NextDecade signs $9 billion contracts with Bechtel for construction of LNG sites
June 12 (Reuters) - U.S. liquefied natural gas producer NextDecade (NEXT.O), opens new tab said on Thursday that its units have finalized contracts with Bechtel Energy to construct train 4 and train 5 at its Rio Grande LNG facility, with a combined value of about $9 billion.
Under engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contracts, NextDecade agreed to pay Bechtel about $4.77 billion under a renewed agreement for the fourth liquefaction train.
For the fifth train, it executed an EPC contract worth about $4.32 billion.
The company expects the pricing validity under the train 4 and train 5 contracts to extend through September 15, 2025, and it aims to achieve a positive final investment decision (FID) on train 4 before the end of the pricing validity period for its EPC contract.
LNG developers typically reach FIDs on projects once they have secured enough supply deals to obtain the necessary financing for construction.
In late May, the company signed a 20-year deal to supply Japan's power generator JERA with 2 million tonnes per annum of LNG from the fifth liquefaction facility at its Rio Grande project.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Spending billions on unclean, risky energy? What a nuclear waste
Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactors have powered British nuclear subs since 1966, but small modular reactors (SMRs) aren't yet proven at scale anywhere on land (Rolls-Royce named winning bidder for UK small nuclear reactors, 10 June). Only three are operating worldwide: two in Russia, one in China. Argentina is constructing the world's fourth; is Labour simply keen to keep up with historical geopolitical rivals (Sizewell C power station to be built as part of UK's £14bn nuclear investment, 10 June)? The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported actual cost overruns of 300% to 700% for all four projects. Rolls-Royce claims costs of £35 to £50 per MWh; so should we triple this? The government says the SMR project would create 3,000 new low-carbon British jobs, but at what cost? The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, can't know the true costs yet, and three reactors doesn't scream 'economies of scale'. Yet £2.5bn is already 10 times more than Great British Energy has invested into simple, cheap rooftop solar, which democratises energy savings. The true cost of renewables must consider intermittency and balancing costs, but why not invest more in flexibility through distributed renewables and grid-scale storage? And what of energy security? SMRs may mitigate against Putin snipping offshore wind cables, but increased reliance on imported uranium, and a heightened nuclear waste security threat, are significant risks. Last May, the IEEFA concluded that SMRs 'are still too expensive, too slow and too risky', and that we 'should embrace the reality that renewables, not SMRs, are the near-term solution to the energy transition'. Has this truly changed? The climate crisis requires scaling all feasible solutions as fast as possible, but, with limited capital, we should prioritise those that make economic sense HillMBA student, Cambridge Judge Business School As Nils Pratley says, Great British Energy's budget has been nuked to divert funding away from local energy initiatives (11 June). But let's get away from the idea that SMRs are a cutting-edge technology. Rolls-Royce is proposing a 470MW reactor, the same size as the first-generation Magnox reactors. Their 'small' modular reactor, if it ever emerges, will use the familiar method of generating a lot of heat in a very complex and expensive manner, in order to boil water and turn a turbine. It will bequeath yet more radioactive waste to add to the burden and risk at Sellafield. In the meantime, if government SMR funding continues, it takes money away from opportunities for cutting-edge technical and social innovation, discovery and training all around the country, as schools, hospitals, community groups, network operators and all of us get to grips with renewables-based systems. This sort of innovation is necessary, it's already benefiting us and it needs full-on government support rather than uneasy compromises with an increasingly redundant nuclear DarbyEmerita research fellow, Environmental Change Institute I'm a Scot who moved to the US in 1982. I returned to the UK seven years ago. In my time in the US, I worked with a few contractors as a chemist and health and safety manager on a number of environmental clean-up projects, chemical, biological and nuclear. The nuclear clean-up sites I worked on directly and indirectly were Hanford in Washington state, and Rocky Flats, Colorado. The multibillion-dollar Hanford cleanup is ongoing. Most of the problems there are as a result of gross mismanagement of nuclear waste during the cold war. I very much believe in wind, solar and other environmental solutions to energy production. I am cautiously supportive of small‑scale nuclear energy, but outraged by this government's failure to include the costs of the disposal of past, current and future nuclear waste in its support of 'cheap energy'. Has Ed Miliband taken into account future waste management issues? Google Hanford cleanup to see the real expense. Can we trust this and any future government to protect the environment, public health and the taxpayer from future nuclear 'cost overruns'?Peter HolmyardEdinburgh The more I read about the government's nuclear intentions, the more it sounds like HS2 all over again, ie another financial boondoggle. Where are the detailed costings? What is our experience with cost overruns, eg at Hinkley Point C? What is the overseas experience with pressurised water reactors (the kind proposed for Sizewell C) at Olkiluoto, at Flamanville, at Taishan? Uniformly bad in all cases, actually. No matter which way you look at this, viz the future cost overruns, the facts that we consumers will be on the hook for them, that reactors are never constructed on time, that nuclear wastes are unaudited, that we have to import all our uranium, that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2023 that renewables are 10 times better than nuclear at lowering carbon emissions, all point to a remarkably poor decision by the government, sad to Ian FairlieIndependent consultant on radioactivity in the environment; vice-president, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Classic American truck maker grovels as it brings back an icon: 'We got it wrong'
Ram is bringing back a rumbling, gas-guzzling V-8 engine. Months after phasing out the iconic HEMI V-8 from the 2025 Ram 1500 lineup, the automaker now says the big-bodied motor will return in 2026. The brand's top boss apologized for killing the grunting 5.7-liter powerhouse. 'We own it. We got it wrong. And we're fixing it,' Tim Kuniskis, the CEO of the Ram brand, said in an advertisement, showing the executive driving the truck around a racetrack. Kuniskis spoke over the thunderous growl of the truck's iconic firing cylinders. 'You hear that? That's our HEMI. And it's saying, "We're back."' For years, Ram raked in huge profits with the HEMI-powered full-size pickup trucks. The brand, which spun out of Detroit-based Dodge in 2009, was praised by loyal customers for its throaty, high-octane motors and near luxury interiors. Truck sales are among the most profitable — and important — for US-based automakers. But regulations threatened the fan-favorite motor. Ram originally ditched the HEMI in favor of Stellantis' newer, smaller engines to comply with tightening vehicle federal emissions standards and state government pressure to build EVs. Last year, the company said it would replace the V-8 with a more efficient and powerful V-6 — but the swap also stripped away some of the brand's signature brashness. Fans hated the move. 'Ram will lose me as a customer,' a truck-lover said in a Reddit post after Ram announced the HEMI was dead. 'What a sad day.' Ram posted massive losses after moving on from the aggressive engine. Sales for the brand slumped more than 18 percent in 2024. Ram's struggles contributed to a sales flop for its parent brand, Stellantis, which reported a 70 percent slash in profits last year. But the engine's revival has sparked hope for a comeback. Kuniskis recently said he expects the HEMI to represent 25 to 40 percent of Ram 1500 sales in 2026. The engine was nixed after Ram engineered a more powerful, efficient V-6 engine - but customers didn't seem to want it The revived V-8, enhanced with Ram's eTorque mild-hybrid tech, will return to the 1500 lineup globally, including trims like Laramie, Limited, and Sport. Every truck will feature a 'Symbol of Protest' badge, a fender-mounted emblem depicting the Ram logo crashing through a engine block. Ram will continue to offer the newer V-6, which delivers more power and better fuel efficiency than the returning V-8. 'Data be damned — we raise our flag and let the HEMI ring free again!' Kuniskis added. Ram's HEMI bet comes amid a massive shift for its struggling parent company. Stellantis — which owns American brands Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, and Jeep and European brands like Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Opel, and Peugeot — saw its CEO, Carlos Tavares, abruptly resign in December. The company was going through a wave of bad headlines, including mass layoffs at US plants and struggles to keep up with President Donald Trump's 25 percent automotive tariffs. There might be some light at the end of the tunnel. In May, the Antonio Filosa, the former COO for North and South America, took over as the top boss. 'We believe the appointment is positive,' Rella Suskin, an automotive analyst with MorningStar, told 'Antonio has a strong background in on-the-ground execution and understanding of the market's regional needs. These traits will be key in attempting to regain some of the significant market share losses in Europe and the US over the last few years.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Oil prices jump after Israel's attack on Iran and it could lead to higher gas costs
Oil prices have jumped following Israel's attack on Iran as experts warn the conflict could lead to higher gas costs. The price of a barrel of benchmark U.S. crude jumped 6.8 percent to $72.65 Friday. Brent crude, the international standard, rose 7.1 percent to $74.30 a barrel. '#GasPrices will likely start to rise across much of the country later this evening in response to Israel's attacks on Iran, which have caused oil prices to surge. For now, I expect the rise to be noticable, but limited. Approx 10-25c/gal thus far, but this could change,' industry expert Patrick De Haan wrote on X. Iran is one of the world's major producers of oil and if a wider war escalates, it could slow the flow of Iranian oil to U.S. customers and elsewhere. 'Iran knows full well that Trump i s focused on lower energy prices and actions by Iran that impact Middle East supply and consequently raise oil prices damage Trump politically,' Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates consulting firm, told CNN. Past attacks involving Iran and Israel have seen prices for oil spike initially, only to fall later 'once it became clear that the situation was not escalating and there was no impact on oil supply,' said Richard Joswick, head of near-term oil at S&P Global Commodity Insights. The Secretary of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries warned industry executives not to 'raise false alarms.' 'There are currently no developments in supply or market dynamics that warrant unnecessary measures,' the organization said on X. Israel said 200 fighter jets took part in strikes on more than 100 targets in Iran overnight in an escalation that threatens to spark a wider conflict in the Middle East. Israel said Iran has launched more than 100 drones towards Israel in response - but Tehran has denied these reports, according to Iranian media. Trump firmly put the U.S. in Israel's corner after the attacks. The president said he'd given Tehran 'chance after chance to make a deal' that would have headed off the strikes by putting restrictions on the country's nuclear weapons program and complained that Iranian negotiators had never been able to come to an agreement. 'I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done,' he wrote on Truth Social. Trump also said he'd warned Iran that Israel 'has a lot' of American-made military hardware — 'the best and most lethal' — and is quite proficient in using it. 'Certain Iranian hardliner's spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!' he added. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,' the president wrote.
