Bad US timing in Africa as Resource war is in full swing

As Obama makes his first real appearance in Africa, has he come far too late? As the president touched down in South Africa, he was greeted with more welcoming protests than the warmth he may have encountered on his trip to the G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

Africa itself is the new Jewel in the eye of slowing down major economies in the northern Hemisphere and where strategic economics may now work with African ways of life, which was unheard of back in the 80s-90s. Holding vast realms of natural resources and economies egger to grow, China has been making the most progress out of all nations, though has also been finding out, that Africa is not always easily bought and tapped.

Late jump from the gate

The Current Obama administration did not make an appearance in its last term, and through this the US has been living off the success of the Clinton administration’s duty free policy on African goods and the Bush administration’s poverty donations, though there is still nothing yet from Obama.

As he was escorted through Cape town in his usual armed battalion, including the support of the South African’s catalogue of Gorilla proof Jeeps, the president had come at a time of when millions of the continent’s inhabitants prepared for the mourning of Nelson Mandela, as well the general view of that Barak Obama “Another US President”. This comes from the Geo political position most south Africans see Mr Obama lying in. From the Libya Crisis and toppling of the Gaddafi regime last year, the involvement of more US drone aircraft in Africa and the current interactions and geopolitical moving in Syria.

Contractual ease by China

China has been conducting much more investment, as it saw the emptiness of foreign competition implementing strategy on the continent. China is finding it easy business doing deals in Africa, as a pragmatic position is taken for politics. There are no political improvements linked to any investment deal which may include a more stable government as some nations saw with previous western deals, giving much better political face to china.

Also with weak colonial might at the moment, no one is in the position to lecture China on its resource and foreign investment policies at this current time. Also with the increase of inflation in China, it is only be a matter of time until manufacturing is transferred overseas to Africa in order to reduce production costs.

Though making deals with Zimbabwe and Sudan hasn’t helped other sides of Chinese interests and shows more importance to business relationships than China’s social responsibility.

DIY Africa

The main issues with Africa are usually down to a few big factors where one or more is active:

• Political Corruption
• Civil Unrest
• Inadequate Infrastructure

The oil industry is probably the wisest of the high risks from African operations. Companies such as BP and Exxon Mobil have dealt with losing oil wells due to political tensions, such as in Somalia; workers being captured and ransomed off and the sabotage from local greed and jealousy, which is the most interesting one in my opinion.

In Nigeria a local communities jealousy over another that has a well contract from an oil firm, will usually result in pipes being cut, or well heads being set ablaze. The market for D grade black market oil is then created through tribal gangs stealing the unrefined liquid and in the meantime the environment being damaged. With Nigeria cultures you are taught not to share or help, so other communities do not work together. The only cooperative relationship that usually occurs is when cleaning companies pay gangs to destroy wells in order to get cleaning contracts.

Energy shortages are also a major issue. Known for its mass ownership of electric generators, Africa’s civil infrastructure is in desperate need of being created.

The Future

 

 

There are certain countries such as South Africa and Angola which provide a forward vision for the Continent, with maybe only one of the three issues being faced.

As the US ranks third as trading partner to the continent, it will be rather soon that more foreign direct investment moves swiftly in. This is also contributed to the the reduction in global market liquidity seen in the past weeks, on the basis of changing Central banking monetary policy (mostly from the US) and the predicted slowdown in emerging markets. Africa due to its minerals has not experienced a reduction in investment hunger so much and with still a very large gap in market capacity across the board of sectors from resource extraction to government development projects, whilst the northern boundary has the rope pulled tighter, the centre realms of the equator look promising, just how much for Africa and more so, how will the economic transition process effect Political engineering and efficiency? This issue brought up when Libya was still continuing in conflict.

 

Tata

G.E.

The Arctic, Russia and the West

The Arctic, the final frontier and one of the most unexplored regions for oil; it has stayed very unexplored for a reason. Shell this week announced their suspension of their drilling, this included France's Total. Combined spending of these two companies within the region is estimated at approximately $7-9Bn. This has occurred due to countless safety problems and the high guarantee of not being able to contain a spill if occurred. ENI and Exxon Mobil though still have their hands hooked into the exploration of the Russian Arctic, but progress has yet to be made, or is it really Russia's Arctic?

Countless disputes between Norway and Russia over the northern territory have continued, leading more secondary companies to conduct their northern drilling explorations from Greenland, yet progress is still yet to be made, one of the suffers of $1Bn yet to make a comeback is Cairn Energy. Russia may though, as well as BP be drawing a quick line under their exploration problems, if the long battle zone of TNK-BP joint venture can be settled.Therefore rebidding of Rosneft (Russia's state oil company) can start again, bringing BP back into the Strategic oil club, and more importantly growing in size since it's asset sale to cover it's remaining Gulf of Mexico disaster repayments.

If the deal with Rosneft is completed soon, BP could quickly become the largest licensed drilling holder within the Arctic. The company is known to be at the front of hard drilling conditions, but also for their failure to operate safely. If BP through the help of Rosneft throws $12Bn give or take, with their newest Arctic technology, they could become successful in domineering the one fifth of the worlds, untapped oil resources.
The company is now finalising the selling of two refineries in the US, leaving it desperate to grow more. Taking a more primary/tertiary model of growth, will be beneficial for the company, though refining oil is turning into a more profitable area of the oil sector. Many new companies are entering this market such as Marathon Petroleum and buying refineries of the likes of BP.

If success is seen in Russia, the strategic energy chart will be weighed more heavily towards the old bears, as the unrest within North Africa and the Middle East continues. Though the slowdown in economic growth has, allowed for the demand price of oil to drop to lows of $108.00 bbl, showing that as much as oil production risk may have increased, the demand has dropped. Though I think it is safe to assume that OPEC will drop supply if it decreases "too much".

Another attack from Europe is occurring. Just before this winter the EU began a probe into GazProm (Russia's state gas company) for it's price fixing to Europe, but more on that in the next entry.
Tata GE

2025...The period for nuclear & renewable energy

I'm taking a mini break from the EU as the Financial Times this week has been reporting on the nuclear debate going on around the world currently, after the Japanese earthquake produced our second largest nuclear energy industrial incident. Not only that I was also invited to attend an ecological economics speech yesterday where nuclear was condemned (as well as positive economics & monetarism which is really two my economic areas). So I thought about giving my opinion, mixed in with scientific facts.

We cannot smell it, feel it; though we breath it in, it tans our skin, it's in the food we eat; it is there and that is what radiation is, the invisible particles of life. It has been there all our lives, from the sun, the earth, from atomic testing to the medical industry, but why are we scared of it?

My main three points about why people are against anything with the elements, are nuclear waste and nuclear destruction, be it weapons or meltdown. Though I feel a lot of the science is left unspoken, and facts can be larger than words, so here I go at trying to balance out the atomic debate with some economics as well.

The Science
Background radiation is everywhere and the biggest contributor is Radon, which comes from decaying elements in rocks within the earth's crust. Radon is approx 50% of background radiation and gamma and beta from the same decaying in the ground is 14%. 12 % is internal, what this means is we are technically radioactive as we have carbon -14 inside us, not only that, but what we eat has C-14, radioactive potassium as well as other radioactive elements inside. The next is the Cosmic, that's 10% contributed by space.
So...we have approximately 86% of radiation today being non-man made.

Man Made Radiation
The biggest man-made contributor of radiation is the medical industry...12%.

Air travel contributes 0.4%, fallout 0.4% occupational 0.2% and nuclear waste <0.1 %. This is all by the way up to present day factual numbers, from the UN, NAEA.

• NAEA 

The Dangers
I really hate going into this topic as it is very sensitive for me on both sides valuing any loss in life is worrying area for me, but sometimes it has to be shown.
There have been many more and troubling disasters outside nuclear energy, the nuclear medical industry and other areas are much more worrying, here are examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents
My point here is that medical contributes more to background radiation, though we don't scrutinise x-rays, cat scans or cancer treatment?
And the horrible summary is that I have seen what oil has done to some poorest areas of the planet pollution wise in real life. We don't want to see it, smell it, touch it though we are addicted, that is what oil is for modern society and how many people have died due to it?

The Economics
My main concern is Germany's promise to scrap nuclear reactors by 2020. The funny thing is, to make up for that loss in nuclear, you have to build more coal fire power stations, which actually give out more radiation than a nuclear power station as well as carbon dioxide which then in turn goes in global warming. They are creating more wind farms and other renewable sources, but the energy production of wind turbine is so small, compared to energy demanded, it is an unrealistic approach and is very expensive contributor to the rise also in energy companies increasing their bills, as well as the price of oil being more susceptible to shocks and increasing due to demand and supply.
People right now and in future years cannot afford this until technology in the renewable sector improves and governments can afford to run deficits.

Conclusion
My goal is not to say we should be Nuclear forever, but when you have depleting highly demanded natural resources. A society which is going through depleted income, that will eventually have to pay more continuously for energy. A time where new nations demand more energy, and geopolitics becomes more powerful... To look away from Nuclear is really a scary mistake I feel.

Renewable energy is the future beyond a doubt, within 5-10 years we most likely will have fusion near perfected for power generation testing, and wind energy being actually cheap in a competitive market. That is where the future lies, but to jump on the green band wagon completely does not make sense from an environmental and economic point of view.