China has a strong will to develop shale gas but lags behind the USA

This post is part I of a series on China vs. USA Shale Gas Development

In the new shale gas revolution, the United States has taken the lead in exploration, development, technology, production, and even the export of shale gas. The U.S. is indisputably the best in this field and best practices from the U.S. will only help other countries develop their own shale gas industries.

China, a country with the world’s highest shale gas reserves, is attempting to exponentially build its shale gas capacity in hopes that they too can achieve energy security and influence in the world’s gas pricing regimes.

Are China’s shale gas plans too optimistic? This article will compare the U.S. regulatory environment to see how far behind China is from the U.S. in developing its nascent shale gas industry.

U.S. vs. China Regulatory Environment

United States

When looking at the United States’ regulatory environment, one needs to divide the analysis into three parts.

• Federal laws
• State laws
• Political stances of the government

In terms of Federal Laws, the U.S. has long-established environmental guidelines that regulate the oil and gas industries. These laws yield to state laws and are difficult for federal agencies to enforce. As a result, federal agencies play a very small role in regulating extraction industries, despite the greater concern for the environment in the U.S. than in China. Instead, this role falls to State Agencies.

At the state level, regulations governing the shale industry vary widely depending on the political attitudes toward the extraction industry. Texas, for example, is anti- federal state regulation and the approval of drilling permits is generally lax where no environmental review is required for a proposed project. New York, on the other hand, requires a comprehensive review of the environmental impacts, an application for drilling, and a drilling work plan. These state regulations, however, can easily be disregarded or enforced depending on the national political leadership at the time.

Dick Cheney spurred the development of the American shale industry through his Energy Policy Act of 2005

This example can perhaps be seen most clearly in the 2000s when shale gas enjoyed overwhelming political support by the “Energy Task Force” led by, then, Vice-President Dick Cheney. Under Cheney’s lead, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed and was controversial for a loophole that exempted the shale gas industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Air Act. These exemptions continued during Cheney’s time in office, and his team successfully amended the National Environmental Policy Act in 2005 to shift the “burden of proof to the public to prove that these activities were unsafe.”

Since Cheney’s time, however, the political mood toward the shale industry has soured with concerns over shale’s potential for polluting water sources and creating earthquakes. Obama’s administration, for instance, will be implementing stricter controls over drillers by requiring them to “capture emissions of certain air pollutants from new wells” starting in 2015.

As such, the combination of lax federal enforcement, varied state laws, and the political support created by Cheney’s time in office was particularly conducive toward enticing developers into the industry. The relaxed environmental regulatory system brought down the risks and justified bringing in investment, technology, and human capital for small and large firms alike. As such, these policies opened the way for competition and spurred technological improvements to hydraulic fracking.

China

In contrast to the U.S., the monitoring of shale gas is difficult in China due to the fact that the central government does not yet have a set regulatory environment. As such, understanding which of China’s government policies will impact the shale industry will be half based on regulations for other extractive fuels and half on the current government’s directives for shale gas.

In trying to understand which policies will most likely impact shale gas, one needs to first look at the policies currently in place for other non-traditional extractive industries such as coal-based methane. If shale were to be controlled under the same policies, companies operating in China’s shale gas industries could potentially take advantage of its status as an “independent mineral” (approved December 31, 2011), as it opens shale “exploration to more participants.”

Independent mineral status encourages the exploration of shale gas by foreign companies and induces competition via “certain tax and administrative benefits.” In terms of environmental regulations, China’s control of land, water, and air are varied and controlled by different ministries. The impact of these policies will have to wait on a more firm classification of shale gas by the government.

China’s previous Politburo, it remains to be seen what the directives of the new Politburo are

The national political climate for shale gas is seemingly positive as well, due to the National People’s Congress’s directive for  shale gas as an important resource for China’s national energy security. As such,  under the 12th Five Year Plan (2011-2015), China has put in place plans for the “assessment for shale and confirming the current reserve estimates“. A National Shale Gas Development Program has also been established during this period, where the government has placed an emphasis on R&D for technology, exploration, and development of shale gas for the 13th Five Year Plan (2016-2020). However, in late 2012, China oversaw the change of a new President, Xi Jinping, and his new politburo. It remains to be seen what this group of influence government officials will do for the shale gas industry.

Why is China’s Shale Gas Industry Lagging?

Regulatory Structure

The U.S. success with shale gas is a product of the clear boundaries in federal and state regulations, and the conducive nature of Cheney’s 2005 Energy Policy Act. These factors allowed for small and big energy firms to have equal opportunity in leasing or acquiring land, sell gas in a competitive natural gas pricing regime, and understand the environmental boundaries that they have to operate in. This transparent regulatory regime made it easy for investors to understand the risks and actively invest in new shale basins, which in turn helped smaller energy firms hone their technology in hydraulic fracking.

Once smaller firms succeeded, the shale industry saw a large flux of mergers of smaller firms with larger conglomerates, which brought in much more investment, infrastructure, and human capital. This timeline helped shale develop exponentially as the industry never saw a relaxation in funding or technological know-how.

China, on the other hand, is lagging due to the very nature of its current regulatory structure with shale gas. As previously stated, the central government’s endorsement of shale gas is particularly strong. However, due to the importance of shale gas in China’s future energy security plans, a failure of this industry could be extremely embarrassing for the Chinese Communist Party. As such, current directives have shown to be vague and inconsistent. This environment is in direct contrast to the American context as it creates a cloud of uncertainty for companies and overseas investors.

Barriers to Entry

Moreover, the barriers for entry for small and large firms into the American shale gas industry were much lower as individual companies were able to lease or acquire land to explore on their own accord.  They were only required to submit paperwork to the state government. In China, however, the central government tightly controls shale gas blocks by organizing auctions or granting exploration rights. In the first auction, held in June 2011, only state-owned companies were allowed to compete.  This auction elicited a weak response as only six companies put in bids for four blocks and only 2 blocks were awarded in the end. A second auction was finally put up in October 2012, and was deemed slightly more successful as it garnered 152 bids for 20 blocks.

Nonetheless, barriers were still high as entities had to be either Chinese companies or Chinese held joint-ventured companies. To make matters more unequal there was also a clear absence of bids from China’s top oil and natural gas companies from the 152 bids received as their vote would’ve proven redundant since they already have rights to exploration on certain blocks. This does not yet mention the minimum value the company needs to have ($48 million USD) or the minimum they are required to invest into the blocks for the next three years.

Shale Gas Extraction Site in Sichuan Province, China

Profit Disincentives

Profit incentives are also much lower in China as the status of shale gas as an “independent mining resource” is precarious. Natural gas is generally state controlled, meaning that companies do not have control over the pricing of gas, no matter how little or much they produced. This is a strong disincentive to companies looking to enter the industry as natural gas is priced below the market in China.

In the U.S., on the other hand, companies had complete control over the pricing of the output of gas and even the export of it. Since the status of shale gas has changed since the end of 2011, stakeholders will continue to doubt the nature of shale gas’s profitability until they see how the pricing of shale gas is treated once production is stronger.

Lastly, the uncertainty of environmental policies will prove to be a disadvantage to investments and entry into China’s shale gas industries.  In the U.S., when energy companies were beginning to explore and produce shale, they knew that they had to observe at a minimum federal regulations that dealt with emissions, the treatment of water, and the land. Although companies were ultimately not required to observe these regulations due to the 2005 Energy Policy Act, there were concrete lines that allowed them to make risk assessments for the future. China, on the other hand, there is no such minimum line in which they can refer to. Stakeholders cannot reasonably assume that shale gas’s environmental regulation will be similar to coal-based methane, natural gas, oil, or coal. As such, any type of risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis will be inaccurate. To make matters worse, the lack of environmental guidelines could cost stakeholders more over time as any reversal in policy could prove to be detrimental and costly to accommodate.

What other differences are there?

The American shale gas industry took over 20 years to develop into the global leader it is today due to favorable political support, a concrete regulatory environment, and low barriers to entry. This policy environment resulted in creating competition, advancing technological development, and spurring on innovation. China, on the other hand, has the political support but lacks a reliable regulatory environment and holds one of the highest barriers to entry into the shale industry.

These differences are clear, explaining the standstill the Chinese shale industry has experienced in the last few years. But what other differences are there between these two superpowers?

In the next post I will explore the infrastructural capacity gap between the USA and China, subscribe now to get more on this topic and more at EnergyInAsia.

You can also follow me on Twitter @dianamngo.

Other articles you may be interested in:

3 Reasons Why Shale Gas is a Pipe Dream in China

China’s Cautious Expansion of Nuclear Power

With Nuclear Energy, China Chooses Dependence Over Independence

The Spratly Islands Dispute: Why is this important? 

China dreams of energy independence via shale gas, but challenges abound due to geography, infrastructure, and water.

In recent years, much attention has been paid to shale gas, an unconventional natural gas that was traditionally found to be too expensive to extract. But with rising fossil fuel costs and technological innovation, the United States has made shale gas into a serious game-changer for the future trade of natural gas around the world.

Countries, such as China, are now finding ways to tap into this resource to boost their national energy security. But how accessible is Chinese shale gas and what problems does the production of this unconventional gas face in the People’s Republic of China?

Estimates and the Reality

In April 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) released estimates on the world’s technically recoverable shale gas reserves. The report garnered mixed reviews as it placed China as the leading holder of shale gas reserves in the world with “36 trillion cubic meters,” while the United States followed closely behind at “23.4 trillion cubic meters.”

But can China actually dominate the shale gas market?

EIA’s claims were unfounded as China was only beginning to identify and explore domestic shale rock basins. Since then, however, Beijing has been able to suggest that 2 out of the country’s 7 shale rock basins (Tarim and Sichuan Basins) could be commercially produced. With the help of joint ventures with BP (Sinopec), Total (CNPC), and Royal Dutch Shell (PetroChina), China began exploratory drilling in Sichuan in 2010. These joint ventures have found “major shale gas reserves in… [the]western Sichuan region” and have helped Chinese energy companies practice shale gas technologies. More importantly, these initial drillings have helped the government, specifically the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR), survey China’s actual recoverable shale gas reserves. MLR now believes China holds “25 trillion cubic meters” of exploitable onshore shale gas. This is 11 trillion cubic meters less than the estimate EIA had proposed earlier, dropping China’s abilty to meet demand (at current rate of consumption) from about 400 to 300 years.

Difficulties in Commercially Developing Shale Gas in China

Faced with criticism to reduce carbon emission and reduce dependence on foreign fossil fuels, the Chinese government is set to move ahead with shale gas exploration and production. Earlier this year, the government has set targets for “developing 6.5 bcm of shale gas per year by 2015” and moving exponentially “up to 60-100 bcm by 2020.” However, are these targets practical? More important, what difficulties does China face in making shale gas commercially available in the near future?

Difficulties in Geography

The production of shale gas is technologically challenging since “water, sand, and chemicals” are used to blast deep into wells to allow shale gas to come to the surface. This technology, also known as hydraulic fracking, is the key element that has drastically changed the unconventional natural gas industry in the U.S. However, unlike the U.S., China’s shale rock is much more geographically challenging.

Chinese shale gas is found in much rougher terrain and is found much deeper underground than American shale gas. American shale gas can be typically found within “two to six kilometers deep, whereas in China some key deposits are found six kilometers deep.” To developers, this means that experiences learned in the U.S. may not be readily applied to China as the geographical challenge will require more experienced personnel, additional equipment, technological innovation, and increased costs. This will be especially the case when exploring and developing Sichuan Province, an area prone to earthquakes.

Myanmar stands to win infrastructure, electricity, and economic development with completion of the Myitsone Dam, but chooses to preserve their culture and society instead.

Myanmar: Why Hydropower?

Unlike Laos, Myanmar is fortunate enough to be surrounded by the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea in the Indian Ocean. This geographical location has served the country well by allowing Myanmar to conduct overseas trade and rank 78th in the world for GDP Purchasing Power Parity (well ahead of Laos at 129). Although commendable, Myanmar is far from being a developed country and still struggles with providing its population with a better life since the election of its new civilian government in 2010.

Myanmar’s economic development struggles are apparent when looking at the country’s energy use.  For instance, Myanmar’s energy mix is strongly dependent on waste energy like Laos with an increasing amount of natural gas becoming part of their primary energy use. The country’s power industry is still rudimentary and inefficient, with some estimates indicating that only 13% of the country is electrified. Myanmar’s electrification process is estimated to increasingly rely on foreign natural gas, but the government is now considering hydropower as a more attractive alternative due to its abundance in Myanmar.

The Myitsone Dam: 15.8% of Myanmar’s Potential Installed Hydroelectric Capacity

Myanmar’s low electrification rate and growing openness to the international community has prompted the government to increase living standards. However, dependence on foreign energy is not an option for the long-isolated country. Yet, at the same time, foreign investment is needed to procure the expertise, equipment, and funds needed for the country’s estimated hydroelectric potential installed capacity of 38,000 mW.

The Myitsone Dam is at the middle of this debate,  as the dam is a joint-venture between the Myanmar’s Ministry of Electric Power, Burmese company Asia World, and the China Power Investment Corporation. The project is estimated to cost $US 3.6 Billion and will have an installed capacity of 6000 mW (15.8% of Myanmar’s potential installed capacity). The dam, once completed, will be the 15th largest dam in the world and be first in a series of 6 other dams on the Irrawaddy River (Myanmar’s largest waterway, akin to Laos’ Mekong River).

The Social and Environmental Controversy

Unlike Laos, Myanmar is not held accountable by the international community for their hydroelectric projects as they are not a signee to any shared-river convention. Myanmar also does not have many domestic regulations concerning the protection of the environment or biodiversity. But, the Myitsone Dam still holds a sizable amount of environmental and social controversy for the Myanmar government to be concerned about.

In terms of environmental impacts, the Myitsone Dam is to be built at the start of the Irrawaddy River where the Mali and N’Mai Rivers meet. An impact study by the China Power Investment Corporation indicates that migratory fish species will be most likely wiped out, and the dam will affect the rice paddy ecosystems further downstream. The proposed site of the dam is also 100km away from a fault line, increasing the fears that the dam will be unable to withstand a strong earthquake in the future. In terms of societal impacts, the dam’s presence will force the direct displacement of some 15,000 individuals and 40 villages.

Society and Culture Trumps Money

Despite having similar obstacles to Laos in the construction of the Myitsone Dam, Myanmar current government has decided against the construction of the dam. But why?

1) Cradle of Burmese Civilization

The construction site of the Myitsone Dam is in a very precarious location for the Burmese people as their culture and identity is closely tied to the Irrawaddy River. This area is considered to be the cradle of Burmese civilization, and is the primary source of food and economic activity for many Burmese.

Specifically for the Kachin minority group, the area surrounding the Myitsone Dam will submerge many of their cultural and historical buildings, sites, and artifacts. This minority group has already been actively fighting the Myanmar military, and will continue to do so as they see the dam as a threat to their way of life.

2) Chinese Imperialism

A large factor in the current government’s decision against the construction of the dam is the negative image China has in Myanmar at the moment. For years, Myanmar has relied heavily on China as an ally due to the country’s isolation by developed countries for their human rights violations. This has led many Chinese firms to openly invest in Myanmar, while bringing in their own labor to support their business functions. However, to the Burmese people, this is exploitation. Chinese business are spreading all over the country and taking over local jobs. They get preferential treatment in contracts with the government and are known to discriminate against hiring local individuals. And now, they are expanding into the extraction of Myanmar’s natural resources.

This imperialism has pulled negative public views on the Chinese, with the Myitsone Dam not the exception. In this case, about 90% of the electricity generated by the Myitsone Dam will be sold to Southern State Grid and used in Southern China. Only a very with a small amount of hydroelectric power will reserved for Myanmar citizens, not enough to justify the long-term damages the dam will cause on the country’s other economic functions. The majority of the benefits for Myanmar will be based more on promises for regional development (roads, businesses, etc.) and direct investment. However, both the Myanmar government and people feel that the Chinese care little about their safety or well-being considering China Power Investment Corporation’s insistence on building the Myitsone Dam despite examples of less damaging alternatives. (China Power Investment Corporation’s impact study suggests the same amount of power can be generated through two dams on the Irrawaddy River’s tributaries to avoid harming the main river)

3) Political Legitimacy

The Myitsone Dam is an example of the power of the previous military governments, and their undying loyalty for the Chinese government. By stalling the project, however, the newly elected (2010) civilian government led by President Thein Sein is illustrating the need for the government to gain political legitimacy and differentiate themselves from the military junta.

The Myitsone Dam has garnered national attention due to the dam’s societal and environmental impacts, particularly arguments brought up by conservationists, scholars, and even political activist- Aung San Suu Kyi. By not going ahead with the Myitsone Dam, President Thein Sein and his advisers are illustrating their understanding and respect for public sentiment. This move also illustrates the President’s right to control the country’s natural resources and hope to move away from China as their only ally. These factors, combined with looser restrictions on tourists, media, and political pardons signal a very different Burmese government that wishes to receive the respect and adoration from their citizens. However, it is important to note that the current government term will end in 2015. There are still chances that the Myitsone Dam will resume construction, however, the political climate at that time will determine if this dam will ever be completed.

For immediate updates on the newest articles, please subscribe to this blog at the top right of the homepage- www.energyinasiablog.com.

Click here for the first part to this series, analyzing why Laos chose money over society and culture.

Click here for an in-depth analysis to the Spratly Islands Dispute.

Laos Overlooks the Impact of Social and Environmental Damages in Moving Forward with the Xayaburi Dam

A classic dilemma for emerging economies in today’s world  is the choice between economic development and preserving the country’s socio-cultural integrity. This two part article will analyze the decisions behind Laos and Myanmar’s decisions for each country’s respective hydroelectric projects, where the former has chosen economic development and the latter has chosen to preserve their socio-cultural integrity.

Laos: Why Hydropower?

Laos is a landlocked country in Southeast Asia, that has traditionally been isolated due to its lack of sea access. This disadvantaged geographical situation has caused Laos’ GDP to depend greatly on its neighbors over the years, where in 2010 Laos’ GDP per capita was $1,208 USD due to the countries growing trade with Thailand, its largest trade partner.  In terms of GDP (purchasing power parity), Laos is ranked the 129th nation in the world- illustrating the country’s poverty and need for economic development.

Laos’ energy mix reflects the country’s poverty as illustrated on the disproportionate reliance on biomass fuels like firewood. As a result, the Laotian government wishes to grow economically by setting an electrification goal of 90% by 2020. This goal will most likely be met by coal and hydropower, the two fuel sources Laos’ has in abundance domestically.

The Xayaburi Dam: An Additional 4.5% to Laos’ Installed Hydroelectric Power Capacity

Laos’ economic situation and lack of electricity has pushed the country toward developing its hydropower, as the country’s rivers are estimated to have the capacity to produce about 28,000mW of electricity. As part of this overall plan, the Laotian government initiated the Xayaburi Dam project in order to harness power from the Lower Mekong River. It is to be the first dam project in this region, and has the ability to affect the lives and economy of downstream Mekong River countries like Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. But more importantly, the project can help Laos reach its economic, development, and electrification goals as the Xayaburi dam is expected to have the capacity to produce 1,260 mW of power when it is completed. This will increase Laos’ current installed hydroelectric power capacity by 4.5%, from 6.6% to 11.1%.

The Social-Environmental Controversy

Although the Xayaburi Dam has the potential to improve the lives of Laotians, the project still faces tremendous objection and protests from Laos’ neighbors, conservationists, and climate change experts. As with any hydroelectric project, the concern surrounding the effect the dam will have on the Mekong River’s people and diversity is real. As a result, Laos (a signer of the 1995 Mekong River Commission) has had to answer to these concerns by conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment to adequately weigh the Xayaburi’s economic benefits with the social-environmental costs.

However, controversy has instead ensued over this impact study due to charges that Laos and its business partners used sub-standard measurements. For instance, a WWF Review asserts that Laos’ study utilized only a “light sampling” that “captured 1/3 of biodiversity” found in the Mekong River. International Rivers also criticized that the evaluation was unable to capture the impact of “sediment flows [and] dam safety.” What’s worse, is that their proposed technologies and designs for fish migration has not been previously tested on the Mekong River’s target fish species.  In addition, there may be a conflict of interest as the Swiss-firm hired for the Environmental Impact Study (Poyry Energy) is known to be a business partner of Thai company Ch. Karnchang (Xayaburi Dam’s main investor).

In other in-depth impact studies, the social and environmental costs are much worse. For instance, the Xayaburi Dam is found to potentially block  the migration of target fish which may lead to the extinction of 41 species in the future. This could also lead to the starvation or loss of fisheries and livelihood for some 200,000 people downstream. In terms of direct impact, the dam will displace an additional 2,100 people from about 40 villages all in the nearby area.

It’s All About the Money & Politics

Despite the telling signs of long-term damage to the Mekong River and Laos’ agreement to suspend the project in April, the Laotian government has recently went ahead with the construction of the Xayaburi dam. But why?

1) Increases Foreign Direct Investment in Laos

The most important reason for choosing to construct the dam, I believe, is the project’s potential to attract a lot of foreign direct investment (FDI) and revenue. If built, the Xayaburi dam will be the first in a series of 10 other dams on the Mekong River. This dam will be the start of Laos’ electricity export industry, allowing the country to exponentially grow its domestic GDP in the next few decades.

For instance, the Xayaburi dam project is estimated to take 7.5 years to construct and an investment need of 3 Billion USD. So far, 90% of this investment fund has already been met by one Thai company- CH Karnchang. There is investment interest from four other Thai Banks as well (Kasikorn Bank, Bangkok Bank, Krung Thai Bank, and Siam Commercial Bank), with more than half of Laos’ current FDI going to hydroelectric projects.

In addition, Laos’ neighbors will provide the landlocked country with demand as illustrated by Thailand’s electricity company, EGAT. EGAT has already signed to purchase 95% of the Xayaburi Dam’s electricity output in 2010 and will be one of the key purchasers of Laotian energy in the future. The region’s  growing energy demand will be a tremendous asset to Laos in the future, as it prepares to harness the country’s estimated 28,000 mW of hydroelectric power.

2) Thailand’s Political Influence

A second factor I believe has highly influenced the resumption of the Xayaburi Dam project is Thailand’s interests and influences on Laos. At the moment, Thailand is Laos’ largest trading partner and political ally. It has for years helped Laos develop its country by building roads to ease the landlocked country’s transportation problems.

In recent years, Thailand has also been aware of its energy needs and its over-dependence on natural gas in the power generation industry (66.2% in 2007). This has forced Thailand to look for other sources, making Laotian hydroelectric power ideal for the coming years. As a result, we see Thailand investing heavily in Laos as they hope to gain 7,000 mW from Laos’ total of 28,000 mW of power in the future.

3) Laos Fighting Back

The last reason I believe Laos is choosing to disregard its regional agreements to suspend the construction of the Xayaburi Dam is based on the country’s wish to fight back. As a small and landlocked country, Laos has had to deal with its fair share of bullies in the region. It has also had to rely heavily on its neighbors to export and import goods, making it hard for the Laotian government to truly assert its sovereignty.

But with hydroelectric power, Laos does not need to governed by others. Making the Xayaburi Dam as an example, Laos will be able to increase the livelihood of its citizens, while reasserting control over its territory and economic development. The total disregard of regional agreements and international criticism illustrates Laos’ rebellion, demonstrating the start of the country’s power struggle over FDI, foreign experts, and dominance in the sales of electricity in Southeast Asia.

Stay Tuned

Laos’ decision is not unusual given the country’s need to electrify, need to increase investment, and need for Thailand’s trade. However, this does not always have to be the case. Stay tuned as I analyze why Myanmar has sought to suspend the Myitsone Dam next week despite China’s influence and Myanmar’s need to develop.

For immediate updates, please subscribe your e-mail at the homepage of www.energyinasiablog.com

Click here for more information on Southeast Asia’s disputes in the South China Sea.

Click here to understand How Dependent Asia’s Top 4 Economies are on Foreign Oil.

Let’s imagine that you have an international organization dedicated to changing attitudes of energy consumers. This is a big task for any organization, but especially one dedicated to mass behavioral change. How do you make sure everyday citizens notice AND remember you?

Monday, earlier this week, I attended the ”Top10 China Network- Develop Your Business Through Energy Efficiency” event, in which the event’s hosts talked about the importance of sustainability and increasing energy efficiency in our daily lives. The organizers believed that through the Top10 group, consumers in China will begin to understand and consciously consume energy-saving products. As a result, the organization Top10 China has adopted the characters “节能上品“ or “energy-saving products” in their logo for the Chinese audience. However, their logo leaves much to be interpreted as I kept on asking myself what products are they promoting and what does “Top10″ actually mean?

From my understanding, Top10 is an organization that was started in Switzerland (now expanded throughout EU, USA, and China) to provide consumers with non-biased information on the top energy efficient products on the market (From the Top10 China website, this means home appliances, cars, light bulbs, etc). Their goal is to be transparent, while helping consumers choose products that are better for their pockets as well as for the environment. They also believe they are essentially providing free advertising for manufacturers and retailers in the near future, offering these entities an incentive to innovate and provide only the most energy efficient technology for their informed readers.

Concerns and Criticisms 

For most of the event, I struggled in understanding how Top10 was going to have a significant impact in China. For instance, even though they are noble in their objective in bringing transparent data and easily accessible information to consumers, they did not seem to know what channels they going to use to expand their information and brand in China. Moreover, their funding primarily comes from the Swiss government disallowing them any sort of extra allowance to spend on cutting-edge energy efficiency tests or expanding their marketing team. Their powers are limited, and they seemingly function as an extra appendage of the Swiss government in China.

However, there’s a wildcard in all of this: it’s possible that Top10 is so networked and has so much “guanxi” that it frankly doesn’t matter what their strategy is as their affiliated organizations will be doing most of the work for them.

Top 10 China’s Sponsors: Swiss Embassy, WWF, and SwissCham

In Top10 group’s home operations in Switzerland, guest speaker Christian Ruttimann of Euro Group Far East Ltd., suggests that they have worked their way into the everyday lives of consumers. By placing their logo alongside Swiss energy efficient logos on household appliances in advertisements, magazines, and stores the Top10 group has been able to impact consumer decisions. Perhaps suggesting that China should also follow suit.

No Signs of TopTen.ch on the Homepage of Swiss Electronics Vender- InterDiscount

However, as a graduate from a Swiss university, myself and a Swiss friend discussed among ourselves that we have never actually seen the Top10 brand in stores like COOP or InterDiscount (equivalent to Target in the U.S.A.). What was more astonishing was when I questioned Christian Ruttimann about the extent of Top10′s exposure in Switzerland, and he admitted that the impact was minimal and much more needs to be done for Top10 to be fully recognized by consumers.

Five Ways to Improve Top10 China

Bringing energy efficient products to the attention of Chinese consumers is needed, however, I should also point out that I am not alone in sharing these views. In discussing with participants at the event, I noticed that many were asking the same questions and shared the same concerns I had for the success of Top10 in the future.

Below is a compiled list of 5 strategies that Top10 needs to follow in order to succeed in China:

1) Improve Brand Image and Association to Energy Efficiency

2) Leverage Current Relationships to Expand Audience Recognition (as suggested by Taobao’s Senior Brand Marketer- Jing Shengyao)

3) Develop Partnerships with China Mobile/China Unicom (as suggested by WWF’s Country Director- Jim Grandoville)

4) Engage with More Stakeholders to Adapt Quickly to Changes in China’s Market Economy (i.e. policymakers, companies, consumers)

5) Build Top10′s Presence in the Lifestyle of the Younger Generation through Sino Weibo/RenRen/etc. (as suggested by WWF’s Country Director- Jim Grandoville)

Last Remarks

In writing this piece, I have considered whether I am being too critical of an organization that just started its operations in China last year. However, from what I saw at the event- top notch event, top notch sponsors, top notch audience- I simply expected more. And that is what we should be doing with organizations that promote a greater good- hold them to a higher standard so that they are better equipped to achieve their goals.

Click here for Top10 China’s website.

Click here for more information on the Top10 China Network Event.

Click here for more information on China’s Cautious Expansion of Nuclear Energy.

Click here for more information on what China Needs to Do to Market Electric Vehicles.

China is now at a cross-roads that requires it to be increasingly accountable for its energy use, carbon emissions, environmental impact, and public health. Due to this nuclear energy has become one of the lauded fuels of choice for the future. However, if China steps in this direction the country might be dependent on another set of foreign countries, leaving them in another cycle of energy dependence and vulnerability.

Technology: Safety vs. Self-Reliance

Before the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster, China has always been keen on developing home-grown nuclear reactors with the help of older Russian, Canadian, and French nuclear reactor models. To the Chinese, the creation of a “Chinese” nuclear reactor would help them become less reliant, while its success would also pave the way for a Chinese revolution in the nuclear industry allowing them to make reactors cheaper to export to emerging partners in Africa or Southeast Asia.

However, this strategy has always concerned the international community, since the Chinese has not always been known for their attention to quality. This, however, was never a barrier as illustrated in the current construction of 27 nuclear reactors, in which 21 of them are second generation models (China currently has the CPR-1000 second-generation model). Third generation models were not granted as many projects despite their advanced safety features because only the U.S. and France own the technology at the moment.

Nuclear Safety: Need for Foreign-Trained Staff

Another concern in the leap towards greater nuclear power are the safety protocols needed for the operational safety of the plant, as well as action plans needed to guide government officials and the international community at times of emergency.

At the moment, China has 14 nuclear reactors that account for less than 2% in 2010. This number is small and has enabled China the ability to adequately employ enough operational staff to check the safety of nuclear power production. When needed, China has even gone so far as employing foreign operators, advisers, and engineers. China has also engaged with over 20 countries in nuclear cooperation agreements to help provide China with the expertise necessary to build its nuclear program. This has enabled China the ability to increase the safety of their nuclear program, while enabling them to respond rapidly to emergencies.

Uranium: Domestic Supply

Uranium is a crucial component in the creation of nuclear power and is similar to fossil fuels in that they are non-recoverable. At the moment, China has 171,000 Tonnes of Uranium, placing it 10th in the world’s top ten proven recoverable uranium reserves. This is beneficial for China, as they will be able to domestically supply part of the material to their nuclear reactors.

The Unforeseen Impact

Despite the usefulness of advanced technology, adequate safety training, international cooperation, and the use of uranium (instead of oil, coal, or natural gas), China has opened itself to an array of vulnerabilities and dependencies unforeseen by the current government.

Technology: Reliance on the United States and France

In terms of technology, China’s heavy dependence on second-generation nuclear reactor models is a disadvantage to the growing country on the security and energy efficiency front. However, a move into third-generation models (due to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, China is considering not approving anymore second-generation reactors) would put Chinese nuclear reactor models out of the market. It would also force the communist government to rely primarily the U.S.’s Westinghouse AP1000 and France’s Areva (EPR), while falling behind as they try to duplicate the technology they acquired through technology transfer agreements.

Nuclear Safety: Forced Engagement

In terms of safety training and international cooperation, China is unequipped to deal with the rapid expansion of nuclear power because of the need for many more engineers and trained personnel. Although the government has recognized this problem and has begun training nuclear operational staff, many of these individuals are new graduates and do not have actual experience. Thus, I foresee China to be much more dependent on learning best practices from both foreign countries and international organization.

This aspect of nuclear energy will significantly impact the government, as the communist party will be forced to reach out to foreign entities when they would rather develop their own indigenous techniques, experts, or technology. This can already be seen through China’s multilateral discussions with Japan and South Korea on nuclear safety. Moreover, China’s Deputy Representative to the United Nations recently urged for increased support from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in nuclear safety and the promotion of international cooperation. I believe the success of this strategy will depend on China’s ability to navigate through the interests of even more stakeholders, while avoiding any additional influence on their domestic energy policies.

Uranium: Susceptible to Price and Politics

Lastly, the largest impact on the Chinese government that I foresee will be the trade on uranium. In the coming years, nuclear power and uranium will be much sought after as oil, coal, and gas become scarce and expensive. The supply and demand of global uranium will be of extreme importance to China, as it is predicted that it will need up to 60% of its uranium from overseas for the slew of nuclear reactors it is planning to have online by 2020. This is because China has been mining uranium since the 1950s and has already been importing the mineral for awhile.

This will force China to be increasingly reliant on the world’s top uranium producers, as they vie for increased control over concessions and preferential treatment of mining blocks. China will also be dependent on the international market as well, spurring the PRC to lobby for lower prices and more access. However, I believe an even more dangerous situation would be if China were to be still dependent on the Middle East for its oil use, as the communist country would need to manage its investments, businesses, and diplomatic relationships with another set of energy fuel providers. This would not only make China susceptible to the whims of future market supply, but also increasingly complicate its diplomatic ties and ability to appease its exporters.

For the latest updates on energy analysis in Asia, subscribe to www.energyinasiablog.com at the top right of the homepage.

Click here for part I analyzing China’s Cautious Expansion of Nuclear Power.

Click here for more information on China’s Dependency on Foreign Oil.

When China opened its economy to the world in the early 1980s, the communist country was heavily reliant on oil and coal. These two fossil fuels were relatively abundant domestically and helped secure China’s national security at a time when the country was cautious of foreign influence. However, this energy policy set the pattern for China’s energy needs over the next three decades despite China’s net importation of oil since the early 1990s and coal in 2009. 

As a result, nuclear energy has played a minor role in China’s electricity generation, where in 2010 China’s 10 gW of installed nuclear capacity accounted for less than 2% of the country’s power generation.

However, recently China has been undergoing a clean and green technology revolution where government officials have been emphasizing the need for low carbon and energy efficient technologies and fuels. In China’s recent 12^th Five Year Plan (2011-2015), the government set targets to reduce carbon intensity by 17% and energy intensity by 16%. This has made government officials much more keen on incorporating non-fossil fuel sources like hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, and biofuel into their energy mix. These non-fossil fuel sources are to account for 11.4% of China’s primary energy consumption by 2015, with a greater goal of 15% by 2020. (In 2010, non-fossil fuel energy accounted for 8.3% of total primary energy consumption)

The majority of this goal will probably be met by wind and hydro power, however, an increasing share will be taken over by China’s nuclear sector. In the beginning of 2011, Chinese government officials have already set goals to increase their domestic capacity to over 40 gW by 2015 and a supposed 80 gW by 2020. This means that in addition to their current 14 units and 27 units under construction, the nuclear power sector will petition and plan to build an additional 50 reactors by 2020.

Effects of Recent Events on China’s Nuclear Energy Policy

The 12th Five Year Plan and nuclear targets were set in early 2011. The Chinese were confident in their ability to fulfill these goals, but were dumbstruck when they witnessed the devastation of the Fukushima- Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011 forcing them to rethink their nuclear policy.

Many analysts have argued that recent events have done little to change China’s overall plan. Although I agree with this general statement, I must assert that the Chinese government seldom entertains changes in their targets and national plans. But because of the Fukushima-Daiichi incident, we can see that China does not have 100% confidence in their nuclear policy. For instance, when the Fukushima-Daiichi disaster occurred China uncharacteristically ordered a safety review of all their operating plants and nuclear reactors under construction. The Chinese government also increased safety protocols around nuclear reactors and failed to accept or consider any new petitions for reactors.These reactions to the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster illustrate China’s trepidation at launching full-speed ahead into their nuclear targets, illustrated by their 10% reduction in targets for 2020 earlier this month (target to now be 60-70 gW by 2020, not 80 gW).

Although I do not expect China to abandon their nuclear goals completely, I do expect the Chinese government to be wary of safety protocols and environmental concerns. But without a doubt nuclear power will be on the agenda as the energy sector has already seen diminishing returns on energy efficiency based on the results of their 11th Five Year Plan (2006-2010), where the country managed to reduce their energy intensity to 19.1% instead of the target of 20%. The added goal of reducing carbon intensity also places pressure on the Chinese government to rely more on nuclear power’s low carbon profile than other non-fossil energy sources like hydro power. This creates a unique nexus for China as nuclear power becomes not only vital in diversifying their energy mix, but also necessary to meet their global commitments to reducing the effects of climate change and environmental damage.

Subscribe to www.energyinasiablog.com at the top right of the homepage to instantly receive Part II of this series later this week.

Click here for background information on China’s naval energy security.

Click here for background information on China’s foreign oil dependence.

As of 2008, oil represented 17.2% of China’s total share of primary supply making it the second widely used energy source after coal. Although coal is widely used in China, its share has been decreasing due to its pollutant nature. External and internal pressures to reduce carbon emissions also have a factor, as well as the overall health and environmental costs it poses to their society. Oil, on the other hand, continues to increase as China’s middle class rises up and starts adopting private transportation. This phenomenon has concerned Chinese officials, as they begin to think about how China will be able to source enough oil to satisfy its population?  And more importantly, how can they secure a continuous flow of it?

China’s Oil Dependency

As of 2009, China was using a total of 8.3 million barrels of oil each day with foreign oil accounting for more than half of their daily usage with 4.3 million barrels.

If we isolate the foreign oil and investigate the sources in which the Chinese government is importing their oil from, we can see that out of the 8 countries: 6 of them are from the Middle East, 1 is from Africa, and 1 is close by in Russia. In terms of distance, this is a highly unstable and potentially dangerous situation for China as they are overly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. To make matters worse, the Middle East is politically unstable and disruptions to supply can happen at any point of transit.

The Chokepoints

The Strait of Hormuz: Center of Middle Eastern Instability

As an oil importer, China is fortunate that it has as many as 8 suppliers for its imported oil. However, it continues to be at risk as Russia is the only supplier with a direct pipeline into its territory and only represents 6% of their total foreign oil imports. The other 77.5% (minus Angola) are found in the Middle East and need to bypass the Strait of Hormuz in order to reach the Indian Ocean on its way to Asia.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow sea lane located in between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. At its narrowest, the Strait of Hormuz is only 54 km wide. This strait are of strategic significance as the oil and gas producing countries in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, UAE, and Oman) all need to bypass this sea lane in order to export their oil and gas products to the global market. In 2009, a total of 15.5 million barrels of oil passed through this strait everyday representing 33% of all sea-traded oil and 17% of the world’s daily total.

As a result, China increases its investments and activities in this area are to ensure the safety of its oil imports from this region. From the Chinese perspective, these stakes will help China maneuver its way into negotiations for increased protection, preferential treatment, and possibly even deploying their own security forces to protect their oil tankers. These measures are all developed to combat the regional instability, as well as threats of piracy and terrorist activities in the Persian Gulf.

Strait of Malacca: A Pirate’s Dream

The second chokepoint that oil tankers need to bypass on its way to China is the Strait of Malacca. The Strait of Malacca is a long narrow stretch of sea in which ships need to bypass Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore in order to move further up into the South China Sea and beyond. It is a chokepoint for many countries in the Asia-Pacific and is estimated to bring in 13.6 million barrels of oil per day from overseas locations in 2009. For China, this represents more than 80% of their foreign oil imports (minus Russia).

This strait is also geographical difficult since at its narrowest, it is only 2.74km wide and it is 900km long. Therefore, expert navigation is needed as the risk of accidents and oil spills present problems to not only neighboring countries but also countries heavily dependent on oil shipments. The Strait of Malacca also has a history of piracy. In recent years this has been substantially curbed, but the theft of oil tankers is still not out of the ordinary as it can carry a large ransom.

Due to these risks, China has been active in forging relationships with countries such as Sri Lanka and Myanmar to establish naval ports, refineries, or pipelines to dock their oil tankers.

Taiwan Strait: Bound by Political Tension

The last chokepoint is more of a political matter than of actual geographical risk to Chinese oil imports. The Taiwan issue has been long debated since the PRC has maintained that Taiwan is part of their country, while Taiwan itself has maintained that they are their own entity and on some occasions have proclaimed that they are the rightful government to today’s China. Either way, the Taiwan Strait becomes a security issue once political tensions are high or the United States begins to sell arms to Taiwan again.

Recently, this has not been much of an issue since Taiwan and China  have been meeting to discuss the possibility of a peace-pact. However, peace is not always on the agenda and the political atmosphere should be gauged through the rhetoric of Taiwan and China’s political leaders. In either case, the Taiwan Strait should not be out of consideration when considering security risks to China’s oil and economic tankers.

Explaining China’s Naval Activities

If we look at these through the lens of energy security, or even the broader lens of seaborne economic activity, China’s actions are easily understood.

Let’s first take the Strait of Malacca as an example. The Strait of Malacca was originally protected by Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. However, these countries were unable to combat piracy in this area and had to enlist the help of the Indian navy. The Indian navy regularly helps with drills and cooperative activities in the area.

If we move onto the South China Sea, the navies of ASEAN, the American Navy and sometimes the Indian and Japanese navy are all present and greatly influence the maritime politics in the region. There are also some “1,000 oil tankers” which are not owned by the Chinese and an additional “4 airfields” on the Spratly Islands which are also not Chinese.

These points all threaten China’s national security as other countries are exerting influence in what they believe to be their backyard. As a result, many reports of China modernizing its naval capacity is not irrational, but logical to the Chinese government as they will not only be able to go much further, but will also be able to protect their interests at the chokepoints described above. The construction of a modern navy has also allowed China to create the “String of Pearls,” or docking ports for its tankers from the Persian Gulf to the mainland.

Greater Clashes in the Future Likely

In my opinion, these chokepoints and sea security issues serve as strong points of interest for Chinese governmental policy as they have to secure their growing interests overseas. Their reliance on maritime trading will not end anytime soon and they will be going head to head with many of their neighbors in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia.

At the moment, many countries in the Asia-Pacific view China with apprehension and fear for their growing size and power. As a result, countries in the region will likely link together to deter China from influencing the region too much. For instance, Japan is currently deepening ties with ASEAN countries, in an act of defiance against China. Vietnam and India are currently cooperating to fight against China over the Spratly Islands to begin exploration and possibly drilling of oil and gas reserves under the seabeds of the South China Sea. India and Japan are beginning to conduct closer ties, which may result in joint-naval practices. These countries are all cooperating without the inclusion of China to forge alliances in future standoffs with the imposing giant.

China also risks being isolated by countries in the Asia-Pacific due to its continuing insistence on bilateral talks over multilateral talks. This strategy does not make China the stronger power and the nonexistence of compromise in China’s strategy will be its downfall as it competes with its neighbors for increasing amounts of fossil fuels, territorial seas, disputed islands, and the rights over which navy can conduct practices in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

For in-depth analysis of China’s conflicts in the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands click here.

Clean technology, renewable energy, eco-cities and the like have been buzz words in China for the past couple of years. Millions of dollars has been invested in these technologies, allowing China to now lead in the largest total capacity for renewable energy in the world. However, as a share of China’s total energy, renewable energy amounted to less than 15% in 2008 (this includes comb. renewable & waste, hydro, geothermal, wind,  and solar).

China and the rest of the world still have a long way to go until they become sustainable, renewable, and environmentally friendly. However, China continuously looks for ways in which to decrease its fuel dependency on foreign countries. Recently, China has been charged by American Solar PV companies for unfairly “dumping” solar cells in the U.S. market, disallowing American Solar PV manufacturers to compete fairly. But as these companies fight for more protectionist measures, China takes its next step by being the first movers in the next generation of electric vehicles. This will once again help China place as the world’s market leader, allowing for the innovation of cheaper and better batteries, infrastructure, and vehicle design.

The only problem is, how do you get Chinese citizens to start buying these low-carbon, energy efficient vehicles? 

The Government’s Failing Efforts

EVs have been promoted because of their energy efficiency and low urban pollution profile. They also have the capability to reduce China’s ridiculous dependency on foreign oil.

However, many are hesitant to embrace the new technology due to the current lack of infrastructure and investment. Recently, the government has implemented national and local initiatives to make the technology cheaper and more convenient. For instance, these initiatives are used to bolster EV consumer convenience, as seen in city of Beijing, where city officials have committed to increasing the amount of charging stations to 256, for distribution stations to 210, and charging posts to 42,000. At the moment, Beijing has only for 19 charging stations and is unprepared for the projected 100,000 EVs to be on Beijing’s streets by 2015.

The central government, on the other hand, has already committed to investing “$15 billion… over the next five years” for vehicle electrification and  infrastructure. They have also promised potential EV consumers subsidies of up to $10,000 USD to offset the price of the battery and technology. The Beijing Municipal Government has even suggested the exemption of EVs from their license plate lottery system. These governmental policies have all aimed at enticing everyday Chinese citizens to buy electric vehicles, but at the moment, these initiatives are not strong enough to tempt them.

What is holding Chinese Consumers back?

So, why have these initiatives not been able to dramatically increase the sale of EVs in China?

To answer this question, we need to have a closer look at the amount of interest Chinese consumers hold for EVs. Initial reports on consumer interest in EVs from management consulting firm McKinsey & Company in 2009-2010 was hardly optimistic. The report focused on the Shanghai automobile market, illustrating the “lack of confidence” consumers had with EVs at the time for their “inconvenience of charging, insufficient mileage endurance and lack of confidence in technological stability and reliability.” This led to only 3.8% of respondents to even consider purchasing an electric vehicle. The worst part was that even with hypothetical government subsidies of $4,400 USD, this number increased only 1.4% to a total of 5.2% of McKinsey’s survey group.

Deloitte Consulting followed up with an expanded survey this year and found Chinese consumer requirements have stayed relatively the same. For instance, the study showed that it would take a substantial and quick oil shock for even 50% of respondents to consider EVs and to get this number up to 75% is highly unlikely. In addition, there is also a negative correlation with fuel efficiency to consumers willingness to consider an electric vehicle. For instance,  if internal combustion engine cars can achieve fuel efficiency levels of “3.0 liters per 100 kilometers” then 82% would be less willing to buy an electric vehicle. Chinese consumers (55%) also expect battery charging time to be around 2 hours, which is in complete contrast to the full 8 hours that current EVs require. In terms of price, 44% of Chinese respondents expect to pay the same price for an electric vehicle as they would an internal combustion engine car, while “only 14% are willing to pay a price premium of more than 20,000 RMB (US $3,055).” The realities of EV pricing when compared to consumer expectations, despite government subsidies of a reported $8,800-10,000 USD, are currently not low enough to interest regular Chinese consumers.

What Do I Need to Know About the Automobile Market in China?

Market Potential for EVs

At the moment, researchers have forecast that Chinese citizens will be the leading buyers of EVs by 2015 in the Asia-Pacific. Firms such as Pike Research claim that China will represent “half of the region’s total sales” in the next 4 years. Others have indicated that China’s EVs market will represent about “10-15%” of China’s total car consumption by 2020. In total numbers, this could amount to  a potential market of 4-6 million electric vehicles (Calculated from 2020 forecast of 40 million new cars).

Current Market Preferences

The 2010 automobile market was 18.1 million and is expected to grow “15 percent this year.” The vast majority of these automobiles are for private use, where in 2007 this category accounted for 71.6% of all cars sold. Moreover, Deloitte’s survey suggested that the vast majority of Chinese automobile consumers want a mid-sized sedan (43%), while small sedans and hatchbacks represented 36% and 9%, respectively.

Of these vehicles sold, foreign brands represent the top pick for Chinese consumers. Shanghai GM Wuling, Shanghai GM, and FAW Volkswagen take the top three spots, with only the only domestic automobile maker Chery represented. This is because foreign brands have not only recognition but are also linked to quality, reliability, stability, and status. On the other hand, domestic vehicles, although cheap, are not reliable and have a bad reputation for “breaking down after two years.” 

To Sell EVs, Make Them A Status Symbol

The EV Consumer Profile

With a country of 1.3 billion people and a GDP per capita of only $3,744 USD in 2009,  the majority of Chinese citizens do not have the capacity to buy a car, nonetheless an electric vehicle that is said to cost upward of $30,000 USD. However, identifying segments that would be interested in electric vehicles in China is not that difficult through the analysis of China’s current consumer preferences and Deloitte and McKinsey & Co’s consumer surveys.

Despite the fact that the majority of Chinese citizens have not considered electric vehicles, there is a segment of the society that would be willing to be the “first movers” on the EV train. In Deloitte’s survey, these individuals are those that are well-educated (Bachelors degree or higher), live in urban areas, belong to middle or upper classes, and they tend to be male. They also identify themselves as environmentally conscious individuals and see EVs as another aspect of their “tech-savvy[ness],” “trend[iness],” and overall “coolness.” These first buyers also tend to be well-informed about their society and governmental policies, allowing them to be stylish yet more environmentally friendly than their peers. As a result, the new EV consumer profile is closely correlated to today’s luxury car market (without the environmentally conscious aspect), explaining not only China’s preference for foreign cars but their need for status and prestige.

The Counter-intuitive Truth: To Make People Want EVs, Put Them Out Of Reach

Walking along the streets of Beijing today, the most numerous and recognizable car brands are Audi, GM, and Volkswagen.  In today’s China, capitalism and consumption have taken over as the traditional fabrics of society erode. Reports of students and young adults using their entire salary for the newest electronic devices are real, illustrating the competitiveness for “perceived” status in the society. Luxury cars are very much part of this game and are now the “it” commodity in the market today. However, luxury cars such as China’s coveted Audi A6 (preferred choice for government officials and CEOs) are becoming more commonplace now, making it hard to differentiate between the newly affluent and the super rich.

This void can now be filled in by electric vehicles as the super rich search for another identity to call their own. In this strategy, car producers will need to aggressively market EVs as a luxury product that is not only esteemed but also discreet (Similar to Audi’s reputation in China, where other German luxury brands are considered too “loud” and therefore, too arrogant).

The first EVs launched into the Chinese market will need to be manufactured by a recognizable foreign brand, or as part of a luxury car group (i.e. SmartCar Ala Mercedes Benz). It’s design will need to be sophisticated, trendy, and almost “couture” to illustrate the almost untouchable nature of the car. Yet, at the same time, allow normal middle class citizens the dream of one day owning it. It should also be marketed in a way that illustrates the esteemed nature of their user, as they consciously decided to forego traditional luxury cars to benefit their society.  Meanwhile, the car should also portray an underlying message that the super rich have higher moral values, illustrating how money and an internal combustion engine (ICE), does not add to society, culture, or the betterment of the environment. This strategy would be able to tap into the status-conscious minds of today’s Chinese consumers while correctly identifying with the consumer segment most likely to buy EVs.

By marketing EVs in this way, car manufacturers will have more time to reduce costs and improve battery functions of future generations of EVs. At the same time, middle class consumers will begin striving toward EVs as the next level of wealth prominence. In this way, EVs will be able to mimic the same trickle-down effect seen in China’s current ICE market, where middle class families strive for prestige through the ownership of luxury cars, while lower to lower-middle class strive for foreign car brands. Through this strategy, electric vehicle car manufacturers would be creating an entire lifestyle catered to those who are educated, affluent but not flashy, and environmentally conscious. This will enable them not only to elevate their position in society but also make them enviable as normal citizens covet their electric vehicles and green lifestyle.

So, what are these obstacles?

Geopolitical

Central Asia’s geographical location is landlocked: Russia to its north, China to its east, the Middle East to its south, and Eastern/Western Europe to its east. Of the three major resource-rich countries in Central Asia, only Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have access to the Caspian Sea which has the  potential to link them to the world energy market via the Black Sea.

This geographical position potentially allows them market access to many countries in the area. But the lack of direct access to the sea and to locations further in Eastern/Western Europe, the Middle East, and Asia makes the proliferation of their energy products politically sensitive and challenging.

Markets

At the moment, the markets available for Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are limited depending on the energy source they are exporting. Kazakhstan, a major producer of sweet crude (lower sulfur= less processing) but not yet gas, has access to Russia, Turkey, Georgia, and China. Uzbekistan, an exporter of natural gas and to a lesser degree of petroleum products, sends its products to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Ukraine. Uzbekistan will also add China to its profile, as the country has already begun the third stage of pipeline production earlier this year. Lastly, Turkmenistan has traditionally exported the majority of its oil and gas to Russia, but has now diversified into China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Iran. Turkmenistan is also in talks with Western Europe as a possible gas supplier for the Nabucco pipeline project.

These overlapping markets make competition fierce as Russia, Azerbaijan, and Iran also wish to have increasing influence on the energy supplies of these countries. However, due to Russia’s long monopoly over energy supply and the political sensitivity surrounding Iran, Central Asia has become a welcomed entry into the market.

Transit Countries

Despite being preferred as an alternative energy supplier, Central Asia still faces barriers in expanding its oil and gas to overseas markets. The most efficient way to transport oil and gas is through pipelines, however, in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan’s case,  their geographical location hinders their ability to directly connect to consumers. Therefore, these three countries are intrinsically dependent on transit countries to help supply their products. This will require a great deal of regional stability, as well as bilateral or even multi-lateral negotiations to secure the safety and completion of cross-border pipelines in the future.

However, despite these efforts, problems can still occur. In a World Bank study of cross-border oil and gas pipelines, the organization highlighted historical conflicts arising from “profit”, “rent-sharing”, competition of market share, differing political interests, and the lack of enforced contracts as the main reasons pipelines fail to be completed or managed. Central Asia is not immune to this, and will potentially have difficulty coming to an agreement with countries such as Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan who are currently competing for increased market share in the region. For this reason, a regional body (formed by contracted countries) which regulates and enforces the contracts of transit countries, while monitoring the supply and demand of oil and gas producing states would be needed in order to give consumers confidence and ensure that disruptions to supply will not happen.

Infrastructure

Another large barrier in the development of oil and gas for the global market is the infrastructure required. Infrastructure, in this case, refers to oil and gas pipelines, exploration and production technology, transportation links, oil refineries, and where needed, gas processing centers. At the moment, many of the exploration, mining, and transportation networks built in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan were done during or immediately after the Soviet Era. This illustrates Central Asia’s heavy reliance on Russia as their primary market and transit point, as well as the possibility that the technology being used could be out of date. At the same time, new infrastructure is very costly and requires a tremendous amount of investment, as these countries are still developing and do not have the resources to explore or produce domestically.

For this section, I will take the construction of pipelines as an example to explain the difficulties of increasing energy infrastructure in this region.

One of the issues facing pipeline construction is the large initial investment it takes to complete a project. Pipelines are often constructed through complicated terrain that require additional funding to bring in supplies, laborers, and managers to properly handle the pipeline construction. As a result, a single project can cost billions of dollars as seen in Turkmenistan and India’s recent negotiations to build a 2,000km pipeline through Pakistan and Afghanistan where the proposed pipeline would take $7.6 Billion to complete. This amount of money is possible to raise when cross-border pipelines are constructed. However, is rather difficult for developing countries such as Uzbekistan, who had to borrow 1.8 Billion from foreign institutions to build their vast network of domestic gas pipelines.

Secondly, pipelines can handle only one type of crude or gas pressure. This makes pipelines inflexible and much analysis and care should be taken in order to maximize the use of pipelines once they have been built. This issue is especially pertinent to exporting countries that have different varieties of gas, such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, which require the construction of gas processing facilities to accommodate the nature of the pipelines.

The last issue plaguing the creation of pipelines is the actual security of the structures once they have been constructed. Often dubbed as pipeline security, many countries are concerned about the physical security of the pipelines from militia groups, protesters, or even everyday citizens disrupting the supply of energy products. At the moment, not much as been done to secure these pipelines but the implementation of regular checks along the length of a pipeline would ensure timely discoveries of leaks or breaks in the structure.

Implications for future investors or markets

Although there are still a number of obstacles standing in the way of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan’s control of the global energy trade, they cannot be ignored and should be engaged in international discussions on oil and gas. The amount of resources that these countries hold, in combination with their location and growing diplomatic ties will create fierce competition with other energy producers. This will either help reduce the cost of energy in the future or bring catastrophe as countries fight to monopolize energy markets.

Future investors and potential markets, however, should pay close attention to the domestic energy policies of these countries. As most of these oil and gas fields are owned by national governments, their main priority will be to fuel their economy and provide for their citizens. This has already been seen through the long-standing oil and gas subsidies these countries give to their to their industries and citizens, increasingly not only their energy intensity but also energy inefficiency. As a result, their current and future practices will affect the amount of reserves available for export (i.e. Uzbekistan’s former oil reserve to production ratio was to last 13 years, in 2002 it was revised to only 11 years. The same goes for their gas reserve to production ratio, which was 42 years but is now only 33 years.).

Author’s Forecast

In my opinion, the most important issue to note will be their relationship with Russia as this will dictate how far and wide their exports will go. At the moment Russia controls a large proportion of European markets and is steadily increasing in the Asian market. In order for countries such as Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to have an impact, Russia needs to be willing to cede control and influence. In the coming months, if not years, close monitoring of the Nabucco Project (bringing Caspian Sea resources to Western Europe, while weaning off Russian resources) is of extreme value as it will illustrate Russia’s position on Central Asian resource expansion.

Monitoring of the Chinese and Indian pipelines is also of extreme value as it will dictate the importance of Central Asian energy as these countries will be the largest consumers of energy in the coming years. However, since India’s pipeline has to pass through the troubled countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan, China will have an advantage due to their direct pipelines. In this regard, I foresee Kazakh oil primarily relying on the Chinese market, while Uzbek gas will run into trouble as the country balances its own energy needs with its export dreams. Additionally, if the Nabucco pipeline does not halt again, Turkmen gas will be primarily directed to Western Europe.

The first part of this series can be seen here.

For a closer look at the region’s major oil pipeline projects: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/major-oil-pipeline-projects