halt

QatarEnergy has suspended liquefied natural gas (LNG) production following a drone attack, straining the global LNG market.

On Monday, Iranian drones struck two sites, according to Qatar’s Ministry of Defence: a water tank at a power plant in Mesaieed Industrial City and an energy facility in Ras Laffan belonging to QatarEnergy, the world’s largest LNG producer.

While no casualties were reported, QatarEnergy suspended the production of LNG and other products at the impacted sites for security reasons.

Why did QatarEnergy suspend operations?

The drone attacks hit the Ras Laffan complex, which is home to processing units for liquefied natural gas set to be exported.

The state-owned energy company was forced to declare what is known as force majeure, when a company is freed from contractual obligations in the event of extraordinary circumstances, such as a drone attack, according to Reuters and Bloomberg News, citing people familiar with the matter.

This comes at a time when intensifying sea battles between Iran and the United States, coupled with missiles flying over the region, have effectively choked the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic trade route. At least 150 vessels have dropped anchor, including those carrying LNG, in the strait and surrounding areas, according to Reuters.

Traffic in the strait for both LNG and oil has declined by 86 percent, with roughly 700 ships sitting idle on either side of the passage, according to the Anadolu news agency.

How will this impact the broader global LNG market?

Qatar’s LNG exports represent 20 percent of the global market. With fewer products reaching the market, LNG supply is down, causing prices to surge.

“Definitely an escalation overnight with pressure on energy infra in the Gulf,” said Rachel Ziemba, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank.

The countries hit the most directly are Asian markets, particularly Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.

China is the world’s largest importer of natural gas, but it gets the majority of its imports from Australia, accounting for 34 percent of its imports, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Maksim Sonin, an energy expert at Stanford University’s Center for Fuels of the Future, however, said that while QatarEnergy’s decision would bring “volatility” to energy markets, he wouldn’t describe the situation as a “crisis” just yet.

“We will see near-term volatility in the LNG market, especially if infrastructure in Qatar and other hubs is damaged,” Sonin told Al Jazeera. However, he added, “I do not expect the 2022 gas crisis to repeat in Europe,” referring to the period following Russia’s full-fledged invasion of Ukraine, when many European nations tried to dramatically scale back their dependence on Russian oil and gas.

Which are the world’s largest LNG exporters?

Until 2022, Russia was the world’s biggest exporter of LNG, but its sales have plummeted since its war on Ukraine began.

Now, the US is the world’s largest exporter of LNG, followed by Qatar and Australia.

Will this add pressure on Europe?

While 82 percent of QatarEnergy’s sales are to Asian countries, the halt puts increased pressure on other markets across the globe, too, particularly in Europe.

In effect, a smaller supply of gas will need to meet the same global demand. As a result, gas prices have already started soaring: Benchmark Dutch and British wholesale gas prices soared by almost 50 percent, while benchmark Asian LNG prices jumped almost 39 percent, on Monday after the QatarEnergy announcement.

“Not good if Qatar stays offline for long, of course,” said Ziemba. The only silver lining for Europe: “At least the worst of the winter in Europe may be behind,” Ziemba pointed out.

The European Union’s gas coordination group will meet on Wednesday to assess the impact of the widening conflict in the Middle East, a European Commission spokesperson told Reuters on Monday. The group includes representatives from member state governments. It monitors gas storage and security of supply in the EU, and coordinates response measures during crises.

Reporting from Washington — A month after tweeting that he might order FEMA to cut federal disaster funding to California fire victims, President Trump declined to renew that threat and indicated that talks with state officials were going well.

Speaking to The Times and several regional newspapers in the Oval Office, Trump said Wednesday that he and Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke by phone about two weeks ago, after his Jan. 9 tweet that he had ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency not to send more disaster funding to state officials “unless they get their act together, which is unlikely.”

Asked Wednesday if he still thinks the federal government shouldn’t give California any more money until the state changes its forest management practices, Trump refrained from directly repeating the threat, but said something has to be done to keep California from burning year after year.

“I told my people, I said we cannot continue to spend billions of dollars, billions and billions of dollars,” Trump said. “Forest fires are totally preventable. They shouldn’t happen.”

Trump said he was encouraged by his talk with Newsom.

“He was very respectful as to my point of view,” Trump said. “I think he agrees with me. I respect the fact that he called. The forests are, because of whatever reason, … extraordinarily flammable, to put it mildly.”

Newsom’s spokesman Nathan Click said the governor and president had a “respectful conversation about the critical federal-state partnership necessary for emergency preparedness and disaster relief.”

“The governor will continue doing everything in his power to help the survivors of wildfires and make sure the state is prepared for future disasters,” Click said.

Environmental experts say the primary cause of increased fires in California is climate change and drought. The Trump administration has blamed poor forest management, though critics say such claims are misleading and in many cases false.

Thousands of Californians are still recovering from two massive fires this past fall that together killed nearly 90 people and burned thousands of structures.

Trump’s tweeted threat alarmed state and local officials. For weeks the White House and FEMA have provided no clarity about whether such an order would be implemented, and when. Even the California congressional delegation struggled to get information about what might happen.

For months the president has been critical of California’s forest management process, saying state environmental laws are too stringent and keep downed timber and other detritus such as leaves and fallen limbs from being removed before they can catch fire.

“It’s called forest management. You have very poor forest management,” Trump said. “You need good forest management and you will have either no forest fires or very small forest fires that are easily put out.”

Critics accuse the administration of trying to pressure California officials to open the state’s forests to increased logging.

The bulk of California’s forest land is either federal property or private property, and outside the state’s authority to manage, but Trump said California’s strict state environmental laws keep the federal government from managing its lands in the state properly.

“In many cases because of the state environmental rules, the federal government isn’t even allowed to go in and clean them out,” Trump said.

In November, the Camp fire destroyed the town of Paradise in the Sierra Nevada foothills, killing 86 people and destroying more than 13,900 homes in the area; and the Woolsey fire in Los Angeles and Ventura counties left three dead and leveled about 1,500 structures in an unwooded area.

State politicians have implored Trump to remember what he saw when he visited Paradise in November to tour the destroyed area. He spoke at length Wednesday about his shock at the extent of the damage and how quickly the fire moved into and destroyed the town.

“That was a lot of bad luck,” Trump said. “It was dry. You had 80 mile-per-hour winds. It was a very flammable area.”

The latest from Washington »

More stories from Sarah D. Wire »

A central question in the congressional investigation of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys is whether Carol C. Lam in San Diego was dismissed, and Debra Wong Yang in Los Angeles eased out, to try to derail corruption probes of prominent California Republicans.

Whatever officials in Washington might have intended, Yang and Lam’s departures had no effect on the investigations, which continue unabated, sources close to the inquiries said this week. And several present and former federal prosecutors said it would be extremely difficult — though not impossible — to quash an investigation for political reasons.

“Most criminal prosecutors are an independent sort with a strong sense of pursuing truth and justice,” said William W. Carter, a Los Angeles federal prosecutor for 14 years before moving to the firm Musick, Peeler & Garrett in November. “They would be repulsed, and rebel, against any political order. There would be an uproar.”

Although the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys are political appointees, their offices are staffed with career prosecutors who are tasked with pursuing justice without regard for any political agenda.

Those prosecutors — assistant U.S. attorneys — often come from top-flight law schools and see the job as a noble calling. Many of them could make much more money in private practice.

Calling a prosecutor off a case — particularly if the motive were transparently political — would cause an uproar, said Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor Laurie L. Levenson. “You’d have to suspend reality to think you could get away with it,” she said.

The U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego is moving forward on the expanding investigation that netted Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe), the sources said. And prosecutors in Los Angeles continue to examine Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) over various dealings with lobbyists and contractors during the time he was chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

Neither Lam nor Yang had direct involvement in the corruption investigations, the sources said. According to one source close to the Lewis inquiry, Yang never asked to be briefed by her prosecutors, nor did she give them any input. “It was just nothing … which was good.”

The sources close to the probes requested anonymity because a Justice Department policy bars public comment on ongoing investigations.

Yang emphatically denied that she was pushed out or that she or her successor was asked to stop a politically charged investigation.

“You have so many players involved, it’s ridiculous that you could make an investigation disappear, especially one that is high profile — because those are the ones all the assistants want to work on,” she said.

Levenson said there are subtle ways, however, to let a case “die a slow death.”

Supervisors could assign the prosecutors other matters to work on or divert resources away from the case. They could balk at issuing subpoenas or seeking approvals of various sorts from Washington. And when it comes time to seek an indictment, particularly if the case is not a slam-dunk, the U.S. attorney or even the Justice Department in Washington could waver and tell the prosecutors that they need to do more investigating.

Yet even this scenario is more likely to happen in a John Grisham novel than in real life, Levenson said.

Congressional investigators first focused on the possibility that Lam was fired because of the expanding Cunningham inquiry or the Lewis investigation. Although Lam’s office was not involved in the Lewis probe, those involved in the firings might not have known that because both cases involved the same prominent lobbyist, several prosecutors suggested.

Now some of the focus has shifted to Yang, with testimony indicating that the White House might have been looking to push her out.

In October 2006 — less than two months before the firings — Yang announced her resignation to take a job at the Los Angeles firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which was defending Lewis and has strong Republican ties. Her new salary is reportedly about $1.5 million a year.

Yang said at the time that, as a recently divorced mother of three, she needed to enter the private sector to support her family.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, was questioned Thursday about Yang’s resignation, but insisted that she left of her own accord.

But in recent testimony to congressional investigators, D. Kyle Sampson, the Justice Department aide who coordinated the firings, said the White House had inquired in September about pushing Yang out to “create a vacancy.”

“I remember [White House Counsel] Harriet Miers asking me about Debra Yang … and what her plans were, whether she might be asked to resign,” Sampson told investigators last month, according to a senior congressional aide.

An opinion piece by a New York Times editorial editor, Adam Cohen, suggested that Gibson Dunn might have lured Yang away with the rich salary offer to get her off the Lewis investigation.

Gibson Dunn lawyers took offense at the suggestion.

“It’s absurd,” said Randy Mastro, co-chairman of the firm’s crisis management group with Yang.

It was well known that Yang was looking for something new, he added, and at least three top firms were actively recruiting her.

As for her being pushed out, he said Yang notified Miers in January 2006 that she planned to leave by the end of summer.

Mastro would not comment specifically on the Lewis investigation.

joe.mozingo@latimes.com