Geopolitics of Energy

Geopolitics

of Energy Volume 36, Issue 9 September 2014

Editor-in-Chief Jon Rozhon Editorial Committee Alberto Cisneros Lavaller Napier Collyns Antoine Halff Vincent Lauerman Julian Lee Michael Lynch Sulayman al-Qudsi Paul Tempest Editorial Board Peter Adam Yasser Al-Saleh Anis Bajrektarevic Fatih Birol Ged Davis Robert Ebel George Eynon Herman Franssen Seyed Jazayeri Wenran Jiang Tatsu Kambara Alex Kemp Walid Khadduri David Knapp John Roberts Adnan Shihab-Eldin Subroto Wu Lei

Geopolitics of Energy was founded by the late Melvin A. Conant of Washington, DC in 1979. Since 1993, it has been published under the auspices of the Canadian Energy Research Institute. All views expressed in this journal are those of the individual authors and do not reflect the views of the Canadian Energy Research Institute. Relevant • Independent • Objective

Inside this Issue... Nuclear Commerce—Fundamentals Security, Politico-Military, Legal and Socio-Economic Aspects Anis H. Bajrektarevic and Petra Posega Page 2 This paper is Part I of two pieces on the nuclear industry by Geopolitics of Energy Editorial Board member Anis Bajrektarevic and his colleague Petra Posega. The article provides some background to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the state of the nuclear industry today in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. Of central concern to Bajrektarevic and Posega is making the transition from carbon-based energy sources to more GHG-friendly, yet robust forms of energy such as nuclear power. Indeed, when one considers the various alternative options available today – solar, wind, carbon-neutral biofuels, etc. – none has anywhere near the potential of nuclear energy to produce the Terawatts demanded by an almost insatiably energy-hungry planet. Nuclear power, the authors argue, must be a major component of a post-carbon energy mix. To suggest otherwise is unrealistic. The authors also note that as peaceful nuclear development is essential, the cold-war mindset that persists among some nations must change: “we would beg to differ on the logic that continuous threat perception is good and beneficial for the world”. In next month’s edition of Geopolitics of Energy, the authors examine more specifically the nuclear commerce regime and legal frameworks that must be in place for the future peaceful development of the nuclear industry.

®

GEOPOLITICS OF ENERGY/SEPTEMBER 2014 2

In an ever-evolving and expanding world, there is a constant quest for more energy and less

external energy dependence. With a fossil fuels-bound industry stamping out an alarmingly

negative ecological footprint, led econological footprint) there is a clear and urgent need to

predict and instruct on alternatives; this is the main purpose of this paper. The key points of our

argument will show there is no alternative decarbonized, greener primary energy mix possible

in the future without a considerable share reserved for nuclear power. To this end, the

development of nuclear power can only be achieved within the current legal framework of the

nuclear commerce regime. Consequently, we will rethink and revisit some of the fundamentals:

the genesis of the world of atoms, applied nuclear science, its military and geopolitical

implications, the nuclear commerce regime, the legal framework behind this field, as well as the

factors speeding up or hindering the progress of a renewed nuclear power industry – which can

be tentatively named a nuclear renaissance. Hopefully, this process will lead to a safer, cleaner,

cheaper and de-carbonized, greener energy mix in the near future.

As the world economy keeps developing at a high pace and society becomes even more energy dependent in every aspect possible, ensuring energy supply to fulfill these demands is crucial for a sustainable future. The International Energy Agency (IEA) anticipates global energy demands will increase 44% by the year 2030 – which will necessitate both energy efficiency and energy security (reliable energy supply). An energy shortage today (but even more so in the near future) would have dramatic impacts on governments and economies due to society’s reliance on steady, uninterrupted energy supply. To keep national energy demands steady, we face two available alternatives: either production of energy from available resources or supply guarantees from cooperative countries with greater energy production capabilities. There are many forms of energy that can supplement and even replace fossil fuels in some circumstances, with each form possessing positive and negative characteristics. Finding a form to replace fossil fuels – which is good for the economy and the environment while simultaneously proving sustainable and efficient – is no walk in the park. Yet the world would certainly benefit from a clean and stable energy supply with a low CO2 emission rate, such as nuclear power could provide. With new and more efficient technologies under development, as well as new deals being signed, especially in the developing world, the nuclear industry seems to be approaching a turning point. It will have to prove that it is able to satisfy society’s energy needs while at the same time convince the public of its safety, both in usage and in storage. This is more important now than ever considering the unfortunate disaster in Japan (Fukushima) in March 2011, which once again cast a cloud over nuclear power after some relatively trouble-free years since the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Therefore, the questions of most importance that we seek answers for are: Will the nuclear industry be capable of meeting increased energy demand, decreasing

external dependences (especially on the side of OECD countries), and altering our current Primary Energy Mixes (PEM’s) towards de-carbonization?

Will nuclear energy in the future be acceptable commercially, socially, and environmentally?

Can the current framework of nuclear commerce function as a suitable non-proliferation tool, specifically in the field of double use technology? (peaceful and military)

Nuclear Commerce—Fundamentals Security, Politico-Military, Legal and Socio-Economic Aspects

Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic and Petra Posega

Introduction

3 GEOPOLITICS OF ENERGY/SEPTEMBER 2014

Does the current nuclear non-proliferation framework hinder the development of nuclear

commerce?

Like many other great scientific and technological breakthroughs, nuclear energy has its root in the military sector. With the introduction of nuclear weapons to the world, the safety of humanity and the planet as a whole suddenly came into question. The development of these weapons came at great cost, with nuclear testing happening on the less geopolitically important sites all over the world and weapons proliferating to the point where the nuclear stockpile approached 100,000 warheads. After gaining momentum in the midst of the Cold War, nuclear weapons testing is much less significant nowadays:

Source: CTBTO 2013

The Power of Atoms and Nuclear Physics


With different international treaties (for example, the START treaties), the most prominent nuclear forces, the US and Russia (as a successor to the dissolved Soviet Union) committed themselves to a world with fewer nuclear warheads and dramatically reduced their stockpiles – although it is questionable how much this was a step taken out of altruism and pacifism and to what extent it was caused by economic calculations. Nevertheless, a handful of nations today are still willing to invest heavily in these weapons, using them both as a threat and a deterrent. World nuclear weapons numbers today are as follows:

Note: Precise data on the actual number of nuclear weapons is difficult to come by due to the national security-related secrecy of the subject. Source: Federation of American Scientists, 2014

Along with military applications, peaceful nuclear power development and nuclear medicine also rapidly picked up speed after World War II. As we know, the geographical proliferation of nuclear commerce has to be executed with extreme caution if we want to increase peaceful nuclear development. Almost every conceivable human activity in the world depends on energy. The relationship between matter and energy has been explained by Einstein’s theory of special relativity. The practical implications are significant since there are only a few basic energy forces that can be exploited: gravitational, electrostatic, electromagnetic, and nuclear.1 To realize the potential of nuclear energy, there is the previously mentioned differentiation into peaceful and non-peaceful possibilities.


The foundation for an international focus on peace in regards to nuclear power has its core in US President Dwight D. Eisenhower's speech “Atoms for Peace” in 1953: “I feel impelled to speak today in a language that in a sense is new – one which I, who have spent

so much of my life in the military profession, would have preferred never to use. That new language is the language of atomic warfare”.

After President Eisenhower´s speech, the United States launched an "Atoms for Peace" program which consisted of supplying information and equipment to schools, hospitals, and research institutions within the US and around the world. But we need to understand the hidden factors behind the benign facade of the Atoms for Peace program. After the Soviet Union made real America’s worst nightmare by obtaining its own nuclear weapon, President Eisenhower and his team of advisors came to the tough conclusion that the US had to change its policy of secrecy regarding nuclear power. High-level White House advisors realized that the Soviet Union could gain a major upper hand in the propaganda race on nuclear power, especially in the Third World (influencing leaders in places like communist China). Breaking the silence on this strange new power and sharing its secrets with other countries on the Soviet side could deliver a devastating blow to American influence around the world at the beginning of the new, post-World War II world order. By launching the Atoms for Peace program, Washington was limiting possible Soviet primacy in Third World countries. Undoubtedly, that meant that certain chosen countries would benefit greatly in the following years by gaining access to nuclear power. A far-reaching event that brought nuclear power even more into the forefront was the Nixon administration’s termination of the convertibility of the dollar to gold in 1971. This decision tore apart the essential provisions of the Bretton Woods system and introduced wild floating exchange rates into the world monetary system for the first time. But the dollar needed something to make it solid again; and this is where the 1973 oil crisis came along, seemingly at just the right time. Oil, as we know, has since the beginning been sold almost exclusively in dollars only. The shocking skyrocketing prices of crude due to the OPEC countries’2 triggered shortage of supply increased demand for dollars almost 400% at the time. One can see how that affected the standpoint of the Petrodollar3 on the monetary market. And since many countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America found themselves paying four times as much for the same amount of oil supply, there came ever louder talk about an alternative energy source. This is where nuclear energy came to mind. In the 1970s, many agreements were made between nations regarding nuclear energy, most notably between Germany and France on the giving end and Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan, and Iran on the receiving end. This effectively envisioned the positive aspects of Atoms for Peace since developed countries would help selected developing countries establish much more efficient and, ultimately, less expensive electricity generation systems. But the main problem with this trend was that, if successfully expanded, it would effectively diminish demand for the dollar on the financial markets. Besides other important factors, such as the overwhelming financial and infrastructural nature of any project regarding nuclear power, this very likely is also one of the reasons why nuclear energy has not yet reached its full potential. It is clear, then, that the complete overturn in the primary energy mix on the global scale would have larger than life consequences on world financial markets and hence significantly change the balance of power. To put it simply, the main problem with green/renewable energy is not complexity, expense or lack of technological solutions; the problem lies within the fact that it calls for a geopolitical breakthrough. Luckily for mankind, not everyone has given up on nuclear (or any other alternative) power, because we have to realize that if we wish for a de-carbonized future society there is no possible scenario without nuclear energy taking a vanguard position in the energy mix. But this will


demand a major shift in the global (geo) political mindset, because oil, as mentioned, represents far more than just energy. It represents a “socio-economic, psychological, cultural, financial, security and politico-military construct, a phenomenon of civilization that architectures the world of controllable horizontalities which is currently known to, possible and permitted, therefore acceptable for us”.4 And no matter how optimistic we wish to be, this mindset-shift scenario still seems far-fetched because at the moment, it is difficult to imagine anyone bringing down the American petro-security, petro-finance, and petro-military primacy, because all the major players are petro-dependent: Russia, the central Asian republics, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Norway, Venezuela, etc. on the supply end; and India, China, Australia, South Africa, etc. on the receiving end. For now, it seems that humanity has been involuntarily caught up in a crude oil vicious circle.

Nuclear fission is the process by which nuclear power is generated today and should not be confused with nuclear fusion. The source material which is used in nuclear fission is uranium-233, uranium-235 or plutonium-239, which is retrieved from uranium´s natural state “238”. DEFINITION Nuclear Fission: “Nuclear fission is the process of splitting the nucleus of a heavy atom (target nucleus) into two or more lighter atoms (fission products) when the heavy atom absorbs or is bombarded by a neutron. Fission releases a large amount of energy along with two or more neutrons. The large amount of energy released is due to the sum of the masses of the fission products being less than the original mass of the heavy atom. When a heavy atom fissions, it releases neutrons which can be absorbed by other heavy atoms to induce further fissions. This is called a chain reaction. If each neutron releases two more neutrons from such fission, then the number of fissions doubles each generation.”5 This reaction creates energy and in turn generates heat, which in a NPP (nuclear power plant) can be used to boil water, which in turn drives a turbine with the steam created. Due to the fact that NPP’s deal with extreme temperatures, for safety reasons it is of crucial importance to keep these facilities controlled and regularly inspected for any forms of defects involving third parties. The accidents at Chernobyl (Ukraine) and Fukushima (Japan) may well have been avoided if inspections had been fastidious.

Note: The charts included in the text are the most recent ones available, since the IAEA/NEA Red book is scheduled to be published sometime this year, and the previous publication was disclosed in 2012, containing information for the year 2011. Source: IAEA 2009

Nuclear Fission


Note: The charts included in the text are the most recent ones available, since the IAEA/NEA Red book is scheduled to be published sometime this year, and the previous publication was disclosed in 2012, containing information for the year 2011. Source: IAEA 2011

Distribution of Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR) Among Countries with a Significant Share of Resources, 2011*

*Resources available and amount exploited differs vastly Source: OECD 2012


Using nuclear fusion to generate power has been a topic of discussion and research for over 50 years. Fusion is a nuclear reaction that occurs when two nuclei collide and form a new type of nucleus; it usually occurs with lighter elements, whereas fission generally takes place with heavier elements. This concept, and its discussed technology, has several striking characteristics, including an almost infinite supply of energy, rather small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactive waste, no possibility of an accident with significant off-site consequences (since the collapse of the plasma at any time would instantly stop the fusion reaction and therefore would produce no residual heat) and lastly, no concern for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, because there is no requirement for such materials and technologies in nuclear fusion. The very idea of a working fusion reactor solves practically every problem we have with nuclear fission and in this sense perfectly embodies the saying from Jean Monnet. “If you have an unsolvable dilemma, enlarge the context”.6 However, scientists have yet to construct a self-sustaining fusion reactor. The words of a Nobel laureate for physics, Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, sum up the problem in a very elegant way: “We said we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don`t know how to make the box”.7 Currently, the most promising experimental fusion reactor is being built in France – the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The project is run by seven member entities – EU, India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea, and the US and is, as mentioned, currently in construction phase, planned to come to an end by 2019. The first full scale fusion tests are not planned to start before 2027 and the project is facing technical difficulties due to the challenging and overwhelming nature of the project.8 But we have to keep in mind that if the scientists succeed, we are looking at a practically endless, inexpensive energy source that is environmentally friendly with few negative consequences. Nevertheless, despite the many positive and promising sides there are to nuclear energy, accidents and danger are what people most commonly associate with nuclear power. Although this deep-rooted fear is very understandable, if not balanced with information of what NPPs (Nuclear Power Plants) are capable of in relation to other sources of energy, the public will continue to relate it with: Safety incidents such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Fukushima. Terrorism through weapons of mass destruction or by sabotage on NPPs. Nuclear waste management Radiation exposure If we want a low-carbon and cheaper energy mix in the future, this is an unnecessary nuclear deadlock. It should be on the mind of every respectable public figure: influencing public opinion in a way to make nuclear energy socially and politically more acceptable is of extreme importance if we wish to introduce a different future energy mix. That is predicated, of course, on politicians starting to appreciate the benefits of long-range decision making. Because for now there simply seems to be no political will for implementing policies that are either too complex or time consuming for the frequency of national elections. Nuclear energy in the total primary energy supply mix comes out in 4th place, following the still dominating coal, oil, and natural gas – which hold a staggering 80% of the world’s primary energy supply.9 Depending on which country is being discussed, the total energy share provided by nuclear power differs vastly; however, within the EU we are talking about a rough number somewhere around 15%, and this number drops to about 6-7% when discussing the world as a whole.10 When looking at the figure presented below we notice how sources of energy production have shifted throughout the past 30 years:

Nuclear Fusion

Primary Energy Mix and Primary Energy

Supply with a (double) Environmental Twist


Source: IEA 2010

In the future, the contribution of non-fossil fuels to the energy mix, according to most predictions, is expected to rise globally and the growth is expected to be faster in the non-OECD world. The dominant forms will be hydro and nuclear energy, while it is still a mystery whether or not other renewables will gain significantly in the energy mix of the future, due to subsidiary costs.

Source: BP Energy Outlook 2013

Energy production from hydro, solar, and nuclear power will definitely have to show their individual strengths as the price for oil continues to rise and we become more dependent on electricity. How renewables will develop will play a key role in setting directions for the future of our planet. If we consider some of the data regarding energy consumption, there is only one possible conclusion: that we, as a species, seem to be very greedy. The extent of this greed can be seen in various calculations of the so-called “Ecological footprint”, showing the difference between our


current way of living, especially our consumption and demand, and the planet`s ability to provide for these needs.

Source: Global Footprint Network

Source: Global Footprint Network 2012

As you can see from the above charts, we demand much more than we can receive; adding insult to injury, we annually extract biomaterial and minerals for 1 unit, while at the same time polluting sea, water, air and outer-space for 2. The figures raise the question of whether we have any right to call what we are doing “development”.11 Why is this problem not being addressed more seriously? Is it because many of us living right now will not witness the actual consequences of these actions, just the first warning signs? And if that is indeed the case, it appears there is little common concern for things bound to happen many, many years from now.


When it comes to the warning signs, we have to be very careful in distinguishing between proper, scientific information versus propaganda and sensationalism. The fact is that current lifestyles do not burden our planet more than they should, and a shift towards a different type of energy mix in the future, together with (not so very new) innovations such as the electric car, cannot be considered a bad/idealistic idea, arguably more so because it would also bring a beneficial geopolitical shift towards a multipolar world. Sadly, as in so many scientific fields nowadays, the global well-being of our planet has turned into a religion, which can also be called The Global climate change of the latter days; not on a basis of concern, but on a basis of practicality – climate change does offer a very strong (and seemingly justified) control mechanism for global affairs. In this spirit, we would like to incorporate some “warning” charts from the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Not necessarily because they are accurate – we have to consider that many (scientific and amateur alike) voices consider their report/charts/graphs to be somewhere in between environmental alarmism and environmental sensationalism – but because the IPCC, as a reputable international body, has a large impact on state, corporate and non-governmental decision-makers around the world.

Source: International Panel for Climate Change Assessment Report 2013






Another very interesting statistic on this topic is a modern twist on the old UN Human Development Index (HDI), called the Human Sustainable Development Index (HSDI). The idea came from within the UN and is rooted in the aspiration to update the old formula for the HDI (health + wealth + education = development) to the new, contemporarily more adequate formula of health + wealth + education + per capita carbon emissions = sustainable development. This twist in the formula demonstrates that development comes at a price. The HSDI shows the cost of one country`s quality of life compared to another’s. As expected, the biggest difference in comparing HDI to HSDI happens at the top: notice especially the US, Australia and Canada. To put things simply, the lifestyle (inevitably intertwined with development) of people leaving in the poorly rated HSDI states is, at the end of the day, unsustainable. Also, this chart appears to confirm our previous argument that environmental sensationalism, most notably in the form of the IPCC, serves mostly as a control mechanism. Please notice the rank change of US and China; it is a curious fact that we continue to hear that China is the main guilty party for CO2 emissions, but strangely enough, on the HSDI chart China gains nine places for their sustainability. It would appear that China, along with Hong Kong, Japan and Korea, who so very often are bombarded in the media for not doing enough when it comes to CO2 emissions reduction, are actually attaining their development in a (ecologically speaking) sustainable way.


Whereas some other western countries (most notably Australia, Canada and the US) – that are not even remotely scorned in the media in the same way as the above mentioned Asian nations – are actually weighting much more on the world with their development. Interesting, right?

Source: United Nations University 2011

And, to complement everything written so far, here is another curious index developed by the US-based think-tank Center for Global Development – the Commitment to Development Index (CDI). It shows the ratio between the capacity of developed states to help the developing countries and the reality of their efforts. It should serve (though it does not presently) as a serious red alert to the developed nations in the world, reassessing the balance between their privileges and their empathy towards the rest of the not-so-privileged world.


Source: Center for Global Development 2013

Indeed, the creation of the world’s first nuclear weapon signaled a turning point in international relations, especially between Russia and the US, which led to the cold war. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki bear witness to the escalating power of modern human weaponry and technology. Indeed, there is a persuasive argument for the nuclear weaponry arsenal being created for one reason: to prevail above everybody. This idea is in line with the realistic theory on international relations, arguing that the power of the state is based solely on the brute strength of its own resources, mainly its land, people, and military capabilities, in a Hobbesian struggle of each against all. The realistic theory also introduces a very dangerous concept of absolute security in contrast to relative security. Absolute security can never be reached, but there are many things that can be done in the name of absolute security: breaching every possible rule, provision, or international agreement. Concepts of absolute security (along with the concept of means justifying the end) and exploitation of power was clearly seen in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki catastrophes and their example has, quite understandably, formed a legitimate fear of non-peaceful nuclear possibilities. That is why the NPT (non-proliferation treaty) is of utmost importance when imagining an expansion for international nuclear commerce (to be further discussed in a future edition of Geopolitics of Energy) and part of the mission of introducing nuclear power in a more acceptable military-political frame. The US and Russia, with some 10,000 nuclear warheads each, outnumber all other nuclear-weapons-capable nations by a factor of at least 30:1, however an exact number can only be guessed. Today’s instability in the Middle East creates regional insecurity due to the fact that Israel and Pakistan are undeclared nuclear powers with many others having clear ambitions (such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and certainly Iran as the most advanced country in both nuclear technology but also ballistic missiles). Additionally, North Korea has become an undeclared nuclear power, of uncertain types, configurations and quantities of weapons, which additionally burdens the neighbors and their allies, making confidence building measures nearly impossible in this highly sensitive geopolitical neighbourhood.

Military Applications of Nuclear Technology


Some might argue that being a nuclear warhead state generates safety to a country and its people whilst maintaining national pride and extends nuclear protection onto its allies. But one must also take into consideration the political implications and the implications of a perpetual nuclear arms race for international political balance. The best way to avoid an atomic dilemma would be to get rid of atomic arsenals altogether, something that seems inconceivable at the moment, especially considering the aggressive stance that the US holds regardless of the fact that the Cold War and nuclear race is long over. Or, to quote former US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfield “…the US nuclear arsenal remains an important part of our deterrence strategy, and helps us dissuade the emergence of potential would-be peer competitors, by underscoring the futility of trying to reach parity with us …”12 Mostly, we would beg to differ on the logic that continuous threat perception is good and beneficial for the world; instead, we argue that nuclear weapons lead to more severe global tensions. Likewise, many states have emphasized that unless and until the world commits itself to complete nuclear disarmament, they refuse to end their nuclear programmes. Therefore, nuclear deterrence is mostly viewed as a direct cause for the nuclear culture which dehumanizes opponents, exaggerates threats to national security, and downplays the consequences for human life and the environment as a whole. Not to mention the effects of test programmes for people living in the South Pacific, centre of Australia, and the remote regions of the former Soviet Union.13 Also, the aggressive stance has not gone unnoticed. If we calculate recent global events, highlighting the American tendency to control all the major oil and energy flows in the world, establishment of a new network of military bases in Eurasia, updates to the latest technology in the nuclear triad and the B-52 bombers, we can hope that there is no Doctor Strangelove that will stop worrying sometime in the future and learn to love the bomb just well enough. About the Authors Anis H. Bajrektarevic is a Professor and a Chairperson for International Law and Global Political studies at the Austrian IMC University of Applied Sciences. He is editor of the NY-based Addleton’s GHIR Journal (Geopolitics, History and Intl. Relations), as well as the Senior Editorial member of many specialized international magazines, including the Canadian Journal and Geopolitics of Energy. Professor Bajrektarevic can be contacted at [email protected]. Petra Posega is a master`s degree student at the University for Criminal Justice and Security in Ljubljana. She obtained her bachelor`s degree in Political Science-Defense studies. Ms. Posega can be contacted at [email protected]

Endnotes 1Murray (2001), p. 9 2As the most traded commodity in the world, the final consumer price of oil is always largely influenced by New York and London. This was the case, despite the delivery interruptions, even in 1973. 3Another interesting thing about the US dollar currency is that it is not really state-owned. On looking at the banknote closely, it states very clearly that it is a Federal Reserve note, which is a private, not a state-owned, entity. 4Bajrektarevic (2013), p. 4 5Washington State Department of Health (2003), p.2 6Bajrektarevic (2012), p.1 7European Commission: Futurium 2014 8http://www.iter.org/ 9OECD 2012 10US EIA 2009, Nuclear Energy today 2012 11Bajrektarevic (2012), p.2 12Prepared Testimony for the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the Moscow Treaty, 2002 13Dodds (2005), Engdahl (2010)

Publication Date: October 9, 2014

Submit manuscripts and Letters to the Editor to Jon Rozhon, Editor-in-Chief, Geopolitics of Energy, in-care-of the address below or via email at [email protected]. Manuscripts dealing with energy and geopolitics, generally between 2,000 and 4,000 words in length, will be considered for publication. Unsolicited manuscripts will undergo peer review by members of the editorial board. Available by subscription for $800 (US) per year; $400 (US) for public libraries universities. For Canadian residents—$800 per year; $400 for public libraries and universities—plus 5% GST. Publisher: Canadian Energy Research Institute, #150, 3512 - 33 Street NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2L 2A6 Telephone: (403) 220-2370; Fax: (403) 220-9579; Email: [email protected]. Reproduction without permission is prohibited.

Documents

Geopolitics of Energy