Coal is pricing itself for extinction

Coal is pricing itself for extinction

Coal is pricing itself for extinction, even before any carbon tax

On September 2nd 2021, the benchmark spot price for thermal coal reached US$182 per ton. The previous all-time high was in July 2008 at US$184.50 but in the meantime the black hydrocarbon went as low as US$ 43.60 in January 2016 and again reached US$47.20 in August 2020. Over the last twelve months, the price of thermal coal has nearly quadrupled on international markets.

This unprecedented volatility has been caused by what seems now a perfect storm for the coal market: Australia, the second largest coal producer in the world, has been impacted by Covid and by Chinese ban on its production amid rising political tensions and a trade war; Indonesia, number one coal exporter, has been hit by an unusually wet summer monsoon due to la Niña in the Pacific and has restricted exports to keep its local market stocked, Russia, the third largest exporter in the world, has seen its shipments affected by floods, and finally India, the second largest importer of coal, is expected by ADB to have its GDP rebounding 11% by March 2022, and is heavily buying coal ahead of the dry season.

Since the peak of coal's share in the global energy mix in 2008, when coal accounted for 30% of global energy production, many countries have pledged to phase-out coal from their energy mix despite estimates that projected coal reserves to have the capacity to last for centuries at current consumption levels. The latest on the list were the Philippines and Indonesia, to declare a moratorium on new coal plants in 2021. As Sheikh Yamani, former Saudi Arabia Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources from 1995 to 2016, used to say: “The stone age didn’t end for want of stones”, the coal age will not end by a shortage of coal. 

What is often identified as the dirtiest fossil fuel has been responsible for over 30% of the global average temperature increase above pre-industrial levels according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). The continued closure of coal power plants in North America, Australia and Europe in the last 10 years has averted any new investments in coal mines around the world. In 2016, two of the largest US coal miners, Arch Coal and Peabody Energy has declared bankruptcy. Given the level of fatal accidents in its domestic coal mines, China has discouraged smaller mining operations and decreased its national extraction, putting even more pressure on international markets to supply its power sector.

Even if temporary, the actual coal price volatility could be a boon to demonstrate to utilities that not only the largest anthropogenic source of carbon dioxide is damaging the planet but also that it cannot be relied upon for 40 years investment decisions. A typical coal Power Purchase Agreement has its electricity purchase price indexed on the price of coal (except in very rare cases), the current surge of the (mostly imported) fossil fuel cost will have an inflationary impact on the utilities Profit & Loss account as well as on the Balance of Trade of the importing country.

For the power plant operator, as the fuel cost typically represents 60% of its operating costs, the 2021 spike is actually increasing its generation cost by a factor of 2.25x, pushing coal power kWh price much higher than intermittent renewable sources (solar and wind) + storage. For the utility, the typical Power Purchase Agreement being take-or-pay, it will force them to buy inflated coal electricity whatever is the international price of the commodity and will squeeze their profitability while their own selling contracts are mostly at a fixed price.

Even if this highly unpredictable and potentially leading to bankruptcy cost of coal energy don’t deter utilities from using it, maybe the coming carbon tax implemented by the EU will.

On July 14th 2021, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism which will put a carbon price on imports of a targeted selection of products. This will ensure that European CO2 emission reductions efforts and targets contribute to a global emissions decline, instead of pushing carbon-intensive production outside of Europe. “It also aims to encourage industry outside of the EU and our international partners to take steps in the same direction” stated the European Commission in July 2021. This is the first time that the largest economic bloc on the planet decide to tax externalities. The potential impact of this EU Green Deal will be felt in the future by export oriented Southeast Asia economies and support their expected renewable energy push.

That would mean for countries like Cambodia, where 44% of its power came from coal in 2019 and 32% of its exports are going to the European Union, that the carbon contend of goods produced in Cambodia will have to be compensated for the portion higher than the ones produced in the EU. So not only Electricité du Cambodge (EDC), the local utility, could have to buy expensive and volatile coal power in the future but some of its clients exporting to the EU could be taxed on the carbon contend of its electricity.

Several of these clients, H&M, Adidas, Puma and Gap among others, have already sent a letter to the Cambodian government in August 2020 to raise the issue. As H&M stated “countries who see coal as a viable energy source for the future will lose out”. Neighboring Thailand, on the contrary, is putting net zero target in its Emission Strategy Plan and targets to reduce energy sector CO2 emissions by 60% before 2050 by pushing renewables share above 50% of its mix and replacing coal by LNG.

Only wind, hydro and solar energies offer an unbeatable power price stability over 25-30 years with fixed price PPAs (only the local currency portion could be indexed on local inflation in some instances), without any air or water pollution and without global warming impact. Wind and solar are already the lowest cost energy providers in China and Western countries. Time has come to leave coal as the energy of the XIXth century and to build the energy mix of the XXIst century.

Olivier Duguet

Chairman & CEO

The Blue Circle Pte Ltd

Time for wind power in Cambodia

Time for wind power in Cambodia

The time for wind power implementation in Cambodia has come.


According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Southeast Asia’s energy demand has increased by more than 80% since 2000 and is expected to increase by another 60% by 2040. Electricity demand in the region was rising by 6% per year before the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak with some countries like Cambodia growing even faster. If the speed of the economic recovery in 2022 and beyond is still debatable, the rebound coming from a worldwide vaccination campaign and the return of household’s consumption leaves no doubt.

As the European Union is implementing the “Green Deal” and the United States are “Building back better” by accelerating investment in renewable energy to fight climate change and promote recovery jobs, some countries in Southeast Asia are planning to use the same roadmap. The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland in November of this year will see all Paris Agreement’s signatory governments (including those of ASEAN) re-emphasize their firm and binding commitment to lower their CO2 emissions according to the UN’s Race to Zero campaign.

The Blue Circle’s wind farm in Mui Ne, Vietnam

The Blue Circle’s wind farm in Mui Ne, Vietnam

According to energy consultant leading firm Rystad Energy, ASEAN countries are forecasted to build 6 GW of renewable power projects in 2021 and will increase their annual investment by up to 11 GW by 2025. The onshore wind projects build-up is expected to represent one third of all new renewable energy plants to come online in the region. In Vietnam alone, in a letter sent on March 22 to the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT), Electricity of Vietnam (EVN) was reporting that 4,432 MW of new wind projects are being built this year (mainly in South Vietnam).

The last Power Development Plan presented to the Prime Minister in March was proposing a minimum of 11,320 MW of wind power to be installed by 2025 and 16,010 MW by 2030. Thailand, by implementing the rule to have Electric Vehicles representing 50% of all cars sold in Thailand by 2030, is crafting its New National Energy Plan with 6 to 10 GW of new wind power capacity installed by 2037. As of today, Vietnam and Thailand, Cambodia’s neighboring countries, have installed respectively 582 MW and 1,538 MW of wind power capacity already and are planning to install a minimum of 6,000 MW of new projects by 2025.

Comparatively, Cambodia has included in its 2030 Electrical Master Plan only 80 MW of wind energy by 2024. Even if the 2030 target of 17,677 MW total installed electrical generation capacity set in 2019 for the country were to be revised down by 30% following the pandemic, the wind power share would only represent a mere 0.64% of Cambodia’s total capacity installed in 2030. In the same timeframe, the Electrical Master Plan includes 1,740 MW of solar power to be installed by 2030, potentially representing 12.1% of Cambodia total capacity installed and plans to reach 540 MW before 2023.

As the Director-General of Electricité du Cambodge (EDC) and Minister, H.E. Keo Rattanak, stated on Jan 28th, 2019: “Renewable energies are not in competition with each other, each technology has its own merits and should be judged by its own characteristics”. All ASEAN countries with good wind and solar resources outside of Cambodia, namely the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, are expecting to tap into both solar PV and wind power opportunities to produce cheap renewable energy going forward. Energy consultant Rystad Energy is forecasting between 3 to 4 GW of equal yearly installation for solar PV and onshore wind in Southeast Asia in the next 5 years.

This convergence is not only banking on complementary load profiles between solar, peaking at midday, and wind, producing mostly during the later part of the day, but also on the convergence of costs. The last solar Feed-in-tariff in Vietnam (2020) was at 7 USc./kWh, the last direct solicited PPA signed by EDC (2019) was at 7.6 USc./ kWh, the wind Feed-in-tariff in Vietnam is at 8.5 USc./kWh until November 1stof this year before being revised down, the first wind PPA in Cambodia is already presented below 7 USc./kWh...

According to EVN, more than 1,300 MW of wind power projects will be connected to the grid by the end of the year in the Gia Lai and Dak Nong provinces located directly along the Cambodian border. Independent consultant 3i, in a study financed by the Australian government and released on July 15th, 2020, confirmed that Cambodia, in a Medium Wind Scenario, could install 1,185 MW by 2030 in 7 already identified windy zones. This capacity could represent 10% of the total Cambodian electricity generation in 2030, reaching an optimized cost of 6.86 USc./kWh and avoiding 10 Million tons of Co2 emissions. Regarding grid compatibility with different intermittent renewable generation levels, the study concluded that 10% of wind power in Cambodia’s energy mix would be manageable by EDC without heavy additional investments.

So, will Cambodia build back from the pandemic by adding wind power to its solar ambition? Will EDC go beyond a first 80 MW wind pilot project still to be implemented and follow its Mekong neighbors to tap into its wind national resource with a comprehensive plan? Now is the time.

Olivier Duguet
Chairman & CEO
The Blue Circle

Our Retrospective on Sustainability in 2020

Our Retrospective on Sustainability in 2020

Building a sustainable future

As the leading renewable energy company in Southeast Asia, The Blue Circle has a responsibility to be a driving force for sustainability.

We design and implement all of our programs following a clear Corporate Social Responsibility approach as well as high Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance standards. To that effect, we have committed to the United Nations Global Compact since 2018 in order to act upon the Sustainable Development Goals established by the UN.

We see the UNGC program as a valuable platform for ourselves and for our stakeholders to view our progress towards sustainability targets and drive future engagement. We have identified the most significant SDGs to focus on areas where we can contribute the most with direct and strong impact.

Our Sustainability Report showcases all of our efforts in 2020 towards our commitment to the SDGs and outlines future goals designed to help us drive sustainable growth forward for our society.

Download our report here

Fossil fuels demonstrating their unreliability

Fossil fuels demonstrating their unreliability

As oil markets fluctuate wildly, how can the world economy still be running on a commodity that not only wreaks havoc on the planet when extracted and burned, but is unpredictable and volatile?

In April 2020, oil prices entered negative territory for the first time in history

In April 2020, oil prices entered negative territory for the first time in history

On 20 April, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil futures contract for May 2020 delivery defied logic and settled for the first time ever in negative territory at minus-US$37.63 a barrel.

This was after an unprecedented fall in world aviation fuel consumption by 64.3 per cent so far for the month of April and, more importantly, a 32.8 per cent decrease in fuel consumption by cars and trucks around the world for the same period.

Facing the sudden contraction of the market, oil companies are producing a surplus of barrels and must now pay to get rid of their inventories.

After five to seven weeks of global lockdown, with air traffic down 97.1 per cent in Singapore, 94.5 per cent in Hong Kong, 91.7 per cent in France and 83.7 per cent in Australia, airline bail-outs are springing up all over Asia and Europe—Virgin Australia, Thai Airways, Air France-KLM and Korean Air, to name a few.

Refineries are the first of the fossil fuel supply chains to shut down. In Asia, home to more than a-third of global refining capacity, India’s top refiner Indian Oil Corp (IOC) said in a letter to crude suppliers that it had reduced its operations by up to 40 per cent because of sliding demand.

Operators in Japan, South Korea and Thailand—already running at reduced rates—are looking at more cuts even as they shut plants for maintenance.

According to consultancy firm Rystad Energy, given the oil market oversupply, as of today the market may only have around five days left of practical onshore storage capacity for crude oil worldwide, including two million barrels per day (bpd) additional storage in tankers anchored at sea.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) or fuel oil components to be already seven to eight million tons in floating storage around the larger Singapore area. Last week, major Singapore oil trader Hin Leong Trading collapsed with US$3.85 billion in debts and US$800 million in hidden losses. This could only be the beginning.

As the crude oil market is expected to be in oversupply of 21 million bpd during the second quarter, the 10 million bpd production cut announced by OPEC+ for 1 May will not be large enough to avoid the market hitting physical storage constraints and the WTI future price to be possibly negative again.

If this unfolding energy crisis follows the economic textbooks, a classic boom-bust cycle will take place with the oil industry cutting all investment for several years until demand meets production again.

Offshore exploration should be cut first, then oil sands, shale oil and tight gas, followed by the most extreme onshore locations. Millions of jobs will be gone, financial losses for banks and investors will be massive until the next upswing.

Anyone who can remember the year 2007 might remember that oil prices crossed US$80/barrel in November that year to hit an all-time high of US$143.68/barrel in July 2008, propelling the Toyota Prius hybrid to its best year ever (180,000 cars sold in the United States alone) and spurring some panic investments by oil companies in renewable energy (M&A volumes top only reached again in 2012). The peak oil theory, which postulated the point at which the world’s oil production go into irreversible decline, made headlines and advanced economies were envisioning a post-oil world.

Twelve years and one fracking technology revolution later, the words of former Saudi oil minister Sheikh Yamani on the fate of oil seem to be more valid than ever. He said: “The Stone Age didn’t end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.”

How can the world economy be still running on a commodity that is so unpredictable and volatile?

Even without taking into consideration the environmental impact of its extraction (regular offshore spills, shale contamination of potable water and pipeline leaks) and its burning (air pollution, global warming, ocean acidification), the economic cycles linked to its utilisation are far from supporting sustainable development, rational long-term capital utilisation and even peace in this world.

Compared to the regular economic and political chaos brought by fossil fuels, renewable energy sources are the exact opposite. Solar, wind and hydropower are the only ones to warrant a fixed selling price on 25 to 30 years, most of the time non-inflation linked.

Their distributed and local nature reinforce each country’s energy independence, nullifying any Blue Stream, North Stream Pipeline or Belt & Road diplomacy. In open tenders, wind and solar are now the lowest-cost energy providers without subsidies in Western countries and China. The world after has already begun to be built by the power sector.

With their wildly fluctuating prices, oil and liquefied natural gas—with or without the pandemic, with or without geopolitical tensions—cannot be the foundation of 21st-century world economic activity. The current situation is demonstrating oil’s unreliability. Alternatives are readily available: Wind, hydro, and solar energy offer an unbeatable power price stability for 25 years, without air and water pollution, and without global warming impact.

With transport-linked oil consumption expected by Rystad Energy to be down around 24 per cent in the United States and Europe in Q2 after a plunge of 25 per cent in China in Q1, the current oil demand and pollution situation could be a fast-forward image of the world when electric cars are finally mainstream.

BloombergNEF, Bloomberg’s primary research service that covers clean energy, advanced transport and commodities, estimates that electric cars could represent 35 per cent of global new car sales by 2040. The current level of air pollution improvement—PM2.5 levels this month are down 60 per cent in New Delhi, 54 per cent in Seoul and 51 per cent in Los Angeles—could be easily replicated in a future with mass deployment of electric cars fueled by renewable energy.

Blue skies in large metropolises could be the norm again, and transportation users will even save costs by cleaning dirty air. This is the post-oil world that needs to be built.

Olivier Duguet - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer - The Blue Circle.

Earth Day - 50 Years for Nothing?

Earth Day - 50 Years for Nothing?

Image: Markus Spiske

Image: Markus Spiske

These are contemplative times that we are living in. The world is seemingly holding itself up on fragile stilts, still trying to support itself despite a pandemic and major climate crises that seem to be building up. It is during these hours that it is vital to realise that every little effort done by every single one of us is integral to create a positive chain reaction for a healthier tomorrow. Just like how staying home and social distancing done individually are adding up to a greater cause, all our small efforts to help heal our Mother Earth can make a difference as well.

How is it that we have celebrated Earth Day for half a century and there is still much left to be desired when it comes to major actions and accomplishments to protect our planet? Perhaps the execution of measurable actions is not tallying with our intent. 

How can we fix this? We can start by identifying what we might be doing wrongly.


Mistake #1: Sorry, you might be recycling your items wrongly.

Not everything that looks recyclable actually is (this includes your to-go coffee cup that has a plastic film on the inside and toothpaste tubes that are made with more than one type of material).

How do we fix it?

As a rule of thumb, items created with multiple materials are not recyclable as each material requires its own way of recycling. All items - such as food cartons, cans and packaging - need to be thoroughly cleaned before dumping them into recycling bins. Only packaging and material with specific symbols are 100% recyclable. And no, plastic bags are not advised to be recycled. 


Mistake #2: Your call-to-actions might be falling on deaf ears.

Being climate change advocates is step zero towards making an impact, as shared words amongst friends and family do help to increase community spirit and grow the awareness of the condition of our planet and the ways of which that lessen impact. It is not enough to stop there as the key change-makers are the ones driving your city’s or country’s legislation. These are the people that can facilitate change on a bigger scale.

How do we fix it?

Write to your local town council or environmental agents to suggest ways of improving conservation around your estate. Social media makes contacting local authorities much easier, even if just to voice your concerns. Have a conversation with decision makers and game changers to move towards actual results - make the authorities work for you. Create petitions against mandates that impede climate change within your community, such as a lack of recycling bins on your community. Vote for sizable changes that benefit the community and the environment, such as the availability of shared electric cars and bicycles for your city. Move forward from being a change advocate to a change activist.


Mistake #3: Staying with non-renewable energy power suppliers.

Electrification is a development that is a necessity - it is something that most of us cannot stay away from. We need power to turn on our lights, to run our washers, to watch our television, to turn on our laptops, and so on. It is something that comes so naturally to a lot of people that most forget that while it is accessible, it is also a luxury. It is a luxury that is given to the privileged who can afford it and most of the time, we don’t stop to think about where our electricity comes from. Going on the internet also requires power. While we all are now staying at home and moving our activities online to activate climate change, why don’t we kill two birds with one stone by using a renewable energy source?

How to fix it?

Renewable energy is an excellent alternative to fossil fuels and is fundamentally sustainable and clean. Wind and solar power are the two supplies that are more accessible to most cities. Check your local energy supplier options to ascertain where your energy comes from. If you can switch to a renewable energy provider, why not do that?


If we march towards helping our earth in correct and impactful ways individually, hopefully in the next 50 years, our collective efforts will bear its fruits in bountiful ways. Then, perhaps, we can stop humming to the same tunes as we are now.