESALE ENERGY PRICES: NOVEMBER – DECEMBER 2017:

In this article, Dominic Whittome covers recent changes to wholesale energy prices.

Oil

The petroleum market continued to charge upwards. Dated Brent prices closed the two month period 19% higher. In the last two years, since the January 2016 Edition of Energy Highlights, world oil prices have risen over 80%. Whilst the so-far successful accord between OPEC and non-OPEC producers has certainly had an impact, shale has yet to have the dampening effect which some in the market had asserted it would.

No one knows how far oil prices may have to run before marginal supplies (i.e. not covered by the Accord, US shale being just one option available) arrive en masse. Whilst prices will not necessarily reach this level, E&P studies suggest that only once oil prices are sustained over $75/bl will significant new developments come online.

The Brent market spiked higher in December amid outages at Statoil’s Troll platform and Forties pipeline, which shut-in over 70 North Sea platforms in total at one stage, including the ETAP, Armada and Buzzard fields along with Forties itself, removing 45% of UK winter supply. While the pipeline is back online now, attention at the turn of the New Year turned towards troubles in Iran, which buoyed Dated Brent cargoes above $65 /bl into the New Year.

Natural Gas

Natural gas prices, on the other hand, took most of last month’s events in their stride, despite much of the upheaval relating to the gas market itself. Day-ahead spot leapt to a 4 year high of 80 p/th at one point amid concern over supply, as the UK entered its first winter with no principal (long duration) gas storage facility following the closure of Rough combined with a major explosion at the sensitive Russian import thoroughfare at Baumgarten in Austria. Yet, this barely affected the forward curve in the end. The Annual Contract rose just 2% over the two periods and gas prices actually fell 4% over the year. This relaxed market might symbolize the abundance of global gas supplies relative to oil, and also national aversion to building new gas power stations, efficiency and de-carbonisation globally.

However, gas prices, through oil-indexed contracts and (to an extent still) fuel substitution, will at some point respond to rising energy commodity prices if that trend continues, even if the indexation-lag is pronged (which it often can be). It remains to be seen whether gas prices will remain so calm, even though the forward supply picture remains robust.

Electricity

Forward power prices rose 5% between November and January to finish the year unchanged at roughly £48/MWh. The spark spread has been rising, although whether this will trigger some of the stalled UK gas generation projects remains unclear, with government policy the most likely determinate there. As regards the wholesale market, the outlook for significant price rises in base-load electricity looks muted still. However, for commercial & industrial markets, the outlook is significantly more bullish, with a cocktail of transmission, distribution tariff, existing surcharge and new energy tax rises in the pipeline. These could increase the annual bills for commercial customers by 30% inside three years, notwithstanding changes to wholesale prices.

Despite rising commodity prices elsewhere, forward curve and prompt market prices were also subdued by sentiment on wind generation. A ‘£57.50/kWh’ headline figure made the news in October (although it doesn’t imply many new wind projects will be commercial at such a price) and high winds across Europe in late December also suppressed the day-ahead market. That said, the take-up of renewables combined with certainly lower costs have surpassed expectations, serving to soften forward prices. A cursory look at the ‘speedometers’ on www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk in recent weeks demonstrates just how significant wind output was, amid several Triad warnings in December itself, frequently testing the 9 GW level. This, together with robust nuclear output, compensated for the sudden and unexpected closure of Drax, the UK’s largest power station, despite the outage continuing into the New Year.

This article remains the copyright property of Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory and neither the article nor any part of it may be published or copied without the prior written permission of the directors of Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory.

Prices quoted are indicative and may be based on approximate or readjusted prices, indices or mean levels discussed in the market. No warranty is given to the accuracy of any view, statement or price information made here which readers must verify.

Dominic Whittome is an economist with 25 years of commercial experience in oil & gas exploration, power generation, business development and supply & trading. Dominic has served as an analyst, contract negotiator and Head of Trading with four energy majors (Statoil, Mobil, ENI and EDF). As a consultant, Dominic has also advised government clients (including the UK Treasury, Met Office and Consumer Focus) and private entities on a range of energy origination, strategy and trading issues. 

For more information please contact us on 020 7947 5354 or by email on: info@prospectlaw.co.uk.

For a PDF of this blog click here

post

LIABILITY FOR CONTAMINATED FORMER LOCAL AUTHORITY SITES

Environmental Protection Act 1990

Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 imposes a duty on enforcing authorities to require those responsible to remediate contaminated land, i.e. land designated as such which due to substances in it is causing or threatening significant harm or significant water pollution. Whether the ‘significant’ threshold has been reached falls to be determined in accordance with the Statutory Guidance issued under Part 2A (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/IIA).

The persons primarily responsible for remediating contaminated land under Part 2A are ‘Class A’ persons, i.e. those who caused or knowingly permitted the relevant substances to be present.  If no Class A persons remain in existence, liability falls on ‘Class B’ persons, i.e. those who are owners or occupiers at the time when the land is determined to be contaminated for the purposes of Part 2A.  If there is more than one Class A or Class B person, the Statutory Guidance sets out a number of tests designed to exclude from liability those considered less responsible.  If more than one liable person remains after the application of those tests, liability is apportioned in accordance with the Statutory Guidance.

A question has arisen in relation to the liability of a Class A entity which is dissolved by statute and replaced by another statutory body.  Does the successor take on the liability of its predecessor?  There are two issues.

  • First, should the successor be considered as a causer or knowing permitter simply because it has taken over the functions or business of its predecessor?
  • Secondly, does the predecessor have liability under Part 2A which passes to its successor under legislation abolishing the former and creating the latter?

The first question was answered with a resounding negative by the House of Lords (now replaced by the Supreme Court) in R  (National Grid Gas plc) v Environment Agency  [2007] (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070627/grid-1.htm). National Grid Gas, the privatised successor company, did not cause or knowingly permit the presence of the contaminants. The land had been sold by its predecessors before the company was formed at the time of privatisation of the gas industry in 1986.  There was nothing in Part 2A which extended the categories of causers and knowing permitters to their successors.

Powys County Council v Price and Hardwick [2017] EWCA Civ 1113

The same issue arose in Powys County Council v Price and Hardwick [2017].  (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/1133.html)

A Welsh local authority had operated a landfill over a culverted watercourse which eventually resulted in river pollution. The land had been sold after landfilling stopped and was subsequently designated as contaminated land under Part 2A.  Following statutory reorganisation of the Welsh local authorities, it was widely assumed that the new authorities would simply step into the shoes of their predecessors and assume their liability as causers of the contamination.  The Court of Appeal followed the National Grid decision and held that was not the case.  The emphasis in Part 2A is on the actual polluter: the person who caused or knowingly permitted the pollution.

The second question was whether Part 2A liability passed from the predecessor to the successor body under the provisions of the relevant institutional restructuring legislation. Under the Gas Act 1986 and earlier Gas Acts considered in the National Grid case, liabilities to which the predecessor was subject “immediately before” the statutory transfer date passed to the successor.  The statutory transfer date was 24 August 1986, whereas Part 2A was inserted into the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by the Environment Act 1995 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/25/contents) and only came into force on 1 April 2000 in England and 15 September 2001 in Wales.

In National Grid the House of Lords held that liabilities created by statute in 1995 did not exist immediately before the transfer date in 1986 and therefore could not have been transferred to National Grid Gas as the successor body.

Distinguishing Powys from National Grid:

The position in the Powys case was different in two respects.  First, Article 4 of the Local Government Re-organisation (Wales) (Property etc) Order 1996 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/cy/uksi/1996/532/body/made/data.xht?wrap=true) simply stated that the ‘liabilities of the old authority shall …. vest in [the]  successor authority’.  However, the Court of Appeal considered that the omission of words such as ‘immediately before’ made no difference.  Following the reasoning of the House of Lords in National Grid, Lord Justice Lloyd Jones held that ‘liabilities’ refers to those to which the predecessor was subject prior to the transfer.  The words ‘immediately before’ merely emphasise that conclusion.  If Parliament intended to transfer liabilities arising subsequently, clear words would be required to achieve that result.  For example, under transfer of liability schemes made under the Water Act 1989 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/15/contents) a body to which liabilities are transferred is to be treated as the same person in law as the authority from which they are  transferred.  That wording has the effect of transferring to the successor liabilities not yet in existence at the time of the transfer.

Secondly, the statutory transfer date under the Welsh local government reorganisation legislation fell after the insertion of Part 2A into the Environmental Protection Act in 1995 but before it came into force in Wales in 2001.  The distinction was unimportant to the decision in National Grid and so, perhaps unsurprisingly, the House of Lords focused on the earlier date.  However, in Powys it was held that the date when the Part 2A  legislation came into force was the relevant time.  The Court of Appeal stated that if Part 2A had been in force on the statutory transfer date, the predecessor authority would have been subject to a contingent liability which passed to the successor authority on that date.  As Part 2A was not then in force, there was no liability under that legislation, contingent or otherwise, which was capable of being passed to the successor.                                                                                                                     

Points to Note

  1. Since there was no Class A person in existence (the predecessor local authority having been dissolved under the local government re-organisation legislation) liability fell on Class B persons, the current owners and occupiers of the land, Mr Price and Mrs Hardwick.  From the perspective of owners of contaminated former local authority land the effect of such legislation may be to eliminate the only other party who may be solely or partly liable for the costs of remediation.  If, unlike Mr Price and Mrs Hardwick, the current owner is a Class A  knowing permitter (e.g. due to failure to remediate when it should have been clear that remediation was necessary) that owner could be made to shoulder the full liability, whereas Part 2A liability may have been shared with the predecessor local authority (if it were still in existence)  under the apportionment provisions of the Statutory Guidance unless that predecessor authority had been excluded from liability under the exclusion tests.
  2. Although not mentioned by the Court of Appeal in Powys, the Part 2A Statutory Guidance enables the enforcing authorities to waive or reduce the liability of both Class A and Class B persons in certain circumstances such as hardship or unfairness to the liable party.  That discretion is exercised in suitable cases.
  3. In cases of statutory reorganisation the precise statutory wording is critical in determining whether Part 2A liability has passed to the successor.  If liabilities are merely expressed to be passed to the successor, Part 2A liability only passes if Part2A came into force before the statutory transfer date.  On the other hand, if the liability transfer legislation states that the successor body is to be treated as the same person as the predecessor, the successor would assume the predecessor’s Part2A liability even if Part 2A came into force after the statutory transfer date.
  4. The Court of Appeal noted that contingent liabilities of the predecessor under existing law (e.g. breaches of a duty of care which had not yet resulted in damage) would have passed to the successor at the statutory transfer date.  It follows that in the Powys case if neighbouring landowners claimed compensation because pollution from the former landfill had migrated to their land, the predecessor local authority’s contingent liability would pass to the successor.  The latter would therefore be liable when the neighbours suffered damage even if that occurred many years after the landfill operation had ceased.
  5. Owners of contaminated former local authority sites are well advised to check their potential liabilities and whether they have been affected  by local government reorganisation legislation. The provisions of the sale contract should also be considered as these may be worded to trigger a transfer of Part 2A liability to the buyer under the exclusion tests in the Statutory Guidance, thereby excluding the seller authority from liability. The issues involved in transferring Part 2A liability and other contaminated land liabilities are complex and require detailed advice.

3rd January 2018, Prospect Law Ltd

Andrew Waite is a solicitor and specialist in environmental, health and safety and public law, advising on regulatory and liability issues for a broad range of industries.  He defends prosecutions for breaches of environmental and health and safety legislation, deals with regulatory appeals, judicial reviews and civil litigation and advises on environmental issues relating to projects and transactions.  He deals with all the main areas of environmental law including waste, energy, nuclear, contaminated land, pollution controls, environmental permitting, water rights, flooding, climate change and nature conservation.

Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory provide legal and business consultancy services for clients involved in the infrastructure, energy and financial sectors.

This article remains the copyright property of Prospect Law Ltd and Prospect Advisory Ltd and neither the article nor any part of it may be published or copied without the prior written permission of the directors of Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory.

For more information please contact us on 020 7947 5354 or by email on: info@prospectlaw.co.uk.     

For a PDF of this blog click here

post

WHAT DIRECTION WILL THE DECARBONISING OF THE TRANSPORT SECTOR TAKE?

Investec Conference on Decarbonising the Transport Sector

On 10 November 2017 Investec hosted a conference on trends and technologies for the decarbonisation of the transport sector.  Four excellent presentations by Professor Nigel Brandon of Imperial College London, Professor Katsuhiko Hirose of the Toyota Motor Corporation, Professor Neville Jackson of Ricardo plc and Dr Robert Trezona of IP Group plc were followed by a stimulating Q&A session.

Professor Brandon explained that he believed that a wide range of both battery and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles offered routes to achieve significant levels of decarbonisation in the transport sector. Both battery and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles require the decarbonisation of electricity and/or the development of hydrogen. As such he believed that the provision of low carbon fuels for transport will become increasingly connected to other parts of the energy system, including power and heat.

Professor Hirose began his presentation by noting that increases in wealth were linked to transport and that as GDP per capita rises so did the desire for mobility. He also noted the potential role that hydrogen could play in the transport sector. In this context he explained that Toyota continues to invest and develop its hydrogen fuel cell technology for cars and is undertaking work for its use in heavy duty applications at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Hydrogen appears to offer the best solution for higher energy requirements e.g. range, and therefore is a better alternative to batteries for haulage trucks travelling long distances, similarly for automobiles if range and short refuelling times are desired characteristics. During the Q&A Professor Hirose confirmed that did not foresee a “zero-sum” game with one winning technology dominating all others in the transport sector. Instead he anticipated different viable technologies would emerge and co-exist.

Professor Neville Jackson’s presentation emphasised that legislation was being used by a number of different countries to develop Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) in order to tackle air pollution.  Professor Jackson referenced the limitations of batteries, particularly with regards to energy density, and that as a result he considered low carbon liquid fuels would have a role to play. Electric vehicles are still expensive and battery costs may only fall to below US$100/kWh by 2030. Shared car ownership policies may therefore be an important factor in making electric vehicles cost competitive.

Dr Trezona used his presentation to offer a start-up investor perspective on the low carbon transport technology sector. The automotive sector was generally not a good market for start-ups but green policy and digital tools had improved the investment environment. He flagged that there was no ‘wonder technology’ that would dramatically change the overall learning rate for (hardware) systems. That said he believed that there were plenty of smaller opportunities for start-up businesses that developed technology that solved real market problems in the transport sector.  Dr Trezona also confirmed that hydrogen is back and that he envisaged that it would play some role in the transport sector.

Hydrogen’s potential contribution to decarbonisation efforts in the UK was largely dismissed by the influential late Professor Mackay author of “Sustainable Energy-Without the Hot Air” published in 2008.  The fact that all four speakers now thought hydrogen may have some role to play perhaps illustrates how much thinking on decarbonisation has changed in a relatively short space of time.   There also appeared to be no real appetite for developing CCS projects to capture the carbon produced when manufacturing hydrogen. This may be due to the prohibitive development costs and the UK Government’s current position on funding CCS. It was also noted that there was presently very little investment in the alternative technology to CCS, producing hydrogen by electrolysis. This suggests that something is going to have to change if hydrogen is indeed to become part of the solution to decarbonisation in the transport sector.

Tim Malloch trained at Macfarlanes and subsequently moved to Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, where he advised on corporate transactions and finance projects. After 7 years at Freshfields and a sabbatical spent abroad, Tim joined ClientEarth, an award-winning legal NGO, and devised a litigation strategy that helped persuade the UK Government to abandon its plans to build a new generation of coal power stations.  Tim returned to private practice in 2010 and has advised on a wide range of high-value commercial disputes.

Prospect Law is a multi-disciplinary practice with specialist expertise in the energy and environmental sectors with particular experience in the low carbon energy sector. The firm is made up of lawyers, engineers, surveyors and finance experts.

This article remains the copyright property of Prospect Law Ltd and Prospect Advisory Ltd and neither the article nor any part of it may be published or copied without the prior written permission of the directors of Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory.

For more information please contact Tim Malloch on 020 7947 5354 or by email on: tmm@prospectlaw.co.uk.

For a PDF of this blog click here

post

WHOLESALE ENERGY PRICES: SEPTEMBER – OCTOBER 2017:

In this article, Dominic Whittome covers recent changes to wholesale energy prices.

Oil

Crude prices rallied as OPEC and non-OPEC countries continued to show strong quota compliance, with just two cartel producers, Libya and Nigeria, bucking the trend. However, 0in oil trading circles, OPEC’s 1.2 million barrel per day curtailment in export volumes is still remaining on track. Refining inventories have been reported healthy amid a warm start to winter which has suppressed demand for heating oil and related petroleum products. Over the two month period, the Dated Brent contract price closed up by 20%. This spot price has almost doubled in the last two years although it is still just below half the peak it reached barely two years before that.

Traders will be looking for evidence that the ongoing ‘shuttle diplomacy’ in the run up to the cartel’s key 30th November meeting in Vienna is paying off. Given high compliance rates, notably amongst non OPEC countries, there is no reason to expect oil prices to soften with the wind now in the market’s sales.

Natural Gas

The forward calendar year NBP contact finished the period 6% up, with good supply availability and subdued demand both outweighing the effect of steadily strengthening oil prices over the year.

The UK gas market is now into its first winter without any high space (long-duration) storage cover to fall back on. This follows the closure of the Rough gas facility in the Southern Gas Basin. A sustained cold snap could put the market to the test if the UK then has to import (effectively accessing surplus storage overseas) through inter-connectors with Scandinavia and the Continent. Although such pipeline capacity may usually (though not always) be guaranteed on the day, the gas itself is not. Even if so, it will possibly be supplied at higher distress clearing prices than before.

Centrica’s application to withdraw 0.9 billion cubic meters from the 3.2 bcm Rough facility – for site integrity and pressure reduction reasons – has been approved by the UK Oil and Gas Authority and this could keep the market well supplied in the interim. However, the volume is still quite modest and the withdrawals will be phased over time. The impact on the market will be limited, if not discounted already.

With crude prices back above $50/bl for some six months now, the oil markets could soon be nudging gas prices up through long-term contract indexation, especially with increasing reliance on inter-connector supplies given contractual indexation to petroleum product prices is generally more dominant on the Continent than it is in the UK.

Electricity

The annual base-load power price headed back up towards £45/MWh, rising 4% over the period. Although, electricity trading is increasingly becoming ‘a tale of two markets’. Whilst wholesale prices are increasing and may perhaps continue to increase gradually, industrial and commercial tariffs are continuing to climb quite steeply, amid higher transmission, distribution and balancing charges, as well as higher taxes and subsidy-related surcharges applied to industrial and commercial users.

Transit costs and taxes aside, a third factor driving industrial and commercial prices is the increase in renewables generation.

Transmission and distribution networks are known to be struggling to offset the intermittent export supply, current-harmonic and voltage-stability problems which renewable exports onto the system induce. The significant infrastructure investment needed to manage this will be passed on to the end user and increases in producer price inflation will also be an influencing factor. The consensus of recent market research suggests that in less than three year’s time, commodity electricity will account for less than 30% of a typical I&C user’s bill. Five taxes and subsidy surcharges and three grid-system fees will make up the remainder, bar a trace profit for the supplier. Therefore, the rising cost of mains electricity alone could well incentivise more end users to self generate where this is feasible. Fundamental changes to the power market and its subsidy framework to facilitate this trend have been tabled and concrete proposals may be available to report on in the New Year.

This article remains the copyright property of Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory and neither the article nor any part of it may be published or copied without the prior written permission of the directors of Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory.

Prices quoted are indicative and may be based on approximate or readjusted prices, indices or mean levels discussed in the market. No warranty is given to the accuracy of any view, statement or price information made here which readers must verify.

Dominic Whittome is an economist with 25 years of commercial experience in oil & gas exploration, power generation, business development and supply & trading. Dominic has served as an analyst, contract negotiator and Head of Trading with four energy majors (Statoil, Mobil, ENI and EDF). As a consultant, Dominic has also advised government clients (including the UK Treasury, Met Office and Consumer Focus) and private entities on a range of energy origination, strategy and trading issues.

For more information please contact us on 020 7947 5354 or by email on: info@prospectlaw.co.uk.

For a PDF of this blog click here

post

PUBLIC BILL COMMITTEE: 31 OCTOBER 2017 OUTLINE OF VIEWS ON NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS BILL

The Nuclear Safeguards Bill (https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/nuclearsafeguards.html) represents an important but limited step in the process of withdrawal from Euratom, and this article focuses on the context and effects of that step.

Background

If the UK is to maintain involvement in the international nuclear community, it must have in place an internationally acceptable safeguards regime. Detailed regulations and adequate resource within the Office for Nuclear Regulation will be needed to operate and enforce that regime.

An acceptable safeguards regime is the first step towards replacement of the existing Euratom and bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements (NCAs) on which the UK relies. It will not be possible to conclude or even make meaningful progress with the negotiation of replacement NCAs until the UK can demonstrate that it will have an acceptable replacement safeguards regime in place on withdrawal from Euratom.

In context of the challenging withdrawal timetable, the replacement UK safeguards regime will need to be such that no reasonable counterparty to any NCA negotiation can delay or disagree on the basis of inadequate safeguarding. To avoid any perceived competitive advantage and to facilitate agreement of replacement NCAs, the new regime is likely to need to carry forward the full scope of the Euratom safeguards regime, which goes beyond the current UK Voluntary Offer Safeguards Agreement (VOSA) and Additional Protocol.

To maintain international acceptance, the UK will also need to conclude negotiations with the IAEA on a replacement VOSA and Additional Protocol, both of which are currently predicated on Euratom membership. The new UK domestic safeguarding regime must then fulfil those agreements.

Purpose of Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Within its limited ambit, the Nuclear Safeguards Bill is broadly an effective but small step towards implementation of an internationally acceptable safeguards regime (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0109/18109.pdf).

The Bill is limited to the creation of enabling powers for subsequent safeguards regulations. To avoid a disruptive hiatus in international nuclear cooperation, primary focus should already be on:

  • Preparation of those regulations;
  • Ensuring that ONR has sufficient resources to take over full responsibility for safeguards in 2019; and
  • Detailed proposals and assurances surrounding negotiations with Euratom and IAEA, and with states with which the UK will need to enter into replacement NCAs.

Crucially, the Nuclear Safeguards Bill cannot be regarded as a “contingency” (as stated by Greg Clark in the second reading debate https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-16/debates/84828D23-EAA6-4855-99D0-4C47BD5D3633/NuclearSafeguardsBill) to be used only if the UK is not able to conclude a satisfactory agreement with Euratom.

  • Unless the UK remains a full member of Euratom (whether permanently or during any transitional phase following exit from the EU), the legislative powers and additional ONR responsibilities set out in the Bill are required as a matter of urgency. Any delay in relation to the above tasks on the basis that the Bill may not be required would be an extremely high-risk strategy (hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-16/debates/84828D23-EAA6-4855-99D0-4C47BD5D3633/NuclearSafeguardsBill)
  • In the absence of full Euratom membership, continued reliance on Euratom safeguarding arrangements would entail acceptance and payment for full application of relevant treaty obligations, regulations (including Commission Regulation (Euratom) 302/2005), inspections, enforcement powers and ECJ jurisdiction. Even then, it is likely that the UK could continue to operate within Euratom NCAs only with the agreement of each state counterparty to those NCAs. The UK would still need to replace the IAEA VOSA and Additional Protocol to reflect the UK’s changed status in relation to Euratom, so amendments to Section 93 of the Energy Act and other legislation referred to in the Bill would remain necessary.

If in referring to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill as a “contingency”, government is indicating a desire to continue full Euratom membership, at least during a transitional phase, this is to be welcomed (although unnecessary express reference to Euratom in the UK’s notification of withdrawal under Article 50 will not have assisted in achieving this).

Contrary to the government’s stated position, there are good legal arguments against any necessity to exit Euratom at the same time as exiting the EU. The Commission statement in its recommendation for a European Council decision authorising opening of negotiations on UK withdrawal simply acknowledges that Article 50 applies to Euratom. This is correct, but does not address the question as to what application of Article 50 means in context of the Euratom Treaty.

Jonathan Leech & Rupert Cowen, 6 November 2017

Prospect Law is a multi-disciplinary practice with specialist expertise in the energy and environmental sectors with particular experience in the low carbon energy sector. The firm is made up of lawyers, engineers, surveyors and finance experts.

This article remains the copyright property of Prospect Law Ltd and Prospect Advisory Ltd and neither the article nor any part of it may be published or copied without the prior written permission of the directors of Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory.

For more information please contact Jonathan Leech or Rupert Cowen on 020 7947 5354 or by email on: rcc@prospectlaw.co.uk and jrl@prospectlaw.co.uk.

For a PDF of this blog click here

post

OFGEM’S CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED DEFINITION OF ENERGY STORAGE

Introduction

Ofgem are consulting on the legal definition of “energy storage” and the introduction of a new condition in the electricity distribution licence designed to ensure that distribution system operators, also known as distribution network operators or DNOs, cannot operate energy storage assets (https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/clarifying-regulatory-framework-electricity-storage-licensing). The Ofgem consultations both close on 27 November 2017.

The UK has eight distribution network operators (DNOs). They operate the regional networks that deliver electricity to consumers after it has been transmitted on the UK’s national high voltage transmission network. As natural monopoly service providers, DNOs are arguably well placed to develop energy storage facilities.  Indeed, several DNOs are already actively developing energy storage projects, including Western Power Distribution and UK Power Networks.                                          (http://innovation.ukpowernetworks.co.uk/innovation/en/Projects/tier-2-projects/Smarter-Network-Storage-(SNS)/Smarter%20Network%20Storage%20FAQs.pdf).

Proposed change to EU law

Ofgem’s position appears to be influenced by proposed changes to EU law. The European Commission’s recast of the Electricity Directive recognises the need for consumers to actively participate in electricity markets, including storage, it provides:

“The electricity market of the next decade will be characterised by more variable and decentralised electricity production, an increased interdependence between Member States and new technological opportunities for consumers to reduce their bills and actively participate in electricity markets through demand response, self-consumption or storage.

The present electricity market design initiative thus aims to adapt the current market rules to new market realities, by allowing electricity to move freely to where it is most needed when it is most needed via undistorted price signals, whilst empowering consumers, reaping maximum benefits for society from cross-border competition and providing the right signals and incentives to drive the necessary investments to decarbonise our energy system. It will also give priority to energy efficiency solutions, and contribute to the goal of becoming a world leader in energy production from renewable energy sources, thus contributing to the Union’s target to create jobs, growth and attract investments”. 

In terms of specific detail, Article 36 of the recast for the Electricity Directive proposes a general prohibition on DNOs owning, operating or managing energy storage facilities:

Article 36
Ownership of storage facilities
  1. Distribution system operators shall not be allowed to own, develop, manage or operate energy storage facilities.
  2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may allow distribution system operators to own, develop, manage or operate storage facilities only if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) other parties, following an open and transparent tendering procedure, have not expressed their interest to own, develop, manage or operate storage facilities;
(b) such facilities are necessary for the distribution system operators to fulfil its obligations under this regulation for the efficient, reliable and secure operation of the distribution system; and
(c) the regulatory authority has assessed the necessity of such derogation taking into account the conditions under points (a) and (b) of this paragraph and has granted its approval.
  1. Articles 35 and Article 56 shall apply to distribution system operators engaged in ownership, development, operation or management of energy storage facilities.
  2. Regulatory authorities shall perform at regular intervals or at least every five years a public consultation in order to re-assess the potential interest of market parties to invest, develop, operate or manage energy storage facilities. In case the public consultation indicates that third parties are able to own, develop, operate or manage such facilities, Member States shall ensure that distribution system operators’ activities in this regard are phased-out. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0864&from=EN)

The prohibition on DNOs owning energy storage in paragraph 1 of the proposed Article 36 is subject to a derogation in paragraph 2 that provides that DNOs can own, develop, manage and operate energy storage facilities if they are needed to ensure that a distribution network is efficient, reliable and operates securely. Paragraph 2(c) provides that it is for the regulatory authority of a Member State to assess the necessity of a derogation.

DNOs as neutral market facilitators and the new reality of the UK’s energy market

The rationale for the proposed prohibition in Article 36 is that DNOs should act as neutral market facilitators. A white paper published by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) on 15 May 2017 explains the decision to adopt this policy position:

“European Energy Regulators advocate that DSOs must act as neutral market facilitators performing regulated core activities and not activities that can efficiently and practicably be left to a competitive market. This approach is important because:

  • Competitive markets are generally better than regulated markets in delivering outcomes that provide best value for money for consumers;
  • When DSOs get involved in competitive activities – such as storage – there is a risk that they would favour their service over potentially cheaper services (e.g. storage over demand-side response), thereby raising costs and deterring investment and innovation;
  • DSOs could unfairly favour different types of consumers if they are direct market participants for these services; and
  • Confidence in the neutrality of DSOs is a key element of the market.”

In contrast, 10:10, a UK registered charity that focuses on tackling climate change at community level, has argued against the UK adopting a general prohibition on DNOs owning energy storage facilities:

“If [DNOs] are not permitted to own and operate their own storage assets, this is likely to increase costs for end users as a consequence of increased transaction costs between network and storage operators. Network companies should be allowed to judge where and when to procure storage from a third party, and when and where to own it themselves.”

A recent survey by Energyst, the energy magazine, has also noted National Grid’s need for more firms to help it balance the power system (https://theenergyst.com/20-firms-outline-what-is-stopping-them-providing-demand-side-response/). According to Energyst:

“With some 35GW of renewables on the system, more than a third of it solar PV, summer may become as much of a challenge as winter. That equates to a year-round revenue opportunity from National Grid alone. Yet relatively few firms provide balancing services via their onsite generation or ability to shift loads. Why?

According to The Energyst’s reader surveys, this is for a few key reasons, mainly fear of technical failure and/or incompatible processes and insufficient financial reward. But lack of understanding and the fact that the most UK firms have not been approached by either aggregators or energy suppliers regarding DSR are also factors…

…But these early survey findings suggest there remains a need for better communication and cost effective technology solutions if DSR is genuinely going to trickle down from large power users to the broader market.”

The problem with DNOs acting merely as neutral market facilitators is that a lot of energy storage is likely to be needed in the UK (http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1253/final-fes-2017-updated-interactive-pdf-44-amended.pdf – see pages 104-105).

Energyst’s research suggests that there may not be sufficient interest from third parties to provide energy storage. 10:10 have put forward the argument that DNOs would be well placed to provide storage at the lowest cost. If this is correct, a complete prohibition on DNOs owning energy storage facilities would not reflect the “new reality” of the UK’s energy market and would also overlook the derogation in paragraph 2 of the proposed Article 36.

Conclusion: Are DNO energy storage targets a potential solution?

Notwithstanding Brexit, Ofgem seem to want to follow the EU’s proposed position on this issue.

A potential solution would be for the UK to set individual targets challenging each DNO to procure a certain level of energy storage facilities. Should a DNO be unable to meet its target through an open and transparent tendering process, then it should need to develop, own, manage and operate the balance to ensure that it has an efficient, reliable and secure distribution system.

It should be possible for the UK to draft a regulatory solution that is compatible with the derogation set out in paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the proposed Electricity Directive.  However, whether or not this solution would satisfy Professor Helm’s desire to remove all regulatory interventions from the UK energy market is another question.

Tim Malloch, 03 November 2017

About the Author

Tim Malloch trained at Macfarlanes and subsequently moved to Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, where he advised on corporate transactions and finance projects. After 7 years at Freshfields and a sabbatical spent abroad, Tim joined ClientEarth, an award-winning legal NGO, and devised a litigation strategy that helped persuade the UK Government to abandon its plans to build a new generation of coal power stations.  Tim returned to private practice in 2010 and has advised on a wide range of high-value commercial disputes.

Prospect Law is a multi-disciplinary practice with specialist expertise in the energy and environmental sectors with particular experience in the low carbon energy sector. The firm is made up of lawyers, engineers, surveyors and finance experts.

This article remains the copyright property of Prospect Law Ltd and Prospect Advisory Ltd and neither the article nor any part of it may be published or copied without the prior written permission of the directors of Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory.

For more information please contact Tim Malloch on 020 7947 5354 or by email on: tmm@prospectlaw.co.uk.

For a PDF of this blog click here

post

THE ENERGY STORAGE QUESTION: SPINNING FLYWHEELS, PUMPED HYDRO AND COMPRESSED AIR

Introduction:

E-ON recently completed a 10MW lithium iron battery, designed to hold roughly the same amount of power as 100 family cars, at the 30MW Blackburn Meadows biomass plant near Sheffield. (https://www.eonenergy.com/about-eon/media-centre/eon-completes-uk-first-battery-installation-at-blackburn-meadows-biomass-power-plant/).

The unit has been hailed as a breakthrough in the switch towards greener energy and the development of energy storage solutions capable of holding energy generated by wind farms and gas power stations, for release in times of excess demand.

The Issue of Energy Storage:

The National Grid is tasked with producing enough energy to meet supply. Excess energy from one source, such as solar, will prompt the grid’s operators to switch off another.

Currently, renewable energy can only make intermittent contributions to the grid’s output. As the sun does not shine 24/7 and some days are windier than others, the renewables sector eagerly awaits technology capable of storing energy.

There have been numerous suggestions as to how the energy storage conundrum may be solved.

Spinning Flywheels:

Through storage of kinetic energy, a flywheel operates like a mechanical battery, with some designs now able to spin at rates of up to 60,000 revolutions per minute. Although early models were generally very heavy, modern carbon fibre flywheels have the ability to contain twenty times more energy then a steel wheel (http://www.economist.com/node/21540386).

A spinning flywheel will speed up when it receives electrical energy, and slow when there is a need to release the energy that it stores, at which point the kinetic energy will be transferred back into electrical energy.

Flywheels are an efficient method of storing energy. Round Trip Efficiency is generally 85% – 90%, meaning a spinning flywheel only wastes a seventh of the energy it absorbs. In comparison, coal and gas generators are half as efficient.

Compressed Air:

Compressed Air Energy Storage is currently the second biggest method of energy storage, and works by transferring electrical energy into high pressure compressed air that is stored underground

In times of short supply, the compressed air will be heated and expanded to drive a turbine generator.

Currently there are two CAES plants in operation; one in Huntorf, Germany, and another in McIntosh, Alabama (http://www.powersouth.com/mcintosh_power_plant/compressed_air_energy).

Aquifers and porous rock are generally the ideal sites for CAES systems. Underground salt domes, which have long since been used to store natural gas, have also been used in the past, and are generally found at coastal sites where the potential to generate a lot of wind energy is high.

Geographically, there is thought to be good potential for CAES systems across Europe, including in Great Britain.

Pumped Hydro:

Pumped Hydroelectric Storage requires an upper and lower reservoir, and works by using excess energy to pump water to the higher reservoir, for storage as gravitational potential energy.

In times of short supply the water will be allowed to flow down to the lower point through a turbine and generator, transferring back to kinetic and then electrical energy in the process.

Whilst PHS schemes have been considered the best mass energy storage solution, they can only be installed at very specific terrains. The largest PHS scheme is currently near Dinorwig in Snowdonia National Park, one of four across the UK, and has become something of a tourist attraction (http://www.electricmountain.co.uk/Dinorwig-Power-Station).

It is thought that the hydroelectric facilities across Europe are now able to hold roughly 5% of the continent’s electrical generating capacity.

Conclusion:

Renewables provided nearly 30% of UK Energy Generation between April and June 2017, and it is thought that the UK will need to be able to store around 200GWh of electricity by 2020.

E-ON’s unit at Blackburn Meadows, designed to offer the grid energy in less then a second, comes as National Grid recently released a tender with a view to helping it manage supply and demand.

There is clearly as yet no clear answer to the energy storage question, but battery storage appears to have become very topical.

Other energy firms are developing similar projects to the one at Blackburn Meadows. EDF Energy is developing a 49MW plant at West Burton Power Station, Nottinghamshire, whilst Centrica are developing a project of the same size at a site in Barrow-on-Furness, Cumbria (https://www.centrica.com/news/centrica-start-construction-new-battery-storage-facility-roosecote).

About the Author

Prospect Law is a multi-disciplinary practice with specialist expertise in the energy and environmental sectors with particular experience in the low carbon energy sector. The firm is made up of lawyers, engineers, surveyors and finance experts.

This article remains the copyright property of Prospect Law Ltd and Prospect Advisory Ltd and neither the article nor any part of it may be published or copied without the prior written permission of the directors of Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory.

For more information please contact Adam Mikula on 020 7947 5354 or by email on: adm@prospectlaw.co.uk.

For a PDF of this blog click here

post

A NEW NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS REGIME: A NEW CHALLENGE FOR THE UK

Keen “Brexatom” watchers will recently have picked up on remarks made by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark, on the setting up of a domestic “nuclear safeguards regime”.

As a result of our withdrawal from Euratom we will no longer fall within Euratom’s safeguards regime, and with nothing else in place the UK’s relationship with its nuclear trading partners could be seriously affected. It could, for example, have an impact on the ability of potential nuclear new build organisations in France, Japan, the US, China and Korea being able to export reactor designs and physical nuclear power plant components to the UK.

What is a nuclear safeguards regime?

The safeguards regime is administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and ensures through physical inspection that:

  • those countries which are signed up to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) do not manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons, and;
  • the five defined nuclear weapons states (China, Russia, UK, France and the US) do not assist other countries to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime is not mandatory for the nuclear weapons states, but each has entered into equivalent voluntary arrangements.

The application of safeguards in the UK is more than a little complicated because of the UK’s status as both a nuclear weapons state and a Member State of the EU, and the fact it did enter into a voluntary arrangement with both organisations in 1978.

Euratom, which is administered by the European Commission, has established its own similar system of safeguards additional to the NPT requirements which require Member States to have high standards of materials accountancy and to make their nuclear facilities available for inspection as part of ensuring nuclear material is not diverted. Such inspections are usually done through both installed cameras and visits to facilities. Sellafield, with its large quantities of separated plutonium, is inspected about three times a month. Annually over 200 inspections are carried out in more than 100 UK facilities.

Why is the announcement important?

When the UK leaves Euratom, unless alternative arrangements are in place, only the voluntary arrangement with the IAEA will apply; the stricter Euratom requirements will not. This will be a cause for upset amongst our trading partners, with whom we will have to enter into bilateral Nuclear Co-operation Agreements instead.

Mr Clark’s announcement included the vital importance that the new domestic nuclear safeguards regime, to be run by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), is as comprehensive and robust as that currently provided by Euratom, and that it should exceed the standard that the international community would require from the UK as a member of the IAEA.

International oversight will be a key part of the future regime. The UK is currently seeking to conclude new agreements with the IAEA that follow the same principles as the current ones. These will ensure that the IAEA retains its right to inspect all civil nuclear facilities, and receive all current safeguards reporting, ensuring that international verification of our safeguards activity continues to be robust.

The ONR is currently assessing what this might mean for them and it is highly likely they will need to recruit additional resources to build the necessary in-house capability. They will need not only additional people but also equipment, infrastructure and processes. In evidence to the BEIS Parliamentary Committee, ONR said this will be “very challenging” and that only a basic system could be in place within the two years. The immediate question therefore is whether having only a basic system in place will be enough to satisfy our trading partners. If not it is highly possible that the UK’s ability to build new nuclear power stations will fall further behind schedule, and that the UK’s world leading civil nuclear sector will no longer be able to operate and generate income in the way it currently does.

About The Author

Edward de la Billiere is a Solicitor and co-founder of Prospect Law. He trained at the leading Middle East firm Trowers and Hamlins, working in both their London and Dubai offices, predominantly in the oil sector. On qualification, Edward moved to Magnox Electric, which was taken over by the nuclear operator BNFL. He has retained a strong interest in infrastructure and, in particular, energy related projects and has advised recently in respect of energy projects for corporate, local authority and private clients across the UK and internationally.

Prospect Law is a multi-disciplinary practice with specialist expertise in the energy and environmental sectors with particular experience in the low carbon energy sector. The firm is made up of lawyers, engineers, surveyors and finance experts who provide a complete service for clients.

This article remains the copyright property of Prospect Law Ltd and Prospect Advisory Ltd and neither the article nor any part of it may be published or copied without the prior written permission of the directors of Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory.

For more information please contact us on 020 7947 5354 or by email on: info@prospectlaw.co.uk.

For a PDF of this blog click here

post

CONSULTING INTERNATIONALLY: 10 TIPS FOR SUCCESS

East Isn’t East Anymore

Just like their engineering counterparts in the aerospace, automotive and advanced manufacturing sectors, innovative British nuclear companies are increasingly looking towards new overseas markets in order to sell their hard-earned consulting expertise. Look closely at the financial accounts of Britain’s biggest FTSE professional service firms and you will see that most large consulting practices quietly earn over half of their revenues abroad. Indeed the UK market is generally too small to support multinational firms alone. Even smaller domestic nuclear SMEs are eyeing foreign markets, as much for post BREXIT survival as for growth. Sooner rather than later nuclear professionals tend to find themselves working in foreign lands. This modern-day nuclear Gold Rush lies in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South East Asia, where civil nuclear electricity programmes are needed to power their rapidly growing industrial economies.

How to Compete and Win

British firms have a reputation for high quality. But also high cost. The simple fact is that local professional labour is often much cheaper in Eastern and Asian countries with their budget priced nuclear power programmes. How can British firms compete? The answer lies in offering a mix of technical expertise, outstanding customer service and – most importantly – a finely tuned sense of cultural awareness upon which to build effective business relationships. In short, knowing your customer is key. And this means stepping outside of your cultural comfort zone, by looking at things from a different viewpoint. Travel does indeed broaden the mind.

My experience of working overseas as a nuclear consultant has been overwhelmingly positive. Here are 10 quick tips for fame and hopefully fortune for those nuclear experts brave enough to venture abroad with their laptops.

Rules of Thumb for Working Internationally 

Tip # 1.  Walk in their shoes. The major difference between doing business in the East and the West is that personal relationships matter much more in the East than tender submissions. All other things being equal, clients would sooner do business with a trusted friend. In fact even if things are not quite equal, clients will still prefer to work with a friend rather than gamble on a cheaper but unknown alternative. Always try to see problems from the other person’s point of view – not your own. Put yourself in the client’s shoes. Understand the wider foreign context and the internal pressures that they may be facing. What motivates them? What does success look like for them? What outcomes really matter and what are less important? How can you genuinely help improve your client’s situation? Take the time to get to know your client deeply. The answers may surprise you.

Tip # 2.  Deals are based on trust, not contract documents. Contracts tend to be regarded as the minimum level of performance. Foreign clients will usually expect you to deliver more than what the contract says. Going above and beyond without complaint is the norm for expat Brits. Besides, it is very difficult to legally enforce contracts in foreign jurisdictions. Nuclear energy projects are invariably closely linked to State governments, who can tie you up in red tape delaying payments indefinitely when displeased by under-performance. Getting paid mostly depends on whether the client thinks you have done a good job. Don’t get hung up on legal details in contracts. Arguing over small points sends the customer the wrong signal, that you don’t trust them. And trust is essential for doing business overseas.

Tip # 3.  Be polite and courteous in all circumstances. The British have a reputation for politeness, courtesy, integrity and honesty. Live up to it. Overseas clients will respect and admire your Britishness, even in difficult situations. Your softer people handling skills will ultimately determine how successful you become overseas. A willingness to help is always a big plus.

Tip # 4.  Avoid the hard sell. Hard sell is really a form of grovelling. Brashness hints at desperation which is never attractive for buyers of professional consulting services. They will wonder why you are quite so desperate. Professionals never grovel. So don’t hard sell under any circumstances, even if you lose to competitors sometimes. The customer may eventually come back to you when they realise why that cut-price deal they bought was so cheap or the consulting solutions didn’t work. Also, confrontational management styles rarely work in consultancy business situations. Collaborative diplomacy and people skills are the way to get things done abroad.

Tip # 5.  Ask questions rather than give opinions. Gently asking your future client questions will give you much deeper insight into the underlying problems and issues that your client is really trying to solve. These may not be immediately apparent from a translated contract scope or tender document. For example, technical consultancy on the chemical composition of steel in nuclear transport flasks might reflect wider systemic difficulties with the regulatory safety case for spent fuel dry cask storage. The client’s real problem might be running out of spent fuel storage capacity, not chemical analysis of steels. But if you don’t ask “why?” you may never know. Avoid silo mentality. Try to experience a wide range of different technical and situational challenges. Develop crossover skills. Nuclear power projects are never undertaken in isolation. Many different people and skills must be brought together as a team. Understanding your client’s project in this way will lead to new business opportunities.

Tip # 6.  Negotiate with patience. Foreign business deals usually require several rounds of downward negotiation to agree a final “best price”. But beware the technical scope will always remain fixed and in any case the consultant will be expected to exceed the contracted delivery terms. I have watched senior Arab officials quite literally throw a consulting proposal out of the room in feigned anger, but then minutes later be utterly charming when the price was halved for the same scope. Keep calm and carry on. Negotiate with patience.

Tip # 7.  Don’t worry about IP. The British are above all else good innovators. Conventional wisdom has it that Eastern countries will steal your nuclear intellectual property in a heartbeat. British companies focus far too much corporate effort on vain attempts to protect their IP through complex commercial and legal contracts. For most practical purposes enforcing these in a foreign jurisdiction is impossible. You might win in Court but the process will take years and bankrupt you. Instead nuclear consulting companies should not worry too much about IP. Firstly because this misunderstands Eastern buyers. They want the very latest nuclear technology for their money, not older recycled background IP. In any case the raison d’être for using a high value British consultant is precisely to generate valuable foreground IP for the client. This should be part of the consultant’s value proposition and helps justify high consulting fees. Secondly, IP should be less of a worry because the added value that nuclear consultants bring to nuclear projects is largely in their heads – it is the expert ability of British consultants to solve complex nuclear problems facing a client here and now – and this can’t be copied. That is why British consultants are highly valued problem solvers. Although they do talk about the weather too much, which always puzzles foreigners.

Tip # 8.  Be sensitive to wage disparities. Large disparities between expat and local wages can cause tensions on projects. Even quite senior nuclear officials can earn relatively low incomes by Western standards. While running a nuclear training course for some energy executives in South East Asia, I once complained about the high cost of my household gas bill. “Ian, that is more than my monthly income” my client gently chided me. I was mortified. Developing countries build civil nuclear energy programmes because they need them to boost their economy. By the same token these countries are not always rich. Beware of the social effects of wage disparities and always treat your clients with dignity and respect. They will do the same for you.

Tip # 9.  Reach out to Commonwealth Countries. It is generally easier working in foreign countries that have a strong cultural association with Britain or were once part of the British Commonwealth. For example, Australia, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and some Middle Eastern States are all undeniably foreign but have inherited some aspects of Britishness. Vietnam was once closely linked to France and retains its Western European cultural and architectural feel. Doing business in these countries is much easier than places with zero British heritage.

Tip # 10.  Remember how lucky you are. Working abroad is a privilege. Think about your colleagues stuck in a City office, as you watch the sun slowly rise over the Arabian Desert at Barakah or fly low over the green jungle of Vietnam into DaLat. I’ve done both and they definitely beat life sat in an open plan corporate office near the M6.

About The Author

Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory provide legal and business consultancy services for clients involved in the infrastructure, energy and financial sectors.

Ian Jackson is a nuclear energy consultant at Prospect Advisory with 30 years’ experience working in both the public and private nuclear sectors. He has worked from Manchester to Vietnam, and everywhere in between. Ian joined Prospect Advisory from the UK National Nuclear Laboratory where he led international business development. Prior to that, Ian was an Associate Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London.

This article remains the copyright property of Prospect Law Ltd and Prospect Advisory Ltd and neither the article nor any part of it may be published or copied without the prior written permission of the directors of Prospect Law and Prospect Advisory.

For more information please contact us on 020 7947 5354 or by email on: info@prospectlaw.co.uk.

For a PDF of this blog click here