Spain's LNG imports from the US soar, represent 35% of all gas supply
May 9 (Reuters) - Imports of liquefied natural gas from the United States rose to 35% of Spain's total gas imports in the first four months of this year from just over 20% a year ago, while imports of Russian LNG declined, data showed on Friday.
Europe has increasingly imported superchilled gas shipped from the U.S. since Russia's invasion of Ukraine significantly reduced the amount of Russian gas piped to Europe.
In the first four months of the year, Spain imported the equivalent of 45,932 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of gas from the U.S., compared with 24,885 GWh a year earlier, according to data from Spanish gas grid operator Enagas (ENAG.MC), opens new tab.
The U.S. has become the main gas supplier to Spain, replacing Algeria, which ships liquefied gas and also pumps gas directly to Spain through pipelines.
Spain's overall gas demand declined by 3%, Enagas said.
The U.S. liquefied gas also replaced the liquefied gas sent from Russia. As a share of Spain's total imported gas, Russian gas fell to 13.3% in the first four months of this year down from 22.4% in the same period last year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Reeves considers energy bill subsidy for manufacturers
Rachel Reeves is scrutinising proposals to provide a £1 billion annual subsidy to manufacturers after being warned that Britain faces rapid deindustrialisation if she fails to reduce energy costs. The chancellor is considering lowering energy costs for industry amid fears that they are holding back investment and the country's competitiveness. The plans include a scheme by which taxpayers would compensate manufacturers when the price of electricity rises above a fixed level and the companies would pay the government when the price falls below the agreed level. Several European countries have adopted a similar model, including France, Denmark, Greece and Hungary. The proposal has been seen by Sir Keir Starmer, Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, and Reeves. A source close to Reynolds said industrial energy prices were a 'live issue', while a No 10 source confirmed that measures to lower costs were under 'serious consideration'. Reeves is preparing for Wednesday's spending review and the subsequent publication of the industrial strategy for eight key areas of the economy that the government has promised to promote to bolster economic growth. Industry argues that the price it pays for energy is double that paid by European competitors and four times that of America, which is leaving Britain at a disadvantage. It affects not just the country's existing steelmakers, ceramic industry and chemical businesses but also attempts by the government to attract new technologies, such as energy-hungry data centres. In a document seen by The Sunday Times, the industry lobby group Make UK warned the government: 'If we do not address the issue of high industrial energy costs in the UK as a priority we risk the security of our country. We will fail to attract investment in the manufacturing sector and will rapidly enter a phase of deindustrialisation.' Rain Newton-Smith, chief executive of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), warned the chancellor last week that high energy prices were an 'anchor on our ambition, a crack in our economic security and must be fixed'. The plan being drawn up by Make UK, which it calls a contract for difference, would cost £1.1 billion a year for five years from 2027 to provide a guaranteed energy price. But the organisation argues this 'upfront cost' should be considered in the context of its estimates that it would generate a medium-term boost for the economy of about £3 billion a year — or 0.1 per cent of gross domestic product — and also provide more tax revenue. It claims the policy is politically expedient for the government as it would help the red wall constituencies in the Midlands and northern England where Labour is vulnerable to the threat posed by Reform. The biggest energy-intensive companies already receive a subsidy through the British Industry Supercharger scheme, which was set up by the Conservatives in 2024 and which the Financial Times reported last week could become more generous under plans being considered by ministers. But this does not benefit many industrial companies, which still say they are struggling with high energy prices. When she appeared at an event hosted by the CBI last week, Reeves told the audience of business leaders: 'We know that one of the questions that we need to answer is how we're going to make energy more affordable, particularly for some of our most intensive energy-using businesses where the price differential with other countries is just too acute for many to be competitive. That's a question we know we need to answer and we will answer in the industrial strategy in a few weeks.' Other ideas being presented to the government include stepping up drilling in the North Sea, which is likely to create tensions with Miliband. Solving the energy situation is regarded as a crucial plank of the industrial strategy, which the business secretary put out for consultation six months ago to look at eight sectors: advanced manufacturing; clean energy; the creative industries; defence; digital; financial services; life sciences and professional and business services. The result of the consultation had widely been expected to be published alongside Reeves's spending review but it is not now expected for another two weeks. It is understood that the delay has been caused by a desire to resolve the issue of industry energy costs. Stephen Phipson, chief executive of Make UK, said: 'If we don't want to lose the big corporates we have to get competitive and the government is going to have to make tough choices.' Jakob Sigurdsson, chief executive of the FTSE 250 Lancashire chemical business Victrex, said the industry was not 'asking for handouts' but needed a government policy to ensure it was viable. His energy bill is £12 million — double what it was before Russia's invasion of Ukraine pushed up oil prices — while profits are £60 million. 'When you look at it from a global perspective, for the price of power we're paying four to five times the price for electricity that a Chinese company would be paying,' he said, with a similar situation compared to the US. 'It's a cost disadvantage for us so a sound energy policy and how we deal with pricing mechanisms is paramount,' he said. 'This is not going to be solved through incremental changes. There needs to be a bold energy shift.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Post Office victims offered ‘pathetic' payouts: 0.5% of their claims
Dozens of postmasters caught up in the Post Office Horizon scandal have been offered compensation of just a fraction of their original claims, according to a forensic accountant working on their cases. Kay Linnell, a former chief investigating accountant at the Inland Revenue, now HM Revenue & Customs, described the offers made to victims as 'pathetic' and argued that the compensation schemes seemed 'designed to fail'. She is aware of about 30 subpostmasters who have received offers of between half a per cent and 15 per cent of their original claim. While many are reluctant to speak out while their claims are still being processed, The Sunday Times has been told of one former subpostmistress who has been offered just 0.56 per cent of what she believed she was entitled to. Linnell, 70, has been fighting alongside Sir Alan Bates for 12 years to secure justice for hundreds of subpostmasters who were wrongly fired and prosecuted by the Post Office due to financial shortfalls in their branch accounts. Those shortfalls were found to be the fault of the Horizon IT system — yet the Post Office continued to prosecute victims even after it was alerted to potential problems. Linnell, who was appointed OBE in January for services to justice, worked with Bates's Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA) free of charge and was one of the figures portrayed in the ITV drama series Mr Bates vs the Post Office. She became involved through her business partner, Barbara Jeremiah, who got to know Jo Hamilton, one of the most high-profile victims, because she bought lunch at her Post Office in their small Hampshire village every day on her way to work. More recently, Linnell has been helping with compensation claims for the 555 subpostmasters who secured a High Court ruling against the Post Office in 2019. They are eligible for compensation via the group litigation order (GLO) scheme, which is one of four schemes being administered by the Department for Business and Trade. Claimants can opt for a fixed sum of £75,000 or to seek an individual settlement of their losses, likely to require a higher payout. The claims are initially assessed by the business department but if there are disputes the cases can be referred to an independent panel for review and ultimately to the independent reviewer, who is a retired High Court judge. As of March, 282 of the 446 claims made had been paid, although 155 of those settled accepted the £75,000 fixed payment. However, growing numbers of subpostmasters believe the scheme is denying them the compensation they deserve. Last month, Bates said the government had turned it into a 'quasi kangaroo court', and assurances that the scheme would be 'non-legalistic' had turned out to be 'worthless'. Officials have been demanding documents from claimants that many had lost years ago. Bates also revealed he had been presented with a 'take it or leave it' offer amounting to less than half his original claim. Linnell said she had been contacted by about 45 to 50 claimants whose offers appeared to be 'substantially undervalued'. She added about 30 of those had received offers worth less than one sixth of their claim, adding these were the cases 'I get most upset about'. Linnell said that 'when you boil down the patheticness of the offers', they were the result of the scheme administrators putting a much lower value on the loss of investments that subpostmasters suffered when they were forced to sell assets to cover their account shortfalls. She added that a similar approach was being taken towards loss of future earnings — the amount subpostmasters should be compensated for losing their livelihoods. Linnell cited the case of one subpostmistress who has been offered 0.56 per cent of her claim. While the woman wishes to remain anonymous, she became a victim of the Horizon scandal shortly after purchasing a small Post Office branch that had generated low profits under the previous owner. She took out a substantial bank loan to add a café and shop. However, when the branch reopened after renovations, she was unable to pay suppliers because the Post Office had taken funds to recoup shortfall losses that were, in fact, the result of Horizon. This forced her to close the branch just six weeks later, at which point the bank demanded full repayment of her loan. The former subpostmistress contacted Linnell when putting together her compensation claim. 'Her claim had gone through all the checks Alan and I agreed should be in place, before the department started moving the goalposts,' Linnell said. 'It came back with an offer that was so pathetic.' Linnell said the dispute arose because the officials assessing her claim did 'not accept her trading and profit forecasts'. Instead, they cited the previous owner's revenue streams, despite the fact that the investments made by the subpostmistress would have meant that the business probably would have generated higher returns in future. 'I've gone back to her lawyers and suggested they submit the business plan that the bank happily accepted when issuing the loan,' Linnell said. Linnell, like Bates, believes the GLO scheme has become overly bureaucratic and legalistic, pointing out that three law firms are involved in the process. 'This is a pro bono scheme, it doesn't need to be following strict legal principles,' she said. She also believes that despite promises made by ministers, the officials involved in the schemes are attempting to reduce the total amount paid out in compensation. Labour has set aside £1.8 billion to settle claims. Linnell added: 'They are finding every legal loophole they can think of, under civil litigation rules, not to pay. It's designed to fail. What they are trying to do is to keep a handle on cashflow.' The government disputes this characterisation. A Department for Business and Trade spokesman said: 'We recognise the suffering that sub-postmasters have endured, which is why this government developed our compensation arrangement in discussion with Sir Alan Bates as well as Dr Kay Linnell and their lawyers, with £964 million having now been paid to over 6,800 claimants across all the Horizon schemes. 'Victims who are unhappy with their offer have access to legal support and an independent panel to review their claim.'
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
I've landed my dream job but just found out I'm pregnant – do I tell my new boss now?
APPRENTICE star and West Ham United vice-chair Karren Brady answers your careers questions. Here, Karren gives advice to a reader who has just been offered her dream job but has found out she's pregnant. Q) have just accepted a pretty senior role at a firm I've wanted to be part of for a while. However, since receiving the offer, I've discovered I'm pregnant – we weren't trying for a baby, but we'd like to progress with the pregnancy. My question is, what's the right next step – do I tell my new employer up front? Or maybe I should stay at my current job in order to get Statutory Maternity Pay? I'm trying to deal with the physical, mental and financial changes to my life this pregnancy is going to bring, and I can't decide the best way to move forward. Help! Gracie, via email A: Congratulations on your pregnancy, and also on your new role! It's completely understandable to feel uncertain about how to navigate this situation. When it comes to telling your new employer, remember that your pregnancy is a personal matter. West Ham chief Karren Brady has her say on VAR in Premier League and predicts 'a season of anger and confusion' Legally, you're not required to tell your new employer until 15 weeks before your due date, but being open early on can build trust, especially in a senior role. When you do, focus on expressing your excitement for the role and your commitment to contributing, while also being transparent about your maternity leave plans. As for staying in your current job to qualify for Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP), that's a valid option if you've been there long enough and need the financial security. You likely won't qualify for SMP from the new employer, but you may qualify for Maternity Allowance. Visit for details, and consider talking to HR or a financial adviser. Ultimately, weigh the long-term benefits of the new role against the shorter-term needs of your pregnancy. This is an exciting time, so try not to let work stress overshadow it.
