Resource nationalism on the rise amid geopolitical tensions

Hello from Houston.

The news from Texas: ExxonMobil is doubling down on oil — despite concerns that the market faces a looming oversupply crisis.

The US supermajor said yesterday that it would crank up output by almost a fifth by the end of the decade, dialling up spending plans even as some of its peers hold back amid growing fears of a supply glut.

The 5.4mn barrels of oil equivalent the company plans to pump daily by the end of the decade is more than that of most Opec countries and would turn the west’s biggest producer into a global oil and gas behemoth.

Exxon’s argument is that it can produce oil much more cheaply than its rivals, making it best placed to supply what it predicts will be an enduring global thirst for fossil fuels — even if prices slide.

Elsewhere, the Biden administration yesterday hit China with a volley of new tariffs on critical mineral imports, a parting gift by the president to Beijing as he looks to shore up the nascent US cleantech manufacturing space before leaving office. My colleague Aime Williams had the scoop.

That is also the topic of today’s newsletter. With resource nationalism on the march over the metals and minerals needed to power the economies of the future, our commodities correspondent Camilla Hodgson digs into a new report on what this means for an already-tense geopolitical situation.

The verdict? We’ve entered a new era of protectionism. Read on for more.

As ever, thanks for reading. Email me at myles.mccormick@ft.com — Myles

Western democracies drive a global rise in resource nationalism

Businesses worldwide face increased risk from a global rise in protectionism as countries scramble to secure access to the minerals critical to battery manufacturing and the energy transition, according to new research. 

Rising geopolitical tensions have fuelled a rise in state intervention and protectionism “not seen since the first half of the 20th century in western democracies”, global risk intelligence company Verisk Maplecroft said on Thursday. 

The change has been particularly acute in Europe and North America, with governments in both regions seeking to secure their access to critical minerals such as lithium and copper — the supply chains for which are dominated by China — the researchers said.

Increased tensions in the sector have worsened in recent weeks with critical minerals becoming an ever more closely watched geopolitical football. This month, China banned shipments to the US of several crucial minerals and metals in retaliation for new export controls imposed by the Biden administration designed to target Beijing’s development of artificial intelligence. Earlier this year, a coalition of western nations including the US and UK announced financing plans for minerals projects in an effort to diversify away from China.

“The fracturing geopolitical landscape and the fallout from major shocks like the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have spurred an acceleration of policies aimed at acquiring the minerals needed to power the tech and defence industries, as well as the green transition to bolster energy security,” said Jimena Blanco, chief analyst at Verisk Maplecroft. 

“State focus on supply chain security has opened the door for companies to take advantage of attractive incentive schemes, but geopolitical divergence could increasingly limit opportunities to allied or friendly jurisdictions,” she said. 

According to the researchers’ latest resource nationalism index — a quarterly analysis that measures government control of economic activity in the mining and energy sectors — 72 countries out of the 198 assessed had seen a “significant increase” in interventionist and protectionist policies over the past five years.

Venezuela, Russia and Mexico were judged to be the three countries where businesses faced the greatest risks of state intervention and expropriation in the sectors.

But the analysts said that the risk scores for Germany, Spain, the UK and Poland had all worsened significantly since 2019, with Germany registering the largest drop of any country during the period. It has come as a consequence of protectionist moves by Berlin such as the seizure of Russian energy assets following the country’s invasion of Ukraine, and the offering of subsidies to boost domestic mineral processing and manufacturing, they said.

More broadly, the analysts pointed out that European and North American governments had taken steps to shore up their domestic mining and energy industries and restrict foreign investment from rivals with policies including US President Joe Biden’s Chips and Science Act. 

Forty-one countries that were responsible for 41 per cent of global mineral output were now classified as being either “high” or “very high” risk for protectionist policies, the researchers said. That was an increase from 30 countries five years ago.

“The most likely scenario is that western nations will increasingly use a mix of trade and investment policies, along with stricter sustainability standards, to restrict trade with rivals and push for localised supply chains,” said Blanco.

Heightened risks across multiple jurisdictions exacerbated the overall challenges faced by companies and investors, given the complex and cross-border nature of many critical mineral supply chains, the group said. For example, a mineral may be mined in one country but processed in another and sold to a manufacturer operating in a third.

The analysis considered countries’ protectionist and interventionist policies, state participation in resource extraction and instances of direct and indirect expropriation, such as asset nationalisation or regulatory changes that make doing business in the sectors less profitable. (Camilla Hodgson)

Power Points

Energy Source is written and edited by Jamie Smyth, Myles McCormick, Amanda Chu, Tom Wilson and Malcolm Moore, with support from the FT’s global team of reporters. Reach us at energy.source@ft.com and follow us on X at @FTEnergy. Catch up on past editions of the newsletter here.