Egypt to reissue tender for 2,100 MW pumped storage hydro plant: Report
Cairo signed a framework agreement in 2015 with the Chinese company to implement a 2,100-megawatt (MW) project at the cost of $2.3 billion, the report said.
The project was withdrawn from the Chinese firm after it requested government participation in securing financing, which was declined.
The project plans remain intact and will be presented to investors following interest from Indian, Chinese and European companies, the report said.
In October 2023, Energy China had signed an agreement with Egypt's Electricity and Renewable Energy Ministry to prepare a technical and financial study for a 2,000 MW pumped storage power plant.
Read more: Government to implement $4bln hydropower projects with private sector in Egypt
(Writing by P Deol; Editing by Anoop Menon)
(anoop.menon@lseg.com)
Subscribe to our Projects' PULSE newsletter that brings you trustworthy news, updates and insights on project activities, developments, and partnerships across sectors in the Middle East and Africa.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
a minute ago
- Arabian Post
OPEC+ Set to Approve Oil Output Hike Amid Supply Fears
OPEC+ members are poised to approve a significant increase in oil output at a crucial meeting scheduled for Sunday. Sources indicate that the group will likely raise production, though discussions are still ongoing over the exact size of the hike for September. The decision follows rising concerns about global oil supplies and the potential for further disruptions from Russia. This move comes as the international community grapples with the impacts of sanctions and geopolitical tensions, including the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The oil cartel, comprising the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other non-member allies like Russia, has been accelerating production increases over the past few months. The decision stems from a combination of factors, with an acute focus on the global oil stockpiles, which have remained low despite efforts to stabilize supply. The urgency is compounded by seasonal slowdowns in demand, which have raised questions about balancing supply with market conditions. OPEC+ leaders have also been closely monitoring the evolving situation in Russia, which continues to face economic and energy sanctions from Western nations. These sanctions, aimed at curbing Russia's oil exports, have prompted the Kremlin to seek alternative buyers for its crude oil. At the same time, the United States has renewed its calls for India to reduce its purchases of Russian oil, intensifying diplomatic pressure. Washington's strategy is driven by its broader geopolitical objective of isolating Moscow economically while pushing for a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict. ADVERTISEMENT This dynamic has placed India in a delicate position. As one of the largest consumers of Russian oil, India has maintained its imports despite mounting external pressure. This situation has intensified after the European Union's sanctions on Russia, forcing some Indian state refiners to suspend their purchases of Russian oil. With OPEC+ members aware of the broader geopolitical context, their decisions will be shaped not just by market conditions but also by the complex web of international relations and the shifting allegiances in global energy trade. In recent months, the collective oil production of OPEC+ members has become a focal point in global discussions on energy security. The cartel's decisions carry significant weight in influencing oil prices, particularly as economies emerge from the pandemic and recover from inflationary pressures. The oil market has shown signs of volatility, with fluctuations in prices reflecting both the tightening supply and rising concerns about geopolitical tensions. The meeting scheduled for Sunday will likely be decisive for OPEC+ members, many of whom are keen to boost production to meet global demand. Saudi Arabia, as the group's leading producer, has expressed concerns about the pace of supply increases, but has also indicated its willingness to cooperate on finding a balanced approach. The UAE and other Gulf states have similarly shown a commitment to addressing market imbalances, although there are notable differences in opinion regarding how aggressively the group should ramp up output. A key issue at the heart of the debate is the uncertainty surrounding the Russian supply. Moscow's ability to maintain its oil exports amid sanctions has been questioned by some members, and the broader impact of any further disruptions is a critical point of discussion. Russia's oil output has remained relatively stable despite sanctions, but the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and potential future sanctions may disrupt this trend. Further complicating the situation is the fact that some OPEC+ members, such as Iraq and Algeria, have been more cautious about increasing output due to concerns over market stability. They argue that the global oil market remains fragile, and any major increase in production could lead to oversupply, ultimately lowering prices and undermining efforts to stabilize the market.
Arabian Post
11 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Trump's Tariff War Creates De Facto Counter-Axis Driven By Common Cause
By K Raveendran Donald Trump's aggressive tariff regime, launched under the guise of bolstering American strength and reclaiming lost economic ground, has triggered a worldwide response that may ultimately defeat the very goal it seeks to achieve. Framed as a nationalist project to assert America's economic primacy, the tariff war has turned out to be a catalyst for an accelerating global shift away from unipolar US dominance toward a truly multipolar world order. What was once largely speculative—the idea of a global economic architecture not centred on Washington—is now becoming tangible as Trump's trade brinkmanship compels other nations to rethink, regroup, and realign. The essential flaw in Trump's strategy lies in its assumption that the rest of the world would blink first, caving in to American demands under the weight of economic pressure. But the world hasn't blinked. Instead, countries are finding common cause in resisting what they perceive as economic coercion masquerading as negotiation. The result is a fluid yet increasingly coherent realignment of powers—chief among them China, Russia, and India—that is beginning to operate as a de facto counter-axis to the United States. Driven by shared grievances and the common objective of shielding their strategic autonomy, these nations are cooperating more closely in trade, investment, and energy. The irony is that Trump's pursuit of economic supremacy is hastening the erosion of the very system that enabled US dominance for decades. Beijing, long a prime target of Trump's tariffs, has responded with both retaliation and redirection. Rather than capitulating to Washington's demands, China has expanded its outreach to other major economies, particularly in Asia and Africa, while deepening its engagement with Russia and India. The Belt and Road Initiative, initially conceived as a means of global infrastructure connectivity, is now also a tool for economic realignment. As Trump builds tariff walls, China builds roads, ports, and financial networks that bypass the United States. Moscow, for its part, has welcomed this pivot. Isolated by US and European sanctions, Russia sees opportunity in closer ties with China and India, both of which have shown increasing willingness to defy Western pressure. India, though traditionally more aligned with the West and an enthusiastic participant in global liberal markets, has found itself inching toward the emerging non-Western axis. Trump's tariffs on Indian goods, coupled with his administration's threats of secondary sanctions on countries trading with Russia or buying Iranian oil, have forced New Delhi to draw red lines. India's stance on Russian oil, for instance, has been unambiguous: it is a matter of national interest and energy security. Any effort by Washington to curtail these purchases is seen not just as economic interference but as a direct challenge to sovereign decision-making. In retaliation, India has dangled the cancellation of key defence deals, including the proposed purchase of the F-35 fighter jets—a symbolic snub that indicates a broader reassessment of strategic alignment. What makes this realignment especially potent is the breadth of its scope. It is not merely a matter of retaliatory tariffs or diplomatic rhetoric; it includes infrastructure cooperation, technological integration, and long-term investment planning. China and India, despite historic differences, have increased dialogue in recent months on trade facilitation and regional connectivity. Russia's role as a common energy partner and military supplier to both nations gives it leverage in the triangle. And with US credibility as a dependable trade partner being questioned, many smaller nations are also hedging their bets, diversifying their economic relations away from a US-centric model. Even traditional US allies in Europe are uneasy. Germany and France have voiced concerns about the destabilizing effects of Trump's tariffs on global trade norms. The EU is pursuing its own trade treaties with countries like Japan and Vietnam, carving out autonomous space in global commerce that doesn't necessarily involve Washington. At the heart of this geopolitical churn is a growing skepticism toward the idea that the United States can or should dictate the terms of global trade. The Trump administration's belief that economic might translates automatically into negotiating power has ignored the subtle but critical fact that globalisation has made nations more interconnected and interdependent. Trying to weaponise trade may yield short-term leverage, but it also creates lasting rifts and compels partners to seek alternatives. The economic structures of the 21st century no longer afford any single nation the luxury of acting as an economic autocrat without consequences. Furthermore, the economic impact within the United States is more complex and less flattering than the populist rhetoric suggests. While certain domestic industries may benefit from tariff protections, others are suffering from rising input costs and retaliatory measures. American farmers have been hit particularly hard by Chinese tariffs on agricultural imports, prompting the Trump administration to introduce multi-billion dollar bailout packages that, in effect, cancel out the supposed gains of the trade war. Manufacturing, far from being resurgent, is experiencing uncertainty and disruption due to volatility in global supply chains. The idea that tariff wars are 'easy to win' has proven to be one of the most misguided statements of Trump's presidency. Even American multinationals, once eager advocates of 'America First' policies, are quietly relocating parts of their supply chains to countries not caught in the tariff crossfire. This shift not only diminishes the US's leverage but also accelerates the decentralization of economic power. No longer is the American market an irresistible magnet for global commerce; it is increasingly seen as a zone of instability and risk. For many countries, the trade war has been a wake-up call—an impetus to invest in regional blocs, alternative trade corridors, and new financial instruments insulated from US influence. In the broader scheme, what Trump has unwittingly triggered is a reimagination of how global power is structured. The post-Cold War illusion of US-led globalisation is being replaced by a more pluralistic, competitive, and fragmented order. Emerging powers are no longer content to play by rules written in Washington. They are building parallel systems: China's digital yuan aims to reduce dependency on the dollar; India and Russia have revived rupee-rouble trade mechanisms; and regional trade agreements like RCEP are functioning without US participation. What's being born is a new kind of globalization—less hierarchical, more balanced, and far less dependent on any single country. (IPA Service)
Gulf Today
17 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Private equity investment in Indian real estate declines in H1 of 2025
Private equity (PE) investment in Indian real estate during the first half (H1) of 2025 reflects a market at an inflection point. Not only have the volumes receded sharply, but the very assumptions underpinning investor decision-making are undergoing a foundational rethink, according to Knight Frank India survey on the trends in PE investments in Indian real estate during H1 2025. After a robust showing in 2024 with $4.9 billion in inflows, PE investments in H1 2025 dropped by 41% YoY to $1.7 billion. The number of deals also fell steeply, from 24 in H1 2024 to just 12 in H1 2025. This slowdown is not merely due to cyclical caution; rather, it reflects a structural recalibration in the cost of capital, return expectations, and comparative risk appetite among global investors and domestic institutions. However, India's real estate fundamentals remain intact. Residential sales volumes have held firm, and office absorption has been underpinned by demand from GCCs and technology occupiers. However, the capital market's response has been more cautious. Investors have shown a clear preference for structured equity, credit-backed instruments, and platform-level transactions with predictable exit. In H1 2025, Mumbai led PE inflows with $467.5 million, closely followed by Bengaluru at $452.5 million. Hyderabad with $258.6 million and Pune with $134 million also attracted meaningful capital, while Chennai received $50 million. Together the South Indian cities captured over 60% of the total investments, underscoring a sustained regional shift in institutional investor preference. Private equity investment in the India office real estate sector in H1 2025 reflects a measured optimism shaped by asset quality, market positioning, and long-term tenancy profiles. In H1 2025, the office sector attracted $706 million in PE investments across three transactions, up 22% YoY in comparison to $579 million received in H1 2024. The underlying nature of these transactions points to concentrated, strategic capital allocations rather than broadbased market retrenchment. Another key shift in H1 2025 is the near parity between investments in ready and under-construction assets. Of the $706 million deployed, roughly 50% was directed toward underconstruction developments up from just 23% in H1 2024. Private equity (PE) investments in India's residential real estate sector during H1 2025 reflects a cautious yet selective deployment approach. At $500 million across six transactions, investment volumes fell by 41% YoY from H1 2024 levels. However, the overall trajectory should not be read as weakening sentiment, but rather a sharpening of focus on risk-mitigated, structured entry routes in mid-income and premium segments. H1 2025 saw a distinct reversal to debt-heavy structures, with 60% of capital deployed in debt as compared to 40% in H1 2024. Following a sustained run of high investor interest, the Indian warehousing sector entered a period of reflection in H1 2025. Capital inflows dropped to a decade low of $50 million, with only one transaction recorded during the first half marking a dramatic 97% decline compared to $1.5 billion H1 2024. While such sharp fluctuations are not uncommon in a sector dominated by platform-level deals, the current slowdown also signals a temporary reassessment of growth assumptions amid a shifting capital landscape. In contrast to H1 2024, which was dominated by large-scale acquisition of ready assets ($1.5 billion), H1 2025's sole transaction was in the new development category, valued at just $50 million. No deals were recorded in the ready or under- construction categories this half-year, which underlines a pause in brownfield capital deployment and a return to early-stage underwriting. After a prolonged lull, India's retail real estate sector staged a meaningful comeback in H1 2025, with private equity inflows reaching $480 million, a sharp recovery from zero deal activity in 2023 and 2024. The decline in PE investments in Indian real estate during H1 2025 is down 41% YoY. As global capital turns more selective, decisions are now governed by nuanced assessments of currency risk, post-tax returns, governance clarity, and exit possibilities. I plan to invest in partnership firm promoted by my relative in Ahmedabad. Can an NRI invest in partnership firm planning real estate development? Sanjay Gupta, Sharjah. An NRI can invest in the capital of a firm on non-repatriation basis. However, the Indian firm should not be engaged in any agricultural/plantation or real estate business or print media sector. But a firm can invest in real estate development activity like residential or commercial development. The amount invested shall not be eligible for repatriation outside India. However, you can seek prior permission of Reserve Bank for investment in firm with repatriation option. While gifting immovable property, when does the receiver gets it legally in his possession? Prakash Leema, Dubai. Gifts should be accompanied with a registered gift deed. Once registered along with a gift deed, the receiver of the gift will get the legal ownership and right to possession of such property.
