Qatar holds talks with energy companies on risk of Israel-Iran conflict, sources say
Qatar held crisis talks this week with energy majors after Israeli strikes on Iran's huge gas field, which it shares with Qatar, an industry source and a diplomat in the region told Reuters.
Saad Al Kaabi, CEO of state-owned QatarEnergy and the Gulf Arab state's energy minister urged companies to warn the U.S., British and European governments about the risks the conflict poses to gas exports from Qatar and the increasing threat to the global gas supply, they said.
An interruption to Qatar's liquefied natural gas (LNG) operation could cut off around 20% of the global supply, which Doha exports from the world's largest gas reservoir.
"QatarEnergy is making sure that foreign governments are fully aware of the implications and repercussions the situation and further escalation pose to gas production from Qatar,' said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.
QatarEnergy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Kaabi also met this week in Doha with ambassadors representing countries whose companies are involved in QatarEnergy's North Field expansion project, the diplomat said.
U.S. majors ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, Britain's Shell, Italy's Eni and France's TotalEnergies all have stakes in the expansion, which is set to boost exports from Qatar by around 82% in the coming years.
So far, there have been no disruptions to QatarEnergy's exports and cargo deliveries are on schedule.
(Reporting by Andrew Mills and Marwa Rasahd Editing by Tomasz Janowski and Louise Heavens)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
37 minutes ago
- The National
Does Trump have the authority to declare war on Iran?
President Donald Trump's announcement that he would make a decision in two weeks about whether to directly involve US forces in Israel's war on Iran has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate on exactly what military powers America's leader has. The President has indicated in recent days that the US could carry out strikes against Iran in support of its ally. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. According to the US Constitution, it's the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - that has the power to declare war. This stretches back to 1973, when Congress passed the War Powers Act - also referred to as the War Powers Resolution - which sought to prevent the executive branch from declaring war without congressional approval. It was initiated shortly after a series of presidents unilaterally escalated the Vietnam war, specifically when Richard Nixon ordered the bombing and invasion of Cambodia without a green light from Congress. Yet there are several loopholes that various US presidents have used since the passage of the War Powers Act to exercise their ability to influence military policy. There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the White House from assisting other countries, with the current example being Israel. Some legal experts have also pointed out that the US Constitution, specifically Article II Section 2, states that "[the] President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - that is, the White House has a legal precedent to try and mobilise the US military to some extent. "There is a constitutional ambiguity between the role of Commander-in-Chief and the congressional power to declare war," said Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in upstate New York. Prof Kneeland said that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, George W Bush, president at the time, sought and obtained authorisation from Congress to use military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, These so-called Authorisations to Use Military Force (AUMF) have since been used to justify actions against ISIS and Hezbollah, as well. "It may be that President Trump will use this as a pretext should he decide to attack Iran, which has been identified with supporting Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organisation in the US," Prof Kneeland said, noting that laws passed after 9/11 blurred clarity on who could declare war. It could also be a matter of semantics, with the US providing assistance to Israel without ever mentioning war. Yet there is already pushback from Democrats and Republicans, as politicians seek to head off any potential unilateral decision by Mr Trump to move ahead with military action against Iran. In the Senate, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution seeking to make debate and a vote compulsory before any military strike on Iran. And in the House of Representatives, Republican Thomas Massie introduced a similar resolution related to the situation in Iran. Yet resolutions like this, compared to laws, often lack enforcement mechanisms. Prof Kneeland also points out that constitutionally, Mr Trump could easily block them. "These are subject to President Trump's veto power and would require a two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto," he said. "With both the House and Senate in the hands of the Republicans, who overwhelmingly support President Trump, this seems highly unlikely." So, even with the 1973 War Powers Act, the ball appears to be in Mr Trump's court. Iran, meanwhile, is holding talks with European powers as its war with Israel enters a second week.
Zawya
40 minutes ago
- Zawya
From Discovery to Delivery: Building a Legal Framework for Namibia's Midstream Infrastructure (by Rachel Mushabati)
By Rachel Mushabati, Senior Associate Attorney&Country Head – CLG Namibia ( Namibia's recent offshore oil discoveries mark a pivotal moment in the country's energy sector. With major players such as Shell, TotalEnergies, QatarEnergy, and Galp uncovering significant reserves, Namibia is poised to become a key oil producer. However, while exploration and production activities have gained momentum, the midstream sector; involving transportation, storage, and refining of petroleum, remains underdeveloped. A strong legal framework for midstream infrastructure is essential to ensure that Namibia maximizes economic benefits, attracts investment, and builds a sustainable energy industry. CLG Legal and Business Advisory, with its extensive advisory experience across Africa, is uniquely positioned to support this transition. CLG has advised on midstream regulatory frameworks, infrastructure structuring, and investment promotion strategies in various jurisdictions, and brings this expertise to the Namibian context. Understanding Midstream Infrastructure and Its Importance Midstream infrastructure serves as the critical link between oil extraction and the end consumer. This includes pipelines, refineries, storage facilities, and specialized port infrastructure that facilitate the transportation of crude oil and natural gas. Without adequate midstream infrastructure, Namibia risks becoming an exporter of raw crude without capturing additional value through processing and distribution. A robust midstream sector can boost job creation, industrial development, and energy security, making it a strategic national priority. Market studies from other African producers have shown that well-developed midstream infrastructure can contribute up to 30% more in local value addition compared to direct crude exports.[1] In Ghana, for instance, domestic refining and pipeline infrastructure contributed significantly to its GDP growth in the petroleum sector between 2016–2022. Namibia has the opportunity to tap into similar economic potential.[2] Existing Legal Framework and Gaps Namibia's petroleum sector is primarily governed by the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act 2 of 1991 and the Petroleum Products and Energy Act 13 of 1990. These laws focus largely on upstream activities and the regulation of downstream petroleum products. However, there is no dedicated midstream regulatory framework. The absence of clear midstream regulations means there is little guidance on ownership structures, investment incentives, and operational guidelines for pipelines, storage, and refining facilities. For example, Nigeria's midstream sector prior to the Petroleum Industry Act (2021) faced significant bottlenecks due to the absence of a clear regulatory framework, particularly regarding third-party access and tariff setting for pipeline infrastructure. These issues led to investor reluctance and underinvestment, which were only addressed after the establishment of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (Nigeria Petroleum Industry Act, 2021). Lessons from Other Oil-Producing Countries Namibia can draw inspiration from countries that have successfully developed midstream infrastructure through effective regulation. Norway, for example, has established a robust midstream legal framework that ensures state participation in pipelines and refineries while promoting private investment.[3] Ghana has a dedicated Petroleum Midstream Regulatory Authority that oversees infrastructure development and ensures compliance with environmental and safety standards. Similarly, Nigeria's Petroleum Industry Act (2021) introduced the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, which provides clear guidelines on pipeline ownership and operations. The Role of Key Stakeholders in Strengthening Namibia's Legal Framework To unlock the full potential of the midstream sector, coordinated action is required among various stakeholders: Government Ministries and Regulators: Responsible for drafting legislation, setting environmental and safety standards, and issuing licenses. Private Sector and Investors: Bring in capital and technical expertise, while also needing legal certainty to invest confidently. State-Owned Entities: Can serve as infrastructure operators and strategic partners in public-private partnerships. Civil Society and Communities: Essential for ensuring environmental accountability and social license to operate. Legal Advisory Firms: Provide technical assistance in drafting laws, structuring transactions, and navigating policy reform. Strengthening Namibia's Midstream Legal Framework To address the existing gaps, Namibia must develop a comprehensive legal framework that clearly defines the governance of midstream activities. A dedicated Midstream Act would be a crucial first step, providing legal certainty on pipeline infrastructure, refineries, storage, and transportation. Encouraging public-private partnerships can drive midstream development while ensuring local participation. Establishing an independent regulatory authority will help enhance transparency, streamline approvals, and enforce compliance. Additionally, Namibia should implement policies that prioritize local employment and skills transfer, ensuring that midstream investors contribute to national workforce development. Environmental and safety standards must also be strengthened to mitigate risks associated with pipeline integrity, spill prevention, and emergency response. To further attract investors, tax breaks, duty exemptions, and streamlined licensing processes should be introduced to make Namibia a more competitive destination for midstream infrastructure development. Conclusion For Namibia to fully capitalize on its oil discoveries, it must establish a strong midstream legal framework that facilitates the efficient transportation, storage, and processing of petroleum resources. Without this, the country risks losing significant economic value and remaining dependent on crude exports. By adopting best practices from other oil-producing nations and implementing strategic legal reforms, Namibia can create a thriving midstream sector that benefits both investors and citizens alike. CLG stands ready to support this transformation, leveraging its pan-African expertise in midstream regulation, infrastructure development, and legal advisory. Our team has been instrumental in shaping midstream legal regimes across West and Central Africa, and we are committed to helping Namibia build a regulatory foundation that supports sustainable growth and long-term prosperity. [1] Ruben, R., Kuijpers, R.,&Dijkxhoorn, Y. (2022). Mobilizing the Midstream for Supporting Smallholder Intensification. Land, 11 (12), 2319. [2] Oxford Business Group. 'Ghana's energy production targets and exploration attract investment'. Retrieved from [3] Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (2021). 'Midstream Regulatory Framework and Investment Guidelines'. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of CLG.
Zawya
2 hours ago
- Zawya
Saudi: New SAMA rules limit credit card fees: 3% cash withdrawal, 2% foreign purchases, free e-wallet top-ups
RIYADH — The Saudi Central Bank (SAMA) announced on Thursday updated rules for the issuance and operation of credit cards, aimed at lowering costs for customers and increasing levels of disclosure and transparency. The new regulations will take effect within 30 to 90 days. Among the key updates, credit card issuers must notify customers of any changes in fees via SMS, with customers allowed to terminate their agreement within 14 days of receiving the notice. E-wallet top-ups via credit cards are now free of charge. For cash withdrawals below SR2,500, fees are capped at 3% of the transaction amount. For withdrawals of SR2,500 or more, fees are limited to a maximum of SR75. International purchases will now carry a 2% fee of the transaction value. Customers are also permitted to deposit additional amounts above their credit limit and withdraw them at any time without incurring charges. SAMA worked with global payment companies to assess and reduce associated transaction costs, as part of its mission to enhance Saudi Arabia's digital payment ecosystem and provide a diverse array of payment options for customers and visitors. Transparency measures now require issuers to notify customers immediately of any financial transactions and to send account statements via SMS. Issuers must also provide tools for customers to estimate rewards and international charges before making a purchase. Regarding repayment, customers may pay off their full outstanding balance without incurring late fees, with a mandatory grace period of at least 25 days. The regulations also unify disclosure templates for all fees, charges, and benefits within credit card agreements, promoting greater clarity for consumers. Previously, cash withdrawals carried fees of SR75 for transactions up to SR5,000 and 3% of the transaction amount for amounts over SR5,000, with a maximum fee of SR300. The new cap of SR75 for larger transactions offers more favorable terms. International transactions are now subject to a clear 2% fee, and additional charges include SR25 for invalid transaction disputes and account statement requests. © Copyright 2022 The Saudi Gazette. All Rights Reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
