Japan’s energy needs post-earthquake aren’t a worry yet

A spike in Japanese demand for LNG can easily be met, but futures markets should calm themselves.

As Japan struggles to cope with the aftermath of the 11 March earthquake, issues of energy security are becoming more prevalent not only in Japan, but across the world.

Five nuclear power plants were affected by the Sendai earthquake, and of those, one has suffered a partial meltdown – the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Three major oil refineries were also closed. Amid scrambled attempts to avert a full-scale, Chernobyl-style disaster, fears are now rising about how the shortfall in Japan's energy production – which Société Générale estimates to be roughly 11.3 gigawatts, enough to power as many as 11 million households – will be managed for the foreseeable future.

Consumption of electricity generated from nuclear power stands at 30 per cent of Japan's total usage. The government had previously planned to increase this to 40 per cent by 2017, and then 50 per cent by 2030.

Whether or not these plans will now be halted or contested as a result of the disaster at Fukushima I remains to be seen. What is certain, though, is that Japan will have to meet the demand for energy somehow, despite a large impairment in production facilities.

Japan's energy mix still heavily relies on oil, which accounted for 45 per cent of national energy consumption in 2009, but it is also the world's largest importer of liquefied natural gas (LNG) – in 2010 the Japanese shipped over 70 million tonnes of it. The biggest suppliers of oil and LNG to Japan are Saudi Arabia and Qatar, respectively, with the United Arab Emirates the second-largest supplier of both commodities.

With revolutions still raging across the Middle East, the markets have already been pushing up prices, particularly for oil, in fear of an energy crisis, and the increased demand on the region that Japan's predicament may spur could make the problem even more acute. Due to the shortfall in Libyan supply and worries about Saudi Arabia's stability, prices continue to rise. Today Brent crude spot prices increased to $113.99 per barrel, and LNG futures for April 2015 delivery rose $0.22 per MMBtu on the week to $6.08 according to NYMEX.

If Japan does make up its shortfall with LNG, the UK would bear the brunt of this shift in supplies, as LNG accounts for almost 33 per cent of winter demand, and contracts for next year have risen between 10 and 15 per cent on speculation of increased demand. This follows already high gas prices and a particularly cold winter that added roughly £44 to British domestic gas bills.

This chart, taken from Kiran Stacey's Financial Times blog shows how much LNG Japan needed to make up for an energy shortfall after the 2007quake:

PFC Energy made a prediction based on these figures that, with 9.7 gigawatts of capacity lost (estimates vary, as with the Société Générale figure above), this could lead to at least a 500-600 megaton per month leap in Japanese LNG purchases. PFC believes the price for Asian spot will remain around $8-$9 MMBtu.

There are a few factors to consider in support of this conservative estimate. A global gas glut, including Qatar's huge increase in LNG production capacity, will certainly be able to alleviate Japan's demands. In fact, Qatar has already promised to divert more supplies there if necessary, which it would not have been able to do so easily back in 2007. Further, Japan is still able to use supplies from futures contracts at the moment to meet its energy needs, so its demand is lower than expected.

These factors explain the lack of a significant spike in demand so far, but fears driving the rise in futures prices (as opposed to the relatively stable spot prices) bode less well for the long term.

Liam McLaughlin is a freelance journalist who has also written for Prospect and the Huffington Post. He tweets irregularly @LiamMc108.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

As long as Jeremy Corbyn's Labour opponents are divided, he will rule

The leader's foes have yet to agree on when and how a challenge should take place.

Labour MPs began plotting to remove Jeremy Corbyn as leader before he even held the position. They have not stopped since. From the outset, most regarded him as electorally and morally defective. Nothing has caused them to relinquish this view.

A week before the first major elections of this parliament, Labour found itself conducting a debate normally confined to far-right internet forums: was Hitler a Zionist? For some MPs, the distress lay in how unsurprised they were by all this. Since Corbyn’s election last September, the party has become a mainstream venue for hitherto fringe discussions.

Many MPs believe that Labour will be incapable of rebuilding its standing among the Jewish community as long as Corbyn remains leader. In the 1930s, Jewish support for the party was as high as 80 per cent. “They handed you your . . . membership just after your circumcision,” quipped the father in the 1976 television play Bar Mitzvah Boy. By the time of the last general election, a poll found that support had fallen to a mere 22 per cent. It now stands at just 8.5 per cent.

Corbyn’s critics cite his typical rejection of anti-Semitism and "all forms of racism" (as if unable to condemn the former in isolation), his defence of a tweet sent by his brother, Piers (“Zionists can’t cope with anyone supporting rights for Palestine”), and his description of Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends”. The Lab­our leader dismissed the latter remark as a diplomatic nicety but such courtesy was not displayed when he addressed Labour Friends of Israel and failed to mention the country’s name. When challenged on his record of combating anti-Semitism, Corbyn frequently invokes his parents’ presence at the Battle of Cable Street, a reference that does not provide the reassurance intended. The Jewish community does not doubt that Labour has stood with it in the past. It questions whether it is prepared to stand with it in the present.

MPs say that Labour’s inept response to anti-Semitism has strengthened the moral case for challenging Corbyn. One shadow cabinet minister spoke of how the fear of “enormous reputational damage” had pushed him to the brink of resignation. As the New Statesman went to press, Corbyn’s first electoral test was looming. Every forecast showed the party on course to become the first opposition to lose council seats in a non-general-election year since 1985. Yet Corbyn appeared to insist on 3 May that this would not happen, gifting his opponents a benchmark by which to judge him.

Sadiq Khan was projected to become the party’s first successful London mayoral candidate since 2004. But having distanced himself from Corbyn throughout the race, he intends to deny him any credit if he wins. Regardless of the results on 5 May, there will be no challenge to the Labour leader before the EU referendum on 23 June. Many of the party’s most Corbyn-phobic MPs are also among its most Europhile. No cause, they stress, should distract from the defence of the UK’s 43-year EU membership.

Whether Corbyn should be challenged in the four weeks between the referendum and the summer recess is a matter of dispute among even his most committed opponents. Some contend that MPs have nothing to lose from trying and should be prepared to “grind him down” through multiple attempts, if necessary. Others fear that he would be empowered by winning a larger mandate than he did last September and argue that he must be given “longer to fail”. Still more hope that Corbyn will instigate a midterm handover to the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, his closest ally, whom they regard as a beatable opponent.

Those who are familiar with members’ thinking describe many as “anxious” and in need of “reassurance” but determined that Corbyn receives adequate time to “set out his stall”. One shadow cabinet minister spoke of being “caught between Scylla and Charybdis” – that is, “a Labour Party membership which is ardently Corbynista and a British electorate which is ardently anti-Corbynista”. In their most pessimistic moments, some MPs gloomily wonder which group will deselect them first. The possibility that a new Conservative leader could trigger an early general election is cited by some as cause for haste and by others as the only means by which Corbynism can be definitively discredited.

The enduring debate over whether the Labour leader would automatically make the ballot if challenged (the party’s rules are ambiguous) is dismissed by most as irrelevant. Shadow cabinet members believe that Corbyn would achieve the requisite nominations. Momentum, the Labour leader’s praetorian guard, has privately instructed its members to be prepared to lobby MPs for this purpose.

There is no agreement on who should face Corbyn if his removal is attempted. The veteran MP Margaret Hodge has been touted as a “stalking horse” to lead the charge before making way for a figure such as the former paratrooper Dan Jarvis or the shadow business secretary, Angela Eagle. But in the view of a large number of shadow cabinet members, no challenge will materialise. They cite the high bar for putative leaders – the endorsement of 20 per cent of Labour MPs and MEPs – and the likelihood of failure. Many have long regarded mass front-bench resignations and trade union support as ­essential preconditions for a successful challenge, conditions they believe will not be met less than a year after Corbyn’s victory.

When Tony Blair resigned as Labour leader in 2007, he had already agreed not to fight the next general election and faced a pre-eminent rival in Gordon Brown. Neither situation exists today. The last Labour leader to be constitutionally deposed was J R Clynes in 1922 – when MPs, not members, were sovereign. Politics past and present militate against Corbyn’s opponents. There is but one man who can remove the leader: himself.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 06 April 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The longest hatred