Embargoes and Sanctions

More stories

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    What Price Is Right? Why Capping Russian Oil Is Complicated.

    by

    Officials from the Group of 7 are striving to strike a delicate balance that encourages Russia to keep pumping oil but to sell it at a discount.WASHINGTON — As the United States and its Western counterparts race to finalize the mechanics of an oil price cap intended to starve Russia of revenue and stabilize global energy markets, a crucial question remains unresolved: How should the price be set?The Group of 7 countries that formally backed the price cap concept this month are deliberating how much Russia should be allowed to charge for its oil as they prepare to release more details of the plan. It has emerged as a central question that could determine the success of the novel idea, Russia’s response and the trajectory of oil prices as winter approaches. Setting the price will require aligning the complex array of economic and diplomatic forces that govern volatile oil markets.The consequences of getting the oil price cap wrong could be severe for the world economy, and time is running short. The Biden administration fears that if the cap is not in place by early December, oil prices around the world could skyrocket given Russia’s outsize role as an energy producer. That’s because when a European Union oil embargo and a ban on financial insurance services for Russian oil transactions take effect on Dec. 5, the removal of millions of barrels of Russian oil from the market could send prices soaring.European financing and insurance dominate the global oil market, so the looming sanctions could disrupt exports to parts of the world that do not have their own embargoes — by making it harder or more expensive to get Russian oil at a time when energy costs are already high. The price cap will essentially be an exception to Western sanctions, allowing Russian oil to be sold and shipped as long as it remains below a certain price.The idea has won plaudits from economists who see it as an elegant win-win strategy for the West. But many energy analysts and traders have expressed deep skepticism about the concept. They believe that a fear of sanctions could scare financial services companies off Russian oil, and that Russia and its trading partners will circumvent the cap through new forms of insurance or illicit transactions.The impact of the proposed oil price cap and the potential for unintended consequences are two of the biggest quandaries facing the nations that have been enduring soaring inflation prompted by supply chain disruptions and Russia’s war in Ukraine.The leaders of the Group of 7 in June. In a joint statement this month, the group’s finance ministers said the “initial” price cap would be based on a range of “technical inputs.”Kenny Holston for The New York Times“We are looking at a far more complex oil market,” said Paul Sheldon, a geopolitical risk analyst at S&P Global Platts Analytics. “This is an unprecedented dynamic where you have such a large supplier of oil under unprecedented sanctions. We’re in new territory on several levels.”Exactly how the price cap will be set remains unclear.In a joint statement this month, finance ministers from the Group of 7 said the “initial” price cap would be based on a range of “technical inputs” and decided on by the group of countries that join the agreement. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control said last week that the price cap would be determined by a “range of factors” and that countries that were part of the price cap coalition would make the decision by consensus. The coalition would be headed by a rotating coordinator from among the countries.A Treasury official said the process for setting the level of the oil price cap would constitute the next phase of the agreement, after technical details about enforcement had been decided and more countries had signed on to the coalition.The State of the WarDramatic Gains for Ukraine: After Ukraine’s offensive in the country’s northeast drove Russian forces into a chaotic retreat, Ukrainian leaders face critical choices on how far to press the attack.In Izium: Following Russia’s retreat, Ukrainian investigators have begun documenting the toll of Russian occupation on the northeastern city. They have already found several burial sites, including one that could hold the remains of more than 400 people.Southern Counteroffensive: Military operations in the south have been a painstaking battle of river crossings, with pontoon bridges as prime targets for both sides. So far, it is Ukraine that has advanced.An Inferno in Mykolaiv: The southern Ukrainian city has been a target of near-incessant shelling since the war began. Firefighters are risking their lives to save as much of it as possible.As U.S. officials think about setting the price cap, they are focused on two numbers: Russia’s cost of producing oil and the price that the commodity historically fetched on global markets before the war in Ukraine sent prices higher.The Biden administration realizes that Russia will not have an incentive to keep producing oil if a cap is set so low that Russia cannot sell it for more than it costs to pump it. However, setting the cap too high will allow Russia to benefit from the upheaval it has caused and blunt the cap’s ability to sufficiently curtail Russia’s oil export revenues.Before the war and the pandemic, Russian crude, known as Urals, typically sold for between $55 and $65 a barrel. Determining Russia’s cost of production is more complicated because some of its wells are more expensive to operate than others. Most estimates are around $40 per barrel.The price cap could settle somewhere among those numbers.Officials are also discussing whether shipping costs should be included in the cap or if it should just include the oil itself. Separate caps would be enacted for Russia’s refined oil products, such as gas oil and fuel oil, that are used for operating machinery and heating homes.A tanker with imported crude oil in China. The Biden administration hopes that even if China does not formally participate in the price cap the country will use it as leverage to negotiate lower prices with Russia.Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOil prices have hovered around $90 a barrel in recent weeks. Russian oil is currently selling at a discount of about 30 percent. Some analysts believe that designing the cap as a mandated level below global benchmark prices could be more effective since oil prices can swing sharply.“If you fix it at a certain level, that could create some risks because the market can fluctuate,” said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who noted that oil prices could fall below the cap level if it was set too high.“To increase the economic pain on Russia, you want to make the capped price substantially lower than the global average,” he said.As of now, the Treasury Department does not appear to support such an idea. The United States intends for the cap to be a fixed price — one that would be regularly reviewed and could be changed if the countries in the pact agreed to do so. The frequency of the reviews would depend on market volatility. Setting the cap at a discounted rate would introduce additional complexity and compliance burdens, the Treasury official said, because the cap rate could change hourly.Making sure the price cap is adhered to is another hurdle. Treasury Department officials have been holding discussions with banks and maritime insurers to develop a system in which buyers of Russian oil products would “attest” to the price that they had paid, releasing providers of financial services of the responsibility for violations of the cap.In its guidance last week, the Treasury Department said service providers for seaborne Russian oil would not face sanctions as long as they obtained documentation certifying that the cap was being honored. However, it did warn that buyers who knowingly made oil purchases above the price cap using insurance that was subject to the ban “may be a target for a sanctions enforcement action.”The impact of a price cap on global markets is difficult to predict. Mr. Cahill suggested that it could essentially create three tiers of crude, with some Russian oil being sold at the capped price, other Russian oil being sold illicitly or with alternative forms of financing and non-Russian oil being sold by other oil-producing nations.It is not clear how many countries beyond the Group of 7 will join the agreement. The Biden administration is hopeful that even if countries such as China and India do not formally participate they will use it as leverage to negotiate lower prices with Russia.Besides the oil cap’s price, the other big wild card is Russia’s response to it. Russian officials have said they will not sell oil to countries that are part of the price cap coalition, and analysts expect that the country will do its best to fan the volatility with some form of retaliation.The United States hopes that economic logic will prevail and that oil will keep flowing, albeit at a cheaper price.“Russia may bluster and say they won’t sell below the capped price, but the economics of holding back oil just don’t make sense,” Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary, said at a Brookings Institution event last week. “The price cap creates a clear economic incentive to sell under the cap.”Edward Fishman, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, argued that the price cap could work because the incentives that it would create aligned most buyers, sellers and facilitators of oil transactions toward compliance. He suggested that global oil prices could end up organically gravitating toward the level of the price cap.However, Mr. Fishman acknowledged that Russia and its president, Vladimir V. Putin, might read the incentives differently.“There’s always a sliver of a doubt in people’s minds about Putin’s rationality and his willingness to set the global economy, and his own economy, ablaze in order to make a point,” Mr. Fishman said. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Shock Waves Hit the Global Economy, Posing Grave Risk to Europe

    by

    The threat to Europe’s industrial might and living standards is particularly acute as policymakers race to decouple the continent from Russia’s power sources.Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the continuing effects of the pandemic have hobbled countries around the globe, but the relentless series of crises has hit Europe the hardest, causing the steepest jump in energy prices, some of the highest inflation rates and the biggest risk of recession.The fallout from the war is menacing the continent with what some fear could become its most challenging economic and financial crisis in decades.While growth is slowing worldwide, “in Europe it’s altogether more serious because it’s driven by a more fundamental deterioration,” said Neil Shearing, group chief economist at Capital Economics. Real incomes and living standards are falling, he added. “Europe and Britain are just worse off.”Several countries, including Germany, the region’s largest economy, built up a decades-long dependence on Russian energy. The eightfold increase in natural gas prices since the war began presents a historic threat to Europe’s industrial might, living standards, and social peace and cohesion. Plans for factory closings, rolling blackouts and rationing are being drawn up in case of severe shortages this winter.The risk of sinking incomes, growing inequality and rising social tensions could lead “not only to a fractured society but a fractured world,” said Ian Goldin, a professor of globalization and development at Oxford University. “We haven’t faced anything like this since the 1970s, and it’s not ending soon.”Other regions of the world are also being squeezed, although some of the causes — and prospects — differ.Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned energy company, said this week that it would not resume the flow of natural gas through its Nord Stream 1 pipeline until Europe lifted Ukraine-related sanctions.Hannibal Hanschke/EPA, via ShutterstockHigher interest rates, which are being deployed aggressively to quell inflation, are trimming consumer spending and growth in the United States. Still, the American labor market remains strong, and the economy is moving forward.China, a powerful engine of global growth and a major market for European exports like cars, machinery and food, is facing its own set of problems. Beijing’s policy of continuing to freeze all activity during Covid-19 outbreaks has repeatedly paralyzed large swaths of the economy and added to worldwide supply chain disruptions. In the last few weeks alone, dozens of cities and more than 300 million people have been under full or partial lockdowns. Extreme heat and drought have hamstrung hydropower generation, forcing additional factory closings and rolling blackouts.A troubled real estate market has added to the economic instability in China. Hundreds of thousands of people are refusing to pay their mortgages because they have lost confidence that developers will ever deliver their unfinished housing units. Trade with the rest of the world took a hit in August, and overall economic growth, although likely to outrun rates in the United States and Europe, looks as if it will slip to its slowest pace in a decade this year. The prospect has prompted China’s central bank to cut interest rates in hopes of stimulating the economy.Understand the Decline in U.S. Gas PricesCard 1 of 5Understand the Decline in U.S. Gas PricesGas prices are falling. More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Price Cap on Russian Oil Wins Backing of G7 Ministers

    by

    The proposal aims to stabilize unsettled energy markets in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But it faces considerable obstacles.WASHINGTON — Top officials from the world’s leading advanced economies agreed on Friday to move ahead with a plan to cap the price of Russian oil, accelerating an ambitious effort to limit how much money Russia can earn from each barrel of crude it sells on the global market.Finance ministers from the Group of 7 nations said they were firming up details of a price cap, with the aim of both depressing the price of global oil and reducing critical revenue that President Vladimir V. Putin is relying on to finance Russia’s war effort in Ukraine. The untested plan has been pushed by the Biden administration as way of keeping sanctions pressure on Russia while minimizing the impact on a global economy that has been saddled with soaring energy and food prices this year.Hours after the G7 ministers announced their plan on Friday, Gazprom, the Russian-owned energy giant, said it would postpone restarting the flow of natural gas through a closely watched pipeline that connects Russia to Germany, known as Nord Stream 1. The unexpected delay was attributed to mechanical problems with the pipeline, but it raised concerns that it was in retaliation for the price cap, an idea that Moscow has condemned.Eric Mamer, a spokesman for the European Commission, said that the “fallacious pretenses” for the latest delay were “proof of Russia’s cynicism.”The price cap still has many hurdles to clear before it can take effect, but its goal is to keep Russian oil flowing to global markets that depend on those supplies, while substantially reducing the profit Moscow reaps from its sales. Europe still consumes nearly two million barrels of Russian oil a day, though its imports have fallen since the war began, and the European Union is preparing to wean itself off those supplies by the end of the year.Officials are racing to put the price-cap plan in place by early December to try to limit the economic fallout from the new E.U. sanctions. They would ban nearly all Russian oil imports to the European Union and block the insurance and financing of Russian oil shipments.The Biden administration has become concerned that those moves could send energy prices skyrocketing and potentially tip the global economy into a recession if millions of barrels of Russian oil were suddenly yanked off the global market, drastically reducing the world’s supply of crude. U.S. administration officials have estimated that oil could soar to $200 a barrel or higher unless efforts to impose the price cap are successful.The initiative is a novel attempt to blunt the global economic impact of the invasion. Oil prices rose as fears of confrontation grew a year ago, and spiked when Russian troops entered Ukraine in February. They have receded in recent months, in part because much of Europe has tipped into recession, reducing global oil demand.Whether the price cap can work will hinge on a variety of factors, including securing agreement by all 27 E.U. member states and determining how the actual price would be set. Maritime insurers, which are critical to making the plan work, would also have to figure out how to comply in a way that allows them to continue insuring Russian oil cargo without running afoul of sanctions.The industry, which would be responsible for making sure that oil buyers and sellers were honoring the price cap, has warned that insurers lack the capacity to police the transactions. Financial services in Europe undergird international energy shipments around the world, and fully blocking their ability to deal with Russian oil could disrupt exports globally, even to countries that have not adopted Russian oil embargoes.The G7 finance ministers said in their statement that they intended to use a “record-keeping and attestation model” to track of whether oil transactions were below the price ceiling, and that they would try to minimize the administrative burden on insurers.A tanker at a crude oil terminal near Nakhodka. Maritime insurers would have to figure out how to comply with a cap in a way that allows them to continue covering Russian oil cargo.Tatiana Meel/ReutersRachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said the agreement unveiled on Friday raised more questions than answers and suggested a challenging path ahead.“This sounds like something that is very technical and technocratic that is going to be hard to monitor and fully enforce,” Ms. Ziemba said.Understand the Decline in U.S. Gas PricesCard 1 of 5Understand the Decline in U.S. Gas PricesGas prices are falling. More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Trade Between Russia and Britain Falls to Lowest Level on Record

    by

    For the first time since records began, Britain had a month in which it imported no fuel from Russia, as trade between the two countries plummeted following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to British government statistics released on Wednesday.In addition to a sharp decline in imports of Russian fuel in June, imports of other Russian goods also fell that month to the lowest level since Britain’s Office for National Statistics began recording the data in 1997. Imports decreased to 33 million pounds ($39 million), or 97 percent less than the average monthly imports in the year to February, the month when Russia invaded Ukraine.The figures show the extent to which the British government’s economic sanctions against Russia, which came into force in March, are having an effect. Self-sanctioning, where companies voluntarily seek alternatives to Russian goods, was also likely a factor in the steep decline in trade, according to the Office for National Statistics.Exports of most commodities to Russia from Britain also dropped significantly, led by a decline in exports of machinery and transport equipment. The exception was medicine and pharmaceutical products, which increased by 62 percent from the prewar average. These products are exempt from sanctions.Under sanctions, British companies have until the end of the year to end imports of Russian oil and coal and have been encouraged to find alternative sources until then. To make up for the decreased volumes of refined oil from Russia, British companies in recent months have increased imports from Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Belgium and Kuwait.Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Britain imported nearly a quarter of its refined oil from Russia, 6 percent of its crude oil imports and 5 percent of its gas imports. (Britain gets about half of its total crude oil imports from Norway.)The European Union has also reduced its purchases of Russian gas ahead of a ban on the vast majority of the bloc’s imports of Russian oil, which will come into force at the end of the year. The European Union also agreed to curb natural gas consumption from Russia. In the final week of June, total E.U. gas imports from Russia were down 65 percent from a year earlier, according to a report by the European Central Bank.Russia is feeling the effect of sanctions. Its economy contracted sharply in the second quarter, declining 4 percent from a year earlier. Sanctions on Russia have led many American and European companies to exit the country and have cut off Russia from about half of its $600 billion reserves of foreign currency and gold.One boost for Russia’s economy has been higher oil prices, which have helped it make up for revenue that would have come from buyers in Europe. India, China and Turkey have stepped up their purchases of Russian crude, providing temporary relief, but once the European Union oil ban comes into full effect, Russia will need to find buyers for roughly 2.3 million barrels of crude and oil products a day, about 20 percent of its average output in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency. More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Estonia Never Needed to Import Gas by Ship. Until It Did.

    by

    In Paldiski, Estonia, abandoned Soviet-era bunkers, splattered with graffiti and overgrown with weeds, are a reminder of the centuries-long domination that Russia once exerted over the Baltic region.Now this port city in the northwestern corner of the country is hastily being turned into a bulwark against Russian efforts to politically pressure Europe. Ever since Moscow threatened to withhold natural gas as retribution for countries opposed to its invasion of Ukraine, workers in Paldiski have been constructing an offshore terminal for non-Russian gas at a round-the-clock pace.The project is one piece of Europe’s strategy to quickly wean itself off the Russian energy that is heating homes and powering factories across the continent.The Estonian terminal will serve as a floating dock for a gargantuan processing tanker that will receive deliveries of liquefied natural gas and convert it back into a vapor that can be piped through the existing network that serves the Baltics and Finland. With a scheduled finish date in November, Paldiski is on route to be the first new L.N.G. terminal completed in Europe since the war started.Shipping natural gas in a liquefied form has become Europe’s eureka solution to what the European Commission has labeled “energy blackmail” by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Since the fighting began in late February, 18 new facilities or expansions of existing ones have been proposed in 11 European countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Greece, according to Rystad Energy.The L.N.G. project in Paldiski is one of 18 proposed or under expansion in Europe since Russia attacked Ukraine.Marta Giaccone for The New York TimesGiant beams were installed with a floating crane.Marta Giaccone for The New York TimesEuropean leaders have been traveling to the Middle East and Africa — including to some countries previously held at arm’s length because of human rights abuses — to compete for the world’s limited L.N.G. supply or plead for the rapid development of additional sources. Until the war, China, South Korea and Japan were the biggest customers.“L.N.G. is really the only supply element that is able to step up for the coming years” during the transition to more climate-friendly renewable energy sources, said James Huckstepp, head of European gas analysis at S&P Global Commodity Insights.Although the United States and Qatar, the biggest producers of L.N.G., are ramping up operations, it will take at least a couple of years to significantly increase capacity. So businesses and households are bracing for high prices and painful shortages during the cold winter months. Governments have drawn up emergency plans to cut consumption and ration energy amid dark warnings of social unrest.Marti Haal, the founder and chairman of the Estonia energy group Alexela, shakes his head at the feverish race to construct liquefied natural gas terminals. He and his brother, Heiti, proposed building one more than a dozen years ago, arguing that it was dangerous for any country to be solely dependent on Russia for natural gas.“If you would talk with anyone in Estonia in 2009 and 2010, they would call me and my brother idiots for pursuing that,” Mr. Haal said. He was driving his limited-edition Bullitt Mustang, No. 694, in Steve McQueen green, to the site of the terminal in Paldiski that his company is now building. He slowed down to point out the border of a restricted zone that existed before the Soviet Army left in 1994. When Moscow was in control, Paldiski was emptied of its population, turned into a nuclear training center and surrounded by barbed wire.The facility was met with shrugs when it was first proposed over a decade ago. Now construction is on a frenzied pace.Marta Giaccone for The New York TimesAs he drove on, Mr. Haal recalled the debate over building an L.N.G. receiving station: “Everybody we talked to said, ‘Why do we need diversification?’” After all, gas had been reliably arriving through Russian pipelines since the 1950s.Today the brothers are looking more like visionaries. “If at the time, they would have listened to us, we wouldn’t have to run like crazy now to solve the problem,” Mr. Haal said.Mr. Haal, who spent that morning competing in a regatta, always had an entrepreneurial streak — even under Communism. In 1989, as the Soviet Union was dissolving, he and his brother started building and selling car trailers. Mr. Haal said he would drag one on board the ferry to Finland — the fare to bring it by car was too expensive — and deliver it to a buyer at the Helsinki port. He collected the cash and then returned to pay everyone’s salary.When they started selling gas, they named the company Alexela — a palindrome — so that they would have to erect only one sign that could be read by drivers in both directions.Their L.N.G. venture at one point looked like a failure. As it turns out, the millions of dollars and years of frustration meant that when Estonia and Finland agreed in April to share the cost of renting an L.N.G. processing vessel and build floating terminals, the preliminary research and development was already done.In the months leading up to Russia’s invasion, Mr. Haal said, soaring gas prices had already begun to change the economics of investing in an L.N.G. terminal. Now, his major concern is ensuring that the Estonian government completes the pipeline connection to the national gas network on time.Over the years, the question of building more L.N.G. facilities — in addition to the two dozen or so already in Europe — has been repeatedly debated in ports and capitals. Opponents argued that shipping the chilled, liquefied natural gas was much more expensive than the flow from Russia. The required new infrastructure of port terminals and pipes aroused local opposition. And there was resistance to investing so much money in a fossil fuel that climate agreements had eventually targeted for extinction.One of the countries saying no was Europe’s largest economy, Germany, which was getting 55 percent of its gas from Russia.“The general overview was that Europe had more L.N.G. capacity than it needs,” said Nina Howell, a partner at the law firm King and Spalding. After the invasion, projects that had not been considered commercially viable, “and probably wouldn’t have made it, then suddenly got government support.”The first layer of reinforced concrete structure.Marta Giaccone for The New York TimesConcrete line pressure pipes.Marta Giaccone for The New York TimesEstonia, which shares a 183-mile border with Russia, is actually the European country least dependent on its gas. Roughly three-quarters of Estonia’s energy supply comes from domestically produced oil shale, giving it more independence but putting it behind on climate goals.Still, like the other former Soviet republics Lithuania and Latvia, as well as former Communist bloc countries like Poland, Estonia was always more wary of Russia’s power plays.Two days before the war started, the Estonian prime minister chided “countries which don’t border Russia” for not thinking through the risks of depending on Russian energy.By contrast, Poland moved to quit itself of Russian natural gas and began work in 2013 on a pipeline that will deliver supplies from Norway. It is scheduled to be completed in October. Lithuania — which at one point had received 100 percent of its supply through a single pipeline from the Russian monopoly Gazprom — went ahead and completed its own small L.N.G. terminal in 2014, the year that Russia annexed Crimea.Liquefied natural gas terminals are not the only energy source that European countries once disdained and are now compelled to explore. In a hotly disputed decision, the European Parliament last month reclassified some gas and nuclear power as “green.” The Netherlands is re-examining fracking. And Germany is refiring coal plants and even rethinking its determined rejection of nuclear energy.In Paldiski, enormous wind turbines are along the coast of the Pakri peninsula. On this day, gusts were strong enough not only to spin the blades but also to halt work on the floating terminal. A giant tracked excavator was parked on the sand. At the end of a long skeletal pier, the tops of 200-foot-long steel pipes that had been slammed into the seabed poked up through the water like a skyline of rust-colored chimney stacks.Paldiski Bay, which is ice-free year-round and has direct access to the Baltic Sea, has always been an important commercial and strategic gateway. Generations before the Soviets parked their nuclear submarines there; the Russian czar Peter the Great built a military fortress and port there in the 18th century.Now, the bay is again playing a similar role — only this time not for Russia.Remains of a Soviet-era bunker. The region that will boost the energy security of the Baltics was used as a nuclear training site when Moscow was in charge.Marta Giaccone for The New York Times More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions

    by

    The Treasury Department is investigating whether the crypto exchange allowed users in Iran to buy and sell digital tokens, said people with knowledge of the matter.Kraken, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, is under federal investigation, suspected of violating U.S. sanctions by allowing users in Iran and elsewhere to buy and sell digital tokens, according to five people affiliated with the company or with knowledge of the inquiry.The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has been investigating Kraken since 2019 and is expected to impose a fine, said the people, who declined to be identified for fear of retribution from the company. Kraken would be the largest U.S. crypto firm to face an enforcement action from O.F.A.C. Sanctions against Iran, which the United States imposed in 1979, prohibit the export of goods or services to people or entities in the country.The federal government has increasingly cracked down on crypto companies, which are lightly regulated, as the market for digital currencies has grown. Tether, a stablecoin company, was fined by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for misstatements about its reserves last year, while the Justice Department brought insider-trading charges this month against an ex-employee of Coinbase, the largest U.S. crypto exchange.Scrutiny of the industry has risen in recent months as the crypto market went into meltdown and several companies, such as Voyager Digital and Celsius Network, collapsed.Kraken, a private company valued at $11 billion that allows users to buy, sell or hold various cryptocurrencies, has previously faced regulatory actions. Last year, the C.F.T.C. levied a $1.25 million penalty against the company for a prohibited trading service.In an internal conversation about employee benefits in 2019, Jesse Powell, Kraken’s chief executive, suggested he would consider breaking the law in a wide range of situations if the advantages to the company outweighed potential penalties, according to messages seen by The New York Times. The company has also been dealing with internal conflict over issues including race and gender, which were stoked by Mr. Powell.Marco Santori, Kraken’s chief legal officer, said the company “does not comment on specific discussions with regulators.” He added, “Kraken closely monitors compliance with sanctions laws and, as a general matter, reports to regulators even potential issues.”A Treasury spokeswoman said the agency “does not confirm or comment on potential or ongoing investigations” and was committed to enforcing “sanctions that protect U.S. national security.”Sanctions are some of the most powerful tools the United States has to influence the behavior of nations it does not consider allies. But cryptocurrencies pose a threat to sanctions because the digital coins don’t flow through the traditional banking system, making the funds harder for the government to control.In October, the Treasury Department warned that cryptocurrencies “potentially reduce the efficacy of American sanctions.” It released a 30-page compliance manual that recommended cryptocurrency companies use geolocation tools to weed out customers in restricted regions.“The fact that crypto can move without a bank or intermediary means that exchanges are responsible for certain types of financial regulatory compliance,” said Hailey Lennon, a lawyer at Anderson Kill who handles regulatory issues in crypto. Kraken and the issue of sanctions surfaced in a November 2019 lawsuit by a former employee from the finance department, Nathan Peter Runyon, who accused the start-up of generating revenue from accounts in countries that were under sanctions. He said he had taken the matter to Kraken’s chief financial officer and top compliance official in early 2019, according to legal filings. (The suit was settled last year.)That same year, O.F.A.C. began investigating Kraken, focusing on the company’s accounts in Iran, the people familiar with the investigation said. Kraken’s customers have also opened accounts in Syria and Cuba, two other countries under U.S. sanctions, the people said. In 2020, O.F.A.C. fined BitGo, a digital wallet service with an office in Palo Alto, Calif., more than $98,000 in 2020 for 183 apparent sanctions violations. Last year, it fined BitPay, an Atlanta-based crypto payment processor, more than $500,000 for 2,102 apparent violations. Coinbase also disclosed in a 2021 financial filing that it had sent notices to O.F.A.C. flagging transactions that may have violated sanctions, though the agency hasn’t taken any enforcement action.Mr. Powell co-founded Kraken in 2011 and was an early proponent of Bitcoin, a digital currency that was marketed as being free of any government’s influence or regulation.In 2018, the New York attorney general’s office asked Kraken and 12 other exchanges to answer a questionnaire about their operations. Kraken refused to respond, with Mr. Powell calling New York “hostile to business” on Twitter.Kraken allows users to buy, sell or hold various cryptocurrencies.KrakenIn 2019, Mr. Powell got into an argument on Slack about parental leave at Kraken, according to messages viewed by The Times. Mr. Powell said parental leave was a burden for the company because a child “might as well be a second job, a distracting hobby or a harmful addiction” and “is something outside of work that has a negative impact on work.”The conversation soon shifted to a discussion of legal requirements. Mr. Powell said that in his “formula for everything,” it was important to consider whether it’s “worth the risk to not follow the legal requirement.” He added, “Not following the law would by default be ‘ill-advised,’ but it always has to be considered as an option.”Mr. Powell did not respond to an email requesting comment.This year, Mr. Powell was one of the loudest voices in the crypto industry resisting calls to shut down accounts in Russia after it invaded Ukraine. The United States has imposed sanctions on some individuals and businesses in Russia, but it hasn’t required crypto companies to cut off access to the country entirely.As of last month, Kraken appeared to still be servicing accounts in countries under sanctions, such as Iran, according to a spreadsheet that Mr. Powell posted to a companywide Slack channel to show where the company’s customers were. He said the data came from residence information listed on “verified accounts.”The spreadsheet said Kraken had 1,522 users with residences in Iran, 149 in Syria and 83 in Cuba, according to figures seen by The Times. The company also had more than 2.5 million users with residences in the United States and more than 500,000 in Britain. The spreadsheet was soon made unavailable to most employees. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Companies Brace for Impact of New Forced Labor Law

    by

    Billions of dollars could be at stake as a law banning imports of products from China goes into effect.WASHINGTON — A sweeping new law aimed at cracking down on Chinese forced labor could have significant — and unanticipated — ramifications for American companies and consumers.The law, which went into effect on Tuesday, bars products from entering the United States if they have any links to Xinjiang, the far-western region where the Chinese authorities have carried out an extensive crackdown on Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities.That could affect a wide range of products, including those using any raw materials from Xinjiang or with a connection to the type of Chinese labor and poverty alleviation programs the U.S. government has deemed coercive — even if the finished product used just a tiny amount of material from Xinjiang somewhere along its journey.The law presumes that all of these goods are made with forced labor, and stops them at the U.S. border, until importers can produce evidence that their supply chains do not touch on Xinjiang, or involve slavery or coercive practices.Evan Smith, the chief executive at the supply chain technology company Altana AI, said his company calculated that roughly a million companies globally would be subject to enforcement action under the full letter of the law, out of about 10 million businesses worldwide that are buying, selling or manufacturing physical things.“This is not like a ‘picking needles out of a haystack’ problem,” he said. “This is touching a meaningful percentage of all of the world’s everyday goods.”The Biden administration has said it intends to fully enforce the law, which could lead the U.S. authorities to detain or turn away a significant number of imported products. Such a scenario is likely to cause headaches for companies and sow further supply chain disruptions. It could also fuel inflation, which is already running at a four-decade high, if companies are forced to seek out more expensive alternatives or consumers start to compete for scarce products.Understand the Supply Chain CrisisThe Origins of the Crisis: The pandemic created worldwide economic turmoil. We broke down how it happened.Explaining the Shortages: Why is this happening? When will it end? Here are some answers to your questions.Lessons From History: Henry Ford believed short-term interests must not squeeze out investment in a business’ resilience. His management philosophy yields powerful insights about the current crisis.A Key Factor in Inflation: In the U.S., inflation is hitting its highest level in decades. Supply chain issues play a big role.Failure to fully enforce the law is likely to prompt an outcry from Congress, which is in charge of oversight.“The public is not prepared for what’s going to happen,” said Alan Bersin, a former commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection who is now the executive chairman at Altana AI. “The impact of this on the global economy, and on the U.S. economy, is measured in the many billions of dollars, not in the millions of dollars.”Ties between Xinjiang and a few industries, like apparel and solar, are already well recognized. The apparel industry has scrambled to find new suppliers, and solar firms have had to pause many U.S. projects while they investigated their supply chains. But trade experts say the connections between the region and global supply chains are far more expansive than just those industries.According to Kharon, a data and analytics firm, Xinjiang produces more than 40 percent of the world’s polysilicon, a quarter of the world’s tomato paste and a fifth of global cotton. It’s also responsible for 15 percent of the world’s hops and about a tenth of global walnuts, peppers and rayon. It has 9 percent of the world’s reserves of beryllium, and is home to China’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, which is responsible for 13 percent of global output.Direct exports to the United States from the Xinjiang region — where the Chinese authorities have detained more than a million ethnic minorities and sent many more into government-organized labor transfer programs — have fallen off drastically in the past few years. But a wide range of raw materials and components currently find their way into factories in China or in other countries, and then to the United States, trade experts say.In a statement on Tuesday, Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, called the passage of the law “a clear message to China and the rest of the global community that the U.S. will take decisive actions against entities that participate in the abhorrent use of forced labor.”The Chinese government disputes the presence of forced labor in Xinjiang, saying that all employment is voluntary. And it has tried to blunt the impact of foreign pressure to stop abuses in Xinjiang by passing its own anti-sanctions law, which prohibits any company or individual from helping to enforce foreign measures that are seen as discriminating against China.Though the implications of the U.S. law remain to be seen, it could end up transforming global supply chains. Some companies, for example in apparel, have been quickly severing ties to Xinjiang. Apparel makers have been scrambling to develop other sources of organic cotton, including in South America, to replace those stocks.But other companies, namely large multinationals, have made the calculation that the China market is too valuable to leave, corporate executives and trade groups say. Some have begun walling off their Chinese and U.S. operations, continuing to use Xinjiang materials for the China market or maintain partnerships with entities that operate there.Uyghur workers at a factory in Xinjiang, China, in 2019. A wide range of raw materials and components from Xinjiang currently find their way into factories in China or in other countries, and then to the United States.Gilles Sabrié for The New York TimesIt’s a strategy that Richard Mojica, a lawyer at Miller & Chevalier Chartered, said “should suffice,” since the jurisdiction of U.S. customs extends just to imports, although Canada, the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia are considering their own measures. Instead of moving their operations out of China, some multinationals are investing in alternative sources of supply, and making new investments in mapping their supply chains.How the Supply Chain Crisis UnfoldedCard 1 of 9The pandemic sparked the problem. 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