Spain’s Repsol has pulled out of a planned joint venture to develop two Arctic oil blocks with Russia’s Gazprom Neft and Royal Dutch Shell, a spokesman at Repsol said May 22.
Gazprom Neft, the oil arm of Russian gas giant Gazprom, Repsol and Shell signed a memorandum of understanding last June on establishing a joint venture to develop the Leskinsky and Pukhutsyayakhsky blocks on the Gydan Peninsula in northern Siberia.
A deal on the venture, in which Gazprom Neft would hold a 50% stake and Repsol and Shell each own 25%, was expected to close this year.
“It’s an option we had on a well we are choosing not to exercise,” Repsol’s spokesman said.
A source at Gazprom Neft said the Russian company will continue to cooperate with Shell on the assets.
“Repsol has informed Gazprom Neft that at the moment, it does not consider a possibility of participation in the project,” the source said.
Gazprom Neft declined to comment.
Recommended Reading
Electrification of Permian Faces a Problem: Not Enough Shock for the System
2024-11-21 - Permian Basin producers may have to wait years for Texas utilities to grow the grid.
Commentary: Maximizing the Opportunity for Energy Dominance
2024-12-18 - Energy produced in the U.S. already has a strong grip on global markets. But with the country on the cusp of a new regulatory environment, will the U.S. capitalize on the opportunity to maximize energy dominance?
Uncertainty Abounds: IRA Clean Energy Incentives Await Fate
2025-01-02 - Policy experts weigh in on the next possible steps for President Joe Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, following the Trump-led Republican trifecta.
Duke Pauses Assessment of US Energy Loan Program Ahead of Trump Administration
2024-12-02 - Duke Energy is pausing its assessment of certain U.S. energy infrastructure improvement loans due to the uncertainty of policies implemented during the upcoming Trump administration.
Trump vs. Harris—Policy Promises vs. Economics
2024-10-22 - The presidential debate did not shed much light on policy initiatives. Are there substantive differences?