Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

More stories

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    This Remote Mine Could Foretell the Future of America’s Electric Car Industry

    by

    Hiding a thousand feet below the earth’s surface in this patch of northern Minnesota wetlands are ancient mineral deposits that some view as critical to fueling America’s clean energy future.Tim Gruber for The New York TimesA company called Talon Metals is drilling here around the clock, extracting samples of rock rich with nickel in a bid to become the country’s sole source of a material used to power zero-emission vehicles.But some locals are fighting the mine, for fear it could pollute their environment. The pushback hints at how difficult it may be to build an all-American supply chain that powers the country’s transition to electric vehicles.This Remote Mine Could Foretell the Future of America’s Electric Car IndustryTAMARACK, Minn. — In this isolated town of about 100 people, dozens of employees are at work for Talon Metals, drawing long cylinders of rock from deep in the earth and analyzing their contents. They liken their work to a game of Battleship — each hole drilled allows them to better map out where a massive and long-hidden mineral deposit is lurking below.The company is proposing to build an underground mine near Tamarack that would produce nickel, a highly sought-after mineral that is used to power electric vehicles. It would be a profitable venture for Talon, which has a contract to supply nickel for Tesla’s car batteries, and a step forward in the country’s race to develop domestic supply chains to feed the growing demand for electric vehicles.But mines that extract metal from sulfide ore, as this one would, have a poor environmental record in the United States, and an even more checkered footprint globally. While some in the area argue the mine could bring good jobs to a sparsely populated region, others are deeply fearful that it could spoil local lakes and streams that feed into the Mississippi River. There is also concern that it could endanger the livelihoods and culture of Ojibwe tribes whose members live just over a mile from Talon’s land and have gathered wild rice here for generations.Talon says it will invest heavily to design the world’s greenest and most responsible mine yet, one that they say “Joe Biden can love.” But some people in the community remain skeptical, including about the company’s promises to respect Indigenous rights, like the tribes’ authority over lands where their members hunt and gather food. Part of that mistrust stems from the fact that Talon’s minority partner, Rio Tinto, provoked outrage in 2020 by blowing up a 46,000-year-old system of Aboriginal caves in Australia in a search for iron ore.Kelly Applegate, the commissioner of natural resources for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, said he was “very concerned” about how the mine might damage the environment. “This again is an assault on Native culture, a disturbance of our way of being, another trauma that could potentially happen to our people,” he said.He described it as a “huge environmental justice issue” to mine local resources for electric cars that the tribe’s members would be unable to afford. Except for some wealthy homeowners who spend their summers around the lakes, the area is one of the poorest parts of Minnesota. Native Americans in Minnesota experience poverty at higher rates than any other racial or ethnic group in the state. Locals say the only Tesla for miles is Talon’s company car.“Talon and Rio Tinto will come and go — greatly enriched by their mining operation. But we, and the remnants of the Tamarack mine, will be here forever,” Mr. Applegate said.The project, which lies 50 miles west of Lake Superior, highlights some of the challenges that are emerging as the Biden administration tries to transition America to electric vehicles. The administration has said it wants to make the supply chains for batteries more resilient by sourcing minerals inside North America. But that desire could bring its own potential for environmental damage and infringement of the rights of Indigenous Americans. Much of the nation’s supply of battery materials is near tribal land.The world urgently needs to switch to cleaner cars to limit the global damage from climate change, many climate activists say. Last week, California approved a plan to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035.But current supply chains for electric vehicle batteries — and the batteries that would be needed for the electric grid that would charge that fleet of vehicles — rely on some adversarial and heavily polluting foreign nations. Much of the nickel that goes into car batteries is produced by strip mines that have decimated rainforests in Indonesia and the Philippines, releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide before being refined in Chinese factories powered by coal.Read More on Electric VehiclesBanning Gasoline Cars: California is leading the way in the push to electrify the nation’s car fleet with a plan to ban sales of new internal-combustion vehicles by 2035, but the rule will face several challenges.Inflation Reduction Act: The law extends tax incentives in an effort to steer more U.S. consumers toward electric cars. But new rules complicate the qualification process.Plug-In Hybrids: After falling behind all-electric cars, U.S. sales of plug-in hybrids have been surging. The high cost of electric cars and gasoline have given them an opening.Car Crashes: Tesla and other automakers capture data from their vehicles to operate their products. Experts say the collected information could also improve road safety.Another source of nickel is a massive mining operation north of the Arctic Circle in Norilsk, Russia, which has produced so much sulfur dioxide that a plume of the toxic gas is big enough to be seen from space. Other minerals used in electric vehicle batteries, such as lithium and cobalt, appear to have been mined or refined with the use of child or forced labor.With global demand for electric vehicles projected to grow sixfold by 2030, the dirty origins of this otherwise promising green industry have become a looming crisis. The Democrats’ new tax and climate bill devotes nearly $400 billion to clean energy initiatives over the next decade, including electric vehicle tax credits and financing for companies that manufacture clean cars in the United States.New domestic high-tech mines and factories could make this supply chain more secure, and potentially less damaging to the global environment. But skeptics say those facilities may still pose a risk to the air, soil and water that surrounds them, and spark a fierce debate about which communities might bear those costs.The project is near lakes and streams that feed into the Mississippi River, and where Ojibwe tribes have gathered wild rice for generations.The potential risks to plants and wildlife come from the sulfide ores; the ores, in which materials like copper and nickel are lodged, can leach out sulfuric acid and heavy metals. More than a dozen former copper mines in the United States are now Superfund sites, contaminated locations where taxpayers can end up on the hook for cleanup.In January, the Biden administration canceled leases for another copper-nickel mine near a Minnesota wilderness area, saying the Trump administration had improperly renewed them.Talon Metals insists that it will have no such problems. “We can produce the battery materials that are necessary for the energy transition and also protect the environment,” said Todd Malan, the company’s chief external affairs officer and head of climate strategy. “It’s not a choice.”The company is using high-tech equipment to map underground flows of water in the area and create a 3-D model of the ore, so it can mine “surgically” while leaving other parts of the earth undisturbed, Mr. Malan said. Talon is also promising to use technology that will safely store the mine’s toxic byproducts and do its mining far underground, in deep bedrock where groundwater doesn’t typically penetrate.Talon has teamed up with the United Steelworkers union on work force development. And Rio Tinto has won a $2.2 million Department of Energy grant to explore capturing carbon near the site, which may allow the mine to market its products as zero emission.“We can produce the battery materials that are necessary for the energy transition and also protect the environment,” said Todd Malan, the chief external affairs officer and head of climate strategy at Talon.In a statement, Talon said it was committed to “meaningful consultations with tribal sovereign governments and tribal people” and producing a mine plan that addressed their concerns, as well as working with tribal governments interested in economic benefit sharing.The company has held several informational meetings with tribal staff and members, but some tribal members say they still need far more details from Talon about its plans.If the mine comes online in 2026 as scheduled, it will be positioned to feed a hungry market. The United States currently has one operating nickel mine, in Michigan, but its resources will be exhausted by 2026.In Washington, a bipartisan consensus is growing that the country should reduce its reliance on risky overseas minerals. To limit global warming to the levels that advanced countries have agreed on, the International Energy Agency estimates, the world will need roughly 20 times as much nickel and cobalt by 2040 as it had in 2020 and 40 times as much lithium.Recycling could play a bigger role in supplying these materials by the end of the decade, and some new car batteries do not use any nickel. Yet nickel is still highly sought after for electric trucks and higher-end cars, because it increases a vehicle’s range.The infrastructure law passed last year devoted $7 billion to developing the domestic supply chain for critical minerals. The climate and tax law also sets ambitious thresholds for ensuring that electric vehicles that receive tax incentives are partly U.S.-made.Elisabeth Kachinske logged core samples containing nickel at Talon’s offices in Tamarack, Minn.Talon’s proposed mine could help Tesla meet those thresholds. Tesla gets its nickel from China, Australia, New Caledonia and Canada, and its chief executive, Elon Musk, has begged miners to produce more.Some environmental and left-leaning groups that have long been skeptical of domestic mining are adjusting those positions, arguing that resources are needed for the energy transition.Collin O’Mara, the chief executive of the National Wildlife Federation, said that there was a growing need for battery materials that were mined responsibly, and that Talon was promising to use state-of-the-art techniques to minimize the mine’s footprint.But he acknowledged that for local residents it would still take a leap of faith in new technologies and Talon’s ability to apply them. “There still isn’t an example of an existing mine that has had no impacts,” he said.The economic potential — and the environmental risks — may go far beyond a single mine. The entire region is home to deposits of nickel, copper and cobalt, which were formed 1.1 billion years ago from a volcano that spewed out miles of liquid magma.Talon has leased 31,000 acres of land in the area, covering an 11-mile geological feature deep under the swamp. The company has zealously drilled and examined the underground resources along one of those 11 miles, and discovered several other potential satellite deposits.Elizabeth Skinaway, a member of the Sandy Lake Band of Minnesota Chippewa, is especially concerned about damage to the wild rice, which she has gathered in lakes near the proposed mine for 43 years.In August, the company announced that it had also acquired land in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to explore for more nickel.Talon will start Minnesota’s environmental review process within a few months, and the company says it anticipates a straightforward review. But legal challenges for proposed mines can regularly stretch to a decade or more, and some living near the project say they will do what they can to fight the mine.Elizabeth Skinaway and her sister, Jean Skinaway-Lawrence, members of the Sandy Lake Band of Minnesota Chippewa, are especially concerned about damage to the wild rice, which Ms. Skinaway has been gathering in lakes several miles from the proposed mine for 43 years.Ms. Skinaway acknowledges the need to combat climate change, which also threatens the rice. But she sees little justice in using the same kind of profit-driven, extractive industry that she said had long plundered native lands and damaged the global environment.“The wild rice, the gift from the creator, that’s going to be gone, from the sulfide that’s going to leach into the river and the lakes,” she said. “It’s just a really scary thought.”“We were here first,” said her sister. “We should be heard.”The Talon drill site near Tamarack. More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Red Flags for Forced Labor Found in China’s Car Battery Supply Chain

    by

    The photograph on the mining conglomerate’s social media account showed 70 ethnic Uyghur workers standing at attention under the flag of the People’s Republic of China. It was March 2020 and the recruits would soon undergo training in management, etiquette and “loving the party and the country,” their new employer, the Xinjiang Nonferrous Metal Industry Group, announced.But this was no ordinary worker orientation. It was the kind of program that human rights groups and U.S. officials consider a red flag for forced labor in China’s western Xinjiang region, where the Communist authorities have detained or imprisoned more than 1 million Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs and members of other largely Muslim minorities.The scene also represents a potential problem for the global effort to fight climate change.China produces three-quarters of the world’s lithium ion batteries, and almost all the metals needed to make them are processed there. Much of the material, though, is actually mined elsewhere, in places like Argentina, Australia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Uncomfortable with relying on other countries, the Chinese government has increasingly turned to western China’s mineral wealth as a way to shore up scarce supplies.That means companies like the Xinjiang Nonferrous Metal Industry Group are assuming a larger role in the supply chain behind the batteries that power electric vehicles and store renewable energy — even as China’s draconian crackdown on minorities in Xinjiang fuels outrage around the world.The Chinese government denies the presence of forced labor in Xinjiang, calling it “the lie of the century.” But it acknowledges running what it describes as a work transfer program that sends Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities from the region’s more rural south to jobs in its more industrialized north.Xinjiang Nonferrous and its subsidiaries have partnered with the Chinese authorities to take in hundreds of such workers in recent years, according to articles displayed proudly in Chinese on the company’s social media account. These workers were eventually sent to work in the conglomerate’s mines, a smelter and factories that produce some of the most highly sought minerals on earth, including lithium, nickel, manganese, beryllium, copper and gold.It is difficult to trace precisely where the metals produced by Xinjiang Nonferrous go. But some have been exported to the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea and India, according to company statements and customs records. And some have gone to large Chinese battery makers, who in turn, directly or indirectly, supply major American entities, including automakers, energy companies and the U.S. military, according to Chinese news reports.It is unclear whether these relationships are ongoing, and Xinjiang Nonferrous did not respond to requests for comment.But this previously unreported connection between critical minerals and the kind of work transfer programs in Xinjiang that the U.S. government and others have called a form of forced labor could portend trouble for industries that depend on these materials, including the global auto sector.A new law, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, goes into effect in the United States on Tuesday and will bar products that were made in Xinjiang or have ties to the work programs there from entering the country. It requires importers with any ties to Xinjiang to produce documentation showing that their products, and every raw material they are made with, are free of forced labor — a tricky undertaking given the complexity and opacity of Chinese supply chains.A Critical Year for Electric VehiclesAs the overall auto market stagnates, the popularity of battery-powered cars is soaring worldwide.Charging Stations: The Biden administration unveiled proposed regulations that would require stations built with federal dollars to be located no more than 50 miles apart.General Motors: The company hopes to become a leading force in the electric vehicle industry. Its chief executive shared how G.M. intends to get there.Turning Point: Electric vehicles still account for a small slice of the market, but this year, their march could become unstoppable. Here’s why.New Materials: As automakers seek to electrify their fleets and to direct electricity more efficiently, alternatives to silicon are gaining traction.The apparel, food and solar industries have already been upended by reports linking their supply chains in Xinjiang to forced labor. Solar companies last year were forced to halt billions of dollars of projects as they investigated their supply chains.The global battery industry could face its own disruptions given Xinjiang’s deep ties to the raw materials needed for next-generation technology.Trade experts have estimated that thousands of global companies may actually have some link to Xinjiang in their supply chains. If the United States fully enforces the new law, it could result in many products being blocked at the border, including those needed for electric vehicles and renewable energy projects.Some administration officials raised objections to cutting off shipments of all Chinese goods linked with Xinjiang, arguing that it would be disruptive to the U.S. economy and the clean energy transition.Representative Thomas R. Suozzi, a Democrat from New York who helped create the Congressional Uyghur Caucus, said that while banning products from the Xinjiang region might make goods go up in price, “it’s too damn bad.”“We can’t continue to do business with people that are violating basic human rights,” he said. To understand how reliant the battery industry is on China, consider the country’s role in producing the materials that are critical to the technology. While many of the metals used in batteries today are mined elsewhere, almost all of the processing required to turn those materials into batteries takes place in China. The country processes 50 to 100 percent of the world’s lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite, and makes 80 percent of the cells that power lithium ion batteries, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, a research firm.“If you were to look at any electric vehicle battery, there would be some involvement from China,” said Daisy Jennings-Gray, a senior analyst at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence.The materials Xinjiang Nonferrous has produced — including a dizzying array of valuable minerals, like zinc, beryllium, cobalt, vanadium, lead, copper, gold, platinum and palladium — have gone into a wide variety of consumer products, including pharmaceuticals, jewelry, building materials and electronics. The company also claims to be one of China’s largest producers of lithium metal, and its second-largest producer of nickel cathode, which can be used to make batteries, stainless steel and other goods.Xinjiang Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Group was one of the region’s earliest miners, operating the state-owned No. 3 pegamite mining pit beginning in the 1950s.Shen Longquan/Visual China Group, via Getty ImagesIn recent years, the company has expanded into Xinjiang’s south, the homeland of most Uyghurs, acquiring valuable new deposits that executives describe as “critical” to China’s resource security.Ma Xingrui, a former aerospace engineer who was appointed Communist Party secretary of Xinjiang in 2021, has talked up Xinjiang’s prospects as a source of high-tech materials. This month, he told executives from Xinjiang Nonferrous and other state-owned companies that they should “step up” in new energy, materials and other strategic sectors.Xinjiang Nonferrous’s role in work transfer programs ramped up several years ago, as part of efforts by the Chinese leader Xi Jinping to drastically transform Uyghur society to become richer, more secular and loyal to the Communist Party. In 2017, the Xinjiang government announced plans to transfer 100,000 people from southern Xinjiang into new jobs over three years. Dozens of state-owned companies, including Xinjiang Nonferrous, were assigned to absorb 10,000 of those laborers in return for subsidies and bonuses.Transferred workers appear to make up only a minor part of the labor force at Xinjiang Nonferrous, perhaps a few hundred of its more than 7,000 employees. The company and its subsidiaries reported recruiting 644 workers from two rural counties of southern Xinjiang from 2017 to 2020, and training more since then.Some laborers were sent to the company’s copper-nickel mine and smelter, which are operated by Xinjiang Xinxin Mining Industry, a Hong Kong-listed subsidiary that has received investment from the state of Alaska, the University of Texas system and Vanguard. Other laborers went to subsidiaries that produce lithium, manganese and gold.Before being assigned to work, predominantly Muslim minorities were given lectures on “eradicating religious extremism” and becoming obedient, law-abiding workers who “embraced their Chinese nationhood,” Xinjiang Nonferrous said.Inductees for one company unit underwent six months of training including military-style drills and ideological training. They were encouraged to speak out against religious extremism, oppose “two-faced individuals” — a term for those who privately oppose Chinese government policies — and write a letter to their hometown elders expressing gratitude to the Communist Party and the company, according to the company’s social media account. Trainees faced strict assessments, with “morality” and rule compliance accounting for half of their score. Those who scored well earned better pay, while students and teachers who violated rules were punished or fined.Even as it promotes the successes of the programs, the company’s propaganda hints at the government pressure on it to meet labor transfer goals, even through the coronavirus pandemic.A 2017 article in the Xinjiang Daily quoted one 33-year-old villager as saying that he was initially “reluctant to go out to work” and “quite satisfied” with his income from farming, but was persuaded to go to work at Xinjiang Nonferrous’ subsidiary after party members visited his house several times to “work on his thinking.” And in a visit in 2018 to Keriya County, Zhang Guohua, the company president, told officials to “work on the thinking” of families of transferred laborers to ensure that no one abandoned their jobs.Chinese authorities say that all employment is voluntary, and that work transfers help free rural families from poverty by giving them steady wages, skills and Chinese-language training.“No one has been forced to become ‘transferred labor’ in Xinjiang,” Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, told reporters in Beijing this month.It is difficult to ascertain the level of coercion any individual worker has faced given the limited access to Xinjiang for journalists and research firms. Laura T. Murphy, a professor of human rights and contemporary slavery at Sheffield Hallam University in Britain, said that resisting such programs is seen as a sign of extremist activity and carries a risk of being sent to an internment camp.“A Uyghur person cannot say no to this,” she said. “They are harassed or, in the government’s words, educated,’ until they are forced to go.”Files from police servers in Xinjiang published by the BBC last month described a shoot-to-kill policy for those trying to escape from internment camps, as well as mandatory blindfolds and shackles for “students” being transferred between facilities.Other Chinese metal and mining companies also appear to be linked with labor transfers at a smaller scale, including Zijin Mining Group Co. Ltd., which has acquired cobalt and lithium assets around the globe, and Xinjiang TBEA Group Co. Ltd., which makes aluminum for lithium battery cathodes, according to media reports and academic research. Other entities that were previously sanctioned by the United States over human rights abuses are also involved in the supply chain for graphite, a key battery material that is only refined in China, according to Horizon Advisory, a research firm.An indoctrination center in Hotan, China. In 2017, the regional government announced plans to transfer 100,000 people from the cities of Kashgar and Hotan in southern Xinjiang into new jobs.Gilles Sabrié for The New York TimesThe raw materials that these laborers produce disappear into complex and secretive supply chains, often passing through multiple companies as they are turned into auto parts, electronics and other goods. While that makes them difficult to trace, records show that Xinjiang Nonferrous has developed multiple potential channels to the United States. Many more of the company’s materials are likely transformed in Chinese factories into other products before they are sent abroad.For example, Xinjiang Nonferrous is a current supplier to the China operations of Livent Corporation, a chemical giant with headquarters in the United States that uses lithium to produce a chemical used to make automobile interiors and tires, hospital equipment, pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals and electronics.A Livent spokesman said that the firm prohibits forced labor among its vendors, and that its due diligence had not indicated any red flags. Livent did not respond to a question about whether products made with materials from Xinjiang are exported to the United States.In theory, the new U.S. law should block all goods made with any raw materials that are associated with Xinjiang until they are proven to be free of slavery or coercive labor practices. But it remains to be seen if the U.S. government is willing or able to turn away such an array of foreign goods.“China is so central to so many supply chains,” said Evan Smith, the chief executive of the supply chain research company Altana AI. “Forced labor goods are making their way into a really broad swath of our global economy.”Raymond Zhong More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Ford Plans 6,000 New Union Jobs in Three Midwestern States

    by

    Ford Motor said on Thursday that it was planning to invest $3.7 billion in facilities across the Midwest, much of it for the production of electric vehicles, which the company said would create more than 6,000 union jobs in the region.“We’re investing in American jobs and our employees to build a new generation of incredible Ford vehicles,” Jim Farley, the company’s president and chief executive, said in a statement. “Transforming our company for the next era of American manufacturing requires new ways of working.”The announcement, made jointly with the United Automobile Workers union, detailed investments in three states. Ford said it would invest $2 billion and create about 3,200 union jobs in Michigan, including many tied to production of the new F-150 Lightning pickup truck, the company’s highest-profile and most important bet on electric vehicles.In Ohio, Ford will spend over $1.5 billion and create nearly 2,000 union jobs, primarily to build commercial electric vehicles in the middle of this decade. The company also said it would add over 1,000 union jobs at an assembly plant in Kansas City, Mo., that will produce commercial vans, some gas-powered and some electric.The company had indicated that some of the investments would be coming, like the expansion of production capacity for the F-150 in Michigan, but had not detailed the magnitude.The moves follow Ford’s announcement last year that it would build four factories in Kentucky and Tennessee — three battery factories for electric vehicles and a truck assembly plant — irking union officials and elected leaders in Midwestern states, who worry about losing manufacturing jobs to the South.In addition to the new Midwestern jobs, Ford said it would convert nearly 3,000 temporary jobs into permanent full-time positions before the date that its contract with the U.A.W. calls for — which is after two years of employment.“We are always advocating to employers and legislators that union jobs are worth the investment,” the U.A.W. president, Ray Curry, said in a statement. “Ford stepped up to the plate by adding these jobs and converting 3,000 U.A.W. members to permanent, full-time status with benefits.”Assembling the F-150 Lightning at the Dearborn Truck Plant. Ford will add about 3,200 jobs in Michigan, many tied to the electric truck’s production.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesSam Abuelsamid, an auto industry analyst at Guidehouse Insights, said the changes were important as a way to help Ford attract and retain labor in a tight job market, while potentially helping the company avoid costly labor unrest during negotiations over a contract that expires next year as it spends billions on the transition to electric vehicles. A six-week strike by workers at General Motors in 2019 cost that company billions of dollars.“I’m sure one thing Ford would absolutely love to avoid is the potential for a strike,” Mr. Abuelsamid said. “Keeping a positive relationship with the U.A.W. now is to their benefit.”But the investments appear unlikely to substantially diminish the broader threat that the shift toward electric vehicles poses to the autoworkers union and to employment in the U.S. vehicle manufacturing industry, which stands at around one million.“It’s about changing the perception of what’s happening,” Mr. Abuelsamid said. “It’s a balancing act between your work force and your investors,” who would prefer to see labor costs rise more slowly or decline at unionized automakers like Ford and General Motors.Because electric vehicles incorporate far fewer moving parts than gasoline-powered vehicles, they require significantly less labor — about 30 percent less, according to figures that Ford has generated.As a result, estimates suggest that the toll of electrification on auto industry jobs could be significant absent large new government subsidies. A report released in September by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, which has ties to organized labor, found that the auto industry could lose about 75,000 jobs by 2030 without substantial government investment.By contrast, the report found, if additional government subsidies encourage the domestic manufacturing of components and greater market share for vehicles assembled in the United States, the industry could add about 150,000 jobs over the same period.President Biden has backed substantial subsidies for electric vehicles, including vehicles made by unionized employees, but those measures have languished in the Senate and their prospects are uncertain.In the meantime, much of the job growth tied to electric vehicles has occurred at nonunion facilities owned by newer automakers like Tesla, Rivian and Lucid, or U.S.-based battery facilities owned wholly or in part by foreign companies like the South Korean manufacturers SK Innovation and LG Chem.In Thursday’s announcement, Ford noted that its new battery and vehicle production facilities in the South would create about 11,000 jobs. But those employees will not automatically become union members, and workers in those states tend to face an uphill battle in unionizing.For investors, however, Ford’s additional investments in electric vehicles appears to be welcome news as the company seeks to reinvent itself amid competition from the likes of Tesla and Rivian. Ford’s stock price, which had dropped substantially this year, rose more than 2 percent on Thursday.Ford also said Thursday that it sold 6,254 electric vehicles in May, a jump of more than 200 percent from a year earlier. That number included 201 F-150 Lightnings, which the company started producing in April.The company has about 200,000 reservations for the Lightning, which is central to its efforts to catch up to Tesla, and stopped accepting new ones because production will take months to meet demand.Ford indicated that sales of the truck would be much higher in the coming months as production increased and trucks in transit reached dealerships. Ford is aiming to produce 150,000 Lightning trucks a year by the end of 2023.Sales of electric vehicles — and conventional cars — have been limited by a shortage of computer chips. Ford’s overall sales of new vehicles in May fell 4.5 percent from a year earlier. Auto executives are also increasingly worried that the supply of lithium, nickel and other raw materials needed to make the batteries that power electric cars is not keeping up with the growing demand for those vehicles.Vikas Bajaj More

  • 175 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Jim Farley Tries to Reinvent Ford and Catch Up to Elon Musk and Tesla

    by

    On a recent Tuesday afternoon, Jim Farley, the chief executive of Ford Motor, took a spin in what could become one of the most important vehicles in the company’s 113-year history: an electric F-150 pickup truck.Sitting at the wheel of a prototype at the company’s test track in Dearborn, Mr. Farley floored it. From a standing stop, the 4,000-pound truck surged forward. “Four seconds,” he shouted when it reached 60 miles per hour. “That’s unbelievable for a vehicle of this size.”Steering the truck to a series of dips and rises in the track, he said, “Let’s see if we can get some air,” and shouted “Yes!” as the wheels briefly left the tarmac over one incline. In a final lap, he careened around a steeply banked turn and floored it again on a straightaway until he hit 99 miles an hour — just short of the track’s 100 m.p.h. speed limit.“I can’t wait,” Mr. Farley said as he stepped out, shaking his head. “I can’t wait till customers get this truck.”These are tense and exciting times for the auto industry. Driven by the dizzying success of Tesla, sales of electric vehicles appear to be on an unstoppable rise. The switch from making gasoline-powered cars and trucks to electric vehicles that emit no pollution from tailpipes will have far-reaching effects on the environment, climate change, public policy and the economy.Automakers are spending tens of billions of dollars to retool plants and are rushing to retrain workers for what may be the industry’s greatest transformation since Henry Ford revolutionized manufacturing with the moving assembly line in 1913. They are also fighting to simply catch up to the juggernaut that is Tesla.The question for Ford is whether a car guy from the Detroit area can take on Elon Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, whose company is rapidly expanding and is valued by investors at about 16 times as much as Ford.Tesla nearly doubled the number of cars it sold around the world last year to almost one million. Ford sold many more vehicles — nearly four million — but sales fell 6 percent as it struggled to get enough computer chips, batteries and other parts. Tesla has a brand that people associate with luxury and technical sophistication. Ford is viewed as a maker of large, utilitarian trucks and sport utility vehicles.“The traditional auto industry is pretty far behind Tesla,” said Earl J. Hesterberg, chief executive of Group 1 Automotive, a large auto retailer, who has known Mr. Farley for two decades. “In the past, if you were behind by a few years, the big players could catch up. But today, the speed of change is so much greater.”Auto experts say the electric F-150, known as the Lightning, must be a success if Ford is to thrive in the age of electric vehicles. Introducing this truck now is equivalent to “betting the company,” said William C. Ford Jr., the company’s executive chairman, who is a great-grandson of Henry Ford. “If this launch doesn’t go well, we can tarnish the entire franchise.”A Critical Year for Electric VehiclesThe popularity of battery-powered cars is soaring worldwide, even as the overall auto market stagnates.Going Mainstream: In December, Europeans for the first time bought more electric cars than diesels, once the most popular option.Turning Point: Electric vehicles account for a small slice of the market, but in 2022, their march could become unstoppable. Here is why.Tesla’s Success: A superior command of technology and its own supply chain allowed the company to bypass an industrywide crisis.Rivian’s Troubles: As the electric vehicle maker pares down its delivery targets for 2022, investors worry the company may not live up to its promise.Green Fleet: Amazon wants electric vans to make its deliveries. The problem? The auto industry barely produces any of the vehicles yet.The company has amassed about 200,000 reservations for the trucks, but it could still stumble. Production could be slowed by the global chip shortage or the surging costs of lithium, nickel and other raw materials crucial to batteries. The software that Ford has developed for the truck could be flawed, a problem that hampered sales of a new electric Volkswagen in 2020.Ford and Mr. Farley do have some things going for them. Unlike many other electric cars, the F-150 Lightning is relatively affordable — it starts at $40,000. Tesla’s cheapest car is the compact Model 3 sedan, which starts at more than $48,000. The Lightning has tons of storage, including a giant front trunk, which is appealing to families and businesses with large truck fleets. And it helps that Tesla will not begin making its Cybertruck until next year.And Ford is also already in the E.V. game with the Mustang Mach-E, an electric sport utility vehicle. It had sales of more than 27,000 in 2021, its first year on the market, and won favorable reviews.Production of the F-150 Lightning is scheduled to start next Monday. Competing models from General Motors, Stellantis and Toyota — Ford’s main rivals in pickups — are at least a year away. Rivian, a newer manufacturer that Ford has invested in, has begun selling an electric truck but is struggling to increase production.“If the Lightning launch goes well, we have an enormous opportunity,” Mr. Ford said.‘Jimmy Car-Car’In many ways, Mr. Farley checks most of the boxes when it comes to leading a large U.S. automaker. Like Mary T. Barra, the chief executive of G.M., whose father used to work on a Pontiac assembly line, Mr. Farley has family roots in the industry: His grandfather worked at a Ford factory. On visits to his grandfather, he would tour Ford plants and other sites important to the company’s history. As a 15-year-old, he bought a Mustang while working in California one summer and drove it home to Michigan without a license. His grandfather nicknamed him “Jimmy Car-Car.”But like Mr. Musk, a native of South Africa who was a founder of PayPal and other companies, Mr. Farley has had a varied career and been involved in creating businesses. Born in Argentina when his father was working there as a banker, Mr. Farley, 59, also lived in Brazil and Canada when he was growing up. His career started not in the auto industry but at IBM. He spent a long stretch at Toyota. He helped the Japanese automaker overcome its reputation for making boring and economical cars by working on its fledgling Lexus luxury brand, now a powerhouse.“He has what I call a restless mind,” said Jim Press, a former senior executive at Toyota and Chrysler. “His mind is never idling, always contemplating. He has a boldness that helps him push beyond what others think.”Mr. Farley has family roots in the automotive industry.Sylvia Jarrus for The New York TimesIn 2007, Alan R. Mulally, Ford’s chief executive at the time, hired him to help turn around Ford. He sharpened the company’s marketing, often making early use of Facebook and social media, and ran its European operations.Some at Ford bristled at his intensity. “Worrying about hurting people’s feelings isn’t at the top of his agenda,” Mr. Hesterberg said. “But it’s probably what’s necessary these days. The traditional auto industry is behind Tesla, and business as usual isn’t going to cut it.”In the last few years, Mr. Farley re-evaluated Ford’s strategy, visited technology companies in California and came to a realization: “They’re after our customers.”In 2018, Ford’s brain trust saw that the company was at great risk of falling behind Tesla, G.M. and Rivian in electric cars and pickup trucks. Ford decided not to build a new electric truck and its batteries from scratch as other automakers were doing, but to modify an existing F-150, buying batteries designed by a supplier. The move was risky because converting traditional vehicles to battery-powered ones can be difficult — batteries weigh more than engines and are placed under the floor rather than under the front hood.“We didn’t know how this would turn out, but we knew there would be a heavy penalty if we didn’t swing for the fences,” Mr. Farley said.Yet the Ford truck team’s first estimate for how many Lightnings it might sell was a paltry 20,000 a year. The estimate was oddly low because Tesla was achieving sales growth of about 50 percent a year and planning to build two giant factories.Cars Are About Software NowIn part because of his team’s lowball estimate for Lightning sales, Mr. Farley, who became chief executive in December 2020, said he was increasingly convinced that Ford needed to transform itself. Many auto executives acknowledge that one of Tesla’s main advantages is that it is far ahead of established automakers in developing software that operates its motors, manages it batteries, and informs and entertains drivers and passengers. Partly as a result, Tesla, born in Silicon Valley, makes cars that go farther on a full battery than cars made by almost anybody else.Tesla can also remotely update the software in all its cars, an ability that Ford and other established carmakers have only recently begun using. Most cars made by established manufacturers must be taken to dealers for even minor upgrades or fixes.It is not surprising, then, that Mr. Farley worries most about the potential for software bugs in the Lightning’s millions of lines of code.“As an automotive company, we’ve been trained to put vehicles out when they’re perfect,” he said. “But with software, you can change it with over-the-air updates. Our quality system isn’t used to this software orientation.”Mr. Farley said it was so critical for Ford to beef up its software chops that he spent months recruiting one of the top names in auto technology, Doug Field, who has held senior positions at Tesla and Apple.In an interview, Mr. Field, who early in his career worked at Ford, said he was drawn by the chance to build a technology team at a company with a century’s expertise in engineering and manufacturing. “If we can combine those, that is going to be something to be reckoned with,” he said.In March, Ford announced it was separating into two divisions — one, Ford Blue, will continue making internal combustion models, and another, Model E, headed by Mr. Farley and Mr. Field, will develop electric vehicles.So far, investors have supported Mr. Farley’s strategy. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Ford stock traded as high as $25, up more than 300 percent since Mr. Farley took the helm, but it has fallen back to about $15. Still, Ford’s market value now exceeds that of G.M., which has long been the largest U.S. automaker.Yet Wall Street still thinks that Tesla, which is worth more than $1 trillion, will dominate the industry and that companies like Ford, worth $62 billion, and G.M., $58 billion, will become relative minnows.No wonder that Mr. Farley is spending most of his days on the Lightning. Over a dinner near his home in Birmingham, north of Detroit, he pulled out his phone and scrolled through a long email he gets every evening, with updates on every facet of the launch. “Software, manufacturing, batteries, chips, body assembly,” he said, reading off the subheadings.Workers on the production line of the 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning.Sylvia Jarrus for The New York TimesOne night recently, Mr. Ford was in California when an email arrived late in the evening — from Mr. Farley, who was nine time zones away in Germany. “Jim had four or five things he wanted to talk to me about,” Mr. Ford said. “I get at least two updates a day from him.”Computer chips are a big concern. A shortage has been disrupting auto production around the world for more than a year, and outside the Dearborn Truck Plant a few hundred gasoline-powered F-150 trucks are parked and waiting for a minor but crucial component — the device that controls their automatic windshield wipers is delayed for the want of chips.Before his test drive, Mr. Farley took an hourlong tour of the Lightning assembly line, looking at how much work remains.At a section of the production line, he was shown new robotic, self-guided skids that carry the Lightning’s steel bed, or box, from one work station to the next. The skids eliminate the need for a costly and complex overhead conveyor system. Bill Dorley, the box team leader, told Mr. Farley that his crew was practically ready to go. “We just need parts,” he said.Just outside that section of the plant, heavy earth-moving machines were demolishing the concrete walls and floors of a building that was built in the 1930s to produce the Ford Model A. That space will allow the company to expand Lightning production. As Mr. Farley moved along the assembly line, workers waved and shouted greetings and sought selfies with the boss.Approaching a group of workers, Mr. Farley asked how they were doing and what they needed.Michael Johnson, who will bolt in the Lightning’s suspension system, highlighted one of the central concerns that many manufacturing workers have about electric vehicles: jobs. Because electric vehicles have fewer parts than conventional trucks, they can be made by fewer workers. Mr. Johnson was specifically concerned about a truck plant that Ford is building in Tennessee, a state that has been less welcoming to unions like the one that represents workers in Dearborn.“Is this plant going to be safe?” Mr. Johnson asked.Mr. Farley replied that the Tennessee plant would build a different truck. He added that Ford planned to start making the motors and axles for its electric vehicles, rather than buying them from suppliers. “So our own plants are going to be very busy,” he said.Ford’s future rests on that being the case. More

  • 150 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    How the War in Ukraine Could Slow the Sales of Electric Cars

    by

    The price of nickel, an essential ingredient in most batteries, has soared because of fear that Russian supplies could be cut off.Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shaken the global market for nickel just as the metal gains importance as an ingredient in electric car batteries, raising fears that high prices could slow the transition away from fossil fuels.The price of nickel doubled in one day last week, prompting the London Metal Exchange to freeze trading and effectively bring the global nickel market to a standstill. After two years of supply chain chaos caused by the pandemic, the episode provided more evidence of how geopolitical tensions are destroying trading relationships that companies once took for granted, forcing them to rethink where they get the parts and metals they use to make cars and many other products.Automakers and other companies that need nickel, as well as other battery raw materials like lithium or cobalt, have begun looking for ways to shield themselves against future shocks.Volkswagen, for example, has begun to explore buying nickel directly from mining companies, Markus Duesmann, chief executive of the carmaker’s Audi division, said in an interview on Thursday. “Raw materials are going to be an issue for years to come,” he said.The prospect of prolonged geopolitical tensions is likely to accelerate attempts by the United States and Europe to develop domestic supplies of commodities that often come from Russia. There are nickel deposits, for example, in Canada, Greenland and even Minnesota.“Nickel, cobalt, platinum, palladium, even copper — we already realized we need those metals for the green transition, for mitigating climate change,” said Bo Stensgaard, chief executive of Bluejay Mining, which is working on extracting nickel from a site in western Greenland in a venture with KoBold Metals, whose backers include Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. “When you see the geopolitical developments with Ukraine and Russia, it’s even more obvious that there are supply risks with these metals.”But establishing new mining operations is likely to take years, even decades, because of the time needed to acquire permits and financing. In the meantime, companies using nickel — a group that also includes steel makers — will need to contend with higher prices, which will eventually be felt by consumers.An average electric-car battery contains about 80 pounds of nickel. The surge in prices in March would more than double the cost of that nickel to $1,750 a car, according to estimates by the trading firm Cantor Fitzgerald.Russia accounts for a relatively small proportion of world nickel production, and most of it is used to make stainless steel, not car batteries. But Russia plays an outsize role in nickel markets. Norilsk Nickel, also known as Nornickel, is the world’s largest nickel producer, with vast operations in Siberia. Its owner, Vladimir Potanin, is one of Russia’s wealthiest people. Norilsk is among a limited number of companies authorized to sell a specialized form of nickel on the London Metal Exchange, which handles all nickel trading.Unlike other oligarchs, Mr. Potanin has not been a target of sanctions, and the United States and Europe have not tried to block nickel exports, a step that would hurt their economies as well as Russia’s. The prospect that Russian nickel could be cut off from world markets was enough to cause panic.Analysts expect prices to come down from their recent peaks but remain much higher than they were a year ago. “The trend would be to come down to a level close to where we last left off,” around $25,000 a metric ton compared to the peak of $100,000 a ton, said Adrian Gardner, a principal analyst specializing in nickel at Wood Mackenzie, a research firm.A plant owned by Nornickel, the world’s leading producer of nickel and palladium, in Norilsk, Russia.Tatyana Makeyeva/ReutersNickel was on a tear even before the Russian invasion as hedge funds and other investors bet on rising demand for electric vehicles. The price topped $20,000 a ton this year after hovering between $10,000 and $15,000 a ton for much of the past five years. At the same time, less nickel was being produced because of the pandemic.After Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, the price rose above $30,000 in a little over a week. Then came March 8. Word spread on the trading desks of brokerage firms and hedge funds in London that a company, which turned out to be the Tsingshan Holding Group of China, had made a huge bet that the price of nickel would drop. When the price rose, Tsingshan owed billions of dollars, a situation known on Wall Street as a short squeeze.The price shot up to a little over $100,000 a ton, threatening the existence of many other companies that had bet wrong and prompting the London Metal Exchange to halt trading.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Ford Splits Into Electric and Gas Divisions to Speed Up Transition

    by

    E.V. operations will focus on technology and growth while the traditional business continues to chase profits. “You can’t have people work on both at the same time,” the chief executive said.Ford Motor has decided the best way to make the transition to electric vehicles is to transform itself first.On Wednesday, the automaker said it had reorganized its auto operations into two distinct businesses — one that makes its gasoline-powered vehicles and focuses on maximizing profits and another that develops and ramps up production of electric models and aims for rapid growth.Ford’s chief executive, Jim Farley, said in an interview that the two businesses required different skills and mind-sets that would clash and hinder each area if they remained parts of one organization. “You can’t be successful and beat Tesla that way,” he said.Sales of battery-powered cars are rising rapidly, a trend that Mr. Farley and other auto executives see as the industry’s biggest disruption since Henry Ford introduced mass production and the Model T in 1908. Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen and other traditional manufacturers are spending tens of billions of dollars to field new models, build battery plants and develop new technologies that Tesla has pioneered, such as advanced driver-assist systems and over-the-air software updates.Mr. Farley said Ford would spend $50 billion on electric vehicles between 2022 and 2026. It previously planned to spend $30 billion in the five years ending in 2025. It plans to spend $5 billion on E.V.s this year, double the 2021 total.A Critical Year for Electric VehiclesThe popularity of battery-powered cars is soaring worldwide, even as the overall auto market stagnates. Going Mainstream: In December, Europeans for the first time bought more electric cars than diesels, once the most popular option. Turning Point: Electric vehicles account for a small slice of the market, but in 2022, their march could become unstoppable. Here is why. Tesla’s Success: A superior command of technology and its own supply chain allowed the company to bypass an industrywide crisis. Rivian’s Troubles: Investors first embraced this electric vehicle maker. Now they worry it may not live up to its promise. Green Fleet: Amazon wants electric vans to make its deliveries. The problem? The auto industry barely produces any of the vehicles yet.This spring, Ford is supposed to start full production of an electric version of its F-150 pickup truck and has taken reservations for more than 150,000 of them. It is also building two battery plants in Kentucky, and a third battery plant and an electric truck factory in Tennessee.Separately on Wednesday, Stellantis outlined a long-term strategic plan that calls for rapid introductions of new electric vehicles. The company, which was formed a year ago from the merger of Fiat Chrysler and the French automaker Peugeot, said that it would introduce 25 E.V.s in the United States by 2030, and that all new models in Europe would be electric by that time. It plans to build two battery plants in the United States.G.M. has similar plans. It is building two battery plants, and aims to phase out internal-combustion models by 2035.Ford’s reorganization is one of the most sweeping taken by a traditional automaker in preparation for the transition to electric vehicles. Mr. Farley said the plan had come together after he and other top Ford executives noticed stark differences in the two business areas.In making gas-powered vehicles, Ford must focus on reducing costs and generating the profits it needs to fund its E.V. plans. Over the next four years, Ford aims to trim costs for its internal-combustion models by $3 billion, with some cuts coming through job reductions, Mr. Farley said.The electric business, in contrast, will have to spend heavily to develop software and technologies and to ramp up production quickly to achieve economies of scale. Ford aims to produce two million electric vehicles a year by 2026.“For Ford to win against the new players and the other manufacturers, we have to focus more than we do today,” Mr. Farley said. “You can’t have people work on both at the same time.”The E.V. group will be known as Ford Model e. Mr. Farley will serve as its president. Doug Field, a former Apple and Tesla executive hired by Ford in September, will lead its vehicle, software and digital systems development.The internal-combustion business, known as Ford Blue, will be led by Kumar Galhotra, who was president of Ford’s North American operations.Ford plans to begin breaking out the profits and losses of the two groups in 2023, and expects the electric business to become profitable within four years. Mr. Farley said the group would most likely have 2,000 to 5,000 employees. In addition to developing electric models, it will engineer new types of assembly lines to build them and manage Ford’s sourcing of key components like motors and inverters and raw materials such as lithium and rare earth metals.Mr. Farley said he envisioned the two groups working closely together. Ford Model e will use body engineering, stamping, and components like seats and steering systems that the internal-combustion group develops. The E.V. unit will produce software and digital components that will be incorporated into traditional gasoline vehicles made by Ford Blue.Mr. Farley said Ford had decided against spinning off the E.V. business because it would hinder the ability of the two groups to cooperate. “They would come to see each other as competitors, and the cooperation would stop,” he said. More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Why Are Oil Prices So High and Will They Stay That Way?

    by

    HOUSTON — Oil prices are increasing, again, casting a shadow over the economy, driving up inflation and eroding consumer confidence.Crude prices rose more than 15 percent in January alone, with the global benchmark price crossing $90 a barrel for the first time in more than seven years, as fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine grew.Though the summer driving season is still months away, the average price for regular gasoline is fast approaching $3.40 a gallon, roughly a dollar higher than it was a year ago, according to AAA.The Biden administration said in November that it would release 50 million barrels of oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to relieve the pressure on consumers, but the move hasn’t made much of a difference.Many energy analysts predict that oil could soon touch $100 a barrel, even as electric cars become more popular and the coronavirus pandemic persists. Exxon Mobil and other oil companies that only a year ago were considered endangered dinosaurs by some Wall Street analysts are thriving, raking in their biggest profits in years.Why are oil prices suddenly so high?The pandemic depressed energy prices in 2020, even sending the U.S. benchmark oil price below zero for the first time ever. But prices have snapped back faster and more than many analysts had expected in large part because supply has not kept up with demand.Oil prices are at their highest point since 2014.Price of a barrel of Brent crude, the global benchmark, and West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. standard

    Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesWestern oil companies, partly under pressure from investors and environmental activists, are drilling fewer wells than they did before the pandemic to restrain the increase in supply. Industry executives say they are trying not to make the same mistake they made in the past when they pumped too much oil when prices were high, leading to a collapse in prices.Elsewhere, in countries like Ecuador, Kazakhstan and Libya, natural disasters and political turbulence have curbed output in recent months.Understand Russia’s Relationship With the WestThe tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.Competing for Influence: For months, the threat of confrontation has been growing in a stretch of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Threat of Invasion: As the Russian military builds its presence near Ukraine, Western nations are seeking to avert a worsening of the situation.Energy Politics: Europe is a huge customer of Russia’s fossil fuels. The rising tensions in Ukraine are driving fears of a midwinter cutoff.Migrant Crisis: As people gathered on the eastern border of the European Union, Russia’s uneasy alliance with Belarus triggered additional friction.Militarizing Society: With a “youth army” and initiatives promoting patriotism, the Russian government is pushing the idea that a fight might be coming.“Unplanned outages have flipped what was thought to be a pivot towards surplus into a deep production gap,” said Louise Dickson, an oil markets analyst at Rystad Energy, a research and consulting firm.On the demand side, much of the world is learning to cope with the pandemic and people are eager to shop and make other trips. Wary of coming in contact with an infectious virus, many are choosing to drive rather than taking public transportation.But the most immediate and critical factor is geopolitical.A potential Russian invasion of Ukraine has “the oil market on edge,” said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “In a tight market, any significant disruptions could send prices well above $100 per barrel,” Mr. Cahill wrote in a report this week.Russia produces 10 million barrels of oil a day, or roughly one of every 10 barrels used around the world on any given day. Americans would not be directly hurt in a significant way if Russian exports stopped, because the country sends only about 700,000 barrels a day to the United States. That relatively modest amount could easily be replaced with oil from Canada and other countries.A Russian invasion of Ukraine could interrupt oil and gas shipments, which would increase prices further.Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesBut any interruption of Russian shipments that transit through Ukraine, or the sabotage of other pipelines in northern Europe, would cripple much of the continent and distort the global energy supply chain. That’s because, traders say, the rest of the world does not have the spare capacity to replace Russian oil.Even if Russian oil shipments are not interrupted, the United States and its allies could impose sanctions or export controls on Russian companies, limiting their access to equipment, which could gradually reduce production in that country.In addition, interruptions of Russian natural gas exports to Europe could force some utilities to produce more electricity by burning oil rather than gas. That would raise demand and prices worldwide.What can the United States and its allies do if Russian production is disrupted?The United States, Japan, European countries and even China could release more crude from their strategic reserves. Such moves could help, especially if a crisis is short-lived. But the reserves would not be nearly enough if Russian oil supplies were interrupted for months or years.Western oil companies that have pledged not to produce too much oil would most likely change their approach if Russia was unable or unwilling to supply as much oil as it did. They would have big financial incentives — from a surging oil price — to drill more wells. That said, it would take those businesses months to ramp up production.What is OPEC doing?President Biden has been urging the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to pump more oil, but several members have been falling short of their monthly production quotas, and some may not have the capacity to quickly increase output. OPEC members and their allies, Russia among them, are meeting on Wednesday, and will probably agree to continue gradually increasing production.In addition, if Russian supplies are suddenly reduced, Washington will most likely put pressure on Saudi Arabia to raise production independently of the cartel. Analysts think that the kingdom has several million barrels of spare capacity that it could tap in a crisis.What impact would higher oil prices have on the U.S. economy?A big jump in oil prices would push gasoline prices even higher, and that would hurt consumers. Working-class and rural Americans would be hurt the most because they tend to drive more. They also drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. And energy costs tend to represent a larger percentage of their incomes, so price increases hit them harder than more affluent people or city dwellers who have access to trains and buses.Rising oil and gas prices would pinch consumers, especially the less affluent and rural residents.Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via ShutterstockBut the direct economic impact on the nation would be more modest than in previous decades because the United States produces more and imports less oil since drilling in shale fields exploded around 2010 because of hydraulic fracturing. The United States is now a net exporter of fossil fuels, and the economies of several states, particularly Texas and Louisiana, could benefit from higher prices.What would it take for oil prices to fall?Oil prices go up and down in cycles, and there are several reasons prices could fall in the next few months. The pandemic is far from over, and China has shut down several cities to stop the spread of the virus, slowing its economy and demand for energy. Russia and the West could reach an agreement — formal or tacit — that forestalls a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.And the United States and its allies could restore a 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran that former President Donald J. Trump abandoned. Such a deal would allow Iran to sell oil much more easily than now. Analysts think the country could export a million or more barrels daily if the nuclear deal is revived.Ultimately, high prices could depress demand for oil enough that prices begin to come down. One of the main financial incentives for buying electric cars, for example, is that electricity tends to be cheaper per mile than gasoline. Sales of electric cars are growing fast in Europe and China and increasingly also in the United States. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Toyota Topped G.M. in U.S. Car Sales in 2021

    by

    After struggling to produce cars because of a global computer chip shortage, automakers are trying to move quickly to making electric vehicles.Toyota Motor unseated General Motors as the top-selling automaker in the United States last year, becoming the first manufacturer based outside the country to achieve that feat in the industry’s nearly 120-year history.That milestone underlines the changes shaking automakers, which face strong competition and external forces as they move into electric vehicles. And it came in a tumultuous and strange year in which automakers contended with an accelerating shift to electric vehicles and struggled with profound manufacturing challenges. New car sales have been damped by a severe shortage of computer chips that forced automakers to idle plants even though demand for cars has been incredibly robust.G.M., Ford Motor and Stellantis, the automaker created by the merger of Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot, produced and sold fewer cars than they had hoped to in 2021 because they were hit hard by the chip shortage. Toyota was not hurt as much.In addition to that shortage, the coronavirus pandemic and related supply-chain problems depressed sales while driving up the prices of new and used cars, sometimes to dizzying heights. Auto manufacturers sold just under 15 million new vehicles in 2021, according to estimates by Cox Automotive, which tracks the industry. That is 2.5 percent more than in 2020 but well short of the 17 million vehicles the industry usually sold in a year before the pandemic took hold.G.M. said on Tuesday that its U.S. sales slumped 13 percent in 2021, to 2.2 million trucks and cars. Toyota had access to more chips because it set aside larger stockpiles of parts after an earthquake and tsunami in Japan knocked out production of several key components in 2011. Its 2021 sales rose more than 10 percent, to 2.3 million.“The dominance of the U.S. automakers of the U.S. market is just over,” said Erik Gordon, a business professor at the University of Michigan who follows the auto industry. “Toyota might not beat G.M. again this year, but the fact that they did it is symbolic of how the industry changed. No U.S. automaker can think of themselves as entitled to market share just because they’re American.”Ford is expected to finish third when the company releases sales data on Wednesday.The shortage of chips stems from the beginning of the pandemic, when auto plants around the world closed to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. At the same time, sales of computers and other consumer electronics took off. When automakers resumed production, they found fewer chips available to them.Despite weak new-vehicle sales, automakers and dealers alike have been ringing up hefty profits because they have been able to raise prices.“Sales volumes are down but our margins are up and expenses are down,” said Rick Ricart, whose family owns Ford, Hyundai, Kia and other dealerships around Columbus, Ohio. “We barely had any inventory cost now. Cars arrive on the truck and they’re already sold. They’re gone within 24 to 48 hours.”Automakers are also contending with the transition to electric cars and trucks. Many companies are spending tens of billions of dollars designing battery-powered models and building plants to produce them. They are racing to catch up to Tesla, which sells a large majority of electric vehicles now.But most established automakers are unlikely to gain ground in U.S. electric vehicle sales this year because they are not in a position to produce many tens of thousands of such cars for at least another year or two.And Tesla, which was founded in 2003, is not standing still. After reporting a nearly 90 percent jump in global sales last year, to just shy of one million, the company plans to start mass production at two new factories this year, near Austin, Texas, and Berlin. It has been less affected by the chip shortage because it was able to switch to types of chips that are more readily available.The electric-car maker does not break out sales by country, but Cox Automotive estimated that it sold more than 330,000 in the United States, or roughly as many vehicles as Mercedes-Benz and BMW each sold here.Ford is perhaps the only major automaker that could pose a serious competitive threat to Tesla this year. This spring, Ford plans to start selling an electric version of its F-150 pickup truck, the top-selling vehicle in the United States. The company has taken more than 200,000 reservations for that truck, the F-150 Lightning, and hopes to produce more than 50,000 this year. It is increasing production at a plant near Detroit to build 80,000 in 2023 and up to 150,000 in 2024.“The F-150 is the most important franchise in our company,” Kumar Galhotra, president of Ford’s Americas and international markets group, said in an interview. “The F-150 Lightning shows how serious our commitment is to the E.V. market.”Ford has been selling a popular electric sport-utility vehicle, the Mustang Mach E, for nearly a year. It said Tuesday that it aimed to increase production of the Mach E to 200,000 vehicles a year by 2023.Other automakers are planning to produce relatively modest numbers of electric cars this year because they and their suppliers are still gearing up to build factories and produce batteries and other components. G.M. has set a goal of producing only electric vehicles by 2035, and on Wednesday it will unveil a battery-powered Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck at the Consumer Electronics Show. But the electric Silverado isn’t expected to go into production until 2023.The Coronavirus Pandemic: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 3The global surge. More