Norwegian Deep Sea Mining: A New Frontier
This report on Deep Sea Mining in Norway gives a synthetic and up to date insight into the specifics of the Norwegian project in the broader context of Deep Sea Mining as a viable future strategy to meet growing mineral needs. Its overall purpose is to serve as a case study for this innovative form of resource extraction, as humanity stretches the boundaries into the world’s periphery.
Jointly written betwen the Global Commodities Watch and Geopolitics on the Periphery Desk, read the full report by clicking on the button below:
Dire Straits: China’s energy import insecurities and the ‘Malacca dilemma’
In 2003, then President of China Hu Jintao named China’s energy imports passing through south-east Asia as the “Malacca dilemma”. The dilemma refers specifically to the Strait of Malacca, 1,100 kilometres in length and at its narrowest point only 2.8 kilometres wide, which has been a persistent source of vulnerability for the Chinese economy. Located between Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, this strait is a transit point for around 40 per cent of global maritime trade and, perhaps more consequentially, 80 per cent of China’s energy imports. As the main shipping channel between the Indian and Pacific oceans, this connects the largest oil and gas producers in the Middle East with their largest markets in east Asia and is a strategic chokepoint for the 16 million barrels of oil that pass through daily. The Strait of Malacca is therefore critical to China’s energy production and wider economy, yet is not under Chinese control. What makes this shipping route a particular insecurity for Beijing, and what is being done to mitigate against it?
Major risks
China’s reliance on imported hydrocarbons for energy production, mostly on oil, is at the root of this insecurity. To fuel continued industrial development, energy consumption will increase rapidly alongside a widening gap between domestic energy supply and demand- in 2017, China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest importer of crude oil. Around 70 per cent of the country’s oil requirements come from imports, with analysts estimating this dependency will increase to 80 per cent by 2030. China is thus vulnerable to external shocks, whether in the price of oil or in its supply. That the vast majority of this oil supply passes through the Strait of Malacca chokepoint adds to Chinese evaluations of a precarious overreliance.
Geographically, the strait’s narrow span is a particular threat. With strong regional security actors in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore added to the projection capabilities of India or the US, the risk for China is that a country or group of countries could easily control the strait and its flows. The Indian navy is notably building its presence in the area with its base in the Great Nicobar Islands, largely in response to China’s maritime Belt and Road Initiative projects. Additionally, Singapore is a major US ally that frequently participates in joint naval drills and is located at the eastern mouth of the strait. There is a strong possibility that states other than China can control the strait and greatly hurt the Chinese economy if desired, due to its high imported oil dependence.
South-east Asia is also particularly prone to piracy. A total of 134 separate piracy incidents were identified in the Strait of Malacca in 2015, with oil tankers among those targeted. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore have been able to curb this issue to a large extent, but ships will still face insurance premiums on piracy when passing through the strait. Whilst this remains a background issue when compared to China’s oil import dependency and the strait’s potential for blockades, there is an ever-present risk of losing assets to piracy.
If access to the Strait of Malacca was hindered by piracy or indeed by other states, the economic impacts would be colossal. Beyond short-to-medium-term adjustments in the Chinese economy, a shifting of supply to using longer routes through the alternative Lombok or Makassar straits would add an estimated $84 to $250 billion per year to shipping costs. Rerouting one of the most important shipping lanes would gridlock global shipping capacity and, highly likely, increase energy costs worldwide. The economic upheaval as a result of the 2021 Suez canal blockage illustrates this strongly, yet would pale in comparison to a blockage of the Strait of Malacca.
Forecasting scenarios
The above risk factors thus place China in a precarious position regarding the strait. Whilst states blockading an open seas shipping lane may seem fanciful at the moment, China’s ‘Malacca dilemma’ could become a reality very quickly, especially when considering a change in Taiwan’s status quo. Taiwan is geographically far from the strait but if tensions were to increase over its status, the Strait of Malacca could see a greater security presence in response. Tangibly the US security guarantee to Taiwan means in the event that Taiwan was invaded, or even blockaded as a precursor to invasion, the US could impose an analogous blockade in the Strait of Malacca. China’s vulnerability regarding this strait leaves it open to some proportional responses should it grow more assertive in regional security. The prospect of greater American or US-allied control over the Strait of Malacca is likely in a hypothetical wartime scenario.
On allies, the wider Indo-Pacific region is seeing greater security cooperation as a reaction to increasing Chinese presence. The recent AUKUS military alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the US entrenches American security interests in the region and provides new capabilities for Australia. The Quad grouping between Australia, the US, India, and Japan does not yet have a concrete security element, but could rapidly become an important player in the Strait of Malacca if the threat perception from China changes. Overall the expectation is for these budding Indo-Pacific alliances to gain a stronger strategic focus on the Strait of Malacca and the oil passing through it, critical to China’s economy.
Supply chain mitigation
Beijing is attempting to decrease its vulnerability to the risks and scenarios identified above. Above all other strategies, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a part of the Belt and Road Initiative, seeks to mitigate against the ‘Malacca dilemma’. CPEC is an opportunity for China to have an access point to the Indian Ocean through the construction of a new pipeline from western China to the new port of Gwadar in Pakistan. The overall infrastructure investment is valued at $62 billion, with the Gwadar port expected to be fully operational between 2025 to 2030. However, CPEC faces various problems. The difficult topography of the Himalayas means high transit costs for the pipeline, far beyond that of shipping through the Strait of Malacca. Passing through unstable regions adds to the logistical difficulties, with terrorist activity reported in regions the CPEC passes.
The recent China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) can be evaluated in a similar manner. The Kyaukpyu Port developed by the Chinese government will send 420,000 barrels of oil a day via the Myanmar-Yunnan pipeline. This nevertheless pales in comparison to the 6.5 million China-bound barrels per day that pass through the Strait of Malacca. In addition, Myanmar’s military coup and the future possibility of high-intensity civil war puts CMEC in peril. Chinese investments have been damaged, with serious doubts about CMEC’s security evidenced by fighting along the infrastructure route.
It is therefore clear that while China is developing alternatives to the Strait of Malacca, these remain woefully inadequate and there is no single replacement for the importance of the strait. Because of their respective political instabilities, ensuring that CPEC and CMEC are successful can only be one part of a solution. Diversifying away from crude oil shipping is another, and land-based pipelines will continue to be developed with central Asian countries and Russia. Of course, avoiding foreign control of the Strait of Malacca is preferable, but China is beginning to hedge on other sources for its imported oil.
In summary, it seems likely that China will continue to heavily depend on the Strait of Malacca to meet its energy needs. The strait remains a vulnerability, especially in the regional context of increasing security competition with other states. Various mitigating measures are being taken to lessen the impact of any change to this strategic chokepoint, but no cure-all solution exists. The geographic production centres and transit lanes for oil are one of the most significant issues for China and its economy and are sure to command the attention of all parties involved.
Image credit: dronepicr via Flickr
Adding palm-oil to the fire: Malaysia’s proposed ban of palm oil exports to the EU
On 9 January 2023, both Malaysia and Indonesia’s heads of government agreed to work together to “fight discrimination against palm oil”, in a reference to new European Union anti-deforestation legislation. Tangibly, the Malaysian plantation and commodities minister is threatening a wholesale ban on palm oil exports to the EU. Given that Malaysia and Indonesia combine for more than 80 per cent of the world’s palm oil supply and the EU is their third-largest market, the potential ramifications for any such moves would be significant.
How has an issue over palm oil trade reached such a point? For years, Malaysia and Indonesia have railed against EU import barriers on their palm oil, which they characterise as protectionist in favour of the EU’s domestic vegetable oil sector. The EU’s new law, which is expected to be implemented late 2024, obligates “companies to ensure that a series of products sold in the EU do not come from deforested land anywhere in the world” and is aimed at reducing the EU’s impact on biodiversity loss and global climate change. Whilst no country or commodity is explicitly banned, the new regulation covers palm oil and a number of its derivatives. Currently, both Malaysia and Indonesia have separate lawsuits at the World Trade Organization (WTO) pending over the EU’s palm oil trade restrictions.
Implications
To date, only Malaysia has explicitly threatened to ban palm oil exports to the EU. Were this issue to escalate and Malaysia to impose the suggested ban, it would have several consequences. First and foremost, Malaysia’s palm oil industry and wider economy would be hit; the industry makes up 5 per cent of Malaysian GDP, of which a non-negligeable 9.4 per cent of its exports are bought by the EU. Additionally, an abrupt ban is likely to harm producers who have contracts to sell in the EU. Alternative export destinations could be found, especially in food-importing markets such as the Middle East and North Africa, but these producers would struggle to pivot in the short-term and likely see financial losses. Even greater disruptions would be experienced by the few Malaysian palm oil companies that have established refineries in Europe, necessitating a reorientation in their supply chains. Yet the outlook is not entirely negative; palm oil’s lower cost as compared to its substitutes such as soybean oil or sunflower oil will sustain global demand. Overall the Malaysian export ban to the EU would cause a limited scope of economic damage in the short-term, and would see gradually less impact as time progresses and firms adjust.
The potential implications for the EU are equally significant. Firstly, if Malaysia were to enact an export ban soon, this would likely be in unison with Indonesia as the larger producer. A unilateral Malaysian palm oil export ban to the EU, with new regulations permitting, would simply lead EU imports to shift to Indonesia along with profits - hence Malaysia is seeking bilateral action. A joint ban on exporting to the EU would cut the EU off from around 70 per cent of its palm oil, meaning significant interruptions in processed food or biofuel production. New import regulations, however, will help the EU’s domestic vegetable oil sector, which is something that Malaysia asserts. Especially in biofuel production, oils such as soy, canola, and rapeseed would fill the palm oil gap and increase their respective market shares. This issue is further complicated by the EU and Indonesia seeking an elusive free-trade agreement, with negotiations routinely stalled by the EU’s palm oil regulations. This could be in the EU’s favour as free-trade negotiations would break Indonesian-Malaysian solidarity on the issue.
Ironically, the EU’s new regulation could also result in greater amounts of deforestation, instead of less. As the EU reduces its palm oil imports through stricter environmental regulations, Malaysian and Indonesian exports would shift even more to the two larger importers in India and China, with less stringent environmental regulations. The EU’s citizens may not be as directly responsible for deforestation, but worldwide deforestation may in fact increase as a result of this policy.
Market forecast
The immediate reaction from markets was nonplussed. Traders don’t see the threat of an export ban from Malaysia holding. This is reflected in palm oil futures contracts (FCPO: Bursa Malaysia Derivatives Exchange, the benchmark for palm oil), where prices remained stable since the EU’s law was proposed and Malaysia’s threat issued. This means the ban is currently not taken seriously, with Malaysian threats interpreted as a knee-jerk reaction. In any case, firms are anticipating decreased demand from the EU and have been exploring new markets to offset potential European losses. If this Malaysian export ban to the EU were to happen, this would nonetheless pale in comparison to the supply shocks experienced in 2022. A brief ban on all Indonesian palm oil exports globally in April 2022, amidst fears of food shortages and high domestic prices, resulted in record-high global prices. This is a level we are unlikely to see again, as stability returns.
On the supply-side the Malaysian Palm Oil Council expects production to recover in 2023 with estimates of a 3-5 per cent increase, after three years of decline amidst labour shortages linked to COVID-19. This is likely to have a greater impact on global markets instead of a ban or the threat of one, and both Malaysia and Indonesia’s output will continue to climb in the years to come.
Forecasting the demand side is more uncertain. Short-term projections suggest lower demand due to China’s surge of COVID-19 infections post-Lunar New Year, but this is more symptomatic of the wider Chinese economic reopening which will, on balance, stimulate demand. In the medium-term, the threat of recession facing the global economy will hurt palm oil demand, with a mild recession expected in the first half of 2023 followed by a gentle recovery. A longer-term positive outlook is observed in relation to biodiesel’s potential. Amidst high crude oil prices, the further development of biodiesel utilising palm oil would incite new demand.
Looking ahead, projections are uncertain given factors such as the Malaysian migrant worker shortage, the Chinese economy reopening, and potential global recession. This is in addition to Malaysia and Indonesia’s unpredictable regulatory environment, where any policy is subject to rapid change. Palm oil exports to the EU are likely to remain a point of contention between the two south-east Asian countries and their European counterparts. Because palm oil forms a significant part of Malaysia and Indonesia’s economies, their respective governments will continue to intervene.
As the two largest producers in this market potential cooperation between Malaysia and Indonesia over an EU export ban must be monitored- acting together would result in greater consequences for EU imports and worldwide prices. While the Malaysian threat to ban exports to the EU may be an empty one, decreased EU palm oil imports will be observed as it shifts towards more sustainable consumption. Combating climate change is the EU’s underlying aim, but this will necessitate a change in trade patterns.
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.