Exclusive: BlackRock-led group set to invest in $10 billion Aramco Jafurah infrastructure deal
The agreement would be the latest in a series of financial arrangements, akin to borrowing, that allow Gulf oil producing countries to raise money to diversify their economies while promising investors a stable revenue stream.
The two people said the latest transaction was expected to be similarly structured to two Aramco infrastructure deals in 2021, including one in which BlackRock invested in Aramco's gas pipeline networks, allowing the Saudi company to generate funds.
Aramco kept control of the underlying infrastructure while the investors earned tariffs from the oil firm for the use of the pipelines.
Both sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks are private. They did not say when the deal might be finalised. Aramco and BlackRock declined to comment.
The $100 billion Jafurah project, potentially the biggest shale gas project outside the United States, is central to Aramco's ambitions to become a major global player in natural gas and to boost its gas production capacity by 60% by 2030 from 2021 levels.
The Jafurah assets underpinning the deal include gas pipelines and a gas processing plant, one of the sources said.
Aramco has long been the biggest source of the kingdom's revenues. Saudia Arabia has been seeking to diversify its economy as oil prices have come under pressure from global economic uncertainty that could further reduce demand.
They have also been depressed by increased output from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Saudi Arabia, which is striving to boost market share.
Earlier this month, Reuters reported that Aramco was seeking to sell up to five gas-fired power plants to raise funds.
PREVIOUS DEALS
In 2021, BlackRock and EIG were among investor groups that took stakes in companies that leased usage rights in Aramco's gas and oil pipeline networks. The groups leased them back to Aramco for a 20-year period in two separate deals, helping the Saudi company to raise nearly $28 billion.
Described as lease and leaseback transactions by Aramco at the time, they were structured as a form of borrowing, Robin Mills, chief executive of consultancy Qamar Energy told Reuters.
"The pipeline deals were basically a securitisation" and not a sale of the asset, whose ownership remained with Aramco, Mills said.
In those deals the groups took 49% stakes in subsidiaries Aramco Oil Pipelines and Aramco Gas Pipelines, in which Aramco retains 51% stakes. The subsidiaries receive a tariff from Aramco for flows of crude and natural gas, backed by minimum commitments on throughput.
The deals followed other transactions in the region, including Abu Dhabi's ADNOC sale of minority stakes in the companies owning the leasing rights to its oil and gas pipelines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
5 minutes ago
- Reuters
BlackRock, other fund managers lose bid to dismiss Texas climate collusion lawsuit
Aug 1 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday largely rejected a request by top asset managers including BlackRock (BLK.N), opens new tab to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Texas and 12 other Republican-led states that said the companies violated antitrust law through climate activism that reduced coal production and boosted energy prices. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle in Tyler, Texas agreed to dismiss just three of the 21 counts in the states' lawsuit, which also names institutional investors State Street (STT.N), opens new tab and Vanguard. The lawsuit is among the highest-profile cases targeting efforts to promote environmental, social and governance goals. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the three companies "created an investment cartel to illegally control national energy markets and squeeze more money out of hardworking Americans,' and that 'today's victory represents a major step in holding them accountable." The three asset managers said they would continue to defend against the claims, with Vanguard calling the ruling disappointing, and State Street calling the case a risk to investors and energy markets. "By pursuing forced divestment, the Attorneys General are undermining the Trump Administration's goal of American energy independence," BlackRock said. The ruling by Kernodle, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, means the states can move forward with their claims that the asset managers violated U.S. antitrust law by joining Climate Action 100+, an investor initiative to take action to combat climate change, and used their shareholder advocacy in furtherance of its goals. Kernodle, however, dismissed claims that the asset managers violated Louisiana and Nebraska consumer protection laws. The companies have denied wrongdoing and called the case "half-baked." But the states' theories have garnered support from Trump-appointed antitrust enforcers at the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. The outcome of the lawsuit could have major implications for how the companies, which together manage some $27 trillion, approach their holdings and passive funds. One possible remedy sought by the plaintiffs would be for the fund firms to divest holdings in coal companies, which BlackRock has said would harm the companies' access to capital and likely raise energy prices.
Daily Mail
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The 37 taxes you pay and why it now takes £3.1m to feel 'wealthy' - This is Money podcast
While the average household pays £16,700 in direct tax on income, our audit shows this is just the tip of the iceberg. We all pay a multitude of other taxes, from air passenger duty to environmental levies on our energy bills. Lee Boyce, Simon Lambert and Georgie Frost discuss what the total sum is - and that our tax rate is more like 57 per cent. And tax rises don't always bring in more cash for the Treasury coffers. As the Government weighs up introducing yet another tax - this time a wealth tax - we explore why despite the allowance being slashed the capital gains tax take is down and what it means for the Chancellor's plans. How much you need to feel wealthy in different areas of Britain? Does £1million still cut it? The six burning questions everyone is asking financial advisers right now… and their expert answers And we answer a reader query: Could I give £250 gifts to 400 people who then pay them to my daughters to beat inheritance tax on £100,000? Listen to the This is Money podcast We publish the podcast every Friday on This is Money and at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music and more. Search for it at your favourite podcast platform. To download Apple Podcasts go to the App store. On Android devices, go to the Google Play store to download the podcast app of your choice. You can press play to listen to this week's full episode on the player above, and wherever you get your podcasts please subscribe and review us if you like the podcast. You can also listen to the latest episode, find the archive and join in the debate in reader comments on the This is Money podcast page.
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
Lenders do not owe millions compensation over car finance, Supreme Court rules
Sign up to our free money newsletter for investment analysis and expert advice to help you build wealth Sign up to our free money email for help building your wealth Sign up to our free money email for help building your wealth Email * SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our Privacy notice Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers, after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes, but some motorists may still receive payouts. The UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest. The decision comes after two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments, paid by buyers to dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found that three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. On Friday, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest, and that the Court of Appeal was wrong. But they said that some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it will confirm by Monday whether it will consult on a redress scheme, while one of the three drivers said he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling. Handing down the judgment, Lord Reed said the car dealer 'was at all times pursuing its own commercial interest in achieving a sale of the car on profitable terms'. He continued: 'In reaching the opposite conclusion, the Court of Appeal failed to understand that the dealer has a commercial interest in the arrangement between the customer and the finance company. Get a free fractional share worth up to £100. Capital at risk. Terms and conditions apply. Go to website ADVERTISEMENT Get a free fractional share worth up to £100. Capital at risk. Terms and conditions apply. Go to website ADVERTISEMENT 'The court mistakenly treated the dealer as acting solely in the interests of the customer once the customer had chosen a car and agreed a price.' The FCA, which intervened in the case, previously said it would set out within six weeks whether it would consult on a redress scheme. But a spokesperson said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday 'to provide clarity as quickly as possible'. Lord Reed said the Supreme Court had decided to deliver its ruling on a Friday afternoon, outside of trading hours and after the markets had closed for the weekend, to avoid the risk of 'market disorder'. The three drivers involved in the case, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars worth less than £10,000 before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, the car dealers made a profit from the sale of the car and received commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, and the three drivers took legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission because of the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error', while the FCA claimed the ruling went 'too far'. In their 110-page judgment, the five Supreme Court justices found that 'an offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically'. They said: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.' However, the judges upheld a claim brought by Mr Johnson under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair'. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid the £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. The Supreme Court ruled he should receive the commission and interest, which Mr Johnson told the PA news agency totalled 'just over £3,000'. Mr Johnson said that he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling, which he said 'does not sit right with me'. He said: 'I am obviously happy that my case was successful, but for so many other people that were also overcharged, I just don't like the message it sends to the UK consumer.' He said the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. A Treasury spokesperson said it would work to 'understand the impact for both firms and consumers'. They said: 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. 'These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Close Brothers said it was 'considering' the judgment and 'will make any further announcements as and when appropriate'. Kavon Hussain, founder and lawyer at Consumer Rights Solicitors, which represented Ms Hopcraft and Mr Wrench, said it was 'disappointing' the Supreme Court did not fully uphold the Court of Appeal's ruling. He said: 'The Supreme Court ruling supports our view that lenders had acted unfairly in millions of car finance deals. 'This should now pave the way for the biggest compensation payout to motorists in British legal history. 'We will fight to get consumers the money they are owed by these lenders.'
