Loved or loathed, carbon capture is here to stay 

By:
On:
In: Asia

Energy, government, and United Nations agencies agree that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an essential weapon in fighting climate change. The technology will be a central part of the debate at the COP28 conference starting in Dubai on Monday.

But most environmental groups – and many environmentally minded journalists – oppose it, seeking out and playing up arguments for its demise. 

Why is CCS so vital, yet so vilified?

Carbon capture and storage, or its close cousin, carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS), is a suite of technologies for trapping carbon dioxide, the main gas responsible for climate change, from power stations, industrial facilities, and other sites burning oil, gas, coal, biomass, or solid wastes, or emitting CO2 during production, such as in cement-making.

The carbon dioxide is then piped to a location to be safely disposed of thousands of meters underground, in depleted oil or gas fields, or within rock formations containing undrinkable saline water. It also can be used to make fuels, fertilizers, plastics, enhance plant growth in greenhouses, and even to put the fizz into drinks.

The We Mean Business Coalition, 131 companies representing nearly US$1 trillion of yearly revenues, published a letter saying, “We call on all Parties attending COP28 in Dubai to seek outcomes that will lay the groundwork to transform the global energy system towards a full phase out of unabated fossil fuels and halve emissions this decade.” Unabated, in this context, means using capture techniques to keep emissions from warming the planet.

Technology wrongly disparaged

Yet recent articles by Bloomberg, the Financial Times (which reported on the coalition’s letter), The Wall Street Journal, and others address the failings, real or alleged, of various carbon-capture projects. Because the technology is promoted by the oil and gas industry, these reports start from the standpoint that CCS is somehow optional, that it must prove itself, and that it’s at best an undesirable necessity.

This is radically wrong and misleading, and dangerous for successful climate policy.

Currently, about 42.6 million tons per year of capture is operating worldwide. Another 198.2 million tons per year is under construction or in advanced or early development. The International Energy Agency’s sustainable development scenario requires an additional 600 million tons of annual capture by 2030; its net-zero scenario has almost 1 billion tons by then.

Carbon capture and storage is rapidly broadening beyond its original deployments in North America and Europe, to the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Australia. Saudi Arabia plans to reach 44 million tons of annual capture at Jubail International City by 2035; the United Arab Emirates’ Abu Dhabi National Oil Company recently doubled its 2030 target to 10 million tons.

This is not an “unproven” or “risky” or “too expensive” method, as it’s often labeled; it’s a well-established technology that is accelerating into mainstream use. 

Why, one might ask, not use renewable energy entirely instead of fossil fuels with CCS?

Entirely renewable-based power systems may be theoretically possible, but they’re rare to date, used only in a few small countries (like Iceland), and largely based on hydropower, which has environmental drawbacks of its own and requires suitable geography.

Systems relying solely on high shares of wind and solar are virtually unheard of and, to the extent they exist, are reliant on significant interconnections with other grids.

Including some share of gas-based electricity in the system lowers overall costs significantly and raises reliability. New gas power stations with integrated carbon capture promise very low-cost clean power.

Even more important, many essential industrial processes don’t have a viable non-fossil alternative. These include iron and steel, cement, fertilizers, chemicals, and refining. 

In the case of cement and many chemical processes, the release of carbon dioxide is an integral part of production. Some of the others have electrical or hydrogen-based options, but these are expensive, often technologically unready, and impossible to retrofit to existing facilities. These could be introduced during the 2030s, but we need decisive action on emissions this decade to be anywhere near net-zero by the UN’s target of 2050.

Carbon capture and storage is indeed backed by the oil and gas industry, just as solar power is backed by the renewables industry, and wind power by windy countries. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Norway, Britain, the United States, Australia, Canada and other important fossil-fuel producers have made it a central part of their climate strategies. This is self-interested, but also practical.

Fossil fuels will continue to be a major part of the global energy mix to 2050 and beyond, even in “net-zero” scenarios – and we are far from being on track for those. The more carbon dioxide we emit now, the more we must remove from the atmosphere in the future. Recent news coverage underlines the dismal record of most biologically based carbon offsets – saving forests that weren’t in danger or that burnt down after credits were issued. 

By contrast, CCS, and its special case, direct air capture of atmospheric carbon dioxide, offer verifiable, measurable, permanent disposal.

Instead of attacking and seeking to halt CCS, journalists and environmental campaigners should be holding oil companies and countries to account, demanding that they deliver on their CCS commitments.

They should be scrutinizing policies that fail to support CCS sufficiently, or don’t put it on a level playing field with renewables, electric vehicles, and other more politically favored climate-friendly options. 

And they should ask where some past unsuccessful projects went wrong, and how to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

This article was provided by Syndication Bureau, which holds copyright.

Follow this writer on X @robinenergy.

Continue Reading

Ukraine crunch coming: Zelensky on the rocks?

By:
On:
In: Asia

In more ways than one, Ukraine is facing a crunch that could topple the Zelensky government.  

Ukraine’s situation has worsened since the failure of the much advertised Ukrainian “counter-offensive.” Focused mainly on the Zaphorize area, but also including renewed emphasis on trying to return to Bakhmut, the entire enterprise stalled. Ukraine suffered huge casualties and equipment losses with almost nothing to show for it. Even the fighting in Bradley square, aimed at breaching the Surovikin defenses, failed.

It is now getting worse as the Russians begin their own offensive, some of it focused on Avdiivka, on the Krasny Liman area, and Kupyansk. Virtually every report indicates important Russian tactical successes despite the reinforcements Ukraine throws in. The Russian operations appear to be an effort to create effective borders for Donetsk and Luhansk while possibly preparing for even deeper thrusts elsewhere.

The Western and Ukrainian news media claim that the Russians are taking heavy losses in these operations. But it would seem that it is the Ukrainians who are rushing in reinforcements, especially around Avdiivka, suggesting the Ukrainian army is being hard pressed by the Russians.

Ukraine has also suffered heavy losses in its air force. If unconfirmed reports coming from Russia are accurate, it would seem the Russians in October were able to destroy 20 Mig-29’s, eight Su-25’s, one Su-24, and two L-39’s. (The L-39 is a trainer and light attack aircraft produced by the Czech Republic’s Aero Vodochody.)

The Mig-29 is a fourth generation jet interceptor that flies faster and turns better than the US F-16 and the F/A-18A.  After their introduction in 1983, the Soviet Union provided them to a number of Eastern European countries then in the Warsaw Pact.  Some of these planes have been handed over to Ukraine. 

MiG-29S "MiG-35S" camouflage
Mig-29.

Sergey Shoigu, Russia’s defense minister, speaking on October 25th, said, “We have received systems that have shot down 24 aircraft over the past five days.” Shoigu did not say what the “systems” were or where they were operating.

It isn’t clear how many Mig-29’s remain in Ukraine’s inventory, but probably only a handful.  

The Russians also destroyed at least three, perhaps more, Leopard tanks. The 14 US supplied M-1 Abrams tanks so far have not been seen in combat and could be a strategic reserve for Ukraine’s army. Ukraine has admitted that the Abrams tanks, like the Leopards, are vulnerable to Russian killer drones such as the improved Lancet, and also can be destroyed by artillery and mines.

The second crunch coming for Ukraine is all about money. In the US House of Representatives, the Republicans are separating aid for Israel from aid for Ukraine and intend to take legislative action on money for Israel ($14 billion) perhaps in the first week of November. They will take up Ukraine assistance separately, but it isn’t clear what a Ukraine package will look like – although it appears the amount of money, $61.4 billion, will be subjected to heavy scrutiny and the funds reduced.

A significant part of the administration’s aid to Ukraine pays salaries for Ukrainian government employees, operating funds and even pensions. The Biden administration proposed $16.3 billion to prop up Zelensky’s government, which is $2.3 billion more than all the proposed aid for Israel.

Even if the war in Ukraine ended today, it would be years before the Ukrainian economy could generate enough revenue to cover government operating costs. That means that the US treasury would need to give Ukraine billions every year just to stay in business, for as long as the next decade. (Of course if the Russians should somehow take over, they would have to pay.)

These government operating funds are also easy targets for corruption.  Congress will probably reduce funds for government operating costs and attach conditions on the aid requiring accountability for the money sent there. There are suggestions that some of the corruption involves American companies and political partners with connections to leading Democratic party officials.

It remains to be seen how tough the conditions are and how much will survive of this $16.3 billion in the budget.

Congress may also want an exit strategy for Ukraine. Up until now, no exit strategy has been proposed, but given the state of the US economy and the rising loss of confidence that Ukraine can prevail against Russia, it is likely that demands for an exit strategy could be built into the money bill for Ukraine.

Zelensky is already reportedly having problems with his generals. There are two parts to this problem. The first was the long delay in launching the counter-offensive, which angered Pentagon and White House officials who wanted it done as a show of strength against the Russians and as a way to secure NATO support going forward.

The US, UK and NATO prepared elaborate battlefield scenarios and simulations, helped train the Ukrainian forces, equipped at least three brigades with Western equipment throughout, yet the Ukrainian army leaders feared the assaults might not be successful and that they lacked essential weapons.

Finally, the offensive got started last June and failed by September, confirming the worst fears of Ukraine’s military leaders (and draining the country of thousands of combat-trained soldiers.)

Now, again, Zelensky has made demands of Ukraine’s army, this time over his favorite hobby horse, Bakhmut while also insisting on the need to defend Avdiivka. Again the top leadership saw these two objectives as traps that would consume increasingly scarce manpower and equipment.

The fighting continues in both places, although the Russians have taken control of a strategic slag pile in Avdiivka which gives them unobstructed fire control over the city and a direct path to the massive coke plant that dominates the city’s skyline. 

Coke plant in Avdiivka. Photo: GMK Center

In Bakhmut the Ukrainians made some initial gains to the south of the city (in the north they were stopped outright), but now the Russians are getting ready to push them back. In general the prognosis is twofold: The Russians will continue to successfully push back Ukrainian forces and Ukraine will continue to lose manpower essential for its strategic reserve.

File:Oleg Tsaryov.jpg
Oleg Tsaryov

Zelensky obviously knows he could be replaced and fears that a deal might be made between the Russian and Ukrainian militaries. That may explain why Ukraine’s domestic intelligence service (SBU) attempted to kill Oleg Tsaryov, a former Ukrainian legislator who US intelligence said was being groomed to replace Zelensky last year when Russian forces attempted a takeover of Kiev.

Tsaryov was shot twice and was found unconscious in Yalta. Ukraine says he is a traitor and he is on a list of other traitors.  There have been a number of assassinations carried out by Ukraine’s SBU targeting Zelensky opponents.

The timing of the shooting of Tsaryov, an obviously high value target, suggests that Zelensky in anxious to liquidate potential challengers. Inside Ukraine he is also clamping down, arresting opponents such as Ihor Kolomoisky, a Ukrainian billionaire and banker, on charges of fraud.

Igor Kolomoisky at a court hearing in Kyiv on September 2, 2023.
Ihor Kolomoisky

If the military situation continues to deteriorate and the US Congress walks back at least some of Ukraine’s money, Zelensky’s tenure may have reached an end point. Zelensky could be on the rocks.

Stephen Bryen, who served as staff director of the Near East Subcommittee of the
US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a deputy undersecretary of defense
for policy, currently is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute.

This article was originally published on his Substack, Weapons and Strategy. Asia Times is republishing it with permission.

Continue Reading

Two dead as Bangladesh garment workers protest low pay

By:
On:
In: Asia

DHAKA: Thousands of garment workers in Bangladesh walked off the job in protest at low wages on Monday (Oct 30), sparking clashes with security forces and damaging multiple factories in unrest that left at least two people dead, police said. Bangladesh is one of the world’s largest garment exporters, withContinue Reading

Microsoft wants its cloud data centers under the sea

By:
On:
In: Asia, Technology

Where is the text you’re reading, right now? In one sense, it lives “on the internet” or “in the cloud”, just like your favorite social media platform or the TV show you might stream tonight.

But in a physical sense, it’s stored and transmitted somewhere in a network of thousands of data centers across the globe. Each of these centers is whirring, buzzing and beeping around the clock, to store, process and communicate vast amounts of data and provide services to hungry consumers.

All this infrastructure is expensive to build and run, and has a considerable environmental impact. In search of cost savings, greater sustainability and better service, data center providers are looking to get their feet wet.

Tech giant Microsoft and other companies want to relocate data centers into the world’s oceans, submerging computers and networking equipment to take advantage of cheap real estate and cool waters. Is this a good thing? What about the environmental impact? Are we simply replacing one damaging practice with another?

Which companies are doing this?

Microsoft’s Project Natick has been pursuing the idea of data centers beneath the waves since 2014. The initial premise was that since many humans live near the coast, so should data centers.

YouTube video

[embedded content]

Microsoft’s underwater data center: Project Natick

An initial experiment in 2015 saw a small-scale data center deployed for three months in the Pacific Ocean.

A two-year follow-up experiment began in 2018. A total of 864 servers, in a 12 by 3 meter tubular structure, were sunk 35 meters deep off the Orkney Islands in Scotland.

YouTube video

[embedded content]

Microsoft’s Project Natick 2

Microsoft is not the only company experimenting with moving data underwater. Subsea Cloud is another American company doing so. China’s Shenzhen HiCloud Data Center Technology Co Ltd has deployed centers in tropical waters off the coast of Hainan Island.

Why move data centers under the waves?

Underwater data centers promise several advantages over their land-locked cousins.

1) Energy efficiency

The primary benefit is a significant cut in electricity consumption. According to the International Energy Agency, data centers consume around 1–1.5% of global electricity use, of which some 40% is used for cooling.

Data centers in the ocean can dissipate heat in the surrounding water. Microsoft’s center uses a small amount of electricity for cooling, while Subsea Cloud’s design has an entirely passive cooling system.

2) Reliability

The Microsoft experiment also found the underwater center had a boost in reliability. When it was brought back to shore in 2020, the rate of server failures was less than 20% that of land-based data centers.

This was attributed to the stable temperature on the sea floor and the fact oxygen and humidity had been removed from the tube, which likely decreased corrosion of the components. The air inside the tube had also been replaced with nitrogen, making fires impossible.

Another reason for the increased reliability may have been the complete absence of humans, which prevents the possibility of human error impacting the equipment.

3) Latency

More than one-third of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometers of a coast. Locating data centers close to where people live reduces the time taken for data to reach them, known as “latency.”

Offshore data centers can be close to coastal consumers, reducing latency, without having to pay the high real-estate prices often found in densely populated areas.

4) Increased security and data sovereignty

Moving data centers into the ocean makes them physically more difficult for hackers or saboteurs to access. It can also make it easier for companies to address “data sovereignty” concerns, in which certain countries require certain data to be stored within their borders rather than transmitted overseas.

5) Cost

Alongside savings due to reduced power bills, fewer hardware failures, and the low price of offshore real estate, the way underwater data centers are built may also cut costs.

The centers can be made in a modular, mass-produced fashion using standardized components and shipped ready for deployment. There is also no need to consider the comfort or practicality for human operators to interact with the equipment.

What about the environmental impact?

At present there is no evidence placing data centers in the world’s oceans will have any significant negative impact. Microsoft’s experiments showed some localized warming, but “the water just meters downstream of a Natick vessel would get a few thousandths of a degree warmer at most.”

The Microsoft findings also showed the submerged data center provided habitat to marine life, much like a shipwreck:

[…] crabs and fish began to gather around the vessel within 24 hours. We were delighted to have created a home for those creatures.

If underwater data centers go ahead, robust planning will be needed to ensure their placement follows best practice considering cultural heritage and environmental values.

There are also opportunities to enhance the environmental benefits of underwater data centers by incorporating nature-positive features in the design to enhance marine biodiversity around these structures.

What’s next?

Several companies are actively exploring, or indeed constructing, underwater data centers. While the average end-user will have no real awareness of where their data are stored, organizations may soon have opportunities to select local, underwater cloud platforms and services.

Companies with a desire to shout about their environmental credentials may well seek out providers that offer greener data centers – a change that is likely to only accelerate the move to the ocean.

So far, it looks like this approach is practical and can be scaled up. Add in the environmental and economic savings and this may well be the future of data centers for a significant proportion of the planet.

Paul Haskell-Dowland is Professor of Cyber Security Practice, Edith Cowan University and Kathryn McMahon is Deputy Director, Center for Marine Ecosystems Research, and Associate Dean of Research, Edith Cowan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Hin Leong founder OK Lim testifies in cheating, forgery trial about how he came to dabble in oil

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia

SINGAPORE: The founder of oil trading firm Hin Leong Trading took the stand at the opening of his defence’s case on Monday (Oct 30), sharing in halting language about how he came to helm the oil empire and his involvement in the later years, before it collapsed.

Lim Oon Kuin, better known as OK Lim, is on trial for three criminal charges: Two counts of cheating the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) and one count of instigating a contracts executive of Hin Leong Trading to forge a false record. The charges involve US$111.7 million (S$148.7 million).

The 81-year-old testified slowly in a wheelchair, through a Mandarin interpreter. He stumbled over the words of the oath when he was being led to recite it, and needed to see the words on a document before he could read them aloud.

Before he began testifying, his lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, said his team might need to take instructions from Lim from time to time as Lim is also a defendant in two civil cases.

On the first day of his testimony, the defence delved into Lim’s personal background and his role at Hin Leong.

Responding to questions from his other lawyer, Mr Navin Thevar, Lim said he was born in 1942 in Putian village in China’s Fujian province. 

He went to a primary school in Singapore for three years and stopped studying after Secondary 2 because of “difficulties at home”. His father, a fisherman who has seven children, did not earn enough to pay for school fees. 

Lim spoke Mandarin, Hokkien, a bit of Teochew, some Putian dialect and only very simple English.

He said he had followed his father in his work as a fisherman.

“Our fishing boat, we took the Cambodia and Sarawak route,” said Lim. “We would make two trips to and fro every month. One time there was a storm at sea. Our fishing boat nearly sank. My father then said – you all don’t do this anymore, go look for other jobs.”

He first began working for a supplier who provided oil to his father’s fishing boat, and began taking up jobs in this business.

After working for the oil supplier for two to three years, Lim set up a small company called Hin Leong with his parents and family members.

The company supplied oil to the fishing boats and to the “kampungs” or villages.

“At that time, the power generators, they used diesel. We also supplied to delivery firms and factories,” said Lim.

“We worked hard. We worked day and night to supply oil to them. Because of our good service, they referred other clients to buy oil from us, so our business grew and became better,” he said.

After that, the family set up multiple related companies for various purposes including dealing with oil storage, holding ships or managing and renting them out and supplying bunker to ships.

Explaining the family business, Lim said: “These companies are owned by our families, so it’s like, sometimes if one company needs anything, the other will help. For example, if one company needs funds, the other company will then send the funds over. It is like our left pocket and right pocket. It’s a family business.”

His two children were also shareholders at Hin Leong.

Lim said he stopped being managing director of Hin Leong and all other firms either in March or April 2020, “when something happened at Hin Leong”.

He added that he had already “slowed down” from around 2010 due to age.

“At that time, I was already 70 plus. Physically, I was not like before. Not like when I was young, so I slowed down. I only went to work (in the) afternoon and I gradually handed over the work to the team of people I trusted,” he said.

He also had a spinal problem that stemmed from an injury in his younger days when he carried “heavy things”. As he aged, he had to undergo surgery for the issue.

“Because I continued working after the spine surgery, subsequently, my legs and hips became weak. I could not stand for too long, for example at a buffet. My legs would ache, and I cannot handle slopes,” he said.

On questioning by his lawyer, Lim said did not know how to use a computer, not even how to turn it on or off.

He did not know how to use a phone other than for making calls, and the contacts were usually preloaded into his device by other people.

He also said he did not know how to use emails or photocopy documents. There were always other people who would perform these tasks for him, he said.

As for filling out partially printed forms, he said he could fill in only simple terms such as his name, age and IC number.

Usually, he would make phone calls if he had to communicate with anyone at work, he said.

From 2010 onwards, he said he did more “strategic work” and some new business development for Hin Leong. He would also handle old customers or those who spoke Mandarin, or those who looked for him specifically.

He said there were different departments and teams, such as bunkering, land sales, international trade and contracts, and they each had their own head.

Each department would work with their own team to complete their work and liaise with other departments, and the heads of each department would inform Lim only if there were “some very important matters”.

On his personal assistant Ms Serene Seng, who had testified against him as a prosecution witness, Lim said she had been with Hin Leong for over 20 years.

She initially joined as secretary to his deputy, but when his deputy died suddenly from a brain haemorrhage, she became Lim’s assistant.

He described Ms Seng’s wide-ranging role as his personal assistant, handling all tasks requiring English, interpreting at meals with the senior management of banks, as well as interpreting business negotiations in both English and Mandarin.

She later became Hin Leong’s head of contracts and corporate affairs manager. 

Asked why, Lim said she needed a title so the clients would know what she does.

Describing her work as his personal assistant, Lim said: “She is very responsible, diligent and intelligent. And there are some things that, what we Chinese call – ‘ju yi fan san’ – she is very flexible. She knows how to handle the situation.”

The trial continues.

Continue Reading

Smoother trips for people working on both sides of Causeway with Johor-Singapore special economic zone: PM Lee

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia

COOPERATING ON RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEVELOPING SMEs Beyond that, Mr Lee said the countries agreed to strengthen cooperation on renewable energy, as they move towards a low-carbon and sustainable future. Singapore has said it intends to import 30 per cent of its electricity supply from low-carbon sources by 2035, while MalaysiaContinue Reading

Albanese to China with trade war in quiet retreat

By:
On:
In: Asia

When Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visits China this week, he will be able to celebrate a figure that previous Australian leaders could only dream of. Over the past year, China has imported more than AU$200 billion (US$127 billion) worth of Australian goods and services.

In August 2023, the Australian Bureau of Statistics put the annual value of goods exports at AU$194 billion and services at AU$9.5 billion. In 2016, the last time an Australian prime minister visited China, the combined figure was less than half the current level at AU$95.6 billion.

Besides buoyant commodity prices and the emergence of new areas of trade such as lithium, exports have reached a record high because the disruptive measures imposed by Beijing in 2020, affecting barley, coal, lobsters and more, have been steadily removed. 

Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell says that under the Albanese government’s watch, by September 2023 AU$20 billion of “trade impediments” had been reduced to just AU$2.5 billion.

There is one narrative in Australia, particularly popular among those who championed former prime minister Scott Morrison’s government’s abrasive approach to China relations, that this positive outcome resulted from firm Australian resistance. It suggests that eventually, Beijing had no choice but to “capitulate” under Australian pressure. This narrative is both misleading and self-serving.

It is true that by the end of 2021 Beijing had recognized that its campaign of trade disruption was causing more harm to itself than it was shifting Canberra’s foreign policy positions.

Upon his arrival in January 2022, the new Chinese ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, said he was on a “noble mission” to work with “the Australian government and friends in all sectors … to jointly push the China–Australia relations back to the right track.” 

But Australian resolve provides only a partial explanation of the removal of the disruptive trade measures. What triggered Beijing’s actions in 2020 was not a particular policy by the Morrison government, but rather its diplomatic posturing. 

After the early Australian moves that disadvantaged China, such as Australia leading the world in banning Chinese technology companies from participating in its 5G rollout in August 2018, and accusations then that Beijing was threatening Australian trade, there was little sign of it. 

It was only in early 2020 when the Morrison government began aping the political attacks launched by former US President Donald Trump against Beijing over the Covid-19 pandemic that Beijing took steps against Australian trade.

Then-Australian prime minister Scott Morrison often aped US president Donald Trump. Photo: Facebook

Beijing wasn’t alone in being taken aback by Australia’s political assault. On Morrison’s call for international health inspectors to be given powers akin to “weapons inspectors.” 

Martin Parkinson, the usually reserved and then recently retired secretary of the Australian Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, remarked, “what whizz kid … dreamed up those talking points, what did they think they were going to achieve with that?”

When the Albanese government restored “calm and consistent” diplomacy, little wonder that ministerial visits resumed and trade disruptions began to ease.

A critical ingredient in the restoration of trade ties has been the multilateral trading system, overseen by the World Trade Organization (WTO). 

This system, which supports open and competitive global markets, blunted the effects of Beijing’s bans on Australia by facilitating the redirection of exports of Australian coal, barley and other commodities, previously destined for China, elsewhere.

The WTO also provided a neutral forum in which Canberra and Beijing could engage in their disputes relating to barley and wine.

After Washington drove the WTO’s regular appeals body into dysfunction in December 2019, Australia and China both stuck to a rules-based process by joining the workaround to the WTO dispute settlement process, the Multi-Party Interim Arrangement. This meant that neither would appeal an unfavorable WTO panel finding “into the void.”

In the case of barley, the timeline is telling. The WTO panel circulated its final report on Australian barley exports to both parties on March 15 – reportedly in Australia’s favor.

On April 10, Canberra and Beijing announced a deal had been struck in which Beijing would undertake an “expedited review” of the tariffs it had imposed. This led to Chinese tariffs being lifted on August 4.

Chinese tariffs on Australian commodities hit agricultural producers hard. Image: Twitter/NDR

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong calculates that Australia “would not have been able to get this outcome without working through the WTO.” Later that month, Trade Minister Farrell farewelled the first shipment of 55,000 tonnes of Australian barley, at a healthy price premium, destined for China.

October brought the news that the same process was in train for wine. On the informal measures still affecting lobsters and beef, Farrell says that warming relations and the experience of the barley episode mean that Australians can “be very confident … that we can resolve all of those outstanding issues.”

Australia’s resistance to Beijing’s attempts at economic coercion was undoubtedly right. But in celebrating the latest trade numbers, when in Beijing Albanese might propose a toast to professional diplomacy and a shared commitment to the multilateral trading system, including an independent, rules-based resolution of disputes. Recommitment to both is the right way forward.

James Laurenceson is Professor and Director at the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney.

This article was originally published by East Asia Forum and is republished under a Creative Commons license.

Continue Reading

Saudi-S Korea in a rich and wide mega-project embrace

By:
On:
In: Asia

South Korea and Saudi Arabia announced their intent to “deepen and advance” bilateral relations in a joint statement issued on the occasion of President Yoon Suk Yeol’s visit to Riyadh from October 21-24.

The announcement was a reminder that while the US and Europe focus on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia’s turn to Asia continues – and that China is not the only East Asian power displacing Western influence in the Middle East.

South Korean President Yoon led a delegation of government officials and business leaders that met with Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman and other Saudi counterparts to discuss trade and investment, infrastructure, energy and defense.

The result was a long and detailed list of initiatives building on the “Future-oriented Strategic Partnership” announced by the two sides when the Saudi leader visited Seoul in November 2022. A Strategic Partnership Council will be established to coordinate their joint activities.

The Saudi-Korean Investment Forum 2023 was held during Yoon’s visit, with representatives of both countries’ public and private sectors participating. It resulted in more than 50 agreements ranging from hydrogen energy, water desalination and agriculture to electric vehicles, tourism and cybersecurity. The total value of the deals was reported at $15.6 billion.

The Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco) alone reached 10 agreements with Korean companies covering collaboration in ammonia off-take and logistics, low-carbon energy exploration, information exchange related to Aramco’s Thermal Crude to Chemicals technology and collaboration in venture capital investment and start-up financing.

Four of the agreements were with S-Oil, which is 63.4%-owned by Aramco. Agreements were also clinched with Doosan to establish a casting and forging facility in Saudi Arabia to produce valves, pumps, compressors, gas and wind turbines, and other products; Korea Electric Power Corporation for a study of the ammonia supply chain; POSCO and Hyundai Oilbank to explore potential collaboration in blue hydrogen and ammonia; and the Export-Import Bank of Korea to develop strategic financing.

Separately, Saudi Aramco signed contracts with Hyundai Engineering & Construction for the construction of a gas processing plant and with the Korea National Oil Corporation for a joint oil storage project during Yoon’s visit. South Korea is the third largest buyer of Saudi oil after China and Japan and depends on Saudi Arabia for nearly 40% of its crude oil supply.

A handout picture provided by Energy giant Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil and gas company, shows its Shaybah Producing and Shaybah NGL in eastern Saudi Arabia. Photo: Asia Times Files / AFP / Musleh Al-Khthami

Private investments in refining, petrochemicals and hydrocarbon resource technology are a priority for both sides. The joint statement noted that work on the Shaheen petrochemical project in Ulsan has been progressing smoothly since a groundbreaking ceremony last March.

The joint statement laid out a scenario that sums up the Future-oriented Strategic Partnership in the energy sector, with South Korea acknowledging Saudi Arabia’s “pioneering role” in the future of energy and avowing to “strengthen cooperation” across the gamut of nuclear, renewable, wind, solar and clean hydrogen energies.

On the latter, the two sides signed the Hydrogen Oasis Initiative (H2Oasis) to strengthen their partnership and support project developments in the fuel.  

Moreover, Hyundai Motor and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund will form a joint venture to build an auto-assembly plant in Saudi Arabia with a capacity of 50,000 internal combustion engine and electric vehicles per year. Production is scheduled to begin in 2025.

Naver, South Korea’s largest internet company, signed an agreement with the Saudi Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs and Housing and Ministry of Investment to create a cloud-based digital twin platform for smart city urban planning, monitoring and disaster prevention in the cities of Riyadh, Medina, Jeddah, Dammam and Mecca.

Naver senior executive Chae Seon-ju hopes that “Naver will serve as a bridge for the export of Korean IT [information technology] startups to the Middle East.” His efforts should be supported by cooperation between the two countries in the protection of intellectual property.

The joint statement notes that the dispatch of South Korean experts has contributed to the development of Saudi Arabia’s National IP Strategy of Saudi Arabia and capacity-building for Saudi patent examiners.

In addition, a South Korean consortium led by food and beverage company Nongshim will provide “smart farm” infrastructure to Saudi Greenhouse for year-round production of strawberries. Temperature, humidity and sunlight in the indoor gardens are monitored and regulated automatically.

The two countries also celebrated the 50th anniversary of Korea-Saudi cooperation in the field of construction and agreed that South Korea would support Saudi Arabia’s large-scale economic development projects.

These include the NEOM industrial, residential and recreation project in the northwest of the country, which will be powered by renewable energy, and the Red Sea tourism project along the coast.

The joint statement does not provide much detail on military matters, but does contain a brief section entitled “Strengthening Cooperation in the fields of Defense, Defense Industry and Combating Terrorism.”

President Yoon was reported to have had a successful meeting with Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman Al Saud and Minister of National Guard Abdullah bin Bandar bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.

According to South Korea’s Yonhap news agency, Defense Minister Khalid “said that the two countries’ defense industry cooperation, which is close to producing results, will be a new milestone in their partnership. He also expressed hope for next-generation defense industry cooperation and proposed a comprehensive partnership that includes technological collaboration and joint production.”

Yoon’s office told the media that he had “called for deepening the scope of defense cooperation to include defense training, joint exercises, visits to military bases and people-to-people exchanges.”

His security advisor Kim Tae-hyo said that discussions in areas including missile defense and artillery are “in the final stage,” according to Yonhap.

South Korea’s first prototype of its 4.5-generation fighter, officially dubbed KF-21 Boramae, was revealed at the Korea Aerospace Industries Co facility in Sacheon, South Korea. Image: Screengrab / CNN

This is the realpolitik side of Saudi Vision 2030, the long-term national development strategy developed by Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman and his Council of Economic and Development Affairs to build “a vibrant society, a thriving economy and an ambitious nation.”

“In order to achieve a thriving economy, the kingdom will diversify its economy and create dynamic job opportunities… through commitments to education, entrepreneurship and innovation, unlocking underdeveloped industries such as manufacturing, renewable energy and tourism,” the vision statement says.

This is not the vision of a Saudi society that wants or needs to choose between only the US or China. And it’s a vision that fits with South Korea’s own modernization ambitions in an increasingly multipolar world.

Follow this writer on Twitter: @ScottFo83517667

Continue Reading