US contends with foreign policy restraints

Spanish Market: Crude oil, Natural gas
11/03/24

Foreign policy issues rarely headline US presidential elections, but the rest of the planet has a vested interest in the decision of US voters in November whether to re-elect President Joe Biden or to return his predecessor Donald Trump to office.

Ideological differences between the two candidates are obvious and, at least in the case of Biden, the policy positions are clear enough to outline a possible course on global affairs in 2025-29. Trump's possible actions in the same period are harder to pin down — his promise to make America as great as he says it was during his presidency is characteristically inexact, and there are many competing proposals expressed by his former and would-be foreign policy advisers.

But there are challenges that will confound either Biden or Trump, especially on issues in which the differences between the two presidencies were more stylistic than substantive, such as Iran sanctions and confrontation with China. Foreign policy decisions made by Trump have constrained Biden's room for manoeuvre in the Middle East and other regions. Biden's legacy — support for Ukraine, Indo-Pacific alliances and "friend-shoring" — may likewise prove hard to undo without causing direct harm to US interests. Both have encountered limits to US power during their term in office, despite the country's overwhelming military and financial edge. And any occupant of the White House would have to contend with a world that has evolved in many complex ways in the past decade.

The Middle East is one area where both presidents have tried and failed to dial down US presence. Biden's administration continued its predecessor's course of advancing the normalisation of Israel's relations with Mideast Gulf states, only to find itself thrust into a position of advocating a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict in the wake of the military operation in Gaza. Tehran has shrugged off both Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign and Biden's bid for renewing the Iran nuclear deal, by finding ways to bypass US sanctions under the auspices of China, the buyer of last resort for Iranian and other sanctioned crude.

No exit

Trump's unilateral exit from the JCPOA nuclear deal has proven consequential for the wider Middle East. With no deal to constrain its nuclear programme, Tehran's theoretical capacity to produce nuclear weapons is matched by demonstrated ballistic ability to deliver large payloads across the entire region. "I expect that Iran's nuclear programme is going to thrust itself back into the headlines" soon, says Johns Hopkins University professor Adam Szubin, a former top US sanctions enforcer. An informal US-Iran deal to delay Tehran's progress on the nuclear front is being tested daily in the wake of the Gaza conflict, as the US and Iran-backed militants in Syria, Iraq and Yemen are exchanging fire.

The one big change since the Trump presidency is a detente between Tehran and its erstwhile Mideast Gulf rivals. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi encouraged Trump to confront Iran in 2017-18. They are now urging Biden to tread carefully in Yemen as the US tries to curb the Houthi threat to Red Sea shipping. Trump's transactional approach to foreign policy may have initially appealed to the Gulf Arab powers, but the US turned out to be an unreliable partner — Trump did not intervene after an Iranian attack in September 2019 on Saudi state-run Aramco's key Abqaiq oil hub.

Saudi Arabia is now pushing for more formal security guarantees from the US — a prospect that seems possible to accomplish under Biden, even if tied to broader Middle East issues such as regional economic integration and addressing the Palestinian dilemma. The Biden administration's approach to managing global oil markets has turned out to be more nimble than its predecessor's, with the additional benefit of divorcing relations with Opec from the US-Saudi geopolitical agenda. Trump, once in office, could undo all that, but there is no alternative that would satisfy Riyadh's current security and economic priorities.

The Biden administration's current thinking on Iran remains reliant on de-escalation of tensions, including by addressing Gaza and other Middle East conflicts. Former Trump administration officials are arguing for a more muscular approach to Iran, and for putting more economic pressure on China to stop importing Iranian crude. Trump himself shows little willingness to confront Iran militarily. But the prospect of greater economic pressure against Iran and China is one issue in which Trump and his advisers seem to have ideas in common.

The great helmsmen

US-China relations are stable following a recent summit between Biden and Chinese president Xi Jinping, but "it's a brief upside in a relationship that is in a controlled, steady downward decline", research firm Amundi Investment Institute's head of geopolitics, Anna Rosenberg, says. The Biden administration has ruled out a complete decoupling of the US and Chinese economies, but it is imposing trade restrictions in the semi-conductor, renewable energy and electric vehicle sectors.

Biden's policy of fragmenting global markets to secure the supply of critical minerals and processing technology for renewable energy continues efforts that started under Trump, even though the current White House looks at that through the decarbonisation lens. A second Trump administration "will probably be much more broad-based in terms of trade restrictions", Rosenberg says.

Evasion of Iran sanctions already demonstrates the limits of the US' economic pressure toolkit. Chinese importers' ability to avoid reliance on US dollars leaves Washington little choice — retaliating with sanctions against major Chinese banks and companies would affect the US and global economy as well.

The same dynamic is likely to play out in a hypothetical scenario of responding to China's more assertive posture against Taiwan, whether by military or economic means, Szubin says. "The US response is not going to be Russia-style sanctions that go after the central bank, that cut off the largest banks from the US dollar," he says. Even in the case of Russia, the financial constraint effect of western sanctions turned out to be less than expected. "If China was able to build and promote the alternative, non-dollar-based financial system, then financial sanctions against China probably would not be as powerful or effective," US Council on Foreign Relations fellow Zoe Liu says.

Biden and Trump's greatest differences are perhaps on the value of US alliances and Ukraine, and the possibility of Trump's return to office has already galvanised European countries to devote greater resources to defence spending. "If a [potential] US president doesn't want to defend its allies, that's all it takes — that threat in itself is big enough to cause a change in action," Rosenberg says. A notional deal to end fighting in Ukraine within a day of taking office may or may not be a serious pledge by Trump, but it assumes that Ukraine and its EU allies will play along and that Russian president Vladimir Putin is willing to negotiate.

The US disengagement from the Middle East has led to regional powers patching up relations and looking for new alliances in recent years. Erratic actions on the wider global stage likewise would prompt US allies to look for alternatives. A Trump-imposed compromise in Ukraine could lead to similar deals by erstwhile US allies, such as finding accommodation with China on energy transition technologies. It may be a feeble guarantee against drastic steps by Washington, but partners will be hoping it is harder to unwind the individual elements of a US alliance combining security, energy and finance.

By Haik Gugarats

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

23/12/24

Viewpoint: US tax fight next year crucial for 45Z

New York, 23 December (Argus) — A Republican-controlled Congress will decide the fate next year of a federal incentive for low-carbon fuels, setting the stage for a lobbying battle that could make or break existing investment plans. The 45Z tax credit, which offers greater subsidies to fuels that produce fewer emissions, is poised to kick off in January. Biofuel output has boomed during President Joe Biden's term, driven in large part by west coast refiners retrofitting facilities to process lower-carbon fats and oils into renewable diesel. The 45Z tax credit, created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), was designed to extend that growth. But Republicans will soon control Washington. President-elect Donald Trump has dismissed the IRA as the "Green New Scam", and Republicans on Capitol Hill, who had no role in passing Biden's signature climate legislation, are keen to cut climate spending to offset the steep cost of extending tax cuts from Trump's first term. Biofuels support is a less likely target for repeal than other climate policies, energy lobbyists say. But Republicans have already requested input on 45Z, signaling openness to changes. Republicans plan to use the reconciliation process, which enables them to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, to extend tax breaks that are scheduled to expire in 2025. "I want to place our industry in a place to make sure that the biofuels tax credit is part of reconciliation," said Kailee Tkacz Buller, president of the National Oilseed Processors Association. But lawmakers "could punt the biofuels discussion if stakeholders aren't aligned." A decade ago, biofuel policy was a simple tug-of-war between the oil and agriculture industries. Now many refiners formerly critical of the Renewable Fuel Standard produce ethanol and advanced biofuels themselves. And the increasingly diverse biofuels industry could complicate efforts to present a united front to Congress. Farm groups worry about carbon intensity scoring hurting crop demand and have lobbied to curtail record-high feedstock imports, to the chagrin of some biorefineries. Those producers are no monolith either: Biodiesel plants often rely more on local vegetable oils, while ethanol producers insist on keeping incentives that do not discriminate by fuel type and some oil majors would back subsidizing fuels co-processed with petroleum. Add airlines into the picture, which want greater incentives for aviation fuels, and marketers frustrated by 45Z shifting subsidies away from blenders — and the threat of fractious negotiations next year becomes clear. There are options for potential compromise, according to an Argus analysis of comments submitted privately to Republicans in the House of Representatives, as well as interviews with energy lobbyists and tax experts. The industry, frustrated by the Biden administration's delays in clarifying 45Z's rules, might welcome legislative changes that limit regulatory discretion regardless of what agency guidance eventually says. And lobbyists have floated various ways to appease agriculture groups without kneecapping biorefineries reliant on imports, including adding domestic content bonuses, imposing stricter requirements for Chinese-origin used cooking oil, and giving preference to close trading partners. Granted, unanimity among lobbyists is hardly a priority for Republican tax-writers. Reaching any consensus in the restive caucus, with just a handful of votes to spare in the House, will be difficult enough. "These types of bills always come to down to what's the most you can do before you start losing enough votes to pass it," said Jeff Navin, cofounder of the clean energy advocacy firm Boundary Stone Partners and a former House and Senate staffer. "Because they can only lose a couple of votes, there's not much more beyond that." And the caucus's goal of cutting spending makes an industry-wide goal — extending the 45Z credit into the 2030s — even more challenging. "It is a hard sell to get the extension right away," said Paul Winters, director of public affairs at Clean Fuels Alliance America. Climate costs Cost concerns also make less likely a simple return to the long-running blenders credit, which offered $1/USG across the board to biomass-based diesel. The US Joint Committee on Taxation in 2022 scored the two-year blenders extension at $5.5bn, while pegging three years of 45Z at less than $3bn. An inconvenient reality for Republicans skeptical of climate change is that 45Z's throttling of subsidies based on carbon intensity makes it more budget-friendly. Lawmakers have other reasons to not ignore emissions. Policies elsewhere, including California's low-carbon fuel standard and Europe's alternative jet fuel mandates, increasingly prioritize sustainability. The US deviating from that focus federally could leave producers with contradictory incentives, making it harder to turn a profit. And companies that have already sunk funds into reducing emissions — such as ethanol producers with heavy investments in carbon capture — want their reward. Incentives with bipartisan buy-in are likely more durable over the long run too. Next time Democrats control Washington, liberals may be more willing to scrap a credit they see as padding the profits of agribusiness — but less so if they see it as helping the US decarbonize. By Cole Martin Tax credit changes 40A Blenders Tax Credit 45Z Producers Tax Credit $1/USG Up to $1/USG for road fuels and up to $1.75/USG for aviation fuels depending on carbon intensity For domestic fuel blenders For domestic fuel producers Imported fuel eligible Imported fuel not eligible Exclusively for biomass-based diesel Fuels that produce no more than 50kg CO2e/mmBTU are eligible Feedstock-agnostic Carbon intensity scoring incentivizes waste over crop feedstocks Co-processed fuels ineligible Co-processed fuels ineligible Administratively simple Requires federal guidance on how to calculate carbon intensities for different feedstocks and fuel pathways Expiring after 2024 Lasts from 2025 through 2027 Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Japan’s Chugoku restarts Shimane nuclear reactor early

23/12/24

Japan’s Chugoku restarts Shimane nuclear reactor early

Osaka, 23 December (Argus) — Japanese utility Chugoku Electric Power restarted the 820MW Shimane No.2 nuclear reactor for test operations on 23 December, two days earlier than originally planned. The No.2 reactor at Shimane in west Japan's Shimane prefecture was reconnected to the country's power grids for the first time in nearly 13 years, after the reactor shut down in January 2012 for stricter safety inspections following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown disaster. Chugoku reactivated the Shimane No.2 reactor on 7 December, aiming to resume power generation on 25 December. But the target date for commercial operations remained unchanged on 10 January, despite the earlier than expected restart. The Shimane No.2 reactor will be a vital power source as the sole nuclear fleet in the Chugoku area, to help enhance the resilience of the power supply structure, stabilise retail electricity prices and reduce CO2 emissions, said Japan Atomic Industrial Forum's president Hideki Masui on 23 December. The Shimane No.2 reactor is the second boiling water reactor (BWR) to be restarted after the Fukushima disaster, following the 825MW Onagawa No.2 BWR unit that resumed test generation on 15 November, with normal operations scheduled to restart on 26 December. The BWR is the same type as that involved in the meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The restart of the two BWRs would pave the way for Japan's nuclear restoration, as 15 BWRs — including advanced BWRs — are still closed in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. Japan has restored 14 reactors as of 23 December, including the Shimane and Onagaw reactors, of which 12 are installed with a pressurised water reactor (PWR) design. Nuclear power's share The Japanese government last week set a target of 20pc for nuclear power's share in the country's draft power mix for the April 2040-March 2041 fiscal year, under the triennial review for the country's Strategic Energy Plan (SEP). Tokyo is seeking to restart all existing reactors to achieve the 20pc goal, adding that replacement reactors would also be possible. The draft SEP allows nuclear power operators that had decommissioned reactors to build next-generation reactors at their nuclear sites, not limited to the same site. The previous SEP did not mention building new reactors or replacements. Japan's Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC) has applauded this progress, but FEPC chairman Kingo Hayashi noted that it was disappointing the SEP did not mention a nuclear capacity target which the FEPC had requested. It also did not include building new reactors or the expansion of existing nuclear plants, Hayashi added. By Motoko Hasegawa Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Viewpoint: Europe’s refiners eye support from closures

23/12/24

Viewpoint: Europe’s refiners eye support from closures

London, 23 December (Argus) — Another tranche of European refining capacity will close for good next year, but the reprieve for margins in the region may only be temporary. Nearly 400,000 b/d of capacity, around 3pc of Europe's total, is scheduled for permanent closure in 2025, comprising Petroineos' 150,000 b/d Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, Shell's 147,000 b/d Wesseling refinery in Germany and a third of the capacity at BP's nearby 257,000 b/d Gelsenkirchen refinery . Around 30 refineries have closed in Europe since 2000. Among the most recent was Italian firm Eni's 84,000 b/d Livorno refinery in northern Italy earlier this year. And only this month, trading firm Gunvor announced it is mothballing its small upgrading refinery in Rotterdam . The Rotterdam facility had already stopped processing crude in 2020, leaving it peculiarly exposed to the margins between intermediate feedstocks and finished fuels. The refinery has been hit by a 25pc increase in operating costs in the last four years and a squeeze on margins, the latter the result of competition from new refineries outside the region, Gunvor said. Outside Europe, the world has added more than 2.5mn b/d of crude distillation capacity in the last three years. Three brand new refineries have come on stream in the Middle East in that time — Saudi Arabia's 400,000 b/d Jizan, Kuwait's 615,000 b/d Al-Zour with Oman's 230,000 b/d Duqm refineries. More recently, Nigeria's 650,000 b/d Dangote refinery, Mexico's 340,000 b/d Olmeca refinery and Yulong Petrochemical's 400,000 b/d refinery in China's Shandong province started up, all of which are likely to ramp up throughput in 2025. Refinery closures tend to support margins for those that remain. But European refiners' costs continue to rise while demand for their products falls, which means next year's closures are unlikely to be the last. Simpler and smaller refineries are prime candidates for closure as they usually achieve weaker margins. Europe also has plenty of refineries built before 1950 that are still running. These older plants can be more at risk of accidents and breakdowns. And repairs can sometimes cost so much that they tip a refinery into the red. An ongoing concern for European refiners is the trend towards lighter and sweeter crude slates , driven by supply-side dynamics, which is resulting in higher naphtha yields at a time when demand for naphtha from Europe's petrochemical sector is under pressure from a contraction in cracking capacity. But many in the market expect the greatest pressure in 2025 will fall on those coastal refineries in Europe that were built to maximise gasoline output. If, as expected, Dangote continues to shrink Nigeria's demand for gasoline imports , these refineries will be hit hardest. Any refinery that cannot desulphurise all of its gasoline output to the 10ppm required for UK or EU usage will be under intense pressure, as west Africa is presently among the only outlets for European high-sulphur gasoline. Strike support One of the strongest supports for European refining margins in 2025 could come in the form of industrial action if new capacity cuts or closures were to be announced. Refinery workers in the region have shown willing and able in the past to organise large-scale strikes, most emphatically in France. The highest diesel refining margins Argus has ever recorded came in October 2022, when the entire French refining system was shut down by strikes. Another trend to watch out for next year is the continuing shift in the ownership structure of Europe's refining sector. The large integrated oil companies that have dominated the industry for so long have been steadily selling European refining assets to independents and trading firms. The latter are nimbler and able to cut costs more ruthlessly. And with many of them not publicly listed, they are less susceptible to pressure regarding their environmental footprints. There could be more instalments in this story in 2025. Sweden's Preem started accepting bids for its Swedish refining assets in the summer of 2024 and Russia's Lukoil is considering bids for its Burgas refinery in Bulgaria. By Benedict George Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

US House votes to avert government shutdown

20/12/24

US House votes to avert government shutdown

Washington, 20 December (Argus) — The US House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly today to extend funding for US federal government agencies and avoid a partial government shutdown. The Republican-controlled House, by a 366-34 vote, approved a measure that would maintain funding for the government at current levels until 14 March, deliver $10bn in agricultural aid and provide $100bn in disaster relief. Its passage was in doubt until voting began in the House at 5pm ET, following a chaotic intervention two days earlier by president-elect Donald Trump and his allies, including Tesla chief executive Elon Musk. The Democratic-led Senate is expected to approve the measure, and President Joe Biden has promised to sign it. Trump and Musk on 18 December derailed a spending deal House speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) had negotiated with Democratic lawmakers in the House and the Senate. Trump lobbied for a more streamlined version that would have suspended the ceiling on federal debt until 30 January 2027. But that version of the bill failed in the House on Thursday, because of opposition from 38 Republicans who bucked the preference of their party leader. Trump and Musk opposed the bipartisan spending package, contending that it would fund Democratic priorities, such as rebuilding the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland. But doing away with that bill killed many other initiatives that his party members have advanced, including a provision authorizing year-round 15pc ethanol gasoline (E15) sales. Depending on the timing of the Senate action and the presidential signature, funding for US government agencies could lapse briefly beginning on Saturday. Key US agencies tasked with energy sector regulatory oversight and permitting activities have indicated that a brief shutdown would not significantly interfere with their operations. But the episode previews potential legislative disarray when Republicans take full control of Congress on 3 January and Trump returns to the White House on 20 January. Extending government funding beyond 14 March is likely to feature as an element in the Republicans' attempts to extend corporate tax cuts set to expire at the end of 2025, which is a key priority for Trump. The Republicans will have a 53-47 majority in the Senate next month, but their hold on the House will be even narrower than this year, at 219-215 initially. Trump has picked two House Republican members to serve in his administration, so the House Republican majority could briefly drop to 217-215 just as funding for the government would expire in mid-March. Congress will separately have to tackle the issue of raising the debt limit. Conservative advocacy group Economic Policy Innovation Center projects that US borrowing could reach that limit as early as June. By Haik Gugarats Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

US government agencies set to shut down

20/12/24

US government agencies set to shut down

Washington, 20 December (Argus) — US federal agencies would have to furlough millions of workers and curtail permitting and regulatory services if no agreement is reached by Friday at 11:59pm ET to extend funding for the government. US president-elect Donald Trump and his allies — including Tesla chief executive Elon Musk — on 18 December upended a spending deal US House of Representatives speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) had negotiated with Democratic lawmakers in the House and the Senate. Trump endorsed an alternative proposal that Johnson put together, but that measure failed in a 174-235 vote late on Thursday, with 38 Republicans and nearly every Democrat voting against it. Trump via social media today indicated he would not push for a new funding bill. "If there is going to be a shutdown of government, let it begin now, under the Biden Administration, not after January 20th, under 'TRUMP,'" he wrote. There was little to indicate as of Friday morning that Trump, Republican congressional leadership and lawmakers were negotiating in earnest to avert a shutdown. The House Republican conference is due to meet in the afternoon to weigh its next steps. President Joe Biden said he would support the first funding deal that Johnson negotiated with the Democratic lawmakers. "Republicans are doing the bidding of their billionaire benefactors at the expense of hardworking Americans," the White House said. Any agreement on funding the government will have to secure the approval of the House Republican leadership and all factions of the Republican majority in the House, who appear to be looking for cues from Trump and Musk on how to proceed. Any deal would then require the support of at least 60 House Democrats to clear the procedural barriers, before it reaches the Senate where the Democrats hold a majority. The same factors will be in play even if the shutdown extends into early 2025. The Republicans are set to take the majority in the Senate when new Congress meets on 3 January. But their House majority will be even slimmer, at 219-215, requiring cooperation of Democratic lawmakers and the Biden administration. What happens when the government shuts down? Some agencies are able to continue operations in the event of a funding lapse. Air travel is unlikely to face immediate interruptions because key federal workers are considered "essential," but some work on permits, agricultural and import data, and regulations could be curtailed. The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has funding to get through a "short-term" shutdown but could be affected by a longer shutdown, chairman Willie Phillips said. The US Department of Energy, which includes the Energy Information Administration and its critical energy data provision services, expects "no disruptions" if funding lapses for 1-5 days, according to its shutdown plan. The US Environmental Protection Agency would furlough about 90pc of its nearly 17,000 staff in the event of a shutdown, according to a plan it updated earlier this year. The Interior Department's shutdown contingency plan calls for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to furlough 4,900 out of its nearly 10,000 employees. BLM, which is responsible for permitting oil, gas and coal activities on the US federal land, would cease nearly all functions other than law enforcement and emergency response. Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, which oversees offshore leases, would continue permitting activities but would furlough 60pc of its staff after its funding lapses. The US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will keep processing some oil and gas exploration plans with an on-call group of 40 exempted personnel, such as time-sensitive actions related to ongoing work. The shutdown also affects multiple other regulatory and permitting functions across other government agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Transportation and Treasury. By Haik Gugarats Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more