Leviathan partners eye big expansion of natgas field for Israel and export
NewMed Energy (NWMDp.TA), opens new tab said its plan that it filed with the Energy Minister's Petroleum Commissioner calls for the drilling of three additional production wells, more undersea systems and expansion of processing facilities on the platform that will increase total gas production capacity to 21 billon cubic meters (bcm) a year and cost an estimated $2.4 billion.
Leviathan, a deep-sea field with huge deposits, came online at the end of 2019 and produces 12 bcm of gas per year for sale to Israel, Egypt and Jordan.
That will rise to some 14 bcm in 2026 with the completion of laying of a third pipeline.
A second stage, NewMed said, would see the drilling of additional production wells and possibly lay a fourth pipeline between the field and platform and raise the maximum daily production capacity by 2 bcm a year to a total of 23 bcm annually.
The partners are seeking to sign new supply deals to customers in Israel and abroad of more than 100 bcm.
NewMed noted that the partners have already approved a budget of $505 million that included the purchase of equipment.
"The Leviathan reservoir is the most stable and strongest energy hub in the Mediterranean," said Yossi Abu, CEO of NewMed Energy. "The expanded production capacity will meet the increasing demand in the domestic market, in addition to bolstering Israel's status as an energy provider and strengthening regional ties and collaborations".
Leviathan partners also include Chevron (CVX.N), opens new tab and Ratio Energies (RATIp.TA), opens new tab.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
Trump is fighting to kill off DEI – and the corporate cowardice over Gaza shows he's winning
I have been working in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) for more than six years. This year, more than ever, I have started to question what the purpose of it really is. Though I've been celebrating companies that took a stand against Donald Trump's anti-DEI executive orders, under the radar I have noticed an insidious censorship rearing its head. Since 2023 we have been witness to one of the worst atrocities of our lifetimes. Livestreamed to our phones, we have seen the slaughter of at least 58,000 Palestinians, more than 17,000 of them children, and many of them in hospitals, schools, refugee camps and food queues. We have seen the denial of water, electricity and medical supplies, the obliteration of communities, mass manmade starvation, and continued calls by Israeli ministers for the permanent expulsion or eradication of Palestinians in Gaza. Israel's plans for a so-called humanitarian city to be built on the ruins of Rafah has been described by the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert as a 'concentration camp'. Yet, although more than 200 companies released statements after the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023 – wholeheartedly condemning it and donating money to relief funds – since then, there has been a relative silence in the face of the ongoing destruction in Gaza. One senior manager I spoke to said he had received an email telling him to remind staff they weren't allowed to wear 'political' badges during the Gaza conflict. Another company leader firmly stated, 'We're an apolitical company. Our staff need to remember that.' Last year, 50 employees were fired by Google after protesting against its and Amazon's $1.2bn (£900m) Project Nimbus cloud infrastructure contract with the Israeli government. And just last weekend we saw an official at the Royal Opera House attempt to snatch the Palestinian flag from a cast member who unfurled it on stage after a performance. All these organisations have DEI agendas. They say they are committed to inclusion and equal opportunity, and to enhancing business growth through diversity. Yet it seems this commitment is conditional on people's silence. You can belong, as long as you don't make us uncomfortable. We value your identity, as long as it's not political. Yet the companies themselves are not devoid of politics. A recent report by the UN special rapporteur for Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, backed by a number of high-profile economists, exposes the vast number of businesses who have been enabling or profiting from the Israeli military operation in Gaza. 'The report shows why the genocide carried out by Israel continues … because it is lucrative for many,' it says, highlighting not just arms manufacturers but also the complicity of big tech, household brands and even educational institutions. and Airbnb have been listing properties in illegal Israeli settlements, enabling profit from stolen land. And, in the most stark cases of corporate hypocrisy, companies such as BAE Systems, which is directly tied to the Israeli military machine and dehumanisation of Palestinians, proudly brand themselves as champions of dignity and respect. For the first time, I have found myself questioning not just how we do DEI work, but whether it means anything at all. If DEI is about rewiring unjust systems, how can companies silence staff who speak out or, worse, actively profit from a brutal war machine, and still claim to be inclusive? What is the role of DEI, if not to embed values and basic humanity within the company? What is even more frustrating is that we have a direct blueprint of how business leaders can approach this. Since the invasion of Ukraine, more than 1,000 companies have voluntarily curtailed operations in Russia as a recognition that they don't stand for war crimes, the murder of civilians or the ensuing humanitarian crisis. They hung Ukrainian flags on their buildings, donated tens of millions to humanitarian organisations, offered housing and created fast-track hiring schemes for Ukrainian refugees. The Royal Opera House itself published a statement in support of Ukraine, lit up its building in the Ukrainian flag colours, and for a period of time played the Ukrainian national anthem before every performance. For many staff, this contrast makes the corporate silence on Gaza feel even more pointed. It's not 'apolitical', it's a choice. And it is a failure of DEI, which at its core is about challenging systems that breed inequality. It is rooted in values of fairness, dignity and respect for all. This isn't simply about respecting racial or religious difference on an interpersonal level, it's about who you invest in (or divest from), what you choose to speak out on, how you balance profit with purpose. To stay silent in the face of mass violence sends a clear message: some lives don't matter. What gives me hope is the people-powered movements within companies. Staff are holding their leaders to account. Be that employees at the Boston Consulting Group who shared a letter to the company's top management demanding an end to its involvement in the development of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, staff at the Berlin-based retail company Zalando protesting against the dismissal of an Arab employee who criticised its support of Israel, or the more than 100 BBC staff who spoke out against censorship in its reporting of Israel/Palestine. These ordinary workers are taking up the mantle where DEI is failing. We need to move away from this current sanitised, apolitical version of DEI towards one with meaning. Core values of dignity, humanity and fairness need to be integral to business decisions, not just corporate buzzwords. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. And that's not a DEI I want to be part of. Jinan Younis is the founder of diversity, equity and inclusion agency WeCalibrate and former assistant politics editor at gal-dem magazine
The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
Trump is fighting to kill off DEI – and the corporate cowardice over Gaza shows he's winning
I have been working in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) for more than six years. This year, more than ever, I have started to question what the purpose of it really is. Though I've been celebrating companies that took a stand against Donald Trump's anti-DEI executive orders, under the radar I have noticed an insidious censorship rearing its head. Since 2023 we have been witness to one of the worst atrocities of our lifetimes. Livestreamed to our phones, we have seen the slaughter of at least 58,000 Palestinians, more than 17,000 of them children, and many of them in hospitals, schools, refugee camps and food queues. We have seen the denial of water, electricity and medical supplies, the obliteration of communities, mass manmade starvation, and continued calls by Israeli ministers for the permanent expulsion or eradication of Palestinians in Gaza. Israel's plans for a so-called humanitarian city to be built on the ruins of Rafah has been described by the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert as a 'concentration camp'. Yet, although more than 200 companies released statements after the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023 – wholeheartedly condemning it and donating money to relief funds – since then, there has been a relative silence in the face of the ongoing destruction in Gaza. One senior manager I spoke to said he had received an email telling him to remind staff they weren't allowed to wear 'political' badges during the Gaza conflict. Another company leader firmly stated, 'We're an apolitical company. Our staff need to remember that.' Last year, 50 employees were fired by Google after protesting against its and Amazon's $1.2bn (£900m) Project Nimbus cloud infrastructure contract with the Israeli government. And just last weekend we saw an official at the Royal Opera House attempt to snatch the Palestinian flag from a cast member who unfurled it on stage after a performance. All these organisations have DEI agendas. They say they are committed to inclusion and equal opportunity, and to enhancing business growth through diversity. Yet it seems this commitment is conditional on people's silence. You can belong, as long as you don't make us uncomfortable. We value your identity, as long as it's not political. Yet the companies themselves are not devoid of politics. A recent report by the UN special rapporteur for Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, backed by a number of high-profile economists, exposes the vast number of businesses who have been enabling or profiting from the Israeli military operation in Gaza. 'The report shows why the genocide carried out by Israel continues … because it is lucrative for many,' it says, highlighting not just arms manufacturers but also the complicity of big tech, household brands and even educational institutions. and Airbnb have been listing properties in illegal Israeli settlements, enabling profit from stolen land. And, in the most stark cases of corporate hypocrisy, companies such as BAE Systems, which is directly tied to the Israeli military machine and dehumanisation of Palestinians, proudly brand themselves as champions of dignity and respect. For the first time, I have found myself questioning not just how we do DEI work, but whether it means anything at all. If DEI is about rewiring unjust systems, how can companies silence staff who speak out or, worse, actively profit from a brutal war machine, and still claim to be inclusive? What is the role of DEI, if not to embed values and basic humanity within the company? What is even more frustrating is that we have a direct blueprint of how business leaders can approach this. Since the invasion of Ukraine, more than 1,000 companies have voluntarily curtailed operations in Russia as a recognition that they don't stand for war crimes, the murder of civilians or the ensuing humanitarian crisis. They hung Ukrainian flags on their buildings, donated tens of millions to humanitarian organisations, offered housing and created fast-track hiring schemes for Ukrainian refugees. The Royal Opera House itself published a statement in support of Ukraine, lit up its building in the Ukrainian flag colours, and for a period of time played the Ukrainian national anthem before every performance. For many staff, this contrast makes the corporate silence on Gaza feel even more pointed. It's not 'apolitical', it's a choice. And it is a failure of DEI, which at its core is about challenging systems that breed inequality. It is rooted in values of fairness, dignity and respect for all. This isn't simply about respecting racial or religious difference on an interpersonal level, it's about who you invest in (or divest from), what you choose to speak out on, how you balance profit with purpose. To stay silent in the face of mass violence sends a clear message: some lives don't matter. What gives me hope is the people-powered movements within companies. Staff are holding their leaders to account. Be that employees at the Boston Consulting Group who shared a letter to the company's top management demanding an end to its involvement in the development of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, staff at the Berlin-based retail company Zalando protesting against the dismissal of an Arab employee who criticised its support of Israel, or the more than 100 BBC staff who spoke out against censorship in its reporting of Israel/Palestine. These ordinary workers are taking up the mantle where DEI is failing. We need to move away from this current sanitised, apolitical version of DEI towards one with meaning. Core values of dignity, humanity and fairness need to be integral to business decisions, not just corporate buzzwords. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. And that's not a DEI I want to be part of. Jinan Younis is the founder of diversity, equity and inclusion agency WeCalibrate and former assistant politics editor at gal-dem magazine
Spectator
3 days ago
- Spectator
Why one US diplomat thinks Ireland has ‘fallen into a vat of Guinness'
US diplomat Mike Huckabee was dead right to question whether Ireland had 'fallen into a vat of Guinness.' Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, played into stereotypical tropes on the Irish and alcohol when he made that comment last week. But it is, he reckoned, the only possible explanation for Ireland's looming ban on Israeli settlement goods, despite ominous soundings from the US over the potentially ruinous consequences. This bill is so stupid it amounts to 'diplomatic intoxication', he concluded. To answer his question, Ireland is not drunk. More's the pity. It is preparing to commit economic suicide while cold stone sober, just to tighten the screws on Israel. Huckabee's remarks, which point to a deepening rift between Dublin and Washington, have certainly focused minds in the US. Twelve prominent US politicians and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have now warned Ireland of the economic and diplomatic fallout of the Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill (PIGS). This row is gaining traction on Capitol Hill and ensuring Ireland is making global headlines – for all the wrong reasons. International law expert Eugene Kontorovich explained in the Wall Street Journal how banning trade with Israeli settlements could force American companies operating in Ireland to violate US federal law on illegal Israeli boycotts. 'Dublin seeks to take the place of Damascus as the centre of Israeli boycotts. But Syria was an economic backwater. Ireland has a lot more to lose,' he said. When it was first introduced in 2018, what was then the 'Occupied Territories Bill,' quickly sparked a backlash. Former US Ambassador to Ireland, Dan Mulhall, said he was deluged with calls asking, 'What is Ireland at?' Riddled with legal problems from the start, it was left to wither on the vine. That was until October 2023, when pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli groups thought it the perfect time to resurrect it and ramp up the pressure. They were pushing against an open door with foreign affairs minister Simon Harris. Instead of sending them packing, he caved in and re-introduced the ban on trading with settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank under a new name. It isn't clear that this is what Irish voters actually want. The general nervousness about the blowback from Ireland's largest export market, the US, was reflected in a recent national opinion poll in Ireland: 48 per cent want the bill dropped altogether or paused until the economic consequences are fully examined, with a further 17 per cent undecided. Harris and Taoiseach Micheal Martin face a stark choice; drop the bill and be crucified by the hard left and hostile anti-Israeli NGOs. Or continue to push it and hope Ireland's economy doesn't sink if US multinationals quit, leaving 370,000 job losses in their wake. Martin must know all too well that the Irish economy is artificially propped up by billions in revenue from US tech giants. Last November, Martin said Ireland could lose €10 billion (£8.7 billion) in corporation tax if just three US multinationals were repatriated under a hostile Donald Trump administration. The context then was Trump's tariffs, but it underlined the scale of Ireland's dependency on US multinationals. The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council reported that foreign-owned multinationals – the majority US-owned – contributed 84 per cent of the total corporation tax revenue in 2023. This swelled Ireland's coffers by €20 billion (£17.36 billion), roughly equating to the combined spending on hospitals and schools in that year. As one US senator put it: 'If Ireland wanted to end foreign direct investment into Ireland, it could not have chosen a better way to do it.' Former justice minister Alan Shatter labelled the bill a 'Father Ted' measure reminiscent of the comedy set on a craggy island off Ireland's west coast – something Ireland's Taoiseach took great umbrage at. The Taoiseach was asked directly if the government had sought legal opinion on the position of US multinationals if this bill is enacted. We are none the wiser. Irish business leaders are not so coy; they say the consequences for Ireland are real and significant. Ireland is not up against the might of Israel on this, but that of the US. And that is before we get to the added risk of infringing EU law by imposing a unilateral trade ban, as UK international law expert Natasha Hausdorff told the Dail pre legislative hearings in painstaking detail earlier this month. The glazed eyes of the assembled politicians and the blustering, emotive, responses made for depressing viewing. Whatever one thinks about the moral argument, this bill is a massive overreach that will not save a single life in Gaza. Yet the entire Irish political establishment is ideologically wedded to it. Junior foreign affairs minister Thomas Byrne let the cat out of the bag last week when asked by Ireland's national broadcaster, RTE, if he was concerned about the potential cost to Ireland. 'Of course,' he replied, but I am more concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza.' Martin also offered some insight into the government's mindset by saying he wanted the bill passed while ensuring Ireland's economy did not suffer 'unduly.' Which presupposes there will be some suffering, it's just a question of degree. Should the worst happen, and tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of Irish workers lose their jobs if US multinationals shut up shop, well, they can take comfort knowing Ireland 'did the right thing' as they make their way to the dole queue. Unless, as Ambassador Huckabee suggests, Ireland 'sobers up' before it is too late.
