DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Gas Imports and Exports First Quarter Report 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Gas Imports and Exports First Quarter Report 2013 DOE/FE-0564 Natural Gas Imports and Exports First Quarter Report 2013 Prepared by: U.S. Department of Energy Canada Trinidad and Qatar Tobago Yemen Mexico LNG NATURAL GAS IMPORTS AND EXPORTS FIRST QUARTER REPORT 2013 Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities Office of Fossil Energy U.S. Department of Energy 202-586-9478 [email protected] Table of Contents Summary ......................................................................... 1 1 Quarterly Summary ...................................................... 3 Maps of Imports & Exports by Point of Entry/Exit ................................... 5 Tabular Summaries & Comparisons .................................................................. 11 1a Quarter in Review ...................................................................................................13 1b All Import/Export Activities YTD 2013 vs. YTD 2012.......................................14 1c All Import/Export Activities 1st Quarter 2013 vs. 4th Quarter 2012 .................15 1d All Import/Export Activities 1st Quarter 2013 vs. 1st Quarter 2012 .................15 1e Imports from Canada 1st Quarter 2013 vs. 4th Quarter 2012 .............................16 1f Imports from Canada 1st Quarter 2013 vs. 1st Quarter 2012 ..............................16 1g Imports from Mexico 1st Quarter 2013 vs. 4th Quarter 2012...............................17 1h Imports from Mexico 1st Quarter 2013 vs. 1st Quarter 2012 ...............................17 1i Pipeline Exports 1st Quarter 2013 vs. 4th Quarter 2012 .......................................18 1j Pipeline Exports 1st Quarter 2013 vs. 1st Quarter 2012 .......................................18 1k Trucked LNG Exports 1st Quarter 2013 vs. 4th Quarter 2012 ............................19 1l Trucked LNG Exports 1st Quarter 2013 vs. 1st Quarter 2012 .............................19 1m Short-Term Pipeline Imports by Point of Entry ..................................................20 1n Long-Term Pipeline Imports by Point of Entry ..................................................21 1o Short-Term Pipeline Exports by Point of Exit .....................................................22 1p Short-Term and Long-Term Imports, 2011 – YTD 2013 .....................................23 Graphical Summaries & Comparisons.............................................................. 25 2 LNG ................................................................................ 39 2a Short-Term and Long-Term LNG Imports ..........................................................41 2b LNG Imports by Country, Receiving Terminal, and Importer .........................42 2c Shipments of LNG Received Year-to-Date 2013 .................................................43 2d Shipments of LNG Delivered Year-to-Date 2013 ................................................46 2e Shipments of LNG Re-Exported Year-to-Date 2013 ...........................................47 3 All Imports & Exports ................................................. 49 3a Natural Gas Imports by Point of Entry ................................................................51 3b U.S. Market Areas for Imported Natural Gas .....................................................53 3c Natural Gas Pipeline Exports by Point of Exit ....................................................54 3d Volume and Price Report: Long-Term Imports .................................................55 3e Volume and Price Report: Long-Term Exports ..................................................63 3f Short-Term Importers .............................................................................................64 3g Short-Term Sales/Imports .....................................................................................67 3h Short-Term Exporters............................................................................................108 3i Short-Term Sales/Exports ....................................................................................111 4 Revisions ..................................................................... 129 Page - 1 SUMMARY The Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities prepares quarterly reports showing natural gas import and export activity. Companies are required, as a condition of their authorizations, to file monthly reports. This Natural Gas Import and Export Report is for the first quarter of 2013 (January through March). Sections 1 and 2 contain quarterly summary charts and tables. Section 3 contains the detailed transactions of all imports and exports. The data in Section 3 is organized by activity: long-term imports, long-term exports, short-term imports, and short-term exports. There is a table of contents for your convenience. Please note that the import/export summary map formerly published on the reverse of the report’s cover page has been replaced. A group of four maps is now the first sub-section of Section 1. The maps illustrate vessel-borne LNG imports and exports, as well as imports and exports from and to Canada and Mexico, by US region. First Quarter 2013 Highlights Imports totaled 783.6 Bcf and exports totaled 436.3 Bcf, resulting in net imports of 347.2 Bcf. As usual, most of the imports came from Canada, comprising 95.8 percent of total imports. LNG imports made up nearly all the remaining 4.2 percent of total imports. Imports from Mexico were negligible at only 0.057 Bcf for the quarter (less than 0.01 percent of total imports). As with imports, the majority of exports went to Canada, making up 63.2 percent of the total. Exports to Mexico comprised the remainder. There were no domestic LNG exports by vessel or re-exports of previously imported foreign-source LNG in the first quarter of 2013. First Quarter 2013 vs. Fourth Quarter 2012 - Highlights As illustrated in the following tables, total imports increased 3.5 percent compared to last quarter. This increase in imports was entirely due to a 4.8 percent increase in Canadian imports and despite a 20.0 percent decrease in LNG imports and an 18.1 percent decrease in Mexican imports. The average price for imports was up 8.0 percent overall. This was due to an 8.3 percent increase in the average price of Canadian imports and an 11.6 percent increase in the average price of LNG Imports. The average price of the very small volume of imports from Mexico fell 6.0 percent. Total exports were down 1.0 percent from last quarter. The decrease was mostly due to the absence of any LNG exports by vessel or LNG re-exports. Mexican exports also fell by 1.1 percent while Canadian exports increased 2.7 percent. Pipeline export prices were up 4.2 percent compared to last quarter. First Quarter 2013 vs. First Quarter 2012 – Highlights Total imports were down 6.8 percent from the first quarter of 2012. Imports were down across the board compared to the first quarter of 2012, with Canadian imports decreasing 4.4 percent, Mexican imports decreasing by 42.4 percent and LNG imports decreasing by 39.9 percent. The average price increased 40.9 percent for pipeline imports and 57.0 percent for LNG imports. Total exports were up by 8.6 percent. This increase was due to a 4.7 percent increase in Canadian exports and a 25.7 percent increase in Mexican exports. For this same period, pipeline export prices were up by 35.0 percent. Page - 2 LNG Imports and Exports LNG imports decreased 20.0 percent compared to last quarter and decreased by 39.9 percent compared to the first quarter of 2012. Twelve cargos of LNG were imported this quarter, compared to fourteen cargos last quarter and twenty-two full cargos and one partial cargo in the first quarter of 2012. LNG import prices were up 11.6 percent from last quarter and up 57.0 percent from the first quarter 2012. There were no LNG export cargos this quarter, compared to one last quarter and none in the first quarter of 2012. There were no LNG re-exports this quarter compared to three cargos last quarter and four cargos in the first quarter of 2012. Please note that the data in this Report is subject to revision. Revisions occur when companies file late or corrected data after the Report has been published. The Quarterly Report is available on the Fossil Energy Web Site at http://energy.gov/node/601551. We welcome questions or comments about this Report; they can be emailed to us at [email protected]. Quarterly Summary Maps of Imports & Exports by Point of Entry/Exit LNG Terminals & Canada and Mexico Border Maps Tabular Summaries and Comparisons Quarter and Year-to-Date in Review & Comparisons with Previous Quarters Page - 13 Table 1a Quarter in Review 1st Quarter 2013 Volume (Bcf) Avg. Price ($/MMBtu) IMPORTS Canada 750.3 $3.83 Mexico 0.1 $2.43 Total Pipeline Imports 750.4 $3.83 LNG Imports: Qatar 7.3 $3.07 Trinidad & Tobago 23.1 $6.62 Yemen 2.7 $4.29 Total LNG Imports 33.2 $5.64 TOTAL IMPORTS 783.6 $3.91 EXPORTS Pipeline Exports: Canada 275.8 $4.02 Mexico 160.5 $3.64 Total Pipeline Exports 436.3 $3.88 Domestic LNG Exports 0.0 N/A LNG Re-Exports 0.0 N/A Total LNG Exports by Vessel 0.0 N/A TOTAL EXPORTS 436.3 $3.88 Notes • Natural gas pipeline import and export prices are the prices at the U.S. border. • Pipeline exports include a very small volume of LNG exported by truck to Canada and Mexico. • LNG import prices are landed prices. • LNG re-exports are exports of foreign-source LNG that was previously imported into the U.S. These prices are FOB prices. Page - 14 Table 1b All Import/Export Activities YTD 2013 vs. YTD 2012 YTD 2013 YTD 2012 Percentage Change Volume Avg. Price
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constellation. ‘ Ar Fxetnncon-Pny
    DM .. __j_ c:::: -‘ Constellation. ‘ Ar Fxetnn Con-pny February 7, 2017 New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission Executive Director 21 South Fruit Street, Suite 10 Concord, NH 03301 Re: Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.’s Application for Renewal to be a Competitive Electric Power Supplier in the State of New Hampshire Dear Executive Director: Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. has a current registration as a competitive electric power supplier in New Hampshire, which is set to expire in April 2017. Please find enclosed the following information for our renewal: . Original Application for renewal and two copies . Check for $250 renewal fee . Confidential aggregator report If there are any questions or additional information required regarding Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.’s application for renewal please contact Amy Klaviter at 312-681-1855 or by email at [email protected]. Catherine Stanle Analyst, Legal Compliance Enclosures cc: [email protected] Constellation NewEnergy, lnc.'s Renewal Application to become a Competitive Electric Power Supplier in the State of New Hampshire 1. The legal name of the applicant as well as any trade name(s) under which it intends to operate in this state, and, if available, its website address; Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. www.constellation.com 2. The applicant's business address, telephone number, e-mail address, and website address, as applicable; Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. 1310 Point Street Baltimore, MD 21231 Telephone: 888-635-0827 Website: www.constellation.com 3. The applicant's place of incorporation, if anything other than an individual; Delaware 4. The name(s), title(s), business address(es), telephone number(s), and e-mail address(es) of the applicant if an individual, or of the applicant's principal(s) if the applicant is anything other than an individual; See Exhibit 1 5.
    [Show full text]
  • ORIGINAL '\\\ Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission C ">"* O P.O
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN REPLY PLEASE PENNSYLVANIA REFER TO OUR FILE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION P.O. BOX 3265, HARRISBURG, PA 17105-3265 BP8# 2201861 May 16, 2013 tn r-O ^5? o Rosemary Chiavetta, Secretary ORIGINAL '\\\ Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission C ">"* o P.O. Box 3265 Hamsburg, PA 17105-3265 29: fo C Re: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Law Bureau i^i —i Prosecutory Staff vs. MXenergy Electric Inc.; Docket No. M-2012-2201861 »• * Dear Ms. Chiavetta: Enclosed for filing is the original copy ofthe Settlement Agreement in the above- captioned proceeding. As evidence by the enclosed certificate of service, all parties have been served as indicated. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 717-783-3459. Sincerely, Terrence J. Buda Assistant Counsel Enclosures cc: As per Certificate ofService Karen Oill Moury, Director of Regulatory Operations (cover letter only) Robert F. Young, Deputy Chief Counsel (cover letter only) PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,^ LAW BUREAU PROSECUTORY STAFF o tn MXENERGY ELECTRIC INC. T^?1 ^ SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT J ' ^ V ) I. Introduction 1. The Parties to this Settlement Agreement (Agreement) are the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's (Commission) Law Bureau Prosecutory Staff (Prosecutory Staff), P.O. Box 3265, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265, and MXenergy Electric Inc. (MXenergy or Company), 10010 Junction Drive, Suite 104-5, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701-1180. MXenergy is a licensed electric generation supplier (EGS) in Pennsylvania providing these services to residential and small business customers.1 2. This matter concerns an informal investigation regarding MXenergy's compliance with the Public Utility Code and Commission regulations.
    "* O P.O" class="panel-rg color-a">[Show full text]
  • Preparing for Carbon Pricing: Case Studies from Company Experience
    TECHNICAL NOTE 9 | JANUARY 2015 Preparing for Carbon Pricing Case Studies from Company Experience: Royal Dutch Shell, Rio Tinto, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Acknowledgments and Methodology This Technical Note was prepared for the PMR Secretariat by Janet Peace, Tim Juliani, Anthony Mansell, and Jason Ye (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions—C2ES), with input and supervision from Pierre Guigon and Sarah Moyer (PMR Secretariat). The note comprises case studies with three companies: Royal Dutch Shell, Rio Tinto, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). All three have operated in jurisdictions where carbon emissions are regulated. This note captures their experiences and lessons learned preparing for and operating under policies that price carbon emissions. The following information sources were used during the research for these case studies: 1. Interviews conducted between February and October 2014 with current and former employees who had first-hand knowledge of these companies’ activities related to preparing for and operating under carbon pricing regulation. 2. Publicly available resources, including corporate sustainability reports, annual reports, and Carbon Disclosure Project responses. 3. Internal company review of the draft case studies. 4. C2ES’s history of engagement with corporations on carbon pricing policies. Early insights from this research were presented at a business-government dialogue co-hosted by the PMR, the International Finance Corporation, and the Business-PMR of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) in Cologne, Germany, in May 2014. Feedback from that event has also been incorporated into the final version. We would like to acknowledge experts at Royal Dutch Shell, Rio Tinto, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)—among whom Laurel Green, David Hone, Sue Lacey and Neil Marshman—for their collaboration and for sharing insights during the preparation of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Mxenergy Adjusted Earnings Higher, Customer Attrition Rises Calif
    May 18, 2009 MXenergy Adjusted Earnings Higher, Customer Attrition Rises Adjusted EBITDA for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 was up for MXenergy at $48.9 million, versus $31.7 million a year ago, as higher gross margin versus the year-ago period offset higher attrition. Net income was down at $9.4 million from $25.1 million a year ago, mainly from $11 million in unrealized losses from risk management activities, versus unrealized gains of $35 million in the year-ago quarter. Gross profit was down at $57.8 million versus $86.3 million a year ago, mainly from unrealized losses. Gross profit excluding unrealized losses was up at $69.2 million versus $51.3 million a year ago. Natural gas gross profit before unrealized losses was up at $62.6 million from $48.4 million a year ago. Gross profit per MMBtu was also up at $2.61/MMBtu versus $1.79/MMBtu a year ago. Electricity gross profit excluding unrealized losses was higher at $6.6 million from $2.9 million a year ago, mainly on higher sales and customer count, driven by significant organic customer growth in Texas, Connecticut and New York versus the year-ago quarter. However, the gains were mostly seen in late fiscal 2008 and early fiscal 2009, and attrition has been higher the past six months. Gross profit per MWh during the quarter was up at $33.90/MWh from $19.15/MWh a year ago. Total Residential Customer Equivalents (RCEs) as of March 31, 2009 dropped 92,000 from the year-ago period, to 594,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Terms and Conditions
    Domestic Terms and Conditions Energy and telecoms supply terms (domestic) ALL SERVICES WARNING: Your attention is drawn to clause 17, Data Protection, which sets out the way in which we may use your personal data and the people we may disclose it to. If you do not wish us to disclose your personal information to our approved partners as referred to in clause 17.1 please contact customer services on 01926 320 700 if you are a utilities customer or 01926 320 701 if you are a Telecoms customer. 1. Introduction These terms and conditions apply if you are a customer using our gas, electricity, telecoms and/or broadband services at your domestic premises at which a supply is taken wholly or mainly for domestic purposes. You must inform us if you start using your property for business purposes and we will provide you with an alternative contract. Please read the terms and conditions carefully so that you fully understand your commitments and our obligations. No contract will be formed between us until we receive your acceptance of our quotation in writing, online or verbally (where you are subscribing for the services online or by telephone respectively), or on the date of completion (where you are purchasing a property in a new development). If you subscribe online or by telephone and there are any problems with your application prior to us commencing the registration process we will contact you and attempt to resolve any issues. We reserve the right to reject your request on reasonable grounds. Reasonable grounds for our rejection could include but are not limited to your premises being found to have unsuitable metering equipment (for instance those offering half hourly metering) in the case of energy services, or, in the case of broadband services, that you do not have a BT telephone landline (we will test this for you using the telephone number given on your application) or your premises cannot be connected for any other technical reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten-Year Plan (2007-2016)
    PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND TEN-YEAR PLAN (2007 – 2016) OF ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN MARYLAND (as of December 31, 2007) Prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources In compliance with Section 7-201 of the Maryland Public Utility Companies Article State of Maryland Public Service Commission Steven B. Larsen, Chairman Harold D. Williams, Commissioner Susanne Brogan, Commissioner Allen M. Freifeld, Commissioner Lawrence Brenner, Commissioner Terry J. Romine Gregory V. Carmean Douglas R.M. Nazarian Executive Secretary Executive Director General Counsel 6 St. Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 767-8000 www.psc.state.md.us This report was drafted by the Commission’s Energy Resources and Markets Division (R. Scott Everngam, Acting Director) in cooperation with the Engineering Division (J. Richard Schafer, Chief Engineer) and the Economics and Policy Analysis Division (Merwin Sands, Director). Electric companies under the Commission’s jurisdiction provided most of the data in the Appendix. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1 II. MARYLAND AND PJM ZONAL LOAD FORECAST ...................................................... 3 III. GENERATION AND SUPPLY ADEQUACY IN MARYLAND...................................... 5 A. Current Maryland Generation Profile and At-Risk Generation Units................................ 5 B. Potential Generation Additions in Maryland in the PJM Queues......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Greenwashing Vs. Renewable Energy Generation
    Greenwashing Vs. Renewable energy generation: which energy companies are making a real difference? Tackling the climate crisis requires that we reduce the UK’s carbon footprint. As individuals an important way we can do this is to reduce our energy use. This reduces our carbon footprints. We can also make sure: • All the electricity we use is generated renewably in the UK. • The energy company we give our money to only deals in renewable electricity. • That the company we are with actively supports the development of new additional renewable generation in the UK. 37% of UK electricity now comes from renewable energy, with onshore and offshore wind generation rising by 7% and 20% respectively since 2018. However, we don’t just need to decarbonise 100% of our electricity. If we use electricity for heating and transport, we will need to generate much more electricity – and the less we use, the less we will need to generate. REGOs/GoOs – used to greenwash. This is how it works: • If an energy generator (say a wind or solar farm) generates one megawatt hour of electricity they get a REGO (Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin). • REGOs are mostly sold separately to the actual energy generated and are extremely cheap – about £1.50 for a typical household’s annual energy use. • This means an energy company can buy a megawatt of non-renewable energy, buy a REGO for one megawatt of renewable energy (which was actually bought by some other company), and then claim their supply is renewable even though they have not supported renewable generation in any way.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Ex-Parte Quirin and Courts
    Copyright 2008 by Northwestern University School of Law Vol. 103 Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy THE INFLUENCE OF EX PARTE QUIRIN AND COURTS-MARTIAL ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS Morris D. Davis* Professor Greg McNeal was an academic consultant to the prosecution during my tenure as the Chief Prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. We had similar perspectives on many issues, and we still confer on detainee matters. I concur with the views expressed in his essay.1 I write to address two issues Professor McNeal identified and com- ment on how they affect the military commissions. First, I examine the case of the Nazi saboteurs—captured, tried, and executed in the span of seven weeks in 1942—and its influence on the decision in 2001 to resurrect military commissions. Second, I assess the conflicting statutory provisions in the Military Commissions Act and the impact on full, fair, and open tri- als. I. ATTEMPTING TO REPEAT HISTORY Professor McNeal argues that the administration chose military com- missions to protect information collected for intelligence (intel) purposes from disclosure. Safeguarding intel, particularly the sources and methods used to acquire information, was a key factor, but I believe the decision had a broader basis heavily influenced by a precedent-setting trial in 1942 that became the template for the President‘s Military Order of November 13, 2001.2 Shortly after midnight the morning of June 13, 1942, four men left a German submarine and came ashore at Amagansett Beach, New York.3 * Morris D. Davis served as Chief Prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from September 2005 to October 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • The Energy Tariff Greenwash They're Growing in Popularity
    THE ENERGY TARIFF GREENWASH They’re growing in popularity, but are renewable electricity tariffs offering what customers expect? Sarah Ingrams exposes unclear claims and busts myths to help you choose a supplier with green credentials you’re happy with 20 WHICH? MAGAZINE OCTOBER 2019 GREEN ENERGY f you’re attracted to it through the lines to your the idea of a renewable property’ – at best an example THE ELECTRICITY I energy tariff to do your of staff ignorance. bit for the environment, YOU USE TO POWER a quick comparison suggests Unclear claims YOUR APPLIANCES you’ve got plenty of choice. When Myths aside, there are big we analysed the 355 tariffs on the differences in what companies do IS THE SAME AS market, more than half claimed to support renewable generation renewable electricity credentials. but it’s not always clear from their YOUR NEIGHBOUR’S, Three years ago it was just 9%. The websites. When Good Energy cheapest will cost you around £500 states ‘we match the power you use REGARDLESS OF THE less than the priciest, per year. But in a year with electricity generated you may be shocked to find out the from sun, wind and water’, it TARIFF YOU’RE ON differences between them. means it buys electricity directly In a survey of almost 4,000 from renewable generators to people in late 2018, a third told match customer use for 90% of us that if an energy tariff is marked half-hour units throughout the year. ‘green’ or ‘renewable’, they expect But similar-sounding claims from that 100% renewable electricity is others don’t mean the same thing.
    [Show full text]
  • N.Y. PSC Denies Rebundling of Central Hudson Retail Access Lost Revenues Mxenergy, DPUC Staff Reach Settlement on Renewal Notice
    June 23, 2009 N.Y. PSC Denies Rebundling of Central Hudson Retail Access Lost Revenues The New York PSC denied Staff's request to rebundle retail access lost revenues at Central Hudson Gas & Electric, in a written order issued in Central Hudson's rate case. However, the Commission did order changes related to the method of collection of the electric retail access lost revenues (while not changing the allocation of cost responsibility), to prevent interclass revenue transfers from the interaction with a revenue decoupling mechanism (08-E-0887). For electricity at Central Hudson, fifty percent of forecast retail access lost revenue is recovered by adding a separate component to the Merchant Function Charge (MFC) Supply Charge on an MFC group-specific basis, which is bypassable. The remaining fifty percent is recovered through the MFC group-specific Transition Adjustment which is paid by all customers. As only reported by Matters, Staff argued that 100% of lost retail access revenues should be placed in nonbypassable delivery rates, so migrated customers bear the full costs of the POLR function, and to avoid interference with the revenue decoupling mechanism (Matters, 4/13/09). However, the Commission agreed with the ALJs' that the current 50/50 split in cost allocation is a reasonable compromise, that gives some benefit to ESCO customers while not completely absolving them for some POLR-related charges. While, "Staff is correct in noting that we left open the possibility that this sharing ratio could be changed in future rate cases ... that change should not be merely another assumption. It should be supported by a new consensus of the interested parties, or by substantive analysis which the [recommended decision] found to be lacking in this case," the Commission said.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Meeting of 2021 Annual General Meeting
    THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION If you are in any doubt about what action to take, you should seek your own personal advice immediately from a financial adviser authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 if you are in the UK or, if you are not, from another appropriately authorised financial adviser. If you have sold or transferred all your shares in Royal Dutch Shell plc (the “Company”), please give this document and the accompanying documents to the stockbroker or other agent through whom the sale or transfer was effected for transmission to the purchaser. NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING CAREL VAN BYLANDTLAAN 16, 2596 HR THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS TUESDAY MAY 18, 2021 AT 10:00 (DUTCH TIME) CONTENTS 3 8 SHAREHOLDER CHAIR’S LETTER EXPLANATORY NOTES ON PRESENTATION, LONDON RESOLUTIONS In prior years we have held a Shareholder Presentation in London, two days after 4 the AGM. For the reasons outlined in the NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL Chair's letter, this year we have again MEETING 10 deemed it prudent to cancel this event. DIRECTORS’ BIOGRAPHIES We recognise that some of our 6 SHAREHOLDER RESOLUTION 19 shareholders value this opportunity to SHAREHOLDER NOTES engage in person with the Board, and like AND SUPPORTING STATEMENT us, they may consider this news most unwelcome. However, we must consider 7 22 safety first, and the changes we are DIRECTORS’ RESPONSE ATTENDANCE ARRANGEMENTS making in these continuing exceptional TO SHAREHOLDER RESOLUTION circumstances have been made to protect our people and those that may have attended this event.
    [Show full text]
  • FINNISH ENERGY INDUSTRIES – ENERGY SCENARIOS and VISIONS for the FUTURE Background Report
    Jyrki Luukkanen – Jarmo Vehmas – Suvisanna Mustonen– Francesca Allievi – Anne Karjalainen – Mikko Värttö & Maria Ahoniemi FINNISH ENERGY INDUSTRIES – ENERGY SCENARIOS AND VISIONS FOR THE FUTURE Background Report FFRC eBOOK 10/2009 Jyrki Luukkanen Jarmo Vehmas Research Professor, Docent Senior Researcher Suvisanna Mustonen Francesca Allievi Researcher Researcher Anne Karjalainen Mikko Värttö Research Assistant Research Assistant Maria Ahoniemi Research Assistant Copyright © 2009 Authors & Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics ISBN 978•951•564•980•5 ISSN 1797•132 Finland Futures Research Centre Turku School of Economics Rehtorinpellonkatu 3, FI•20500 Turku Korkeavuorenkatu 25 A 2, FI•00130 Helsinki Pinninkatu 47, FI•33100 Tampere Tel. +358 2 481 4530 Fax +358 2 481 4630 www.tse.fi/tutu tutu•[email protected], [email protected] 2 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 6 2. GLOBAL MEGETRENDS................................................................................................ 8 2.1. Review of selected Global Energy Scenarios ....................................................... 8 2.1.1. World Energy Council: Deciding the Future: Energy Policy Scenarios to 2050...... 8 2.1.2. IEA: World Energy Outlook 2008 .......................................................... 10 2.1.3. Greenpeace: The Energy [R]evolution ................................................... 29 2.1.4. State of the Future 2007, Global Energy Scenarios
    [Show full text]