post

WHOLESALE ENERGY PRICES: JANUARY – MARCH 2018:

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

Crude Oil

Crude prices paused for a breather amid confirmation of a surge in North American exports of shale.

US oil production broke through the symbolic 10 m/bd, the first double-digit figure since the early 1990s.  However, this headline event did little to knock the crude market, with prices remaining flat over the period. Its impact was tempered by a rise in compliance levels across other oil producing countries in respect of Wider OPEC’s November 2016 Accord with OPEC itself, exporting 32.25 mb/d which is a ten-month low. The oil market is also being underpinned by heightened geopolitical concerns which are now, if anything, more heightened then they were last year. The final success of the ‘anti-dissident’ crackdown and purge in Saudi Arabia remains far from clear. There seems to be no consensus among analysts and observers as to when or how the ‘end game’ (which is not clear either) will play out or how robust any favourable  outcome will be.

Any flare-up or renewed uncertainty in this respect will immediately rekindle prices. Although, the medium-term oil supply outlook remains comparatively stable otherwise, at least for the time being.

Natural Gas

The gas market saw the curve rising just 1%. Although, spot  prices charged above one pound a therm at one point amid a conflagration of adverse factors all coming together at once. These included import problems at the Nyhamna Gas Terminal Plant serving Langerled pipeline to the UK;  technical issues with Dutch export Balgzand Bacton pipeline itself; a spike in energy demand throughout the North West European corridor amid freezing weather conditions and some market nerves heightened perhaps by enforced N Grid gas curtailments (if only temporary) and an appreciation that the UK finds itself in its first winter without any long-duration gas reserve facility of its own to fall back on.

This follows the closure of Centrica’s Rough offshore storage platform, as discussed in January’s edition of Energy Highlights. Overall, however, the forward gas market looks well-supplied in the medium-term, notably in respect of LNG supplies. That said, the UK’s own long-term import dependency is set to rise, past 90% by 2040 according to the latest National Grid research. Forward gas demand may well be curbed by government legislation restricting domestic gas and space heating use into the next decade.  Moreover, an early demand-call from the power generation sector also looks unlikely. Carbon prices meanwhile rose by over 80% over the past nine months, breaking €10/tonne CO2 at one point.

The unfavourable regulatory outlook for new-build gas-fired power stations could keep a lid on prices. Although government policy could always change; indeed the treatment of specific gas-fired generation is known to be under review in Whitehall circles, even if the question is seldom aired very publicly.

Electricity

Despite the cold snap, the electricity market slipped back. The annual base-load power contract fell by 7%  on the back of improving plant availability and very few reported outages during a critical demand period.

That said, the current state of the wholesale electricity market perhaps belies the impacts pending on prices downstream. In particular, on smaller industrial and commercial customers who have no exemption from the new (somewhat paradoxically-named) ‘Energy Intensive Industries Exemption Surcharge (or EII) that comes into effect in Q2.

The EII will not be introduced as a tax in name, although that is precisely what it is. The EII will instead be introduced as an ‘uplift’ to existing surcharges, namely the Renewables Obligation, absorbing circa 60% of the new levy; the Feed-in-Tariff and the Contract for Difference surcharges, absorbing circa ca. 20% a piece. Most of the energy intensive users’ exemption surcharge will fall on the non-energy intensive users  with no exemption from this (once conceived) ‘carbon tax’. This, combined with other increases in transmission and distribution network charges, as already penned and indexed to inflation, will cause the median commercial electricity bill to rise by circa 25% in just three years from now, according to provisional calculations (my own – happy to compare notes with any reader on that question).

This expected rise in bills also assumes no rise at all in wholesale power prices between now and 2022, which is far from a given. Enhanced efficiency, optimised energy management, embedded generation and possibly electric storage may become more commercial as a consequence, as end users look for ways to side-step potentially significant future price rises.

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

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

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

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

WHOLESALE ENERGY PRICES: JULY – AUGUST 2017:

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

Crude Oil

Forward and spot markets across energy commodities increased over the summer. This was led by crude, which rose over 7% with the futures market buoyed by reports of progress in quota compliance amongst OPEC and OPEC-Alliance producing countries. The geo-political concerns highlighted in July’s issue are also taking hold. Although Latin American tensions have eased, those in the Korean Peninsula remain foremost in peoples’ minds. Indeed, the oil market may be driven higher if more investors view hard commodities as a safe haven.

The refined products markets rose ahead of crude prices amid reports of increased military stocking (chiefly jet-kerosene). Meanwhile, US storms and emergency draws on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and also served to drive crude and petroleum products prices up.

Long term hopes for shale took a knock in confidence with an announcement from BHP Billiton that it was selling investments in the US to stem losses on its fracking venture. This news was compounded by comments by the CEO of Total, perhaps the one energy major with the most significant shale involvement, asserting that oil prices will need to stabilise well over $80/bl before any significant new investments can be justified.

Natural Gas

Gas finished the period up more than 3p per therm.

The spectre of North American refiners converging on the Rotterdam spot market drove up European prices for all petroleum products, notably middle distillates. This had a knock-on effect on gas, which is often contractually-indexed to heating oil. It is also a naturally interchangeable refinery product which is frequently blended with kerosene at refineries, hence the strong price correlation notwithstanding the supply basis. This factor and the rise in energy prices across the board perhaps best explains the recent run in gas prices, a market which is otherwise very well supplied, with talk of some LNG cargoes hitherto destined for South Asia now being diverted to European terminals.

Petroleum markets aside, the effects of the weakness of Sterling vs. the Euro, with the determining €/MWh price converting into p/therm, needs to be considered too. The North European gas market is essentially a single, inter-connected supply pool, with the UK price at the National Balancing Point (NBP) essentially ‘set’ by trans-European deliveries cleared in and out of the Title Transfer Facility (TTF) in Holland. A sustained or further weakening in Sterling could put upwards pressure on prices in the UK therefore, especially if regional European spot markets start to tighten once winter takes a hold or we see outages at key power stations requiring an uptake in gas or coal.

Electricity

Wholesale power prices saw the strongest gains of all, with the annual 2017 base-load contract and the spark spread rising 6% and 11% respectively.

Nuclear power stations in France and Benelux, which represent the backbone of the Continent’s supply, had come under increasing safety/decommissioning authority scrutiny, with considerable uncertainty and lack of information on the long-term future of key generators unnerving the forward market.

Industrial electricity prices in the United Kingdom, meanwhile, increased further, partly in unison with steep rises in domestic tariffs and rising input wholesale costs. The impending Energy Intensive Industry (EII) exemption surcharge will soon be affecting end-users on both new and existing long-term contracts from next April. There is some consternation amongst buyers, not just in relation to the justice of the tax itself (which exists chiefly to pay for a tax exemption for larger energy-intensive buyers) but to the uncertainty it is causing as well. Whilst the surcharge will apply from April 2018, buyers still remain in the dark as to what the actual tax rate will be – a case of Whitehall ‘delaying’ bad news, perhaps. Some suppliers have been offering premium-rated ‘insured tariffs’ in response to these end-user concerns.

But perhaps the real ‘elephant in the room’ is inflation. Not so much headline RPI or CPI, but leading-indictor of Producer/Factory Gate prices, with some industry trade associations telling us that such indices are already heading into double figures. Were this to be the case, there are contractual clauses and statutory measures in place to trigger automatic rises across wholesale, industrial and commercial prices. The same inflation-related factors affect the gas market, and in both cases, EUA carbon prices (up by more than 15% over the two month period according to Gazprom Research) could also chase industrial energy costs higher, unless such inflation can be kept in check.

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

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

WHOLESALE ENERGY PRICES: MAY – JUNE 2017:

In this series of articles, Dominic Whittome covers recent changes to wholesale energy prices.

Crude Oil

Brent crude fell $51.75 to $48.85/bbl amid concern that OPEC and OPEC Alliance states have still been struggling to remove the slack from the oil market, also rising exports from Libya (adding over 1 mbd) and from Nigeria (over 1.7 mbd) to world supplies. Neither oil producer is covered by the production accord.

Oil prices fell by just over 5% which seems a comparatively modest fall put in perspective and against recent newswires and headlines on the subject.  Looking at the price upside, markets will be concerned at growing global oil consumption, notably in the automotive sector, the prospect of faltering supplies and the possibility of deeper OPEC Alliance cuts, which may well happen if it is now clear that the existing cuts do not go far enough.

On the downside, the market will be looking at future output increases in Libya, Iraq and North America. Shale exports are clearly having an impact, although longer-term questions about the sustainability and commercial viability of sub $80/bbl production projects outside Africa and the Middle East  are likely to remain. Ongoing political troubles in South America and the South China Sea may also rattle petroleum markets in the weeks ahead. Furthermore, with derivatives now accounting for most of the open positions in the forward markets, physical prices may  be very sensitive indeed to general shifts in perception, even if the market looks calm at the moment with the 15 Day Brent contract seemingly stuck between the same £45/bbl  ‘floor price’ and £55/bbl resistance level mentioned in the last edition of this update.

Natural Gas

Gas prices barely moved over the period, up just 2%. The main news last month was the announcement that Centrica will permanently shut its Rough facility. This is a converted North Sea gas field which, as most articles reported, accounts for 75% of the UK’s storage  capacity. While that percentage is perfectly accurate, in terms of the ‘high-space/low-deliverability’ storage (i.e. the type the market needs to balance on a seasonal basis and to provide cover for prolonged emergencies) the true percentage cover  which is provided by Rough is even higher, possibly over 90%.

The closure of such a strategic asset should be a concern therefore.  The last 15 years have seen new investment in onshore salt-caverns, although these are generally ‘low-space/high-deliverability’ assets. Although they are more flexible, the emergency cover they can provide is limited. They are also likely to be more expensive, certainly once competition hitherto provided by Rough is withdrawn.  The closure of Rough may therefore expose the UK gas balancing market to  technical and market developments relating to these smaller storage facilities, the LNG market and inter-connectors.

Consequently the risk-premiums in I&C contracts may rise (due to higher balancing risks), as will valuations of swing flexibility in North Sea gas sales agreements. From a North European perspective, the gas market does look well enough supplied for now. However, the Russian-Ukraine corridor, South East Asian LNG supply, demand and geo-political developments all need watching in the weeks ahead, as well as the oil market itself.

Electricity:

The forward baseload contract finished the period unchanged at £43.00/MWh.  New delays were  announced for the proposed 3,200 MW Hinkley Point C  nuclear power station and the plant now looks unlikely to generate at full capacity until 2027, by which time all of the UK’s remaining reactors, bar Sellafield, may have closed.

Progress on the next new-build site, the 3,600 MW Moorside plant, looks to be in jeopardy altogether, with primary shareholder Toshiba facing  possible insolvency and minor partner Engie (formerly Gaz de France) pulling out of the project altogether.  Power prices are being held down by low oil and gas prices for the time being but the long term outlook is less clear. To ensure the system has adequate volume, National Grid and central government have  embarked on quite an extensive portfolio of new inter-connector projects to import from grids on Continental, Scandinavian countries and potentially Iceland, which has a 1,500 MW wire hoping to get the go-ahead soon.

There are already eleven major inter-connectors, rated between 1,000 MW and 2,000 MW, planned under construction or already live. But whilst the system may have the capacity spare, this is no guarantee that sensibly-priced electricity itself will be available to fill any short-fall. The UK’s price-dependence on European and Nordic power exchanges looks set to increase. The landscape will be different with the current inflation-adjusted Strike Price for the first new-build reactor at Hinkley Point C already weighing in at £110/MWh, much higher than the existing baseload market prices.

Barring a renaissance in gas-fired or other indigenous generation, forward power prices look poised to shift higher. Significant increases in trend are perhaps most likely in the balancing market prices rather than baseload, with the latter fast becoming ‘the residual’ commodity by comparison. As we go to wire, there are reports that half of France’s nuclear power plants are in shut down. It is not clear why or when plants will re-start. Twenty units offline cannot be explained by maintenance although there is a host of possible reasons to explain what has happened and no report yet of any sharp movement in European power prices.

By Dominic Whittome

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

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 various 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

PREPARING FOR ACCIDENTS, SPILLS AND DISASTER IN THE UK: PART I

Incidents which cause environmental harm or injury and illness to workers or neighbours can have significant consequences for the companies responsible.  Preventing those incidents must, therefore, be a priority, but if they happen they must be managed so as to minimise physical and environmental damage, liabilities and the risk of an adverse regulatory and media response. This new series of articles summarises key issues for companies operating in the UK, with the first part focusing on prevention and the immediate incident response.

Prevention:

To prevent incidents, management needs to understand the legal obligations affecting their operations including requirements for environmental permits and licences, prohibitions and restrictions on pollution, duties to avoid unduly disturbing neighbours, and duties to protect employees and others.  At the operational level that involves familiarity with permit and licence conditions, as well as procedures which implement both those conditions and general environmental and health and safety (EHS) laws.  That task can seem daunting, and in response, many companies produce bulky EHS manuals with detailed instructions on how to deal with every eventuality.  The problem is that few people have the time to read them.

Brief, clear written instructions on how to avoid EHS incidents are more likely to be effective.  However, clear written instructions alone are rarely sufficient: busy workers may overlook them.  “Tool box” talks are an invaluable way of ensuring that employees know how to: protect the environment, promote health and safety and minimise the company’s risk of liability.  Examples of points to cover in a toolbox talk include which liquid substances should or should not be poured into particular drains and sewers; and what to do and who to report to if equipment or plant is found to be defective, corroded, dangerous or likely to result in unlawful emissions.  A toolbox talk also could cover simple operational procedures to ensure compliance with permit conditions and other legal requirements, and good housekeeping “rules”.  Bold and simple notices may also serve as useful reminders.

Incident response:

If an incident has adverse EHS consequences, the first priority is to minimise its consequences. Also, a decision must be made whether to notify the relevant regulatory authority, and how to deal with regulatory officers if they carry out an investigation. Those issues are likely to affect the regulatory outcome.  Many EHS incidents are strict liability criminal offences (no negligence or intent has to be proved), but the extent of culpability as well as the company’s behaviour after the incident has a profound effect on the authority’s approach (particularly the decision on whether to prosecute) and on the amount of any fine imposed by the courts.  Recent guidance from the courts in the UK, as well as official sentencing guidelines, have markedly increased the normal range of fines with the intention that the punishment should be real.

There is no uniform answer as to whether and when to contact the regulatory authority.  Each case depends on the circumstances including legal and permit requirements.  Generally, except in the most minor incidents, it is safer to report the matter to the local officer of the regulator by e-mail (to ensure that there is a record) and by telephone as soon as possible after the incident.  The initial report should be brief and factual, explaining what has happened and the steps being taken to deal with it.  The incident manager should send it.  Above all, the notification should not accept blame on the part of the company.

Part II will cover dealing with the regulators and investigating officers’ powers to take statements from witnesses.

By Andrew Waite

This article was first published in Natural Resources & Environment  (the American Bar Association’s Environment Magazine) Spring Issue 2017.

Andrew Waite is a solicitor and specialist in environmental law, advising on regulatory and liability issues for a broad range of industries.  He defends prosecutions for breaches of environmental legislation, deals with regulatory appeals 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 a unique combination of legal and technical advisory services for clients involved in energy, infrastructure and natural resource projects in the UK and internationally.

For a PDF of this blog click here

post

WHOLESALE ENERGY PRICES: JANUARY – FEBRUARY 2017: PART I: CRUDE OIL & NATURAL GAS

In this series of articles, Dominic Whittome covers recent changes to wholesale energy prices.

Crude Oil

Oil prices finished 2% down as the market remained pensive about the upcoming OPEC summit in April.

Although ‘OPEC Alliance’ countries (producers co-operating with latest output cuts) will not be attending the Vienna talks in a formal capacity, behind-the-scenes dialogue has been ongoing all the while.

With Iranian and Russian ministries having met up in January to discuss Russia extending its production cuts into next year and Saudi Arabia sending their foreign minister to Iraq (which was included in its latest production agreement) with a view to including Iraq in possible future production ceilings yet to be agreed.

Traders have been pointing out that there is no evidence to show that last November’s accord between OPEC and OPEC Alliance countries made any impact. Although it is true enough that crude prices have flat-lined since November (having jumped in the weeks running up to the accord), conversely there is also no sign the accord has not worked. The agreed cuts were modest, the first in over nine years and also the first of their kind in that they included several non-OPEC producers.

OPEC ministers are possibly playing a long game, with modest but universally-orchestrated limits in output, to be increased methodically rather than in any way likely to destabilise the market, and we would need to wait and see if and what OPEC ministers decide on in April before one can second-guess the success or otherwise of last November’s accord. The pace of oil price recovery has, however, been muted. This may or may not be connected to the delays to the public listing of Saudi Aramco, ostensibly due to ‘complexities in the structure’ of the company flotation plan.

The mooted delay (up to 18 months) may reinforce scepticism about the expected speed of any oil price recovery, if this reflects the kingdom’s pessimism of the accord holding together. The value of the share offering is estimated at over £2 trillion and clearly very sensitive to prevailing oil prices. If market estimates are correct, the new company is valued at 20 times the capitalisation of the next largest oil major, ExxonMobil. It is conceivable that there have been worries that the oil market might not recover in time and these may have played a factor in the delay, although that itself is pure speculation. The Vienna meeting April could though be a turning point, in either direction.

With this week being CERA Week in Houston, perhaps we can expect the annual splash of shale stories over the next few days.  While shale drilling should place a price ceiling on any sustained oil price recovery, as pointed out in past issues of Energy Highlights, shale plays are generally short-term and expensive. Oil prices could comfortably ratchet up to $75/bbl or beyond before shale and higher-cost conventional oil output starts to kicks-in. Either way, the oil market will never loose its capacity to take people by surprise.

Natural Gas

The forward-year gas contract finished the first two months of the year off 10%, closing below 45p per therm. This reflects the view held by most traders of a fundamentally well-supplied market with a spate of further LNG export projects set to come online this year and next, many landing at European terminals.

Notable supplies include projects in Australia and South East Asia, although shale gas from the Americas will have a role will to play too. The UK market recently saw shale gas imports from the Peruvian jungle due for landing at Milford Haven shortly before going to press, and this healthy looking forward supply-picture has been helped along by Japan.

The country has gradually been releasing more and more gas on to the world spot market: the LNG contracts it had bought up in the immediate aftermath of Fukushima. This may have contributed to (or certainly given the impression of) an ‘LNG glut’.

The demand-side also paints a weak picture, with limited demand-call from generators and industry. However, there are some bullish signs on the horizon too. Geo-politics have recently turned adverse, with under-the-radar conflict areas in Russian-Ukraine and even the South China Sea among the potential supply-area worries.

However, any sustained uplift in gas prices is perhaps most likely to occur as a result of an indexation and long-term contracts issue. Indexation to crude prices still has the propensity to push prices up, with much of the piped and LNG sold across Europe still covered by these clauses. Within these contracts, even where oil and petroleum product indices may have seen their price-impact reduced or possibly removed altogether over the last 20 years, these price escalators indices have in most cases simply been substituted for producer price indices, which have recently been rising faster than oil prices themselves.

In fact, over the last five months alone, UK producer prices have been rising at annualised rates well over 10% according to estimates provided by industry trade associations. These will ultimately soon be reflected in official government statistics and will later directly influence gas contract prices, where the indexation effects can be lagged for six to nine months or, in unusual cases, even longer.

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 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 various private entities on a range of energy origination, strategy and trading issues.

For more information please contact us on 020 3427 5955 or by email on: info@prospectadvisory.co.uk.

For a PDF of this blog click here

post

WHOLESALE ENERGY PRICES: SEPTEMBER – NOVEMBER 2016: PART I: BRENT CRUDE & NATURAL GAS

In this series of articles, Dominic Whittome covers recent changes to wholesale energy prices.

Brent Crude

September started strongly for the crude market amid hopes of an early OPEC production cut, linked to a production sharing accord with non-OPEC producers. However, dated Brent subsequently fell back below $50/bl as a deal proved elusive and traders grew weary of another false dawn.

Production limiting accords between the cartel and non-OPEC countries (including Russia, even Norway on one occasion) are not unprecedented and have been sustainable for quite long periods in the distant past, so this topic shall remain on the market’s radar. Oil prices could be supported further if European refiners restock and delayed winter weather increases demand for middle distillates on the Rotterdam spot market, which has already had a strong few months.

Crude ended the month period 7% higher although prices have drifted downwards again quite recently.  The market is unlikely to  rise far above its current support level, discussed at around $45/bl, unless we see some concrete signs of progress in Vienna in the coming weeks.

Natural Gas

The low, sub-$35/bbl crude oil prices witnessed earlier in the year have mostly dropped out of pricing formulae in Norwegian, Dutch and Russian long-term contracts.

Gas traders are also believed to be cautious about the delicate supply and demand balance and a late start to winter. The consensus of longer-range meteo offices seems to embody a higher degree of uncertainly versus last year and generally they point to a colder than normal winter.   This, together with the blight in LNG imports into the UK, has supported the gas market. Short term prices meanwhile ticked up as Centrica confirmed delays to bringing its Rough platforms back on stream, the UK’s principal gas storage facility.

Gas withdrawals are  now  planned to resume during December although any further delays may coincide with extreme demand periods and cause prices to spike.  Additionally, the rampant price volatility on the electricity balancing and prompt markets has driven gas prices upwards. Consequently the forward market has bounced with the April 2017 contract ending the period over a fifth higher. The market will be vulnerable to further increases should we see any unscheduled interruptions to North Sea or trans-Continental supplies, although the supply side has been holding up fairly well over the past few weeks.

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 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 various private entities on a range of energy origination, strategy and trading issues.

For more information please contact us on 020 3427 5955 or by email on: info@prospectadvisory.co.uk.

PFor a PDF of this blog click here