Drilling Dreams, Sinking Realities

Introduction

Climate change is increasingly recognised as the most significant long-term downside risk to almost all investment sectors. This urgency is underscored by the approaching 2024 U.S. Presidential election, where energy policy is a key issue, particularly in the context of the Republican Party’s push to revive the fossil fuel industry. With global temperatures in 2023 reaching unprecedented highs and surpassing even the most dire projections, the severity of climate-related disasters has escalated. These developments make it clear that mitigating climate change is not just an environmental imperative but also a critical economic and geopolitical challenge. The outcome of the U.S. election could have profound implications for global energy policies, especially as the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, advocates for an aggressive expansion of fossil fuel production.

Increasing Severity of Climate Disasters

2023 has been a stark reminder of the accelerating impacts of climate change. Record-breaking global temperatures, partly driven by an El Niño intensified by climate change, have led to widespread heatwaves, wildfires, and other extreme weather events. These developments have surpassed the projections of most climate models, highlighting the increasing unpredictability and severity of climate-related disasters, and the real-world implications of inaction on climate policy. The nonlinear trajectory of ecosystem collapse is one that has far-reaching implications, affecting everything from agriculture and infrastructure to public health and economic stability.

Graph 1.0 (Global Temperature Trends)

As the graph above shows, 2023 surpassed every previous temperature record by-far; almost showing an off-the-charts uptick in increasing temperatures. This must be seen in the context of the political economy of the green energy transition, involving stakeholders like big-oil to employ significant effort to subdue, delay, and slow down momentum of green energy through extensive lobbying in an effort to stay relevant in a world where renewable energy has become cheaper than conventional oil and gas as shown in the graph below.

Graph 2.0 (Energy cost by source)

COP and Delayed Multilateral Action

The international community has attempted to make some progress toward addressing climate change, with the United Nations’ Conference of the Parties (COP) serving as a central platform for multilateral action. COP 28 in Dubai marked a significant moment, signalling what many hoped would be the beginning of the end for fossil fuels. However, the subsequent COP 29, hosted in Baku, Azerbaijan—also a petro-state—seems to have reduced the pace and effectiveness of global climate action, and put the world off-track to limit global warming to 1.5C. The influence of fossil fuel interests and lobbying has continued to slow progress, delaying the implementation of much-needed measures to reduce emissions on a global scale, which by the number of lobbyists in COP 26 for instance, outnumbered national delegations to the convention.

Graph 3.0 (number of lobbyists in COP 26)

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Elections

The 2024 U.S. Presidential election represents a pivotal moment for the country’s energy policy, particularly in the context of climate change. Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on July 19th highlighted his intent to revive America’s fossil fuel industry. Declaring, “We will drill, baby, drill!” Trump pledged to ramp up domestic fossil fuel production to unprecedented levels, with the aim of making the United States "energy dominant" on the global stage. His commitment to this vision was evident in his efforts to court oil industry leaders, promising to roll back President Joe Biden’s environmental regulations in exchange for financial support for his re-election campaign.

Trump’s team argues that unleashing vast untapped oil reserves in regions like Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico could significantly boost production if environmental regulations were eased. However, experts contend that such plans might not significantly alter the U.S. energy landscape, whether fossil or renewable. Despite the oil industry’s grievances under Biden, the sector has seen substantial growth, with oil and gas production reaching record levels. Biden’s administration has issued more drilling permits in its first three years than Trump did during his entire term, and the profits of major oil companies have soared due to the 2020s global commodities boom.

Federal Policy and Oil Production

The impact of federal policy on oil production is often tempered by broader market dynamics and investor behaviour. The oil industry, particularly after the financial strains of the shale boom, now prioritises capital discipline, driven more by market conditions and Wall Street’s influence than by the White House’s policies. Even if Trump were to win the presidency, the overall trajectory of oil production is likely to continue being shaped by global supply-demand balances and the strategic decisions of organisations like OPEC.

Interestingly, Trump’s promise to repeal Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—which includes substantial subsidies for green energy—may face significant obstacles. The IRA’s benefits are largely concentrated in Republican districts, and industries traditionally aligned with fossil fuels are beginning to recognise the advantages of low-carbon technologies. For example, companies benefiting from the IRA’s subsidies for hydrogen and carbon capture are prepared to defend these incentives against any potential repeal.

Conclusion

The urgency of addressing climate change is often underestimated due to a common misunderstanding of the non-linear feedback loops involved in ecosystem collapse. Many tend to view emissions as a simple, transactional force with nature, failing to grasp the exponential and potentially catastrophic consequences of inaction. This underestimation leads to a dangerous complacency, undervaluing the need for urgent and robust policy action. 

The U.S. holds significant sway over global climate outcomes mainly because of two reasons: (1) It is the second largest emitter; and (2) it is one of the only countries in the world for climate policy to be a partisan issue, making it particularly susceptible to hampering global emissions targets.

With much of the Global South still dependent on coal, oil, and gas, a unilateral decision by the U.S. to aggressively increase fossil fuel consumption could single-handedly push the planet toward an irreversible climate disaster. The stakes are incredibly high, especially as the political economy of the green transition faces opposition from entrenched fossil fuel interests. These forces work to delay and obstruct the shift to renewable energy, despite the clear and present need to accelerate this transition to prevent ecological collapse.

Having already surpassed 1.5C warming; the world is headed towards 4.1-4.8C warming without climate action policies; 2.5-2.9C warming with current policies; and 2.1C warming with current pledges and targets. In this context, if the U.S. were to aggressively change course and begin burning more, instead of less as Trump suggests—it may severely hamper the ability of the global ecosystem to recover and restore, potentially breaching already critical tipping points.

Graph 4.0 (projected warming in different scenarios)

Therefore, it becomes more important than ever for climate-conscious energy policy, to recognise that ecological collapse is a non-linear and irreversible outcome of breaching environmental tipping points, and to underscore the need to prevent misinformation on climate change spreading as a result of forces acting against renewable energy in the political economy of the green transition.

The good news, however, may be that while Republicans may advocate for a new oil boom, the realities of global markets and investor behaviour suggest a different outcome. Wall Street, driven by a cost-benefit analysis that increasingly favours renewable energy, may not align with the interests of a pro-fossil fuel administration. Although the White House can influence energy policy, it is ultimately market forces that will dictate the future of America's energy landscape. This shift towards green energy, driven by economic viability and technological advancements, underscores the need for accelerated action to mitigate climate risks and ensure a sustainable future.

Small Modular Reactors Nuclear Renaissance?

In the era of climate urgency, increasing energy demands, and geopolitical uncertainties, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) could redefine the energy landscape and provide viable alternatives to current energy sources. SMRs present a scalable, safer alternative to traditional nuclear power. This report from London Politica explores the potential of SMRs to revolutionise energy production, mitigate climate change, and enhance energy security. With uranium prices soaring and global interest in nuclear energy surging, SMRs are poised to play a critical role in the nuclear renaissance.

Our comprehensive analysis covers key regions, including the US, Europe, and China, examining their nuclear strategies, regulatory landscapes, and market dynamics. We also delve into the controversies surrounding uranium supply chains and the broader political and economic implications of nuclear power. Dive into our in-depth analysis of the future of SMRs and their global impact.

Mexico’s Election Impact on Energy Policy

Background

On 2nd June 2024, Claudia Sheinbaum made history by being elected as Mexico’s first female president. With a strong academic background, Sheinbaum is a physicist holding a doctorate in energy engineering and was part of the Nobel Peace Prize winning UN panel on climate change. Sheinbaum’s economic agenda aims to capitalise on the opportunities presented by American nearshoring efforts, contingent on a stable and expanding energy supply. 

Mexico is one of the largest oil suppliers in the world, having produced 1.6 million barrels daily in 2022. The country is also ranked 13th in the global crude oil output. Whilst Sheinbaum has promised to accelerate Mexico’s clean energy transition and aims to generate 50% of its energy from renewables by 2030, most spectators are divided. Some hope her scientific background will lead to a greater emphasis on clean energy, while others fear she might follow the policies of her predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who invested heavily in bolstering fossil fuel-reliant state energy companies, PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos) and CFE (Comisión Federal de Electricidad). 

Regardless of her position on energy transition, Sheinbaum faces the challenge of restoring investor confidence, which was shaken during López Obrador’s administration. Without this achievement, the new leader cannot guarantee Mexico’s energy stability and it could jeopardise the country’s commitment under the US - Mexico - Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the Paris Agreement.

Mexico’s gas supply, traditionally dominated by PEMEX, faced disruptions due to declining production and pipeline congestions. An energy reform in 2013 allowed private firms to enter the gas market to boost market competition and supply reliability. However, under López Obrador, the private sector participation was viewed as a threat, and efforts were allocated to prioritise PEMEX’s production. Currently, the company is the most indebted oil corporation in the world, with its stocks having a -5.74% 3-year return, compared to +11.48% from other companies in the same period and sector. 

Considerations for Sheinbaum’s Energy Strategy

Sheinbaum has a decision to make regarding the energy future of Mexico. There is a confluence of energy-related factors that Sheinbaum will need to consider early in her administration, such as increasing domestic energy demands, pressure from environmental groups and international climate regimes, a deepened reliance on energy imports from abroad, and foreign companies’ dissatisfaction with the state’s current control of the energy sector.

Sheinbaum has long supported the state-centric energy policies of the previous administration, including legislative amendments that rolled back the 2013 constitutional reforms that helped liberalise the Mexican energy sector. Nevertheless, while Sheinbaum continues to defend the energy policies of the previous López Obrador administration, she is more pragmatic than her predecessor, which may provide a path for potential policy change to deal with the various energy issues facing her administration.

One area where Sheinbaum differs from López Obrador is the role of renewable energy sources in Mexico’s energy mix. Sheinbaum has a robust environmental pedigree and has published extensively on the clean energy transition. During her time as mayor of Mexico City, she implemented clean energy infrastructure and electrified transportation modalities. Furthermore, according to her campaign platform, she is committed to progressing Mexico’s clean energy transition and decarbonising the economy. However, climate progress under the Sheinbaum administration is likely to be tempered by fossil fuel supporters. Mexico still strongly depends on the oil and gas industry for its energy needs, accounting for over 80% of its energy mix in 2022. Understanding the necessity of oil and gas for the domestic economy, Sheinbaum has championed domestic oil production and supports the central role of PEMEX in the energy sector.

Source: IEA (2024)

As Mexican energy sovereignty will likely continue to be a focus for Sheinbaum’s administration, issues related to weak foreign direct investment in the Mexican energy industry are likely to persist. Under the current policy framework, private industry does not have an incentive to invest in exploration and production activities in Mexico. Lax private investment coupled with recent financial struggles at PEMEX may result in insufficient investment in Mexico’s energy infrastructure and increased reliance on energy imports. Therefore, to address the increased domestic energy demands, Sheinbaum may alter the government's prevailing energy strategy to ensure sustainable and robust energy supplies by providing private companies more control/access to the energy sector.

There are also broader trade implications regarding Sheinbaum’s potential approach to Mexico’s energy strategy, particularly how it impacts the country’s relationship with the US. The US Trade Representative communicated to its Mexican counterpart that the legislative amendments passed under the López Obrador administration violated investment provisions stipulated by the USMCA, leading the US to open dispute settlement consultations to address the issue. If a negotiated agreement is not reached, the US could invoke trade sanctions targeting Mexico in response. Failure to reaffirm Mexico’s commitment to the trade agreement could also lead to neglect of economic opportunities stemming from American nearshoring efforts.

The outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election will undoubtedly further impact Mexico’s energy sector, especially as it relates to trade and investment. Sheinbaum’s industrial policy plans and interest in promoting a green economy align with Biden’s focus on the clean energy transition and nearshoring efforts. Conversely, a Trump White House may provide a more hostile and coercive environment for Sheinbaum to operate within.

Outlook

Given the current instability affecting the early stage of Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration, companies and investors need to adapt their current strategy to seize the right set of circumstances for their business. 

Despite the undefined agenda for energy public policies and the ongoing debate between energy transition and oil investment, Sheinbaum will need to prioritise a stable domestic energy supply. Therefore, companies that want to be aligned with the government's agenda should invest in projects focused on new technologies that bolster domestic production or increase resilience.

Foreign companies may have concerns about the continuation of policies aligned with López Obrador’s approach, especially given the limited or even absent participation of private investment in Mexican oil companies in recent years. To mitigate this risk, companies can engage and promote public-private partnerships, which can foster joint ventures. However, joint ventures can present risk in the case of the nationalisation of foreign companies, but this is unlikely to occur under Sheinbaum’s presidency. Investors should focus on sectors that are likely to receive government support, such as technologies that enhance energy independence or generate a constant supply.

It is important to mention that there will be clearer indications if Sheinbaum will prioritise climate commitments or follow the steps of her predecessor in due course. Additionally, the outcome of the US elections is likely to significantly impact the country’s energy policy framework.

Eastern Entente: Houthi Campaign

Following developments in the Houthi campaign, the growing cooperation between China, Russia, and Iran is becoming a major concern for the Red Sea region. This emerging ‘Axis’ increases uncertainty for stakeholders in commodity trade, as the stability of the Suez Canal, Strait of Hormuz, and Gulf of Oman are threatened. Iran’s power projection in the region, characterised by the use of proxy groups in an ‘Axis’ of resistance, has paralysed global trade flows. Although China and Russia's involvement is presented as a means to stabilise the region and foster trade, rising scepticism clouds maritime traffic and worsen future prospects (as quantitatively analysed in a recent article by the Global Commodities Watch). The geopolitical and economic implications are profound and pose risks to all parties involved, raising questions about the motives behind this new ‘Axis’ formation and what it means for the disruptive ‘Axis of Resistance’.

Axis of Resistance - In Retrospect

Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the Tehran regime’s foreign policy has been characterised by its desire to propagate its brand of Shi’a Islam across the Middle East. To this end, it has long developed and fostered relationships with sympathetic proxy groups throughout the region. This has allowed it to project power in locations that might otherwise be beyond its reach while exercising some degree of “plausible deniability." In January 2022, this prompted the former Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, to brand Iran “an octopus” of terror whose tentacles spread across the Middle East. 

The country’s so-called “Axis of Resistance'' has expanded since 1979, its first major franchise being Hezbollah, which was founded in 1982 to counter Israel’s invasion of Lebanon that year. Its most recent recruit has been the Houthis. This group was established in northern Yemen in the 1980s to defend the rights of the country’s Shi’a Zaidi minority. What was initially a politico-religious organisation then evolved into an armed group that fought the government for greater freedoms. It was able to exploit the chaos of the Arab Spring to capture the national capital, Sana’a, in the autumn of 2014, and the group now controls around 80% of Yemen’s population.

Exactly when the Houthis became a part of the “Axis of Resistance” is something of a moot point, but the general consensus among the group’s observers is that it started receiving Iranian military assistance around 2009, with this almost certainly contributing to its capture of the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, in 2014. Since the HAMAS attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, it has rapidly emerged as a key Iranian franchise whose focus has been attacking shipping in the southern Red Sea. At the time of writing, an excess of 40 vessels had been targeted, while repeated US-led strikes against Houthi military infrastructure on the Yemeni coast appeared to have had limited success in degrading the group’s intent or capability. 

March 2024 saw a proliferation in the number and efficacy of attacks, with the first three fatalities reported on the sixth of the month as the Barbados-flagged bulk carrier True Confidence was struck near the coast of Yemen. Around three weeks later, on March 26th, four ships were attacked with six drones or missiles in a single 72-hour period. Separately, on March 17th, what is believed to have been a Houthi cruise missile breached southern Israel’s air defences, coming down somewhere north of Eilat, albeit harmlessly.

Since starting their campaign against mainly international commercial shipping in the waters of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden in November 2023, the Houthis have become one of the mostaggressive Iranian proxy groups in the Middle East. This and their apparently strengthened resolve in the face of US and UK strikes have substantially raised their profile internationally and won them plentifulplauditsfrom their supporters across the region. The perception that they are standing up to the US, Israel, and their Western cohorts has been instrumental in developing their motto“God is great, death to the U.S., death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam” into a mission statement.

Map of Houthi Attacks

Source: BBC

Iran-Houthi Mutualism

In terms of regional geopolitics, the mutual benefits to Iran and the Houthis of their cooperation are far-reaching. For their part, the Iranians can use the Houthis to project power west into the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, pushing back against the influence of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states. Although not part of the Abrahamic Accords of 2020, Riyadh has been showing signs of a willingness to harmonise diplomatic relations with Israel, even since the events following October 7, 2023. This is a complete anathema to Tehran, for which the Palestinian cause is central to its historic antagonism with Tel Aviv. The fact that Saudi Arabia was instrumental in setting up the coalition of nine countries that intervened against the Houthis in Yemen from 2015 onwards only strengthens Tehran’s desire to confront the country’s influence regionally.

A secondary benefit of the Houthis’ Red Sea campaign is that it helps to maintain Tehran’s maritime supply lines to some of its franchise groups further north in Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria. Their importance to Iran’s proxy operations was illustrated in March 2014 when the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) conducted “Operation Discovery,"  intercepting a cargo ship bound for Port Sudan on the Red Sea’s western shores carrying a large number of M-302 long-range rockets. Originating in Syria, they were reckoned to have been destined for HAMAS in Gaza following a circuitous route that included Iran and Iraq and which would have culminated in a land journey from Port Sudan north through Egypt to the Levant. 

Iran began to increase its military presence in the Red Sea in February 2011 and has since established a near-permanent presence there and in the Gulf of Aden, to the south, with both surface vessels and submarines. However, this footprint is relatively weak compared to that of its presence in the Persian Gulf, to the east, and it would be no match for the Western vessels that have been operating against the Houthis in the Red Sea since late 2023. The latter’s campaign in these waters can, therefore, only reinforce Iran’s presence thereabouts.

A lesser-known reason for Iran’s desire to maintain influence around the Red Sea is a small archipelago of four islands strategically located on the eastern approaches to the Gulf of Aden from the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. The largest of the four islands is called Socotra and is considered by some to have been the location of the Garden of Eden. With a surface area of a little over 1,400 square miles, it has, in recent years, found itself more and more embroiled in the struggle for hegemony between Iran and its Sunni opponents in the region. In this sense, it and its neighbours could be seen to have an equivalence to some of the small islands and atolls of the South China Sea that are now finding themselves increasingly on the frontlines of Beijing’s regional expansionism.

While officially Yemeni, Socotra has long enjoyed close ties with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with approximately 30% of the island’s population residing in the latter. Following a series of very damaging extreme weather events in 2015 and 2018, the UAE strengthened its hold on Socotra by providing much-needed aid, with military units arriving entirely unannounced in April 2018. Vocal opposition from the Saudi-allied Yemeni government led to Riyadh deploying its own forces to the island in the same year, but these were forced to withdraw in 2020 when the UAE-allied Southern Transition Council (STC) took full control of the island. Since then, Socotra has been considered to be a de facto UAE protectorate, extending the latter’s own influence south into the Gulf of Aden.

Shortly after came the signing of the Abrahamic Accords, which normalised relations between Israel and several other regional countries, including the UAE. Enhanced cooperation with the UAE gave Tel Aviv a unique opportunity to expand its own influence in the region through military cooperation with its new ally. In the summer of 2022, it was reported that some inhabitants of the small island of Abd al-Kuri, 130 km west of Socotra, had been forced from their homes to make way for what has been described as a joint UAE-Israeli “spy base." For Iran, this means that Israel now has a presence at a strategic point on the strategically vital approaches to the Red Sea from the Indian Ocean.

Perhaps a greater irritant for both the Houthis and Iran is the presence of UAE forces on the small island of Perim. This sits just 3 km from the Yemeni coast in the eastern portion of the Bab al-Mandab Strait, giving it obvious strategic importance. The UAE took the island from Houthi forces in 2015 and started to construct an airbase there almost immediately. Although there is no known Israeli presence there, Perim is now a major thorn in the side of Iran’s own regional ambitions. In the regional tussle for supremacy, this is yet another very pragmatic reason for the Houthi-Iran relationship.

Perim Airbase

Source: The Guardian

Since February 2022, much has been made of the extent to which Ukraine has become a weapons incubator for both sides in the conflict there, not least with regard to innovative drone and AI technology. Given the range of weaponry now apparently at the disposal of the Houthis in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, it may be that that campaign is serving a similar purpose for a Tehran keen to test recent additions to its armoury. Indeed, the Houthis’ use of a range of modern weapons, including drones, Unmanned Underwater Vehicles, and cruise missiles, since November 2023 continues to be reported on a regular basis. 

In return for prosecuting its campaign in the Red Sea, the latter received substantial material military support from Tehran, allowing them to raise their standing even more. The aforementioned attack, which killed three seafarers aboard the True Confidence, was the first effective strike against a ship using an Anti-Ship ballistic Missile (ASBM) in the history of naval warfare. First and foremost, this will have been regarded as a major coup for the Iranian military assets mentoring the Houthis in Yemen. Additionally, it has given the latter’s global standing a further boost since an attack of this magnitude would be more normally associated with the much more sophisticated standing military of a larger country. 

A simplistic analysis of the Houthi-Iranian relationship could stop at this point. However, recent events in the Middle East and further afield show that it is a relatively small coupling in a much larger, global marriage of convenience. A clue to this appeared in media reporting in late January 2024, when The Voice of America reported that Korean Hangul characters had been found on the remains of at least one missile fired by the Houthis. This led to the conclusion that the Yemeni group has received North Korean equipment via Iran.

North Korean missile supposedly used by the Houthis

Source: VOA

Russian Involvement

In late March 2024, Russia and China signed a historic pact with the Houthi in which the nations obtained assurance of safe passage through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden in return for ‘political support’ to the Shia militant group. Despite the assurance, safety for Russian and Chinese vessels is not guaranteed. In late January, explosions from missiles were recorded just one nautical mile from a Russian vessel shipping oil, while on the 23rd of April, four missiles were launched in the proximity of the Chinese-owned oil tanker Huang Lu. Evidently, increased regional tensions incur an extra security risk for Russian tankers, regardless of the will of the Houthis to keep said tankers safe. 

The Kremlin is trying to walk a thin line between provoking and destabilising the West while simultaneously trying to avoid, literally and figuratively, capsizing regional Russian maritime activity. Its seemingly contradictory two-pronged approach aims to secure vital shipping routes while fostering an anti-Western bond with regional actors. Russia is seen upholding its anti-West rhetoric, which serves as a cornerstone for bonding with regional actors and pushing forth Russian economic interests, while silently attempting to facilitate regional de-escalation led by Washington. Despite being a heavy user of their veto power in the UNSC, Russia abstained from voting on Resolution 2722, which demands the Houthis immediately stop attacks on merchant and commercial vessels in the Red Sea. 

On January 11th, Washington put forth UN Resolution 2722 to the UNSC, which sought to justify attacks on Houthi infrastructure as a push-back for the group’s recent activities in the Red Sea. During the voting procedure of the resolution, Russia chose to abstain, even though Moscow often frequents vetoes as a tactic to show support for Kremlin-friendly states in Africa and the Middle East. The resolution subsequently passed, and the US and UK commenced their first strikes on Yemen the following day. These reveal Russia’s interests in securing enough stability to continue shipping its estimated 3 million barrels of oil a day to India, while aligning with overarching geopolitical alignments. 

Russia’s interest in stabilising regional conflicts may lie in the threats to its weapon supply chains. As the war in Ukraine drags on, Tehran’s importance as a weapon supplier increases the Kremlin’s collaboration efforts. Putin continues to foster and protect regional connections by actively protesting Western regional presence, attempting to balance the current crisis with crucial ties to middle-eastern nations.

Trade Route Diversion

Since the onset of the crisis in the strait, Russia has utilised the opportunity to bolster anti-Western and pro-Russian sentiments. For one, Russia has flagged various Russian transport initiatives. On January 29th, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Alexey Overchuk, noted that Russia’s “main focus is on the development of the North-South international transportation corridor,"  which is a 7200-km multi-modal transport network offering an alternative and shorter trade route between Northern Europe and South Asia.

International North-South Trade Corridor

Source: ResearchGate Article by Eram Ashraf

A key part of the trade route involves an imagined rail network spanning from Russia to Iran. Though positioned as a universally beneficial transport option for both Europe and Asia, it seems Moscow and Tehran would benefit the most. The two highly sanctioned states, whose connection has recently deepened due to their shared economic isolation from the global economy, could position themselves as lynchpins of an effective transport network. 

Unlike Tehran, which still has control over the vital Strait of Hormuz choke point, Russia’s political might in terms of energy transport networks is quickly dwindling after the Baltic states’ complete exit from the BRELL energy system and the West’s resolve to decrease energy dependence. The North-South corridor thereby holds value as a catalyst of global energy transport and trade. 

However, this vision is thwarted by financial crises, with workon the railroad from Rasht to Astara in Iran suffering setbacks. Iran does not have the means to pour into the project and has already obtained a 500 million euro loan (about half of the total cost of construction) from Azerbaijan in FDI. In May 2023, it became known that the Kremlin would fund the project themselves by issuing a 1.3 billion euro loan to Tehran, despite Iran’s ballooning debt to Russia. The same month, Marat Khusnullin, Deputy Prime Minister, announced that Russia is expecting to invest approximately $3.5 billion in the North-South corridor by 2030. This is likely a major underestimation of the costs needed to complete the project. 

With Iran’s growing debt and Russia’s war-born financial strain, further trade route developments are sure to be delayed. Seeing as the railroad project between Russia, Azerbaijan, and Iran has been in existence since 2005 with no concrete end in sight, the North-South Corridor, despite Russia’s active marketing campaign in light of the troubles in the Red Sea, is unlikely to become a viable transport option in the near future. 

The Northern Sea Route (NSR), which Putin has similarly promoted since the start of the Houthi attacks, is likely to suffer a similar fate. The NSR’s realisation as a major global route is hindered by the fact that the Arctic Circle’s harsh climate causes the route to be icebound for about half of the year. Furthermore, in light of the recent war in Ukraine, the NSR is off-limits to even being considered a viable transportation route for large swaths of the West due to sanctions against Putin’s regime. 

Russia: Long-Term Strategy

With Russia’s closest regional naval presence being Tartus in Syria, Russia is also interested in establishing naval bases closer to the Red Sea. Russia’s primary interest is to establish a port in Sudan. High-level bilateral negotiations have been actively taking place between Khartoum and Moscow, with an official deal being announced in late 2020. The construction of a naval base would increase Russia’s influence over Africa, facilitating power projection in the Indian Ocean. Nonetheless, the ongoing Sudanese civil war seems to have stalled negotiations. 

The region is of such strategic interest to Russia that Moscow has recently pushed forth another alternative for bolstering its presence in the Red Sea: a naval base in Eritrea. During a state visit to Eritrea in 2023, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underscored the potential that the Massawa port holds. The same year, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the city of Massawa and the Russian Black Sea naval base Sevastopol, in which the two countries pledged to foster closer ties in the future. 

A New Axis
China and Russia have recently struck a deal with the Houthis to ensure ship safety, as reported by a Bloomberg article. Under the agreement, ships from China and Russia are permitted to sail through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal without fear of attack. In return, both countries have agreed to offer some form of “political support” to the Houthis. Although the exact nature of this support remains unclear, one potential manifestation could involve backing the Yemeni militant group in international institutions such as the United Nations Security Council. In January 2024, a resolution condemning attacks carried out by the Houthi rebels off the coast of Yemen was passed, with China and Russia among the four countries that abstained.

Despite instances of misfiring by Chinese ships after the deal, the alignment between these countries has been viewed as the emergence of an “axis of evil 2.0." Coined by former U.S. President George W. Bush at the start of the war on terror in 2002, the term “axis of evil” originally referred to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, which were accused of sponsoring terrorism by U.S. politicians. Indeed, China and Iran have maintained a robust economic and diplomatic relationship. China is a significant buyer of Iranian oil, purchasing around 90 percent of Iran’s oil output, totalling 1.2 million barrels a day since the beginning of 2023, as the U.S. continues to enforce Iranian oil sanctions.

Chinese Dominance of Iranian Crude Oil Exports

Source: Seeking Alpha

However, it may be far-fetched to consider China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as a united force akin to the Communist bloc against the West during the Cold War. After all, there are significant tensions within these relationships. For example, Beijing has not fully aligned with Moscow regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Additionally, there are power imbalances within these relationships, as Iran relies on China far more than China relies on Iran.

Despite the thinness of this idea of an "axis," it remains concerning that these powerful countries (three of which are nuclear-armed) are aligning against the democratic world. Considering the volume of trade passing through the Suez Canal and the impossibility for the U.S. and company’s Operation Prosperity Guardian to protect every ship in the region, the deal struck between China, Russia, and Iran may be a significant factor that could shift the current global economic balance towards the side of the "Eastern Axis.”

Similarly, China’s recent activities against the Philippines in the South China Sea could be viewed as an attempt to undermine the Philippines’ economy, which heavily relies on its seaports. This could force the Philippines to capitulate or incur significant costs for the U.S. should it decide to provide more assistance to further enhance the Philippines’ defence capabilities.

China: Long-Term Strategy

In recent years, China has increased its ties with countries outside the ‘Western sphere’. Apart from being present in the Gulf of Oman and destining a myriad of vessels to secure the region, it has made strides in developing long-term partnerships with Russia and Iran. Chinese collaboration with Russia is advertised as having “no limits,”,  and its 25-Year Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement with Iran further cements its political and economic involvement with both nations. 

The security and economic aspects of China’s long-term plans are the most relevant to commodity trade, as violent conflicts and geopolitical tensions are the prime hindrances to trade flows through the region. Nonetheless, the cooperation of these nations does not bode well with the West and could negatively impact trade regardless of improved security. 

China’s circumvention of the financial sanctions placed on Iran mocks the international community’s concerted effort to dissuade Tehran’s human rights violations, nuclear activities, and involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war. Its “teapot” strategy, which allowed China to purchase90% of total Iranian oil exports, relies on the use of dark fleet tankers and small refineries to avoid detection and evade the financial sanctions placed on Iranian exports.

Increased its bilateral trade flows with Russia also point to increased cooperation, with $88 billion worth of energy commodities being imported by China in 2022, with imports of natural gas increasing by 50% and crude oil by 10%, reaching 80 million metric tonnes. In 2023, bilateral trade reached $240 billion, proving both countries hold cooperation as a pillar of their economic strategy.

Chinese-Iranian Oil Trade

Source: Nikkei Asia

The West has increased efforts to dissuade cooperation with Russia, as seen with the creation of the secondary sanction authority. These sanctions cut off financial institutions that transact with Russia’s military complex from the U.S. financial system and have successfully led three of the largest Chinese banks to cease transactions with sanctioned companies. Despite the success of certain measures and sanctions, cooperation between both states remains, and their involvement in the Middle East will ensure collaborative efforts for the foreseeable future. 

Conclusion

The evident development of collaborative endeavours among the ‘Eastern Axis’ countries is enough to engender strife and uncertainty in trade in the Red Sea. It is becoming increasingly evident that uncertainty will still roam the seas regardless of whether the Houthi conflict is tamed, preventing maritime trade in the Red Sea’s key routes from reaching their potential. The reliance of regional security on both violent attacks and political alignments, such as the involvement of the Eastern Axis in the region, highlights how deeply supply-chain stability is intertwined with geopolitical relations, establishing Iran as a determinant of the Red Sea’s future commodity trade prosperity.

The U.S. LNG Pause: Implications for the Global Fertiliser and Food Markets

Peter Fawley

The U.S. LNG Pause

On January 26, the Biden administration announced a temporary pause on approvals of new liquified natural gas (LNG) export projects. The pause applies to proposed or future projects that have not yet received authorisation from the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) to export LNG to countries that do not have a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States. This is significant as many of the largest importers of U.S. LNG–including members of the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and China–do not have FTAs with the United States. Without the DOE authorisation, an LNG project will not be allowed to export to these countries. The policy will not affect existing export projects or those currently under construction. The Department of Energy has not offered any indication for how long the pause will be in effect.

This pause will have political and economic implications across the globe, and is expected to apply further pressure to the LNG market, fertiliser prices, and agricultural production. The following analysis will first delve into the rationale for the pause, the expected impact it will have on global LNG supplies, and the associated risks this poses for the fertiliser and food markets. It will then examine the impact of this policy change on India’s agricultural sector, given that the country is heavily reliant on LNG imports to manufacture fertilisers for agricultural production. The article will conclude with brief remarks about the pause.

Reasons for the Pause

According to the Biden administration, the current review framework is outdated and does not properly account for the contemporary LNG market. The White House’s announcement cited issues related to the consideration of energy costs and environmental impacts. The pause will allow DOE to update the underlying analysis and review process for LNG export authorisations to ensure that they more adequately account for current considerations and are aligned with the public interest. 

There are also likely political motivations at play, given the upcoming election in the United States. Both climate considerations and domestic energy prices are expected to garner significant attention during the lead up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The Biden administration has been under increasing pressure from environmental activists, the political left, and domestic industry regarding the U.S. LNG industry’s impact on climate goals and domestic energy prices. In fact, over 60 U.S policymakers recently sent a letter to DOE urging its leadership to reexamine how it factors in public interests when authorising new licences for LNG export projects. 

These groups have argued that the stark increase in recent U.S. LNG exports is incompatible with U.S. climate commitments and policy objectives, as the LNG value chain has a sizeable emissions footprint. Moreover, there is a concern about the standard it sets for future policy. An implicit and uncontested acceptance of LNG could signal that the U.S is wholly committed to continued use of fossil fuels as an energy source, leading to more industry investments in fossil fuels at the expense of renewable energy technologies. In an unusual political alliance, large U.S. industrial manufacturers are lobbying alongside environmentalists to curb LNG exports. These consumers, who are dependent on natural gas for their manufacturing processes, worry that additional LNG export projects will raise domestic natural gas prices. Therefore, the pause may then be interpreted as an acknowledgement of these concerns and an attempt to reassure supporters that the Biden administration is committed to furthering its climate goals and securing lower domestic energy prices.

Impact on LNG Supplies

Since the pause only pertains to prospective projects, there will be no impact on current U.S. LNG export capacity. However, the pause may constrain supply and reduce forecasted global output as the new policy indefinitely halts progress on proposed LNG projects that are currently awaiting DOE authorisation. In the long-term, this announcement has the potential to tighten the LNG market, potentially resulting in increased natural gas prices and other commercial ramifications. Because the U.S. is currently the world’s largest LNG exporter, a drop in expected future U.S. supplies may force LNG importers to seek to diversify their supply. Some LNG buyers will likely redirect their attention to other, more certain sources of LNG, such as Qatar or Australia. Additionally, industry may be more keen to invest in projects in countries that have less regulatory ambiguity related to LNG projects.

Risk for the Global Fertiliser and Food Markets

Natural gas is key to the production of nitrogen-based fertilisers, which are the most common fertilisers on the market. With regard to the use of natural gas in fertiliser production, most of it (approximately 80 per cent) is employed as a raw material feedstock, while the remaining amount is used to power the synthesis process. Farmers and industry prefer natural gas as a feedstock as it enables the efficient production of effective fertilisers at the least cost.

The U.S. pause on new LNG projects is an unsettling signal to already fragile natural gas markets given the existence of relatively tight current supplies and a forecasted shortfall in future supply levels. This announcement will exacerbate vulnerabilities and put increased pressure on global supplies, potentially leading to greater volatility and price escalation. Additionally, increased global demand for natural gas will further strain the LNG market. Therefore, global fertiliser prices may increase given that natural gas is an integral input in fertiliser production. Natural gas supply uncertainty stemming from the U.S. announcement may not only impact market prices for fertiliser, but could also increase government subsidies needed to support the agricultural industry to protect farmers from price volatility. Due to the increased subsidy outlay, government expenditure on other publicly-funded programs could plausibly be reduced.

The last time there was a significant shock to the natural gas market, fertiliser shortages and greater food insecurity ensued. Following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, there was a stark increase in natural gas prices, which led to a rise in the cost of fertiliser production. This prompted many firms to curtail output, causing fertiliser prices to soar to multi-year highs. Higher fertiliser costs will theoretically induce farmers to switch from nitrogen-dependent crops (e.g., corn and wheat) to less fertiliser-intensive crops or decrease their overall usage of fertilisers, both of which may jeopardise overall agricultural yield. Given that fertiliser usage and agricultural output are positively correlated, surging fertiliser costs in 2022 translated into higher food prices across the world. While inflationary pressures have subsided in recent time, global food markets remain vulnerable to fertiliser prices and associated supply shocks. This is especially true for countries that are largely dependent on their agricultural industry for both economic output and domestic consumption. Food insecurity and global food supplies may also be further constrained by unrelated impacts on crop yields, such as extreme weather and droughts.

Case Study: India

The future LNG supply shortfall and its impact on fertiliser and food markets may be felt most acutely by India. The country is considered an agrarian economy, as many of its citizens – particularly the rural populations – depend on domestic agricultural production for income and food supplies. Fertiliser use is rampant in India and the country’s agricultural industry relies heavily on nitrogen-based fertilisers for agricultural production. With a steadily rising population and a finite amount of arable land, expanded fertiliser usage will be necessary to increase crop production per acre. As a majority of India’s fertiliser is synthesised from imported LNG, the expected increased demand for fertiliser will necessitate more LNG imports.

LNG imports to India are projected to significantly rise in 2024, with analysts forecasting a year-on-year growth of approximately 10 per cent. Over the long-term, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that overall natural gas imports to India will grow from 3.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2022 to 13.7 Bcf/d in 2050, a 4.9 per cent average annual increase. The agricultural industry is a substantial contributor to this growth. This trend is only expected to continue, as India has announced that it plans to phase out urea (a nitrogenous fertiliser) imports by 2025 in order to further develop its domestic fertiliser industry. To ensure adequate supplies for domestic urea production, India is expected to increase its natural gas demand and associated reliance on LNG imports. A recent agreement between Deepak Fertilisers, a large Indian fertiliser firm, and multinational energy company Equinor exemplifies this. The agreement secures supplies of LNG (0.65 million tons annually) for 15 years, starting in 2026. 

Concluding Remarks

The U.S. pause on new LNG export facilities will have ramifications for the global natural gas market and supply chain. While current export capacity will not be jeopardised, the policy change will delay future projects and may put investment plans into question. The pause will also have implications for downstream markets in which natural gas is an important input, such as the fertiliser market. There are a couple of questions that now loom over the LNG industry: (1) what will be the duration of the pause; and (2) to what extent will the pause affect LNG markets? 

While the U.S. Department of Energy has given no firm timeline for the pause, analysts estimate – based on previous updates – that the DOE review will likely last through at least the end of 2024. The expectation is that the longer the pause remains in effect, the more uncertainty it will create, especially as it relates to private industry investment decisions and confidence in U.S. LNG in the long-term. In addition to the fertiliser and food markets, transportation, electricity generation, chemical, ceramic, textile, and metallurgical industries may all be affected by the pause. One potentially positive consequence is that because LNG is often thought of as a transitional fuel (between coal and renewable energies), a large enough impact on LNG supplies could accelerate the energy transition directly from coal to renewable sources of energy, providing a boost to the clean energy technologies market. However, the pause may also create tensions with trading partners as it could be interpreted as an export control or a discriminatory trade practice, both of which stand in violation of the principles of the multilateral rules-based trading system. This may expose the U.S. to potential challenges and disputes at the World Trade Organization. Although it may be some time before we are provided concrete answers to these questions, the results of the 2024 U.S. presidential election will provide some insight into what LNG policies in the U.S. will look like going forward.

The King’s Gambit: The Opportunities and Risks of Israeli Approval of Gaza’s Offshore Gas Extraction

On 18 June 2023, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, announced that his country had given the green light to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) development of a natural gas field off the coast of the Gaza Strip. Given the strained relations and recurring rounds of violent escalation between Israel and militants in Gaza, such a move is not straightforward and must be explained with reference to the political, economic and security interests of the parties involved.

Israel’s interests

To the outside observer, a concession to the Palestinians by an Israeli government broadly seen as the country’s most right-wing ever may be surprising. Yet it is an enduring fact that Israel’s most bold overtures to its neighbours have been carried out by the right wing. It was Menachem Begin’s Likud government that exchanged the Sinai Peninsula for a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979. Karine Elharrar, Israel’s Energy Minister under Israel’s previous, more centrist government related that she had been approached with the Gaza gas proposition toward the end of 2021 but ruled it out as unfeasible as her government was already under fire from the then-Netanyahu-led opposition for its pursuit of a maritime gas deal with Lebanon. The reason Israeli public opinion considers giveaways by the right more palatable is the impression that they have been vigorously negotiated over and, if made, must be squarely in the national interest. The logic here follows from the Israeli-Lebanese precedent: give your enemy something to lose, and they will think twice before risking all-out conflict.

The Israeli right has long opted for ‘managing’ the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over solving it. A recent, pressing challenge to this strategy has been the gradual disintegration of the PA, the governmental body created by the 1993 Oslo Accords and charged with governing the Palestinian Territories. It lost control of Gaza to Hamas after the latter’s violent takeover of the strip in 2007 and its legitimacy among the West Bank’s population has been undermined by accusations of corruption, mismanagement, and collaboration with Israel. Israel hopes the deal will shore up the PA, an important security partner in preventing and punishing local terrorist attacks, by bringing much-needed funds and restoring its image as a responsible, effective authority.

Nevertheless, Israeli leaders do not harbour any illusions about the fact that some of the revenue generated by the gas sales is bound to end up in the hands of Hamas, a militant group designated by it, the US, the EU, and many others as a terrorist organisation. This is widely seen as the reason for the stalling of the initiative since it was first proposed in 1999. Recently, however, experts have suggested that Israel intended the concession as a quid-pro-quo for Hamas’s acquiescence over its military campaign against the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in May 2023. Such an approach attempts to gain Hamas’s cooperation through a carrot-and-stick strategy.

Gaza’s interests

On Gaza’s side, the foremost imperative is economic. Years of economic blockade by Israel and Egypt, alongside local mismanagement have turned Gaza into what certain human rights organisations have called an ‘open-air prison’. Its 2.3 million inhabitants experience power cuts for up to 12 hours a day, a result of an over-dependence on a small local oil-fuelled power plant and insufficient Israeli electricity. Meanwhile, the Gaza Marine field is thought to hold almost 30 billion cubic metres (1 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas. If tapped, this source would be more than enough to cover the area’s estimated 500-megawatt daily requirement, with the remainder piped into liquefaction units in Egypt and sold on global markets, yielding billions of dollars in revenues.

If such a plan materialises, both the PA and Hamas will seek to claim credit. The PA will attempt to win back its support in Gaza and the West Bank as a government that secured economic development and raised living standards through internationally negotiated agreements. Hamas, for its part, would build on its credentials not only as a force of resistance to Israel but as a provider of economic and social benefits in the strip, potentially facilitating its formal consolidation in the West Bank too.

Risks

Progress on an Egyptian-mediated agreement on gas by Israel and the PA faces three principal risks.

First, and most obviously, the breakout of a new round of violence between Israel and Hamas, possibly, but not necessarily, as part of a broader regional escalation (e.g. involving clashes across the Israeli-Lebanese border) will likely cause Israel to take the deal off the table. Israel’s leadership must convince itself, and its supporters, that it is not arming its enemies.

Second, Israel is counting on Egypt to act as a guarantor and third-party stakeholder in securing Hamas’ continued cooperation and underwriting its good behaviour. Yet while Egypt has proved an indispensable mediator in this regard over the last decade, it is unclear how much sway it holds over the militant organisation in comparison to Iran, its chief ally and financial backer. Given the Israeli-Iranian geopolitical archrivalry, it is not straightforward to assume that Hamas is either willing or able to peacefully coexist with Israel for long.

Third, and finally, the recent political turmoil in Israel as a result of the judicial reforms introduced by Netanyahu’s coalition might complicate his efforts to justify the move to his supporters. If the coalition eventually backs down from the reforms demanded by its hard-line elements and supporter base, the addition of a formal concession to the Palestinians may become even harder to stomach, especially after Netanyahu himself had opposed Israel’s previous deal with Lebanon as a ‘surrender to terror’.

The next step

Full-scale extraction of natural gas from the Gaza Marine field will require the PA to obtain a final agreement designating the status of the field in which Israel will relinquish any remaining claims to the reservoir. Israel’s apparent green light for the project could bolster the economic prospects for the strip, and may succeed in furthering regional stability, as its proponents hope. If successful, the project and its Israeli-Lebanese predecessor of last year may illustrate the opportunities for opposing states of leveraging the relative ambiguity and lesser politicisation of maritime boundaries to reach compromises in spite of intransigent public audiences. Nevertheless, the multiplicity of actors involved, with their limited power and often conflicting interests, means the project is fraught with risks that threaten to turn it into another false start in a troubled political relationship.

Image credit: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSSE)

“Protecting America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act”: Assessing the US Congress’ new idea for depleting Chinese oil markets

On January 12, 2023, the United States House of Representatives passed Bill H.R. 8488, titled the "Protecting America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act." If enacted, the legislation would prevent the Secretary of Energy from exporting the US strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) “to any entity under the ownership, control, or influence of the Chinese Communist Party”.

The bill received approval with 331 favourable votes and is currently awaiting deliberation by the Senate ever since. The Upper House can either reject or approve the bill and if approved, it would proceed to the President for consideration. This spotlight attempts to clarify the potential impacts on China (if any) in case the Act ever becomes law and restricts its access to imported SPR reserves.

The road ahead on Capitol Hill

The Bill had significant bipartisan support in the Lower House to secure a comfortable majority, with all the 218 present Republicans and about half (113) of present Democrats voting “yes”. Analyst Benjamin Salisbury from Height Capital Markets argues that approval in the Senate might not be so smooth as the Upper House is controlled by Democrats, but it’s still feasible under “tough compromises” - and under greater pressure from voters for a stronger stance against China. The greatest obstacle, however, might arise from the President's Office

President Joe Biden has been depleting the SPRs at an unprecedentedly faster pace to manage oil prices driven up by the war in Ukraine. However, some argue that the move is more about political concerns involved in alleviating inflationary pressures on fuel ahead of an election year.  Since the SPRs are only meant to be used in times of great uncertainty and with due restraint - only enough to secure minimal levels of energetic security - critics point out that the President might be compromising the country’s long-term energetic security for short-term political gains. From this point of view, the Executive would hardly sanction a bill that would constrain its influence on oil markets.

But even in a scenario where the Act is approved by both the Legislative and Executive branches, current data suggests that its effects on China’s energy markets are likely to be minimal.

How will China be impacted?
China is the world’s second-largest consumer of crude oil in total volume, and the commodity accounts for roughly 20% of the country’s total energy generation. This figure is roughly comparable to other large emerging economies like India (23%) and Russia (19%). Nevertheless, China represented only one-fifth of the total foreign purchases of SPR released in 2022, while the US itself accounts for only 2% of China’s total crude imports.

Source: S&P Global Commodity Insight

As evident from the chart above, China depends more on oil producers in the Middle East and Eurasia and has concentrated its diplomatic efforts accordingly. It has expanded economic and financial ties with Saudi Arabia, mediated an agreement with Iran, and continues to purchase Russian oil in large quantities. These efforts are likely to provide China with greater resilience against disturbances that may affect energy supplies and limit the US' ability to manipulate oil markets to harm the Chinese economy. Rather than a practical purpose, the act’s eventual approval would likely serve a rhetorical one: Washington is taking a tougher stance against Beijing.

India's Growing Reliance on Russian Oil Imports

Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, India’s reliance on Russian crude oil has increased tenfold. The proportion has risen from as little as 2% of total crude imports in 2021/2022, to 20% in June 2023. Recent estimates suggest that this percentage may reach as high as 30% by the end of the year.

In the wake of the invasion, there has been a largely concerted effort to sanction Russia’s economy and prevent it from further funding their war of aggression. A key component of the sanctions have been directed at Russia’s oil industry, Russia being the world's third largest producer and second largest crude oil exporter.

In December 2022, the EU’s sixth sanctions package came into effect, banning seaborne crude oil and petroleum products from Russia (90% of total oil imports from Russia). This move complimented similar bans enforced in the USA and the UK. Yet an additional component of the combined sanctions effort has been a price cap on Russian crude oil, which set the maximum  price at $60 per barrel of crude. Despite the fact that the G7 countries (USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and the EU) have already agreed to ban or phase out Russian crude imports, the cap has given leverage to uninvolved countries, including India, when negotiating prices with Russia.

The rapid increase in Indian imports from Russia suggests that India has been able to harness Russia’s weakened bargaining position. At the same time this new arrangement has put downward pressure on the oil prices charged India’s former suppliers in OPEC, primarily, Iraq and Saudi Arabia

Source: Reuters

The price differential between Russian and OPEC sourced crude, provides a clear basis in explaining India’s shift. Taking the April 2023 price as a point of comparison, India was able to pay as little as $68 per barrel for Russian imported oil, while oil from Iraq (traditionally India’s largest supplier) was priced at $77 per barrel and oil from Saudi Arabia cost as much as $86 per barrel. During the month of April, the overall OPEC basket price ranged from $79 to $86 per barrel. The price gap between OPEC suppliers and Russia makes a clear case for India’s growing imports from Russia, while the significantly lower price of Russian crude demonstrates the impact of the $60 price cap.

Source: Euronews

The challenges posed by India’s growing taste for Russian oil are twofold. In the first instance, while the price of Russian oil is considerably lower than OPEC in this case, the $68 per barrel price tag is still well over the imposed price cap, revealing the limitations of the price cap regime. In the second instance, India has become a rapidly growing market for Russian oil and as such a prop for the Russian war economy. While EU oil imports declined, figure 2 shows the relative increase of Indian oil imports, partially offsetting the impact of oil sanctions. India’s growing reliance on imported Russian oil has already become a point of contention with Western leaders. With the forecasted increase of India’s Russian oil imports, it is likely to remain so.

Image credit: President of Russia via Wikimedia Commons

African Green Hydrogen Exports: What are the risks?

Following Europe’s recent scramble for Africa’s natural gas resources due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Europe is now increasingly investing in the development of green hydrogen projects on the continent. Given Africa’s significant renewable energy potential, driven by its substantial solar photovoltaic power potential, the continent is well equipped to develop large-scale green hydrogen projects to supply European demand. Whilst there may be significant economic pay-offs for African countries exporting hydrogen to Europe, with an estimated €1 trillion green hydrogen potential, there are also many risks in the development of the nascent industry which may inhibit long-term growth.

Source: International Renewable Energy Agency

European hydrogen plans 

Hydrogen has become a key part of Europe’s decarbonisation plans in its net-zero goals. Despite currently accounting for less than 2% of Europe’s energy consumption, the EU is aiming to ramp up production over the next decade. With the introduction of the REPowerEU plan in May 2022, the European Commission (EC) clearly stated its intention to utilise renewable hydrogen as an important energy carrier in its attempt to reduce its reliance upon Russia's fossil fuel imports. The EU plans to produce 10 million tonnes and import 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen by 2030. 

The EU has planned to secure strategic partnerships with developing African nations such as Namibia and Egypt to ensure that they have a secure supply of renewable hydrogen. The incentives built into the EU regulations, enticing African nations to develop green hydrogen export facilities to Europe, could come at the expense of local populations. The energy poverty of many African nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, has led many to argue that their domestic energy needs should be prioritised over helping the EU deliver its climate strategy. 

The EU and individual European nations have already begun making huge commitments to green hydrogen in Africa, including provisions for exports from the continent to serve Europe’s domestic needs. The recent signing of a $34 billion agreement for a giant green hydrogen project in Mauritania is just one of those developments. Similarly, some European nations are working on hydrogen pipeline projects in Africa to meet their climate targets and to provide more secure energy supplies in future. Such projects include the “SoutH2 Corridor” pipeline project connecting North Africa with Italy, Austria, and Germany. The energy ministries in the respective countries have all signed a joint letter of political support for developing the 3,300-kilometre-long hydrogen pipeline corridor. 

Source: Offshore Energy

Risk to African nations

1. Economic feasibility

Whilst many European nations emphasise Africa’s huge renewable energy to create green hydrogen, there are also significant economic risks that remain in its development. According to a study by the European Investment Bank, International Solar Alliance and the African Union, large-scale green hydrogen generation can enable African nations to supply 25 million tons of green hydrogen to global energy markets, equal to 15% of the current amount of gas used in the EU. The study also reported that green hydrogen is economically viable at €2/kg, due to the abundant availability of solar energy, enabling the possibility of low-carbon economic growth across the continent and reducing emissions by 40%. With more than 52 green hydrogen projects in Africa having been already announced, and production set to reach 7.2 million tonnes by the end of 2035, African nations look set to have massive increases in GDP, whilst also benefitting from the many new permanent and skilled jobs generated across the continent.

However, policymakers must be cautious to fully weigh up the economic feasibility of such projects. Limited transportation infrastructure makes transporting hydrogen which costly and hardly economically competitive. Even maritime shipping, the most cost-effective method for distances over 3,000km, would cost an estimated additional$1 to $2.75/kg. For shorter distances, the cost of pipeline transport could be significantly lower, estimated at$0.18/kg per 1,000km for new hydrogen pipelines and $0.08/kg for retrofitted gas pipelines. Given its economic competitiveness, hydrogen pipelines are the preferred choice of transportation for European nations, with the EU set to provide huge subsidies for a proposed hydrogen pipeline, named the“South Corridor”,  stretching from North Africa to Bavaria. Nevertheless, as the green hydrogen industry is at a very early stage of development, it is very difficult to predict how the market will grow in the long term and accurately predict the economic payoffs of hydrogen pipelines for African nations. The demand for hydrogen could vary from150 to 500 million metric tonnes/year by 2050 due to the level of worldwide climate goals, specific actions taken within various sectors, efforts to enhance energy efficiency, direct electrification, and the adoption of carbon capture technologies. Therefore, if the European market does not develop at the speed and scale expected, African nations investing in green hydrogen will be left with huge debts to be paid for by their populations.

Source: IEA

2. Energy poverty 

The potential development of green hydrogen exports to Europe should also not overshadow Africa’s broader energy landscape. At present, 600 million people, primarily located in sub-Saharan Africa and equivalent to 43% of the total African population, lack access to electricity. Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) consumes approximately 180 kWh of energy per capita, compared to 13,000 kWh per capita in the U.S. and 6,500 kWh in Europe. Renewables also remain in their infancy in Africa, with approximately 180 TWh of renewable power generated in Africa in 2018, equivalent to approximately less than 0.02% of its estimated potential. African nations must be cautious to ensure that they choose the correct trade-off between utilising hydrogen for exports to Europe and their own domestic needs. Should African nations divert their resources toward hydrogen production for exports, some fear that green hydrogen may become another “neo-colonial resource grab” and starve African nations of their resources. 

Therefore, African nations must ensure that all the benefits of green hydrogen exports are not extracted for European gain. The agreements between the EU and African nations such as Egypt, Morocco and Namibia already show worrying signs of resource exploitation. Despite these deals being presented as a win-win scenario, the rules allow hydrogen projects to “cannibalise” the local infrastructure for exports. Namibia is a prime example as it is racing to become Africa’s first green hydrogen exporting hub despite only 56% of its citizens having access to electricity in 2022 and relying upon imports to meet its electricity demand. The Namibian government hopes to develop 10 hydrogen export projects with European nations. However, there are concerns over potential misuse of climate finance, which should focus on aiding local development, rather than export projects.

Outlook

With increasing interest and investment from European nations into green hydrogen projects in Africa, countries on the continent must remain cautious of the huge benefits promised by their European counterparts. Despite the continent's unparalleled potential for producing low-cost green hydrogen in the future, producing green hydrogen at economically competitive prices remains elusive given the high costs of production and transportation. However, should these costs be brought down by increased European investment, African nations may well prioritise meeting their own domestic energy demands and accelerating domestic renewable energy deployment before considering exporting green hydrogen to Europe in large-scale quantities.

North African Energy Market Analysis: Algeria

This report serves as an overview of the risks – mainly political, economic, social – in the Algerian energy market. It will look at natural gas, as well as crude oil and green energy. The report is also part of a broader series of analyses on North African energy markets.

The Nuclear Energy Alliance outlines their vision for the EU’s energy transition path forward

Jael Gless

The “Nuclear Energy Alliance” was initiated earlier this year by France, with the mission to bring together the European countries who see nuclear energy as an important part of managing their energy transition. On the 16th of May, during the third meeting of the fourteen member states, which the UK joined as an observer and the European Commissioner for Energy, Kadri Simson, took part, discussed strategies on building an independent European nuclear supply chain, as well as the needs implied by the revival of the European nuclear industry. At the end of the meeting the Members signed a joint statement, which included the assertion that “Nuclear power may provide up to 150 GW of electricity capacity by 2050 to the European Union (vs roughly 100 GW today)” and called for a European action plan around nuclear power. To reach this set goal, up to “30 to 45 new-build large reactors and small modular reactors” would need to be built, which the Members stress would also “ensure that the current share of 25% electricity production be maintained in the EU for nuclear energy." Currently, nuclear energy generates electricity in fourteen European Union (EU) Member States, and provides 50% of the EU’s low carbon electricity.

France

The meeting was organised on the same day as the French National Assembly’s vote on the country’s nuclear energy acceleration bill, which passed – giving the green light for preparatory work to begin at a power plant site in northern France. This development is part of a bigger movement taking place in France, where nuclear energy is seen as crucial in the energy transition, and thus as worthy of investment. France’s takeover of EDF, which is to be finalised later this month, had been struggling with debt and conflicting shareholder demands, in light of their construction of new reactors, is aligned with that same strategy. 

It remains to be seen if France and the Nuclear Energy Alliance as a whole can push their interests through the considerable block of EU countries that are against including nuclear energy in the EU's green energy transition strategy. If, however, the ambitions of the Nuclear Energy Alliance is adopted by the EU as policy, the difficult task of building robust supply chains to gain the necessary mineral fuels, whilst navigating difficult geopolitical tensions, will remain. 

Supply Chain Risks

Nuclear reactors use uranium for nuclear fuel. The biggest providers of raw uranium are Kazahkstan, Australia and Canada, whilst Russia owns some 40% of total uranium conversion infrastructure in the world, and 46% of the total uranium enrichment capacity. The EU, as of 2021, sources almost 70% of the Uranium needed for their nuclear power plants from Niger, Kazakhstan and Russia, all countries with significant geopolitical risks. 

Origins of uranium delivered to EU utilities in 2021 (tU). Source: Euroatom.

As noted in the Nuclear Energy Alliance’s statement, Europe is aiming to continue reducing its dependency on Russian suppliers whilst trying to strengthen cooperation with like minded international partners. As the chart above shows, in terms of sourcing fuel from international partners, currently only Canada and Australia can be described as like minded partners. Therefore, Europe will likely try to increase the share of uranium imported from those two countries, whilst also finding new partners, like the US. The US is an especially attractive supplier for EU countries, due to its similar stance on current geopolitical issues (Russia, China) as well as being the leading supplier for small modular reactors, in which the Nuclear Energy Alliance wants to invest. Increasing uranium supply from these countries does not necessarily mean completely cutting out Russia, as many utility companies purchase enriched uranium from Russian companies. The disentanglement of Russia from the nuclear fuel sector will be an onerous process for the EU. As a recent London Politica report highlights, many European countries have a long history of dependence on the state-owned enterprise Rosatom. France’s EDF, for example, maintains its very close ties with Rosatom, which includes collaboration at “all levels from the production chain, to the exploitation of uranium and treatment of waste, to the construction of power plants and their operation”. Avoiding dependency on Russian supplies also proves difficult for eastern European countries, considering Russia’s state nuclear company being the only supplier option for soviet-designed nuclear plants.

Niger, the EU’s main source-country for uranium, is contending with its own share of political risks. The exploitation of the country's natural resources has led to local protests and pollution. It is also to be seen if Niger is willing to supply the necessary amount of fuel for France's national ambitions. Historically, Niger has been the main country from which France sourced their fuel, but tensions between the two states have been building. The French nuclear energy company Areva, who’s subsidiary Orano owns the operating licence for the large Imouraren mine, negotiated a deal in 2014 that would improve conditions for Niger through operations at the mine. However, with Imouraren being closed since 2014 and Orano not looking to begin operations until 2024, the benefits negotiated for Niger have not yet and will not be felt soon. One French expert speaking to AFP concluded, “there is a future for Uranium in Niger, but not necessarily with France”.

Kazakhstan, another main source-country for the EU, as well as the main provider of Uranium worldwide, is also in a difficult geo-political situation due to its close ties with the EU, Russia and China as well as internal tensions. Moreover, the country is dealing with falling production levels due to “wellfield development, procurement and supply chain issues” caused by the pandemic as well as the war in Ukraine. Nonetheless, the state-owned Kazatomprom took mitigating measures, which indicated a willingness and dedication to serve its western customers, by transporting the goods through the Caspian Sea.

Ghanaian electricity: the triumph of competitive politics over good governance

On 26th May, Ghana’s government tried to propose a restructuring of the US$1.58 billion of debt owed to various private power producers. The producers have rejected this proposal and threatened to cut off the power supply, which could cause a third power crisis within the last decade. These power crises are part of a larger consistent failure to provide basic electricity to the citizens of Ghana; It exemplifies the failure of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) and the Good Governance Agenda of the 1980s. This article will explore how commercialisation can fail in a culture of competitive politics. 

Electricity has been a front-running issue in Ghanaian politics since its founding President Kwame Nkrumah’s belief that building the Akosombo Dam, the third biggest dam in the world in terms of water capacity,  would bring developmental leaps. The succeeding presidents including President Jerry Rawlings, the first democratically elected President, used the extension of the electric grid to draw votes, making electricity a critical measure of political success and developing a norm that electricity provision is a core responsibility of the government. This has led leaders to intervene frequently in the privatised energy sector to increase electric grid sizes (making it one of the biggest in West Africa). The political structure also allows the president to have a say in the decisions of the supposedly ‘independent’ Public Utilities Regulatory Commission (PURC) since he has the power to appoint board members. Ghana adopted the IMF’s SAP in 1995 when its inflation rates were over 100%. Under the Standard Reform Model, Ghana allowed private management of their electrical facilities.  

Fast forward to August 2012, the anchor of a pirate ship ruptured on the West African Pipeline, inflicting a GDP loss of US$320-924 million. This external element is only the tip of the iceberg. The underlying issue for such a large GDP loss (an estimated 4%) was that the remaining power generation capacity required crude oil, which was more expensive than pipeline gas. This led to high debts within the producing companies; the Volta River Authority (VRA) and the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG). Furthermore, Government subsidies and financial support were insufficient for these companies to continue ordering fuel, despite multiple requests. For example, The VRA requested amelioration for six cargoes of light crude but was only provided with finance for three. As such, the government played a significant role in the elongation of the crisis.  A central problem can be traced back to the inefficiency of Ghana’s large electricity grid. Incumbents often expanded the grid in hopes of demonstrating their continued dedication to providing electricity, but large parts of these grids are unmonitored and suffer from severe reliability issues. This can be traced back to show how competitive politics has compounded the severity of the crisis.. With the 2012 General Elections scheduled for December of the same year,, there was a further electorally motivated intervention to prevent tariff rises, increasing profit and allowing the companies to order more fuel. This resulted in the inability of the VRA to pay the fuel suppliers, thus further elongating the crisis. 

Without sufficient investigation into the underlying issues of the price of fuel and the lack of capital to invest in them, the government signed 43 new contracts for primarily thermal power plants taking the total electricity capacity (assuming sufficient fuel is provided) from 1GW to 5GW.. The then President John Mahama did little due diligence and circumvented officials in the Energy Commission who had predicted energy demand of 3,000 to 4,000MW by 2020. The simplest way to mitigate this oversupply would be for Ghana to become an electricity exporter in the region; however, this did not materialise due to high tariffs, poor infrastructure, and neighbouring countries wanting to be self-reliant after previous experiences of shortage. This overabundance has driven government debt to US$1.4 billion, which is approximately 4% of GDP. Furthermore, these contracts were used to create thermal power plants instead of implementing the planned hydropower plants including Micro-Hydro Western Rivers Scheme and the Juale Dam. Focusing on increasing electricity capacity instead of the fundamental cash flow and reliability issues can be best explained as an electorally driven solution which demonstrates the incumbent’s continued dedication to providing electricity by investing in tangible infrastructure instead of actually solving the electricity crisis in the long run.

These two crises show the failure of the Standard Reform Model in a highly competitive political situation. The market mechanism, commercialisation and separation had no effect in a country where governments continue to intervene to meet short-term political objectives. Since tariff increases meant a loss of power, it was impossible for leaders to divert resources to achieve long-term stability and instead focus on unsustainable practices like low tariffs. 

Today, Ghana is set to default on loans by the IMF and has been in talks with the G20 to restructure its external debts. While the IMF is imposing more stringent conditions on loans, its leaders have also been cosying up to the Chinese to help solve their debt crisis, leading to increasing tensions with the United States. If this gridlock continues, the Ghanaian people would either be buried in further debt or have to face another electricity shortage crisis.

Cover image: “Ghana Akosombo Dam” by Mark Morgan Trinidad A

Commodities in the First Quarter: Inflation, War, and Geopolitics

Goldman Sachs’ 2023 commodity markets outlook had anticipated a substantial return of over 40 per-cent by the end of 2023 for commodities (S&P GSCI TR Index). As the first quarter of 2023 draws to a close, S&P GCSI spot prices closed the quarter at a -2.81 per-cent loss. As was the case in many financial markets, the S&P GCSI saw its biggest decline in the first quarter in the week of Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse – gold being the glaring exception.  Of course, this is by no means indicative of how commodity markets will perform for the remainder of the year. Nevertheless, the impact of the ongoing banking on the inflation-duration investment cycle (elaborated below in Figure 1) for commodities remains to be assessed. This spotlight aims to do precisely that, considering some of the macroeconomic assumptions and models proposed in Goldman Sachs’ 2023 commodity outlook. 

Understanding the Inflation-Duration Investment Cycle

The inflation-duration investment cycle is a tool useful for understanding investment in commodities and commodity market behaviour, relative to inflation and interest rates. It loosely correlates with the Merril Lynch Investment Clock – although it is a bit more specific to commodity markets.

Figure 1 - The Inflation-Duration Investment Cycle. Adapted from Goldman Sachs Commodity Outlook.

When Goldman Sachs published their 2023 Commodity Outlook, they affirmed that at present, the commodity market was still in the first stage of the inflation-duration investment cycle. Crucially, the 2023 Commodity Outlook explains that in addition to the current high-inflation, high-interest rate macroeconomic environment, commodity markets are confined in an underinvestment super cycle such that unless there is a sustained increase in capital expenditure (capex), increasing demand cannot trigger a supply-side response hence creating inflationary pressures in the short-term. The remainder of this spotlight will sum up the overarching macro-level geopolitical supply-side risks impacting three core sectors of the commodities market: agriculture, rare earth minerals, and energy markets. 

Agriculture in Q12023

S&P agriculture indices (GSCI Agriculture, GSCI Livestock, and GSCI Grains) outperformed the S&P GSCI with GSCI Livestock being the best performing index considered in this spotlight, gaining 5.94 per-cent this quarter. Agriculture and Grains lost 0.61 per-cent and 2.57 per-cent, respectively. 

At the macro-level there are two factors that will keep grain prices high, despite losses in value in the first quarter of 2023. These factors are the supply-side issues resulting from the Russo-Ukrainian War, despite the recent extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative, and climate change – which is already having some impact on grain yields. As hypothesised at the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war, grain prices skyrocketed as the two countries contribute to about half of the world’s grain supplies. The wide use of grain in human and animal diet means that the precarity of grain supply will likely underpin most food-related price rises and contribute significantly to the cost of living crisis, globally. For that reason, the extension of the Black Sea Grain Deal on March 18 was of great relief for the global food supply chain. However, despite the extension there are two items still on the snag list: (i) a disagreement between Moscow and Kyiv over how much longer the Grain Deal will run for, and (ii) Russia banning major grain exporter – Cargill – from exporting Russian grain, which has already impacted futures’ prices. 

Short-term risks impacting the supply of agricultural commodities also consist of grain supply, as they are crucial for animal feed. In addition to this, avian influenza outbreak in poultry supplies, which are not limited to just the United Kingdom, are having impact on related goods. Avian influenza outbreaks have been reported in the United Kingdom, United States, the rest of Europe, and there are fears that avian influenza and eventual egg shortages are also felt in South America. Long-term impacts of zoonotic diseases like avian influenza are difficult to quantify. Notwithstanding, after the outbreak of COVID-19 and the ensuing pandemic, there has been formal research dedicated to the matter which would suggest that countries with highly-industrialized, high-density agricultural industries run a higher risk of having disease outbreaks harm crop and livestock supplies. Thus, balancing land use and industrial density with growing populations’ driving up demand will be of importance if governments want to avoid severe shortages of crucial food items. 

Energy Markets in 2023Q1

The three S&P energy indices considered in this spotlight – GCSI Natural Gas, Global Oil, and Global Clean Energy – all lost value quarter in 2023. Natural gas especially took a substantial hit, losing 44.43 per-cent of its value at the end of trading on March 31. Oil lost a little over five per-cent throughout the opening quarter whereas Global Clean Energy’s losses were below the one per-cent mark. 

The stand out commodity here is natural gas (including LNG) and this is in large part because of the “geopolitical struggle between Europe and Russia” which will play a crucial role in dictating natural gas markets for the foreseeable future. As severe sanctions on Russian oil and gas were confirmed by the European Union throughout 2022, the bloc has not yet dealt with the fact that there is still strong demand and necessity for those commodities. Although some effort by means of REPowerEU have laid the groundwork for a shirt to alternative energy supplies, European countries have begun to look elsewhere for natural gas supplies. One such effort has been made by Italy who has looked to further increase imports of Algerian natural gas. 

Another recent trend has been importing Indian-refined petroleum products derived from Russian oil, despite embargoes. This shows that short-term procurement of oil and gas into Europe could well become economically and politically costly until alternative energy supplies are not secured. As the necessity for reliable energy supplies begin to outweigh the political value of sanctions on Russia, European countries may well find themselves having to prioritise one over the other. A pessimistic outlook that may be, but it is already materialising; as France settled its first LNG deal in Yuan with China. As the BRICS countries begin to trade in their own currencies the return of a multi-polar energy market might lead to less market predictability and prolonged period of macro-scarcity.

On the other hand, the political and economic urgency to expedite the green energy transition is indicative of a positive outlook for renewables markets according to the International Energy Agency’s latest industry overview. Indeed, analysis and forecasts from McKinsey share this sentiment as they expect substantial growth in solar and wind energy. Bloomberg shares this sentiment in the hydrogen sector, too. As legislation and regulation gears itself towards carbon-neutrality in the world’s three largest economies – the United States, China, and the EU – there is a genuine legal basis for optimism in renewables markets. A medium to long-term risk to watch out for, however, would be the political and economic competition over the necessary resources – such as copper – for a green transition.  

Rare Earth Metals in 2023Q1

In the opening quarter of the year, the S&P GCSI Core Battery Metals Index – which tracks stocks of rare earth metals (REM) pertinent to battery production – stagnated around the -0.34 per-cent mark. On the other hand the S&P GCSI Precious Metals Index soared 9.14 per-cent, though this was in large part due to investors backing gold and silver as the United States’ regional banking crisis erupted. 

Although the relationship between geopolitical tensions and short-term supply risks of REMs is not yet at the scale of the relationship between geopolitical tensions and the supply of agricultural and energy commodities, there is reason to believe that this will not last very long. Essentially, this is because REMs and precious metals are crucial to the green energy transition and the production of key electronics’ components like semiconductors. REMs are also becoming ever-more important for the production and maintenance of modern-day defence systems. Thus, securing REM supply chains and secondary materials is a paramount task for states and businesses looking to establish a dominant presence at the international level. As of 2020 REM exports originated overwhelmingly from Asia with Myanmar, China, and Japan accounting for over half of all exports. The United States and its European allies, on the other hand, exported just over 10 per-cent of global REM exports. Furthermore, sanctions against Russia and Myanmar have further complicated access to REM imports for Western business and countries. This is exacerbated further by Beijing’s recent efforts to improve relations with Moscow and Naypyidaw – with the latter being crucial for China’s efforts to overcome the ‘Malacca Dilemma’. 

In recognising this weak spot, both the Biden and Trump administrations took swift action to incentivise the reshoring production of crucial electronics, starting with the National Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies as a direct countermeasure to China’s efforts to increase its own electronics production. This was followed up with the CHIPS and Science Act and formal export controls, limiting semiconductors produced with American technology and inputs to China.  In the meantime, the United States has sought to diversify its REM supplies from Africa, where China has a considerable geopolitical presence. What the impact the ongoing China-United States rivalry over REM supplies and semiconductor development will have on prices in the short-term remains to be seen, but the medium-to-long-term protectionism and antagonism between Beijing and Washington will likely lead to REMs enjoying substantial price increases considering their growing demand. 

Summary: Outlook for 2023 and Beyond

The first quarter of 2023 carried forward many of 2022’s geopolitical dynamics and risks into global commodity markets. There have also been supply shocks, like avian influenza outbreaks and severe climate events, which have harmed the supply of crucial commodities that have further exacerbated the impacts of geopolitics on market activity. 

This is particularly visible in agriculture markets where the uncertainty on how long the Black Sea Grain Initiative extension will last is a key risk to secure grain supplies globally. If Russia’s demands for a reduction of sanctions can be made credible by its recent rapprochement with China, then an extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative beyond the current deadline will likely result from a reduction in Western sanctions. Conversely, if the West can find ways to cope with inflation and diversifying energy supplies, then Moscow might be forced to formally accept a longer extension. The outlook on the matter remains speculative, but the consequences of a no-extension scenario could spell disaster for global food supplies within the next quarter.

Although energy and REM markets are also mired by geopolitical power struggles and risks, the potential for a drastic spillover into commodity markets and the wider economy in the short-term is, at this stage, quite limited. Although, as REMs become more intertwined and necessary for future energy markets this outlook will likely change post-2023. This is because in the absence of short-term flashpoints, the increasing pursuance of protectionist and antagonising trade policies between Beijing and Washington will very likely undo much of the economic globalisation that occurred pre-COVID. 

Hence, it is not likely that global commodity markets will break the macro-scarcity phase of the Inflation-Duration Investment Cycle in 2023 – and potentially prolong the under investment in commodities into 2024 and beyond. However, there is still a lot of 2023 to go and there is a lot of time for pressing issues to unfold and provide a clearer picture for commodity markets. Although, the current direction of the international regulatory and political environment does not offer much optimism for the long-term, with regards to increasing capex or securing crucial supply chains.

Cover photo credits to: Black Sea Grain Initiative FAQ | United Nations in Namibia

India’s Lithium Rush: Supply Chains, Clean Energy, and Countering China

The discovery of vast lithium deposits in the Indian territory of Jammu and Kashmir is being hailed as a win for the country’s clean energy transition. With the government already promoting domestic EV manufacturing, this could prove to be one of the missing pieces for the puzzle of an Indian EV supply chain.

Background

With rising demand for portable electronics and a push for a low-carbon future, lithium has become one of the most important minerals. Given its application in lithium-ion batteries, it is vital for powering everything from electric vehicles and portable electronics to stationary energy storage systems.

In particular, Lithium-ion battery demand from EVs is set to rise sharply, from the current 269 gigawatt-hours in 2021 to 2.6 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year by 2030 and 4.5 TWh by 2035. According to BloombergNEF’s (BNEF) Economic Transition Scenario (ETS) – which assumes no additional policy measures – global sales of zero-emission cars will rise from 4% of the global market in 2020 to 70% by 2040. Consequently, the global supply chain for lithium has become increasingly important.

EV battery supply chain. Image credit: International Energy Agency

The lithium supply chain is complex, involving multiple stages and players, and is subject to geopolitical and economic factors. Most of the world’s lithium deposits are in the ‘Lithium Triangle’ of the world in South America – Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia. Of these three, however, only Chile Ranks amongst the list of the world’s top lithium producers, headed by Australia. Apart from production, China dominates both the refining and battery manufacturing in the EV battery value chain.

Source: Statista

India: The New Potential Partner of the World

Given the global geopolitical environment, singular dependence on China for a vital resource such as lithium has far-reaching strategic implications. Naturally, democratic nations across the world are prioritizing the reconfiguration of their supply chains for critical manufacturing inputs. Combining its demographic dividend, educated and sufficient workforce, and entrepreneurial spirit– India is rising as a potential and reliable partner. The European Union’s ‘China + 1’ strategy, the EU-India Trade and Technology council, the United States’ recent Initiative for Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET), and Australia’s Economic Cooperation Trade Agreement with India – testify to the merit that the liberal-democratic world order sees in a partnership with India.

In the given friend-shoring environment that India enjoys, the recent discovery of 5.9 million tons of lithium in the country is monumental. India’s automobile sector itself is transforming. According to NITI Aayog, by 2030, 80% of two and three-wheelers, 40% of buses, and 30 to 70% of cars in India will be EVs. The newly found lithium can help the nation meet rising demand, both domestically and globally. India’s government has already been pushing for electric mobility and domestic EV manufacturing. The 2023-24 Union Budget, allocated INR 35,000 crore for crucial capital investments aimed at achieving energy transition, including efforts for electrification of at least 30% of the country's vehicle fleet by 2030 and net-zero targets by 2070. For EV manufacturers, the government has launched initiatives such as the Faster Adoption of Manufacturing of Electric Vehicles Scheme – II (FAME – II), allocating approximately $631 million towards subsidizing and promoting the adoption of clean energy vehicles.

Indian Lithium deposits: Risks and Challenges

The recent discovery in the Reasi district of the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir solves one of the major challenges to a localized li-ion battery supply chain in the country– access to lithium deposits. However, there are more challenges ahead.

Firstly, the Reasi district is just 100 kilometres from the Rajouri district, a geopolitically sensitive area. Although today these areas are well-connected to India with proper infrastructure, including airports and highways, the Line of Control between India and Pakistan is less than 100 kilometres from Rajouri and around 200 kilometres from Reasi. The region’s proximity to Azad Jammu and Kashmir also makes it vulnerable to militant activities. Greater infrastructural development in the region, including a robust logistics network will have to be developed to ensure an uninterrupted indigenous supply chain (given that other stages of the supply chain are also established domestically).

Secondly, although the Geological Survey of India (GSI) has the capacity to discover and locate lithium deposits, the remainder of the value chain to produce commercial-grade lithium indigenously is not in place. Similar to Australia, Canada, and China, the identified lithium reserves in India are in hard rock formations. In order to extract the resource, mining capabilities will first have to be established in the region. It is still unclear whether these reserves will be managed by state authorities or undertaken by the central government, given the strategic importance of the resource. Furthermore, whether the mines be auctioned, like India’scoal mines, or entrusted to a public sector enterprise, is not yet known.

Timely and major investment in developing refining, processing, and purification technologies will be required. India will have to build a large-scale capacity for transforming extracted material into high-purity lithium in order to take full advantage of this discovery. While the opportunity is considerable, so are the costs. India’s government will need to devise a clear strategy that effectively helps both the country’s energy transition and domestic manufacturing ambitions.

Image credit: Nitin Kirloskar via Flickr

Analysing the Volatility of Coal Prices: Why they Spike in Fall

Coal prices have a tendency to peak in the fall. A variety of factors contribute to this phenomenon. Understanding the underlying causes of this can help inform policy decisions and investment strategies related to coal. 

A major factor that affects coal prices is the seasonal demand for energy. As the weather gets colder in the fall, there is an increase in demand for heating which in turn leads to an increase in demand for coal as a fuel source. The increase in demand drives up the price of coal. For example, in the United States, coal consumption for electricity generation tends to increase during winter months as the demand for heating increases. Historical data shows coal prices tend to increase in the months of October and November, as the weather gets colder.

Another factor that contributes to the higher coal prices in autumn is the timing of industrial production. Many industries, such as steel and aluminium sectors, have a seasonal cycle where production increases in the fall. Higher production levels lead to an increase in demand for coal, which drives up prices. For example, in China, a major consumer of coal, steel production typically increases in the fall as demand for construction materials increases. This increased demand for coal can be seen in the historical data, with coal prices tending to increase in the months of September and October, when industrial production increases.

Additionally, supply-side factors also play a role in the peak in coal prices in the fall. For example, in some regions, fall is the time when mines are closed for maintenance and this reduces the supply of coal. This then contributes to higher prices. Furthermore, natural disasters such as floods and typhoons can disrupt coal mining operations, leading to a temporary shortage, again driving prices higher. Among the most important, and also potentially the most overlooked is the nature of monsoon rains in India, and their subsequent effects on the supply of coal. India is second largest producer and consumer of coal in the world after China, with production being 778 million tonnes and consumption being 1052 million tonnes; with it seeming to increase for the short term (till 2030) peaking at about 1192-1325 million tonnes. Coal is a critical fuel source for the country's power plants, factories, and households, accounting for over half the country’s energy needs. The monsoon season typically occurs between June and September and often has major impacts on coal production and transportation. For instance, the Piparwar Area in 2019, which is known for its overwhelming share of coal mining in the country, was hit by severe flooding causing a halt in production, leading to supply crunches. In areas where mines are located near rivers, the monsoon rains can cause flash floods that then completely inundate the mines, making it impossible to extract coal. In addition, the heavy rainfall can cause landslides and washouts along transportation routes, making it difficult to transport coal from mines to power plants, ports, and other destinations.

In conclusion, the peak in coal prices in the fall is the result of a combination of factors such as seasonal demand, industrial production cycles, and supply-side constraints. By analysing historical trajectories, one can assess the impact each of these factors have had to drive the fall peak in coal prices over time. This knowledge can help inform policy decisions, investment strategies related to coal and can also be used to predict future price trends. 

REPowerEU, Piano Mattei, and the Political Economy of the Mediterranean

From the Phoenicians to the First French Republic, two shores of the Mediterranean have been the cradle for many important ancient civilizations, including the Carthaginians and Ancient Egyptians. Although in modern times the post-war political alignments and government institutions look very different, the evidence of a rich common history can be seen all over Southern Europe and North Africa in the forms of enclaves, architecture, and shared cultural and linguistic norms. Following Giorgia Meloni’s state visits to Algeria and Libya, this spotlight considers how Italy’s Piano Mattei (Mattei plan) can be an opportunity for the rest of the European Union (EU) to successfully implement the REPowerEU energy plan and potentially rekindle trans-Mediterranean trade and cooperation, beyond natural gas and energy markets.

Immigration, Energy Markets, and Fratelli d’Italia: What is Piano Mattei?

In simple terms, Piano Mattei represents Italy’s de facto foreign policy in the Mediterranean under Giorgia Meloni’s tenure as President of the Chamber of Deputies (the official title of the head of the Italian government). The origins of Mattei can be found in Fratelli d’Italia’s (FdI) manifesto for the 2022 Italian general election, which stresses FdI’s belief that Italy must once again become a leader in energy markets. Piano Mattei takes its name from Enrico Mattei – founder of Italy’s state-owned hydrocarbons agency: Ente nazionale idrocarburi (Eni). During his time in the Chamber of Deputies, and later as Chairman of Eni,  Mattei realised that if Italy wanted to include natural gas in its energy mix then Italy needed to cooperate with key exporters. Indeed, Mattei oversaw the signing of various bilateral agreements with many newly-independent states in the MENA region to import natural gas to Italy. Mattei’s work with Eni was also crucial to the construction of the Transmed pipeline, which channels Algerian natural gas to Sicily via Tunisia. The plans for the Transmed pipeline also included the Maghreb-Europe pipeline, which exported Algerian gas to the Iberian Peninsula until last October, when Algiers elected to not renew its export contracts with Morocco over increasing tensions over the Western Sahara conflict. This effectively ceased the flow of  natural gas from Algeria to Iberia. 

Giorgia Meloni formally introduced Piano Mattei last December, during the eighth iteration of the Dialoghi Mediterranei di Roma – a forum on Mediterranean politics hosted by Italy’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation alongside the Instituto per gli studi di politica internazionale (ISPI), a prominent Italian thinktank. In Meloni’s own words, Piano Mattei is a “virtuous collaboration leading to the growth of the European Union and African nations” guided by the principles of “interdependence, resilience, and cooperation”. Naturally, the namesake “Mattei” suggests that Meloni’s stance is primarily to secure energy supplies for Italy and totally eliminate the dependence on Russian natural gas. On the one hand, however, Meloni’s foreign policy in the Mediterranean also aims to build upon the European Commission’s trade ambitions with the ‘Southern Neighbourhood’: “The long-term objective of the trade partnership between the EU and its Southern Neighbourhood is to promote economic integration in the Euro-Mediterranean area, removing barriers to trade and investment” and the EU’s wider energy policy goals. On the other hand, Associazione Amici dei Bambini – an Italian children’s rights NGO – raises the concern that Meloni’s ambiguous and rhetorical references to immigration in her keynote speech at the Dialoghi Mediterranei di Roma, suggest that perhaps Meloni’s ambitions are centred on delivering campaign promises regarding trans-Mediterranean migration flows. Indeed, Meloni’s lexical and rhetorical ambiguity is often the cause for concern for some analysts (including the author of this spotlight). Whether Meloni intends to use Mattei to further her immigration policies is difficult to ascertain at this stage, and is beyond the scope of this spotlight.

Regardless of how one may interpret the scope or intentions of Mattei, one thing is certain – it can be an opportunity for all of the Mediterranean countries. For Italy (and to a large extent, Meloni) it would be a first step in re-establishing itself as a regional economic powerhouse and help move away from decades’ long economic stagnation. For Algeria and other North African countries, the prospect of increased cooperation and interdependence with the EU is an incentive for investment, potentially beyond natural gas and energy markets. In the two weeks after Meloni’s visit to Algiers on January 24 2023, Eni’s (Euronext Milan) share price increased 4.58 per-cent from €14.18 to €14.83. Year-to-date growth is around the 8 per-cent mark, at time of writing.

Limits for the European Commission and Meloni’s Government

Although a more collaborative and economically interdependent Mediterranean could have the potential to benefit states on either side, Giorgia Meloni and the European Commission need to learn from the past if they are to derive short-term economic benefit as well as long-term regional cohesion. What is meant here by “learning from the past” is that ‘switching’ who is supplying the EU with gas from Russia to Algeria, for example, does not account for the weakness in Europe’s energy strategy before the Russo-Ukrainian War. That is, relying on a weakly-integrated trade partner for a crucial commodity. 

The REPowerEU plan outlines the EU’s energy policy following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Although the medium to long-term impetus is to increase the role of renewables within the bloc’s energy mix, the short-term imperative includes securing hydrocarbons from non-Russian suppliers. These two foreign policy goals are not necessarily ad diem, and in the context of the Mediterranean, actually involve compromising successful economic interdependence between the EU and its ‘Southern Neighbourhood’.

To contextualise; on January 19 2023 Resolution 2023/2506 was adopted by the European Parliament, calling upon the Kingdom of Morocco to “release all political prisoners'', including the release of Nasser Zefzafi, and to “end of the surveillance of journalists, including via NSO’s Pegasus spyware, and to implement legislation” which protects journalists. Further, increasing collaboration with Algeria (who, as above mentioned, is having its own political standoff with Morocco over Western Sahara) suggests that the short and medium-term ambitions of REPowerEU and Piano Mattei are at odds with the European Parliament’s adoption of Resolution 2023/2506. This is problematic for securing natural gas supplies to Iberia and the westernmost corners of the bloc, but potentially for regional stability in general. If the EU cannot strike the right balance between appeasing Algerian requests and reprimanding Morocco for its treatment of journalists, the prospect of tensions between the two North African states cooling off is not particularly positive. This indirectly impacts the operations of the Maghreb-Europe pipeline, and so on. Indeed, on January 23 2023 the Moroccan parliament “voted unanimously” to reconsider its ties with the European Parliament. 

That said, Morocco-European relations are not exactly at an all time low – in terms of trade and commerce, at least. Trade between the EU and Morocco has increased significantly in the period between 2011 and 2021, and the North African state is the bloc’s 19th largest trading partner. Morocco is also among the top African trading partners for Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Therefore, there is still space for Morocco-Europe relations to improve within the broader scope of REPowerEU, the European Commission’s ‘Southern Neighbourhood’, and of course, Giorgia Meloni’s Piano Mattei.

Summary: Implications for the Political Economy of the Mediterranean

As the EU gravitates towards North Africa to ‘de-Russify’ its natural gas imports what diplomats and politicians should keep in mind two things: (i) the current tension between Algeria and Morocco, and (ii) diversifying gas imports is not (in the short-term) compatible with holding Morocco politically accountable for its mistreatment of journalists. It is an unlaudable conclusion, of course. But certain international relations theory – namely liberal institutionalism – would defend this claim as the theory emphasises understanding “the role that common goals play in the international system and the ability of international organisations to get states to cooperate,” as opposed to focussing strictly on power relations between states. 

In the case of Mattei as a part of the EU’s ‘Southern Neighbourhood’ strategy, turning to the Mediterranean region means understanding the political tensions of North Africa in order to ensure the best outcomes for REPowerEU and Mattei, as well as avoiding antagonising the Kingdom of Morocco – even if the normative reasons for doing so are justified. Within the EU, the success of Piano Mattei in increasing Algerian gas supplies to Italy and the rest of the Transmed pipeline (which terminates in Slovenia) is intricately linked with REPowerEU’s short-term goals. Thus, as Arturo Varvelli elaborates in his commentary on the issue, Brussels and Rome ought to conduct themselves in a cooperative manner to ensure the success of Mattei and REPowerEU alike. If not, Meloni’s well-documented Euroscepticism could well be weaponised and used against Brussels, which would be a counterproductive outcome for Italy and the EU’s political legitimacy.

On these premises, then, the EU’s ‘Southern Neighbourhood’ strategy should also encompass the goals of REPowerEU to, first of all, secure alternative gas supplies, but also to cosy up to Rome and using the increased demand for non-Russian natural gas to quell Algiers-Rabat tensions. Equally, in pursuing the energy goals of Piano Mattei Giorgia Meloni should also consider using Italy’s diplomatic power to help find a solution that might reopen the Maghreb-Europe pipeline if she desires to obtain a reputation for closing deals and power brokering at the European level. 

Outlook

• Italian-North African gas exploration and trade deals may face significant challenges in the shape of Europe’s green energy transition.

• Meloni will most likely be able to secure the ‘de-Russification’ of Italy’s natural gas supply, but whether this will hamper Rome’s green energy transition remains to be seen.

• Forecasts would suggest that LNG futures prices will not fluctuate sufficiently to dampen the value of natural gas trade between Italy and its partners, Algeria and Libya, in North Africa.

• Whether Meloni aims to cooperate with, or conspire against, the EU’s short and long-term energy policies remains to be seen.

• At the present moment it is very unlikely that Algeria-Morocco relations will improve to the point of reopening gas flows to Iberia via the Maghreb-Europe pipeline. How the situation between both states remains a critical point for the energy policies of Italy and the EU at large.

Image Credits: ROSI Office Systems Inc.

Critical Raw Materials - The Geopolitical risk of supply chain dependencies

The Covid-19 pandemic coupled with the war in Ukraine have led to major structural changes and shifts in the global economy, leading to debates about the possible end of globalisation. These major changes in geoeconomics have shaken the international liberal order, enhancing pre existing challenges such as dependencies with strategic rivals for critical raw materials and rare earth elements. This article highlights the geopolitical risks of supply chain dependencies for rare earth elements in three steps. It will investigate which elements and materials are considered to be strategic and why. It will then analyse the interdependencies between extraction and mining countries, with a specific focus on China. It will conclude with a reflection on the main risks and trade-offs of these geopolitical supply chain dependencies. 

Critical Raw Materials (CRMs), Rare Earth elements (REEs) – a group of seventeen metallic elements – and critical minerals – non-fuel mineral or mineral material –  are considered crucial for strategic industries, such as technologies used in the digitisation process, the energy transition and the defence industry. They are used in the construction of wind turbines and solar panels, advanced electronics, batteries for electric storage, cars, the development of technologies and components of fighter jets. Geopolitical shifts, such as the acceleration in the digitisation process, the energy transition, coupled with the war in Ukraine may cause supply shortages or additional vulnerabilities to supply chains. These shifts pose challenges such as finding alternative suppliers and alleviating dangerous dependencies.

To better understand the importance of these supply chains, it is worth investigating two examples of strategic sectors that require critical raw materials: the energy sector and the defence industry. 

The energy transition 

Climate change is at the top of the agenda for several international organisations and countries around the world. The dangers we face due to increasing temperatures and the consequences of this phenomenon for the environment, human beings, and the cascade social, political and economic effects, has increased the urgency for alternatives. Population growth over the past decades has led to the increase in the demand for energy and consequently to the rise of oil, natural gas and electricity prices, together with a further depletion of natural resources and raw materials. Higher energy prices, exacerbated even more by the current war in Ukraine and the politicisation of natural resources by Russia, urges new alternatives such as renewables and an acceleration in the transition towards the so-called green sources of energy. However, in order to produce renewables such as wind turbines, solar panels, or electric batteries for cars, CRM’s such as lithium, cobalt, tungsten, nickel or platinum are needed. These critical raw materials are scarce in supply, unevenly distributed, expensive to extract, and paradoxically even toxic for the environment. Moreover, in most cases the majority of these sources are located in countries whose political situation may be defined as unstable, characterised by autocratic governments or both: 50% of the world’s supply of cobalt, for example, is located in the Democratic Republic of Congo and 40% of manganese in South Africa. China, moreover, will be analysed deeper in the subsequent section and is by far the country that controls most of the world’s extraction and processing capacities for raw materials. 

Defence Industry 

In the defence industry there are multiple critical raw and rare earth materials used in the production of satellites communications, aeronautics, military surveillance systems and fighter jets’ components, such as lithium for batteries. Due to their significant roles for national security, they are listed among the 50 critical and strategic materials and minerals for the United States. As for the energy transition, the risk for the defence industry lies in the dependency of the supply chain from countries that are either unstable or strategic rivals: countries that because of their domestic political and social situations may increase the market volatility, soar prices, or simply use their leverage for supply cut-offs or hybrid attacks on domestic production lines. Niger, for example, is an important exporter of uranium, however, its domestic and neighbouring unstable political context makes it an unreliable partner. A disruption in the supply chain of a critical raw or mineral material may, indeed, undermine the production, reparation or modernisation of military equipment, as it already happened with the interruption of F-35 fighter jets deliveries due to cobalt sourcing problems. Fighter jets, like the F-35, require around 417 kg of rare earth materials for critical components such as electrical power systems and magnets. F-35s deliveries were suspended as the company’s producer, Lockheed Martin, realised the magnet used in the Honeywell-made turbomachine — an engine component that provides power to its engine-mounted generator — was made with cobalt and samarium alloy coming from China.

China

Critical rare earth, minerals and raw materials are unevenly distributed, which makes powers such as the United States and Europe obliged to rely on foreign and overseas countries — China, Australia, Canada, Russia, Africa or Central Asia. Yet, there is one country above all others, that has the most power and control over extraction, processing, export and with an almost monopoly of the refining process of CRM (90%), this is China. One of the biggest Chinese rare earth extraction, mining and refining companies, for example, is the China Northern Rare Earth Group High-Tech Co Ltd (Northern Rare Earth), whose headquarter is in Inner Mongolia Baotou, and is specialised in rare oxide and magnetic materials. The almost Chinese monopoly over the refining capacities of rare earth materials is of crucial strategic importance. The bottleneck on rare earths is, in fact, the concentration and purity of natural deposits and the need to refine mined minerals with energy-intensive processes. A recent study by Benchmark Mineral Intelligence shows, indeed, how China’s power and control over the production of lithium ion batteries for electric vehicles, for example, relies for 80% just on the refining process (Figure 1).  

Figure 1: “Where does China’s dominance lie in the lithium ion battery to EV supply chain?”

Source: Benchmark Mineral Intelligence

In 2010 a European Commission sponsored study group identified 41 critical raw materials, of which 14 were considered of high supply risk and high economic importance, among which there were antimony, beryllium, cobalt, fluorspar, gallium, germanium, graphite, indium, magnesium, niobium, Platinum Group Metals (PGMs), Rare Earth Elements (REs), tantalum, and tungsten. 

To assess the concentration in commodity markets the index used is the one developed by the economists O. C. Herfindahl and Albert O. Hirschman. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is defined as the sum of the squares of the fraction of market share controlled by the 50 largest entities producing a particular product. The maximum value of this index is unity, and the US department of Justice established that between 0.15 and 0.25 the concentration is considered as moderate; above 0.25 it is, instead, highly concentrated. China’s global market position with regards to these critical materials is of particular importance as it produces more than 12 of the 41 critical materials identified by the European Commission, 9 of which of high supply risk. 

China’s rise in market share of critical materials’ global production has sharply increased in the past few decades, leading the country to acquire a dominant strategic position. This outcome is the result  of three main factors: the country’s large resource base; the Chinese government's long-term emphasis on strategic raw materials, rare earth, minerals and magnets for the “Made in China 2025” strategy; and finally, China’s ability to produce raw materials at a lower cost. China is the largest battery producer: dominating battery material separation and processing, component manufacturing, and controlling the downstream end of mineral processing and rare earth magnets, all critical elements necessary for the energy transition. This is a part of the global strategy adopted by China and best exemplified in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): gaining control of material production outside of China, imposing production quotas or restrictions to exports, leading to higher prices and volatility. To further consolidate its dominant role and power in the CRM’s domain, China has, moreover, recently established the China Rare Earth Group Co. Ltd: merging three state-owned rare earths entities. This megafirm, based in South China, accounts for around 62% of the country’s heavy rare earths supplies and it will enable the country to increase its competitiveness and pricing power, triggering dangerous consequences for the world supply chain.  

The geopolitical risk of this dependency is twofold. On one hand, there is the confrontational nature of China, who as a power, could potentially restrict exports during a dispute or simply due to domestic production needs, thus causing a spike in prices. On the other hand, the risk is determined by the deep interdependence between Western powers and China for scarce, rare and critical materials. Indeed, between 2017 and 2020 the USA has imported around 76% of rare elements from China (Figure 1), whereas Europe 98%. 

Figure 2: Major import sources of nonfuel mineral commodities for which the United States was greater than 50% net import reliant in 2021

Source: US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Mineral Commodities Summary 2022

Furthermore, a report presented by the Government Accountability Office in 2010 shed light on the dominant role of China at all levels of the supply chain for Rare Earth Elements (REE). China produces 95% of raw materials, 97% of oxides, and 90% of metal alloys, and holds 37% of REE world reserves. From a military perspective, the high concentration of raw materials production by a strategic rival is incredibly threatening in case of a military confrontation due to the potential disruption to weapons systems production. 

Risks and trade-offs

It is noticeable from the previous analysis how the concentration of CRM’s supply in the hands of just one global actor immediately increases the risks of interdependence. Countries with large market shares in the supply of one critical material can distort its production, increase market vulnerability and the volatility of prices, causing strategic disruptions. 

Two possible solutions could limit the supply chain risks for critical raw materials and rare earth resources: on one hand finding new suppliers, on the other increasing controls of market shares. The first one is diversification: many resource-rich countries have been neglected in the recent multinational Minerals Security Partnership in June 2022 agreement, such as Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Indonesia, the Philippines, Brazil, Cuba, Papua New Guinea, Madagascar and Mozambique could all be candidates for critical mineral production. However, despite trying to diversify and finding possible alternative suppliers, some rare earth materials are scarce and finite in nature. The second alternative, therefore, may be to increase partnerships and international cooperation, rather than isolationism, through multinational systems and controls over excessive market shares of a single commodity by one country. The United States, for example, has already released joint statements and signed agreements with multiple countries on critical material supply chains, security of dual-use technology, and mutual supply of defence goods and services. In this direction goes also the recent establishment of a transatlantic supply chain for rare earth metals spanning from Canada to Norway and Sweden. The mining will be performed in Canada’s Northwest territory, by the company Vital Metals, the only one in North America not selling to China. The long-term and strategic goal, therefore, is to avoid China or any dependence on it for the supply chain.

In conclusion, there is a double trade-off for policymakers. On one hand, the pervasiveness of Chinese presence and control of so many critical raw materials, rare earth, mineral and magnet sources, makes it difficult to tackle a politically strategic and rising rival power, while depending on it for critical supply chains. On the other hand, but also interconnected, the trade-off is between China and climate change. The energy transition, necessary to defeat climate change, requires technology and CRM that comes from China’s production. Therefore, is it possible for Western countries, such as the United States and the European Union, to counter the Chinese rise while having such risky supply chain dependencies? 

Risks of the German gas plans

This comprehensive mini-report from the Global Commodities Watch identifies the risks involved with German preparations and plans to curtail Russian gas supplies.

Indonesia and the possibility of Russian oil

In an interview given to the Financial Times in September 2022 Indonesian President Joko  Widodo, said his country needs to look at “all of the options” as it contemplates buying cheap Russian oil to deal with rising energy costs. This extraordinary measure would be the first time in six years that Indonesia imports any oil from Russia. As it concerns south-east Asia’s largest economy, the potential ramifications are significant. 

Why is Indonesia’s government considering this?

Amidst the global inflationary environment, the Indonesian government recently cut its fuel subsidy by 30%, therefore increasing consumer fuel prices by a large margin. The higher price of oil since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine means the Indonesian government has spent ever greater amounts for the benefit of consumers. In order to control this swelling subsidy budget Widodo took the unpopular decision to decrease government support for fuel, leading to a series of demonstrations and protests. 

With conflicting aims of limiting the increase in budget expenditure on the one hand whilst responding to public opinion for lower prices at the pump on the other hand, it is no small wonder the Indonesian government is considering buying cheaper oil. Jokowi says “there is a duty for [the] government to find various sources to meet the energy needs of the people”. Moscow offering discounted oil at 30% lower than the international market rate has therefore become an attractive solution. 

Russia is left with no choice but to sell cheaper oil due to western sanctions, a situation which will worsen if and when the much-rumoured G7 price cap on oil is implemented. From December 5th onwards the EU and the UK will impose a price cap on Russian oil shipped by tankers or else prohibit their transport. This move is already giving India and other significant importers of Russian oil leverage in negotiating oil price discounts, an advantage Indonesia would benefit from.

Are there alternatives?

Yet alternative options do exist. In particular the sale of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) could fill the hole left in the Indonesian government’s energy budget. Partially privatising the government oil group Pertamina is being mulled, with the firm’s geothermal branch expecting its IPO before the end of the year. With its $606 billion SOE sector equivalent to half the country’s gross domestic product, the fiscal incentives for such actions are strong. 

The government is also attempting to upgrade ageing refineries, in particular through a controversial partnership with Russian state energy company Rosneft. One of the projects, the Tubang Oil Refinery and Petrochemical Complex, is expected to cost $24 billion and will increase Indonesia’s crude refining capacity by 300,000 barrels a day. In the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, continued dealing with Russian SOEs poses its own complications in navigating western sanctions.

Risks and Outlook

The foremost risk with purchasing Russian oil comes from American warnings of sanctions for those involved in buying Russian oil using western services. With 80 per cent of global trade denominated in US Dollars, this could be difficult to avoid. The mere threat of such sanctions would affect the appetite of international investors, crucially regarding Indonesian government bonds. In the context of monetary tightening, this is a strong deterrent. 

Yet the Indonesian government might follow the Indian model. Russia has recently become India’s largest supplier of oil, as India cashes in on the considerable price discounts offered. Yellen, the American treasury secretary, indicated that the US would allow purchases to continue as India negotiates even steeper discounts due to the western price cap. Monitoring the Indian case could prove fruitful as a bellwether for economic success and international reactions. However, the Indian government is less dependent on international investors' bond buying to fund its budget deficit meaning Indonesia’s risk exposure towards this is of greater importance

The Indonesian government will carefully study these options. Partially listing SOEs or increasing domestic refined supply may not make up the government’s budgetary hole without large-scale changes to the local economy. In the short term, Indonesia handing over its G20 presidency and shortly assuming the ASEAN one may factor into its decision.

In the long term, this temptation of Russian oil will remain. There are clear economic benefits to this by solving the conflicting aims of limiting budget expenditure while keeping consumer prices low. Furthermore, the United States’ tacit green light on buying Russian oil towards similarly developing countries minimises the chances of international reprimands.

This is reinforced by arguments often used against European countries to not buy Russian oil or gas holding little relevance in Indonesia. Notions of ‘supporting Putin’s war’ are of little geopolitical relevance to Indonesia if grain flows from Ukraine stay constant.

The likelihood that Indonesia will begin buying Russian oil is low. The scale of risks involved, particularly regarding sanctions, will dissuade the Indonesian government. The spate of interviews given in September from Indonesia's energy minister and President were likely moves to test the waters among investors and the international community. This decision is of course subject to rapid change given Indonesia’s unpredictable regulatory environment where policies can change on a dime. 

The dilemma faced by Indonesia means that south-east Asia’s largest economy is firmly in the camp of countries calling for a rapid resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The East African Crude Oil Pipeline controversy

“Insufferable, shallow, egocentric, and wrong” is what Ugandan president Museveni called an EU condemnation of the country’s newest and biggest oil pipeline project, EACOP (The East African Crude Oil Pipeline). The pipeline, which will be developed in congruence with other oil projects in the country, has been an increasing source of controversy over the past months. While supposedly delivering economic benefits, the oil projects also stand in stark contrast with commitments to decrease carbon output. To complicate the matter even further, they also are a source of environmental and human rights concern.

The oil politics involved with EACOP and Ugandan oil do not only reflect the consideration between economic development and green agendas. To a large extent, protest groups have also made it significantly harder for the country to access the capital needed to develop the projects. Their approach, targeting the financial sector, potentially could make it harder to develop other fossil fuel projects in the future. As such EACOP has become a complex question of oil politics involving states, companies, financial institutions and civil society.

Uganda oil development

EACOP will connect the Kingfisher and Tilenga oil fields near Lake Albert (Western Uganda) to the port of Tanga in Tanzania. The reserves in these fields account for 6.5 billion barrels. Once finished, the project will be the longest heated crude oil pipeline in the world, spanning more than 1,400 kilometers, and able to carry 246,000 barrels per day. Due to the waxy properties of the Lake Albert oil, the pipeline needs to be heated to ensure a smooth flow. 

Although EACOP Ltd claimed that pipeline construction will cost $4 billion, other sources state it will cost $5 billion. The combined cost of developing EACOP, Kingfisher Field, and Tilenga Field will amount to $10 billion. The shareholders will finance $4 billion and aim to finance the other $6 billion through a 60-40 debt to equity split, with the remaining 60% being funded through loans of financial backers. 

TotalEnergies owns a majority stake of 62% in the projects, whereas both countries’ state-owned oil companies, UNOC (Uganda National Oil Company) and TPDC (Tanzania Petroleum Development Cooperation), hold a 15% stake each and CNOOC (China National Offshore Oil Corporation) an 8% stake. CNOOC will operate the Kingfisher field, which will produce 40,000 barrels per day, and Total will operate the Tilenga field, which will produce 190,000 barrels per day. In addition to the pipeline project and development of oil fields, a refinery will be built, which has a right of first call to 60,000 barrels per day. 

The potential

The Ugandan government has framed the project as one of economic development.  Uganda is projected to earn $1.5-3.5 billion per year, which is similar to 30-75% of its annual tax revenue, and Tanzania is projected to earn almost $1 billion per year. The projects should create approximately 10,000 jobs in both countries and bring $1.7 billion worth of work during its construction phase. Aside from that, cheap reliable power often plays a key role in lifting people out of poverty, which is what oil potentially may do for Uganda. 

By becoming an oil-exporting country, it would also turn Uganda into a relevant regional player. As Tanzania is not an oil-producing country it offers the potential to form import-export partnerships with Uganda. There also is a hope that the pipeline-project eventually will reach beyond Tanzania and provide oil to the DRC and South Sudan. According to President Museveni, “it could serve the entire region long-term”. 

The controversy

On the other hand, protestors and environmentalists point to the multiple risks that are involved with the projects. The biggest concern is carbon output. The Ugandan government, actually, argues that national oil production may lead to lower emissions, since the country’s current imports need to be trucked in from Kenya, creating high emissions. Similarly, Total claims it is one of the company’s lowest emitting projects. Nevertheless, campaign group STOP EACOP states the project will create 34 megatons  carbon emission per year, when you take into account the downstream as well. That is twice the current size of Uganda’s and Tanzania’s emissions combined. 

Another concern is the displacement of communities and wildlife. On the humanitarian side, supposed human rights abuse, delayed or insufficient compensation, displacement, increased prices and loss of land are all involved with the project. On the environmental side, 2000 square km of protected wildlife habitats will suffer from the construction of the pipeline and roads. Water sources and wetlands are also at increased risk of oil spillage.

To a certain extent the economic development argument is also being debunked. It is argued that the projected returns are incorrect, since they don’t take into account several factors. First of all, it is claimed that only ⅓ of the reserves are commercially viable. Furthermore, demand markets are undergoing a transition from fossil fuels to renewables. As such, Uganda and Tanzania may not find good returns on their investments. Even if the project were to generate decent returns, campaign groups argue that it will not benefit society, but mostly the country’s elite and that it potentially will worsen corruption. 

Condemnation and campaigns

Due to the aforementioned reasons, the EU Parliament passed a resolution that condemned the construction of the pipeline. This in turn led to outrage among the East African countries that pointed to hypocrisy and double standards. According to them, Africa has a right to use and export their natural endowments as Western countries have done for hundreds of years. 

Yet the EU wasn’t the only actor disapproving of the project. Major financial institutions have committed not to finance the project, due to campaigns from opposition groups. These groups aim to chip the 60% of funds that the project requires, which comes from major financial institutions. By tracking the banks that are mostly likely to finance the projects, they were able to pitch the risks, create pressure and ask them to make commitments. This approach has led to commitments from banks such as JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Barclays and Crédit Suisse. Certainly it does not make finance impossible, but rather harder and more expensive. 

Risks and outlook

So far not a single metre of the pipeline has been built. That is not to say the project is on hold. The Kingfisher oil rig is in place and the Tilenga rig is on the move, marking the starting phase of project development. 

On the one hand, the oil projects have a  huge potential for economic development and if successful, it will improve Uganda’s standing in the region. On the other hand, there are significant downsides, such as displacement, environmental impact, and carbon emissions. The EU statement and commitment from financial institutions certainly places the project into bad light and makes it harder to secure funding. However, it will not be impossible and the gap left might be filled by Chinese and African banks, which in European eyes might be something to consider.