“While Eriell projects are still mainly concentrated in Uzbekistan and Russia , we also plan to develop business in the Gulf region. Within the framework of the ‘Program of Measures to Increase the Production of Hydrocarbon Raw Materials for 2017-2021’ for the development of the fields of Uzbekneftegaz JSC, 52 gas pipelines were put into operation, three gas collector pipelines were made ready for operation, the improvement of nine wells was completed and 56 wells were connected to electrochemical protection, Eriell said. In Uzbekistan, the largest and most complex project is still the Mustakillikning 25 Yilligi project. In six months Eriell has constructed 159 wells and drilled 582,951 meters (including 400,000 meters, which were drilled in Russia). In addition to the operational achievements in drilling, ERIELL carried out 18 mobilizations of drilling equipment, 16 of which took place simultaneously. In Russia, Eriell said the company continues to work for three main customers: Gazprom, Novatek and Gazprom Neft. About 90% of the drilling rigs operating in Russia are heavy rigs with a lifting capacity of more than 320 tons, four of which are specially designed to work in the harsh Arctic conditions. 211, 100% quality of contact with the casing and the rock was obtained in the interval of normal density cement slurry. For LUKOIL Uzbekistan Operating Company, work was carried out to overhaul four out of 11 wells. Moreover, the best result in terms of drilling speed has been achieved since the start of well construction at the Tazovskoye oil and gas condensate field (since 2017). At the Messoyakhaneftegaz project, Eriell was praised by its client for a special contribution to the development of partnerships, effective solutions for operational and strategic tasks, plus high adherence to industrial safety requirements, the press release read. Production drilling on complex gas projects in the Arctic in the area of the Yamal and Gydan peninsulas comprises the largest part of the portfolio. style=”font-size:40px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 800; padding:7px;”>Eriell focuses on Uzbekistan and Russia, eyes Gulf region

By New Europe Online/KG

Eriell Group

Eriell Group presents H1 2021 production figures

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

WhatsApp

Viber

Email

Print

Eriell, an international oilfield services group, presented on July 29 information on production indicators achieved in the first half of 2021 and upcoming projects. In April, a new contract was signed with the Uz-Kor Gas Chemical JV, according to which 25 wells were overhauled in the first half. One of the features of work in the Arctic is the need for complex and lengthy mobilizations in a short time by different modes of transport, including along the Northern Sea Route and temporary winter roads, Eriell said, adding that te largest mobilization carried out in 2021 was the transportation of the ZJ-70 DBS drilling rig and equipment weighing 12 tons in three months from Novy Urengoy, Abakan and Yekaterinburg through the port of Arkhangelsk to Salman. We constantly seek ways to meet and exceed our clients’ expectations,” he added. In August, we will resume work on international projects and start drilling at the Garraf field in Iraq,” Dokunikhin said. The total distance was 12,000 kilometers. Eriell continued to work at the Urengoyskoye and Medvezhye oil and gas condensate fields of the Gazprom group, where it built three production wells of increased complexity, including the Achimov horizons. This is the third major mobilization successfully organized and carried out by Eriell in Russia. At the Urengoyskoye oil and gas condensate field (“Arcticgas”) – the longest ERIELL project in Russia, liner with 20 MSHF sleeves was successfully run into the horizontal wellbore of a sub-horizontal well 1,500 meters long. 7107 (2,000 m + pilot borehole) was built with an absolute record rate of days / 1,000 meters for this type of wells – 3.39 (17.75 days) and penetration rate of 5,228 meters, of which the length of the horizontal borehole was 2,046 meters. Moreover, the quality factor according to the Rosneft method was 1, which became possible due to the cement slurry formulations developed by the technological service and specialists of the well cementing shop. In the period, Eriell built 28 production and exploration wells on gas projects of Russia’s largest independent gas producer Novatek. “We are pleased with the results of the company for the first half of 2021. Despite the ongoing global economic challenges, Eriell said the group once again demonstrated its resilience and effectiveness having achieved new records on the most complex projects and carried out large-scale mobilizations. “It is very gratifying that improvements in our performance, efficiency and quality of service are continually being acknowledged by our customers. Eriell has drilled over 50 wells for Gazprom Neft at the Vostochno-Messoyakhskoye, Tazovskoye and Novoportovskoye fields. At the Tazovskoye oil and gas condensate field (Meretoyakhaneftegaz), horizontal well No. Also, for the first time on the project, MDT work was successfully carried out in the deviated pilot wellbore of the Achimov deposits. In the first half, a record ROP was achieved when drilling with a 444.5 mm bit and daily meterage was 362 meters, Eriell said in a press release. The zenith angle in the study interval is 56 degrees. At the Utrennee oil and gas condensate field (Arctic LNG 2 – Novatek project for the production of natural gas and for the production of liquefied natural gas), for the first time, when cementing the technical casing of well No. The overhaul of eight wells was also carried out for joint venture Natural Gas-Stream and four wells completed, after which a good flow of gas was obtained. We have achieved the planned indicators, updated several records, received thanks from customers, and successfully implemented 18 mobilizations, 16 of which took place simultaneously,” said Vitaly Dokunikhin, first deputy chairman of the management board of Eriell Group, general director of Eriell Neftegazservice.

Romantic constructivist theory is not currently experiencing one of its better moments. We are witnessing a project that is truly revolutionary for this state. The desire to search for compromise is, at times, a way to discuss global policy and regional decision-making processes. Even before those predictions were ever uttered in public, the much-needed geopolitical instincts of the American foreign and domestic policy establishment failed at several key moments in the post-9/11 world. Russia’s efforts are aimed at preserving its influence on the future contours of the Afghan state without the Americans being involved. Furthermore, at that time, much more attention was paid to the role that Pakistan played in destabilizing the Afghan state. However, given the importance and political weight of New Delhi and the strategic nature of Russian-Indian relations, the absence of Indian diplomats at the forum was a significant mistake by Moscow. The Soviet-Afghan War lasted for a decade and contributed significantly to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union nearly three years later. Debates about the necessity of past conflicts in far-flung corners of the Earth are now being re-analyzed and re-examined in connection with the ongoing Afghan peace process. Issues of global security and stability cannot be ignored by any major power. Its real and potential benefits, from the point of view of Washington’s geopolitical perspective, ended long ago. Washington is trying, in every possible way,  to switch to the “virtue of abstinence”. The widespread geopolitical practice over the last several years has shown that the system of international relations is going through a transitional phase and the contradictions of the world’s Great Powers are so significant that it is impossible to discuss any sort of parity or cooperation. In particular, observers are looking into Russia’s current diplomatic efforts, which has left the impression that there is no special geopolitical struggle for Afghanistan. From now on, the Taliban are no longer seen as terrorists, allies of Al-Qaeda, and enemies from which the rest of the world must be protected. Between the major international players, there is no zero-sum game regarding Afghanistan’s history. And Russia, India, and the former Soviet Central Asian countries need to prepare for this while at the same time actively participating in the process around the Afghan policy. However, it seems that in regards to American policy on Afghanistan, regardless of the administration, the policy will be to drawdown to a bare minimum. This is the first sign of a new American approach to international relations in light of new realities that it faces, including growing global opposition from Russia and China and stagnant political resources at home.  What was noticeable odd about the March meeting in Moscow is that India did not attend the consultations. Islamabad uses ISI’s connections Islamic terrorist groups to project its foreign policy positions. Both sides seem to exist with permanent tunnel vision that does not allow them to understand or even care about the world’s political processes or the positions of the Great Powers. On the contrary, the Americans are trying in every possible way to get rid of this heavy burden, but at the moment they do not know how. The UN Security Council adopted a resolution in support of the “War on Terror”. This was not unexpected. Studies suggest that the Afghan conflict is a classic example of overheating and a deep sense of fatigue. The future of Afghan society, with the radical Islamist Taliban movement now a key part of the country’s government, remains an open question. When it comes to Afghanistan, Moscow needs to solve several fundamentally important and strategic tasks and to ensure its national security in connection with the reduction of the American military presence and to maintain its geopolitical influence in Afghanistan. In this sort of highly contentious atmosphere, it is extremely difficult for any policymaker in Washington to think about how to completely reform the US’ strategy for Afghanistan. EPA-EFE//JALIL REZAYEE
Over time, the conflict has become a heavy, boring and unpromising burden for the rest of the world. Women’s rights, which have made significant progress in the two decades since the Taliban were ousted from power, are expected to be rolled back in the coming years. Questions about the necessity of waging endless wars were raised early on in the presidency of Barack Obama and were later echoed by his successor, Donald Trump. The NATO military mission in Afghanistan saw a change of command as US General John Nicholson relieved his predecessor US General John Campbell at a ceremony in Kabul. Today, there is no geopolitical struggle around Afghanistan in the classical sense of the term. Russia is participating in the Afghan process not to replace the United States in Afghanistan, but to compete with them for influence in this country. The ISI conducted and continues to carry out extremely dangerous and subversive activities in Afghanistan. The American strategy provides for a significant decrease in military presence in South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. Its consequences are yet to be seen, and it is difficult to say how it will end. Experts have given different answers to these questions. In their opinion, Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq are not the US’ problems. Afghanistan is a global problem and no major power can ignore this fact. style=”font-size:40px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 800; padding:7px;”>Afghanistan and the Great Powers

By Georgy Asatryan
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics PhD. At times, it seems that the world’s main political actors ignore their own interests and instead move from a harsh realpolitik view of the world to a much more ideological concept of how things should work. The interests of the entire international community, including its main players – the US, UK, Germany, Russia, France, India, and China – were completely aligned. All of this information leads to the question: Why should any great power fight for influence in any current/past/future failed states, especially those that are not able to be controlled either from within or externally? The history of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union is filled with examples of great power struggles for dominance in the Third World. Taliban members attend a ceremony after being released by authorities in Herat, Afghanistan. The political atmosphere around the Afghan conflict has gradually begun to change. Instead, and from the start, it was stuck in the psychology of Cold War strategy and the worldviews of the last century. Failed states are, by definition, those whose very existence is under threat due to civil war political infighting and massive social upheaval that causes the country to fall into a state of anarchy without a functioning centralized government. For the United States, where the political establishment usually has different, and often contradictory, ideas about international relations, these processes are reversible. From that moment forward, the Taliban was designated as an integral part of Afghan society, with its own views, values, and principles. The problem of excessive ideologization and the predominance of “-isms” in international relations is clearly visible to the naked eye. As a consequence of the role, Russia retains (and exaggerates) its influence in this region. This defining event opened a new page in Afghan history. For most Americans, what they see is an Afghan war that has been going on for nearly 20 years – since October 2001. Pakistan’s backing of the Taliban allowed the radical movement to become a key actor in Afghan politics. They have in the past, and presumably still, finance and support the Taliban. There are, however, exceptions in this regard. The Afghan campaign is an American story, and American strategists will continue to shape its character. At the current stage of its involvement in Afghanistan, the West is in a state of suspended animation due to the overexertion of forces. Asatryan is also an academic scholar and expert consultant for the Russian International Affairs Council and the Valdai Club. The enormous loss of life, instability, the fragmentation of the country, and terrorist attacks after more than 40 years of constant warfare have taken their toll on the country/
Afghanistan’s rival factions continue to play by “zero-sum” rules in every negotiating arena. The current picture when it comes to geopolitical decorum even lacks a basic sense of decorum when it comes to diplomacy. Formally, the next meeting of the expanded “troika” – the United States, China, and Pakistan – was held in Moscow. In short, at the beginning of the century, there was a global consensus – Afghanistan was a threat to international security. Members of the movement will join the government, hold ministerial posts, sit in parliament, and some will go on to head embassies. In their view, everything that is good for one side is automatically bad for the other. The international order, for the time being, essentially has no rules or sense of traditional protocol, but has become highly politicized. According to the agreements, the Taliban will become part of the legal political field. Opinion polls show that the percentage of Americans who believe that the country should “mind its own business” has reached the same levels as were seen at the end of the Vietnam War. For much of the life of the conflict, Washington’s way of dealing with a country like Afghanistan was outmoded, too expensive, and did not meet the challenges of the second decade of the 21st-century. The 12,000 NATO-led troops in the country have a mainly training and backup role in the context of operation Resolute Support, since the withdrawal of foreign combat troops in 2014. The history of diplomacy and international relations is full of examples of Great Powers finding a compromise with far smaller and less significant players. The radical Islamist group, which actively uses political violence and terrorism as a method to gain power, was asked to become a “normal political party”, to participate in elections, and lay down their arms. Today, there are less than 5,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly American. At a gathering in March in Moscow, the regional powers, putting aside (for the time being) their own disagreements, forced the government in Kabul and the Taliban to accelerate negotiations. At its peak, the military presence exceeded 120,000 troops. When the issue of international terrorism and a potential safe haven for radical Islamist terror groups come to the forefront, the powerful nations of the world are able to act together. The US’ efforts alone will not be enough, and a broad regional dialogue is needed. The United States will continue the Afghan peace process in Turkey and Qatar. The potential strengthening of Pakistan’s role in the Afghan policy for global and regional security is considered by many players, including Russia and others in the region of Central Asia, as decidedly problematic. Russian diplomacy proceeds from the theoretical concepts of the school of neorealism. When the Afghan War began in the weeks after 9/11, all of the regional and world powers supported the US. After all, one cannot forget that Al-Qaeda was given a safe haven on Afghan soil by the Taliban. Meetings involving the highest echelons of power too often become mutual, public accusations. With the support of Pakistan’s ISI security agencies, radical Islamist groups managed to take root and gain a deep foothold in Afghanistan. This simple declaration is the official end of the West’s definition of statehood for Afghanistan. Within the United States itself, internal political and social confusion about the purpose of the whole Afghan endeavor is gradually growing. This is a completely new reality for Afghanistan. EPA/RAHMAT GUL / POOL

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

WhatsApp

Viber

Email

Print

Can Afghanistan’s never-ending internal conflict be resolved by the efforts of great and regional powers that have numerous conflicting strategic and global goals? Is it possible to stop another civil war in Afghanistan from erupting through the efforts of outside actors, between whom there is an atmosphere of complete distrust? It changed the very essence of the conflict and created a completely new geopolitical reality. It might seem that the withdrawal from Afghanistan was an impulsive trick dreamt up by isolationist President Donald Trump, but as can be seen by the policies of Joe Biden in the first six months of his presidency, he has continued down the same path of ending the US’ direct presence in Afghanistan. However, a necessary factor in this strategy should be permanent, and multi-level pressure, on the main sponsor of radical Islamist groups in the region – Pakistan. First, the American strategy itself has undergone major transformations that have the force of revolutionary events. Altruism, as defined by the late 1990s-early 2000s concept of humanitarian intervention, no longer has any capital even in a Democratic administration that would have been inclined to act exactly under those same pretences only a decade ago. epa05190269 New Commander of Resolute Support forces and United States forces in Afghanistan, US Army General John Nicholson, attend during a change of command ceremony in Resolute Support headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan, 02 March 2016. As a result, important opportunities were squandered and the Trump brand of isolationism, the likes of which have not been seen in the United States since the 1930s, began to take hold more out of necessity than a need. EPA-EFE//JALIL REZAYEE
In short, the reality is that the US is leaving Afghanistan. Soviet troops withdraw from Afghanistan in February 1989. Afghanistan has a long conflict of internal, tribal, sectarian conflict, which will most likely not come to an end. In this regard, the Afghan process should have a multi-factor and multi-vector character, which obviously eliminates potential threats. Humanitarian intervention is a thing of the past. The longest war in the history of the United States is coming to a logical conclusion. Their combined economic, military, and industrial potential is almost non-existent. The political establishment in Washington has, across the political spectrum of both the Democrats and Republicans, focused on rethinking domestic policy affairs. In short, Americans of all political stripes are simply tired of Afghanistan after two decades of fruitless attempts at nation-building in a part of the world that has successfully resisted outside interference since the time of Alexander the Great. This set of factors provide for a vague opportunity to meet the interests of the major geopolitical players to try to bring Afghanistan closer to peace. American political scientists have repeatedly noted for the last decade that the role of the global hegemon is no longer relevant in the current system of international relations. Memories of 9/11 are still strong for many, especially for those in the security services of many nations. Nicholson has served three tours of duty in Afghanistan. There are no signs in the foreseeable future that a resolution is possible. Dr. Government officials in Kabul and the radical Taliban movement are far more concerned with destroying or weakening each other instead of finding a logical way to govern one of the world’s poorest and least literate countries. Russian diplomats are participating in the process, sometimes they are even the facilitators of certain initiatives. Two decades on, and those nations that are not a part of the West have become, if not opponents, then outside observers of the American policy in Afghanistan. Moscow is aware that the Afghan issue can only be resolved together. Classical constructivism, coupled with neoliberalism, gave way to realpolitik. After numerous consultations, the Afghan peace process is designed to accelerate the search for lasting peace and a compromise between all of the Afghan parties involved, including the Taliban. The old ideas of chessboards and ‘Great Games’, based on the inevitability of a struggle between external players for control of Afghanistan, is outdated and wishful thinking. Who needs to be responsible for problematic countries that are in a state of collapse? In February 2018, at the instigation of the United States, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani announced the beginning of a dialogue with the Taliban. The Afghan problem has always been associated with potential threats of international terrorism. The Biden administration will actively try to achieve a peace agreement between the government in Kabul and the Taliban. This is most likely due to the shortcomings of Russian diplomacy, which failed to convince India, on whom much depends in the region, to attend the forum. Far less often, however, have there been cases when a global power has been able to resolve the internal conflicts of a failed state, e.g. The current stage of diplomatic efforts with regard to Afghanistan is an attempt to push the parties to a more resolute dialogue and compromise. Using this paradigm, the concept of compromise is null and void. According to the UN Human Development Index, failed states lag behind the poorest countries of Sub-Saharan Africa in terms of standards of living. That is a struggle from a bygone era; today it is no longer relevant. There is growing discontent within the US from broad segments of society as the general population do not want to see endless wars waged in far-off countries. Somalia, Afghanistan, Haiti, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Syria, Yemen, and Libya. The geopolitical and economic growth of Russia, India, and China and the failures of the Americans in Afghanistan could only end in a clash of interests. Politically and propagandistically, the Afghan story has run its course for the American establishment. The main threat to international stability is the threat that an emboldened Pakistan will play in Afghan and regional affairs. Russia, and other world actors who are in rough geographic proximity to Afghanistan, wanted to end the terrorist safe havens that the Taliban allowed to be established within Afghanistan’s borders in the late 1990s. Failed states, themselves, are of little interest to anyone. Afghanistan is a classic failed state and no one wants to fight for it – not the United States or Russia; or the UK, India, and China. With Joe Biden now in the White House, the attitude to the Afghan problem has not changed course. It has been replaced by protectionism and a certain degree of isolationism.

The report reveals that an organization could be vulnerable to a supply chain attack even when its own defences are better than adequate. EPA-EFE/RONALD WITTE

Malware overcomes defenses, open doors for vulnerability

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

WhatsApp

Viber

Email

Print

Mapping on emerging supply chain attacks, the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity warned on July 29 that 66% of attacks focus on the supplier’s code. ENISA set up an ad-hoc working group on cyber threats in order to interact with a broad range of stakeholders and to receive advice in designing, updating and reviewing the methodology needed to draw cyber threat landscapes, including the annual ENISA Threat Landscape. The report issues an extensive number of recommendations for customers to manage the supply chain cybersecurity risk and to manage the relationship with the suppliers. To respond to this need, the ENISA Threat Landscape has been published on an annual basis since 2012. Recommendations for suppliers include:

Ensuring that the infrastructure used to design, develop, manufacture, and deliver products, components and services follows cybersecurity practices;
implementing a product development, maintenance and support process that is consistent with commonly accepted product development processes;
Monitoring of security vulnerabilities reported by internal and external sources that include used third-party components;
Maintaining an inventory of assets that includes patch-relevant information. The impact of attacks on suppliers may have far-reaching consequences because of the increased interdependencies and complexities of the techniques used. In cybersecurity, a supply chain includes hardware and software, cloud or local storage, as well as distribution mechanisms. style=”font-size:40px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 800; padding:7px;”>EU cybersecurity agency says hackers target supplier’s code

By New Europe Online/KG

epa07988392 A digital screen displays a live cyber hack attack during a press conference at the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) in Wiesbaden, Germany, 11 November 2019. This is why novel protective measures to prevent and respond to potential supply chain attacks in the future while mitigating their impact need to be introduced urgently. In order to compromise the targeted customers, attackers focused on the suppliers’ code in about 66% of the reported incidents. A supply chain is a combination of the ecosystem of resources needed to design, manufacture and distribute a product. All such aspects reveal the degree of sophistication of the adversaries and the persistence in seeking to succeed. This highlights the gap in terms of maturity in cybersecurity incident reporting between suppliers and end-users. Supply chain attacks are now expected to multiply by 4 in 2021, compared to last year. “With good practices and coordinated actions at (the) EU level, (the) Member States will be able to reach a similar level of capabilities raising the common level of cybersecurity in the EU,” he added. Moreover, with the almost limitless potential of the impact of supply chain attacks on numerous customers, these types of attacks are becoming increasingly common. This is evidenced by the increasing impact of these attacks such as downtime of systems, monetary loss and reputational damage. The attackers explore new potential highways to infiltrate organisations by targeting their suppliers. However, less than 9% of the customers compromised through supply chain attacks did not know how the attacks occurred. For 66% of the supply chain attacks that were analyzed, suppliers did not know – or failed to report – how they were compromised. This shows that organizations should focus their efforts on validating third-party code and software before using them to ensure these were not tampered with or manipulated. Composed of an attack on one or more suppliers with a later attack on the final target, namely the customer, supply chain attacks may take months to succeed. This new trend stresses the need for policymakers and the cybersecurity community to act now. EPA-EFE/RONALD WITTEK

A digital screen displays a live cyber hack attack during a press conference at the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) in Wiesbaden, Germany, November 11, 2019. Beyond the damages on affected organizations and third parties, there is a deeper cause for concern when classified information is exfiltrated and national security is at stake or when consequences of a geopolitical nature could emerge as a result, ENISA said. According to the new ENISA report – Threat Landscape for Supply Chain Attacks, which analysed 24 recent attacks, strong security protection is no longer enough for organisations when attackers have already shifted their attention to suppliers. In many instances, such an attack may even go undetected for a long time. These reports are based on publicly available data that provides an independent view on observed threats, threat agents, threat trends and attack vectors. Similar to Advanced Persistence Threat (APT) attacks, supply chain attacks are usually targeted, quite complex and costly with attackers probably planning them well in advance. In this complex environment for supply chains, establishing good practices and getting involved in coordinated actions at the EU level are both important to support all 27 members of the bloc in developing similar capabilities to reach a common level of security. Recommendations for customers include:

Identifying and documenting suppliers and service providers; defining risk criteria for different types of suppliers and services such as supplier & customer dependencies, critical software dependencies, single points of failure;
Monitoring of supply chain risks and threats; managing suppliers over the whole lifecycle of a product or service, including procedures to handle end-of-life products or components;
Classifying of assets and information shared with or accessible to suppliers, and defining relevant procedures for accessing and handling them. The BKA presented the federal picture of the Cybercrime 2018 in Germany. For about 58% of the supply chain incidents analysed, the customer assets targeted were predominantly customer data, including Personally Identifiable Information (PII) data and intellectual property. “Due to the cascading effect of supply chain attacks, threat actors can cause widespread damage affecting businesses and their customers all at once,” EU Agency for Cybersecurity Executive Director Juhan Lepassaar said. The cyber threat landscape is constantly evolving and both policymakers and practitioners need to have access to up-to-date and accurate information on the current threat landscape, supported by threat intelligence. Suppliers are advised to implement security procedures that focus on vulnerability and patch management. The report also suggests possible actions to ensure that the development of products and services complies with Europe’s security practices. The EU Agency for Cybersecurity recommended good practices needed to be applied and coordinated actions must be engaged at the EU level. Supply chain attacks have been a concern for cybersecurity experts for many years because the chain reaction triggered by one attack on a single supplier can compromise a network of providers. Malware is the attack technique that attackers resort to in 62% of attacks. The Agency provides threat analysis on a range of emerging technologies and challenges including recent threat landscapes on Artificial Intelligence and 5G.

EPA-EFE/MARTIN DIVISEK/FILE PICTURE

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

WhatsApp

Viber

Email

Print

The European Commission published on July 29 new technical guidance that will help mainstream climate considerations in future investment and development of infrastructure projects from buildings, network infrastructure to a range of built systems and assets for the period 2021-2027. The impacts of climate change are already having repercussions for assets and infrastructure with long lifetimes such as railways, bridges or power stations, and these impacts are set to intensify in the future. Specifically, for infrastructure with a lifespan beyond 2050, the guidance stipulates that the operation, maintenance and final decommissioning of any project should be carried out in a climate-neutral way, which may include circular economy considerations, such as the recycling or repurposing of materials, the Commission said, adding that the climate resilience of new infrastructure projects should be ensured through adequate adaptation measures, based on a climate risk assessment.   The process is divided into two pillars (mitigation, adaptation) and two phases (screening, detailed analysis) and the documentation and verification of climate-proofing forms is considered an essential part of the rationale for making investment decisions. EPA-EFE/MARTIN DIVISEK

A train leaves the Main Railway Station in Prague, Czech Republic. Climate-proofing is a process that integrates climate change mitigation and adaptation measures into the development of infrastructure projects. For example, building in areas that are likely to be affected by sea level rise requires particular attention; similarly, heat tolerance for railway tracks needs to account for the projected higher maximum temperature rather than historical values. That way, institutional and private European investors will be able to make informed decisions on projects deemed compatible with the Paris Agreement and the EU climate objectives, the Commission said, noting that the guidance adopted on July 29 will thus help the EU deliver the European Green Deal, implement requirements under the European Climate Law and make EU spending greener. The impacts of climate change are already having repercussions for assets and infrastructure with long lifetimes such as railways, bridges or power stations, and these impacts are set to intensify in the future. The technical guidance adopted today sets out common principles and practices for the identification, classification and management of physical climate risks when planning, developing, executing and monitoring infrastructure projects and programmes. It is therefore essential to clearly identify – and consequently to invest in – infrastructure that is prepared for a climate-neutral and climate-resilient future, the Commission said. style=”font-size:40px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 800; padding:7px;”>EU plans climate-proof future infrastructure projects

By New Europe Online/KG

epa07850905 A train leaves the Main Railway Station in Prague, Czech Republic, 05 September 2019 (issued 18 September 2019). It is aligned with a greenhouse gas emission reduction pathway of -55% net emissions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050; follows the ‘energy efficiency first’  and ‘do no significant harm’ principles; and fulfils requirements set out in the legislation for several EU funds such as InvestEU, Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Cohesion Fund (CF) and the Just Transition Fund (JTF).

“Climate change is now an existential threat to the human species. follow on twitter @energyinsider Their cooperation will entail the construction of vessels no lower than ice-class Arc5 and tugboats no lower than Arc6/Icebreaker6 for the delivery of both general cargo and the products of the Syradasay coal deposit from the Taymyr Peninsula. “The conclusion of a long-term electricity purchase and sale agreement between Rosatom and GDK Baimskaya LLC will become the most important events in the largescale programme for the development of the Russian Arctic,” Novachuk said at the signing event. “Our report shows that meeting this need by expanding intermittent renewable energy without also ensuring a continuing significant contribution from nuclear power will threaten the security of energy supplies,” he argued. The programme would be built on the back of both domestic and international experience in environmental assessment. Atomenergoprom Director Kirill Komarov and Aeon Infrastructure Corporation Chairman of the Board of Directors Roman Trotsenko signed the document. The report also claims the risks to energy security arising from the involvement of non-OECD nuclear vendors such as China at each stage of a plant’s life cycle are of a low degree, manageable and can be mitigated through prudent regulatory measures. “We expect to build four power units: three main units and one standby unit that will be used during the repair or refueling of one of the main units,” Ruksha said, adding that the first two units are expected to be delivered to their working location in the water area of Cape Nagleynyn and connected to power lines leading to the Baimsky GOK at the end of 2026; the third unit will be connected at the end of 2027. The parties maintain that change is necessary to create effective mechanisms by which to repay investors who develop long-term projects in the Arctic. Rosatom has proposed using optimised floating power units (OFPU) to provide electricity to the Baimsky GOK. Energy security risks
In related news, a new study published on July 28 by industry-supported think tank New Nuclear Watch Institute (NNWI) finds that reducing nuclear capacity poses significant risks to energy security and calls for establishing and preserving a diversified, low-carbon generation mix during the transition to a decarbonised energy system. “The urgent need to accelerate the switch to low carbon electricity generation increasingly drives international energy policy,” NNWI Chairman Tim Yeo said. Arctic shipping
Also in St Petersburg, Rosatom-subsidiary Atomenergoprom and Aeon Infrastructure Corporation agreed to create a strategic partnership in the field of Arctic shipping. “We must look at coastal and transit shipping in the Arctic as well as at NSR port infrastructure, at the stage of both construction and operation, through the lens of environmental safety. The project for the development of the Syradasay coal deposit is being implemented by Aeon Corporation-subsidiary Severnaya Zvezda. style=”font-size:40px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 800; padding:7px;”>Ice station Arctic: Rosatom weighs underwater impact for nuke facilities

By Kostis Geropoulos
Energy & Russian Affairs Editor, New Europe

Rosatomflot’s icebreaker 50 let Pobedy (CC via TopFives)

Moscow marine academics will help assess Northern Sea route

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

WhatsApp

Viber

Email

Print

Russia’s state atomic corporation Rosatom and Moscow State University’s Marine Research Centre have signed a cooperation agreement, aiming to make possible pilot projects for the comprehensive research and monitoring of surface and underwater environmental safety in the water area of Russia’s Arctic region. Any of our actions in the Arctic should preemptively undergo a serious environmental impact assessment,” Likhachev said. Rosatom’s special representative for Arctic development, Vladimir Panov, and Moscow State University’s Marine Research Centre Director General Dmitry Korost inked the agreement in St Petersburg in the framework of the Rosatom-organised event “Arctic Day” on July 23. Also, in the framework of the “Arctic Day” event in St Petersburg, Rosatom and GDK Baimskaya have signed an agreement to jointly implement a project to supply power to the Baimsky mining and processing plant (Baimsky GOK), which is located in Russia’s Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. Moscow State University’s Marine Research Centre’s Korost noted that over the coming year, a group of international experts will be formed and will start developing a set of monitoring and environmental protection measures based on the best global practices, as well as implementing an effective mechanism for assessing data from international, federal, regional, and local sources on the environmental impact of the operation of the NSR and on the measures being undertaken for the protection of the Arctic. According to Rosatom, an important part of the agreement is the parties’ intention to assist in changing current Russian legislation concerning the electric power industry to allow for more efficient investment in the Arctic. According to Rosatom, the parties plan to implement joint Arctic shipping projects. These units are already under construction at Rosatom’s machine-building division, Atomenergomash. The parties agreed that they would conclude a long-term “take-or-pay” contract for the sale and purchase of electricity by April 2022. To overcome this challenge governments around the world must set aside geopolitical considerations at once and unite to deploy all available low carbon technologies,” Yeo argues, reiterating that “nuclear power is proven as the most reliable way to generate large scale clean electricity”. The agreement was signed by Rosatom Deputy Director and Director of the Northern Sea Route Directorate Vyacheslav Ruksha and GDK Baimskaya Chairman Oleg Novachuk. According to Rosatom’s Director General Alexey Likhachev, the development of a preliminary programme for the regular assessment of the impact of anthropogenic activities along the Northern Sea Route (NSR), including the operation of nuclear facilities, on the Arctic environment is consistent with the goals stipulated in Russia’s Development Strategy for the Arctic Zone. The nature of the nuclear industry means that the interests of equipment suppliers, plant developers and customers are closely aligned, Yeo argued, asserting that the risks to energy security from using imported nuclear technology can actually be more easily managed, and are therefore potentially lower, than relying on imported fossil fuels.