Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

Denmark looks to commission a cross-border green hydrogen pipeline to Germany in 2031, three years later than the previous timeline, the Danish government said on Tuesday.

Denmark has been working with local transmission system operator Energinet to have the timeline to commissioning shortened to 2031, from 2032 as Energinet’s latest plan says, according to a statement from the Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy, and Utilities.

Energinet has been cooperating with Gasunie on the development of the Danish-German hydrogen network as part of a cooperation agreement. Initial plans envisaged that a cross-border transmission connection between Denmark and Germany would enable the transport of green hydrogen from 2028.

However, after Energinet’s market dialogue on the hydrogen infrastructure ended, the booking requirement was recalculated and the schedule updated, the operator said today.

“Several activities on the critical path have proven to be more extensive and time-consuming than originally anticipated. Therefore, Energinet now assesses that the ‘Lower T’ can be commissioned by the end of 2031 at the earliest, and the interconnections to Holstebro and Lille Torup by the end of 2032 and 2033,” the system operator added, referring to the initial and follow-up branches of the hydrogen network.

“We are still ready to bring state co-financing to the table if the industry commits to booking capacity in the pipeline,” said Lars Aagaard, Denmark’s Minister for Climate, Energy and Utilities.

The Danish Government will work on measures to support the possibility of commissioning the first part of the hydrogen backbone in 2031, it said today.

Green hydrogen has seen several setbacks in Europe recently, due to a lack of customers.

Most recently, Shell and Equinor have ditched plans for low-carbon hydrogen production and transportation in north Europe, due to a lack of demand.

Uncertainty around demand and incentives coupled with cost pressures are weighing on the global adoption of low-carbon hydrogen despite an uptick in final investment decisions in the past year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a report last week.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

CNN reported last week that “China’s Coast Guard claims to have entered the Arctic Ocean for the first time as it ramps up security ties with Russia”, though at the time of writing, neither the Russian nor American Coast Guards confirmed their presence in the Arctic. CNN also noted that TASS’ report on this only cited the China Coast Guard’s (CCG) statement on its WeChat page. It’s therefore dubious whether the CCG actually entered the Arctic or just remained in the Bering Sea.

This distinction is important since the perception that Sino-Russo Coast Guard drills were just carried out in the Arctic, no matter how possibly inaccurate as clarified by CNN to its credit, could fuel the West’s efforts to contain Russia along that front. It also adds false credence to the artificially manufactured speculation that Russia is willing to cede sovereignty rights there to China after becoming disproportionately dependent on it over the past two years since the special operation began.

About that, readers should be aware of several relevant pieces of Russian legislation for governing its Arctic maritime territory. A 2017 law banned shipping oil, natural gas, and coal along the Northern Sea Route (NSR) under a foreign flag, while a 2018 one mandates that these ships will also have to be built in Russia. These were complemented by a 2022 law stipulating that all foreign warships must require prior permission to transit the NSR, and only one can do so at a time. These three laws remain on the books.

Their purpose is to ensure that Russia profits as much as is realistically possible from the NSR and can properly protect its sovereignty there. China poses no threat to Russian sovereignty, but allowing its warships to operate unrestricted within Russia’s territorial waters could raise the chances of an incident at sea with its Western Arctic rivals, especially the US. There’s also no reason for them to be there anyhow since Russia is more than capable of ensuring security along this route on its own.

The same can be said for the CCG seeing as how the Arctic is obviously far away from the Chinese coast, but it’s possible in theory that those of its icebreakers that already entered these waters for the first time over the summer could be escorted by the CCG as they lead the way for commercial vessels. If that happens, then this would likely be coordinated with Russia as part of a signal to the West as intuited by what head of the new Maritime Board Nikolai Patrushev hinted at in an interview over the summer.

This could possibly be preceded by formal naval drills in the Arctic Ocean, once again for the same purpose of sending a signal to the West, albeit a misleading one since China isn’t an Arctic naval power and it also has no mutual defense commitments to Russia like such a stunt might make some think. Those aforementioned false perceptions would be deliberately fanned in these scenarios for sending a signal to the West despite the likelihood that it would be exploited to fuel containment along this front.

Russia might conclude that there’s nothing that it can do to stop these developments anyhow so it’s therefore better to play along with these perceptions in order to boost its soft power across the Global South by making these countries think that it and China are jointly countering the West in the Arctic. Even in that case, however, Russia will remain the senior partner in this aspect of its relationship since it’s an actual Arctic state while China claims to only be a so-called “near-Arctic” one.

China’s policy is meant to ensure it a seat at the table in multilateral discussions about that body of water through which it plans to expand trade with Europe via the NSR. This is the natural evolution of its desire to play a greater role in global governance in general and specifically in all emerging frontiers like the Arctic, AI, climate change, etc. The CCG’s drills with their Russian counterparts there, even if they were only in the Bering Sea, reinforces its claim as a “near-Arctic state” due to its adjacency to the Arctic.

Russia tacitly supports this claim as proven by the above, but it remains unclear whether it’s comfortable with China playing a role in Arctic governance, which Russia is reluctant to internationalize since it fears that this could lead to more pressure to curtail the sovereignty rights that it enshrined into law there. All countries want to cut costs on trade so there’s no reason why China wouldn’t want its own natural gas, oil, and coal ships to sail along the NSR instead of having to contract Russia’s for this task.

To avoid any misunderstanding, nothing is being implied about an impending problem in their strategic partnership over this issue since all that’s being put forth is that they have natural differences over this issue, though they’ve thus far been responsibly managed and there’s no reason to expect this to change.  Sino-Russo cooperation in the Arctic is indisputably on pace to continue, including in the security dimension, though energy and logistical cooperation are expected to remain the drivers of this trend.

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

Many citizens want more government control of the economy to curb rising prices. It is the worst strategy imaginable. Interventionist governments never reduce consumer prices because they benefit from inflation, dissolving their political spending commitments in a constantly depreciated currency. Inflation is the perfect hidden tax. The government makes the currency less valuable by issuing more units of fiat money, partially dissolves its debt in real terms, collects more taxes, and presents itself as the solution to rising prices with subsidies in an increasingly worthless currency. That is why socialism and hyperinflation go hand in hand.

Socialism rejects human action and economic calculation and sells a false image of a government that can create wealth at will by issuing more units of fiat currency. Obviously, when inflation arrives, the socialist government will use its two favorite tools: propaganda and repression. Propaganda, which accuses stores and businesses of driving up prices, and repression, which occurs when social unrest intensifies and citizens legitimately hold governments accountable for scarcity and high prices, are the two main strategies.

If you want lower prices, you need to give less economic power to the government, not more. Only free markets, competition, and open economies help decrease consumer prices. Many readers might think that we currently have a free market with competitive and open economies, but the reality is that we live in increasingly intervened and overregulated nations where central banks and governments work to perpetuate unsustainable public deficits and debt. Therefore, they continue to print more money, leading many to question why it is getting harder for families to make ends meet, buy a home, or for small businesses to prosper. The government is slowly eating away the currency it issues. They call it “social use of money.”

What is “social use of money”? In essence, it means abandoning one of the main characteristics of money, the reserve of value, to give the government preferential access to credit to finance its commitments. Therefore, the state can announce larger entitlement programs and increase the size of the public sector relative to the economy, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The state issues more currency, which makes people’s money less valuable. Citizens become more dependent on the state, and they will demand more subsidies paid in the currency the state issues. It is, in essence, a process of control through debt and currency depreciation.

When governments and central banks talk about price stability, it means a two percent annual depreciation of the currency. Aggregate prices rising an average of two percent is hardly price stability because it is measured by the consumer price index, which is a carefully crafted basket of goods and services weighted by the same people who print the money. That is why governments love CPI as a measure of inflation. It fails to fully reflect the erosion of the currency’s purchasing power. This is why the CPI’s basket calculation fluctuates so frequently. Even if it accurately measures, it will underestimate the rise in prices of non-replaceable goods and services by adding them to a basket of things we consume maybe once or twice a year at best. When you put together shelter, food, health, and energy with technology and entertainment, there will always be distortions.

Thus, governments and central banks are never going to defend price stability. If aggregate prices fell, competition soared, and citizens saw their real wages rise and their deposit savings increase in real value, their jobs would disappear.

When a central bank like the Fed cuts rates and increases the money supply after an accumulated 20.4% inflation in four years, it is not defending price stability; it is defending price increases. This strategy serves to conceal the government’s financial insolvency. A currency with a declining value.

Governments are the ones that create inflation by spending a currency that is constantly losing purchasing power because the state issues more than what the private sector demands. No corporation or allegedly evil oil producer can make aggregate prices rise and continue increasing annually at a lower pace. Only the one that prints the money, and central banks don’t print money because they want to; they increase the money supply to absorb rising public deficit spending.

Inflation is a hidden tax, a slow process of nationalization of the economy, and the perfect way to increase taxes without angering voters and blaming private businesses in the meantime. The consumer will likely blame the store or business for higher prices, not the issuer of a currency that loses purchasing power.

Why would governments want higher prices? Because it gives them more power. Destroying the currency they issue is a perfect form of control. That is why they need more debt and higher taxes. High taxes are not a tool to reduce debt, but rather to justify rising public indebtedness.

You may have read numerous times that the government has unlimited borrowing power and can manage inflation to allow you to live comfortably. It is false. The government cannot issue all the debt it wants. It has an inflationary, economic, and fiscal limit.

Inflation is a warning sign of declining currency confidence and a loss of purchasing power. The economic limit is evidenced by lower growth, lower employment, weaker real wages, secular stagnation, and declining foreign demand for public debt.

The fiscal limit is evidenced by soaring interest expenses even with low rates, weaker receipts every time they hike taxes, and citizens and businesses leaving the country to more friendly tax systems, all of which add to the poor or negative multiplier effect of government spending.

If you want lower prices, you should give less economic power to governments, not more.

A government that tells you it will borrow $2 trillion per annum in a growth and record receipt economy and will continue to increase debt and borrow well into 2033 with the most optimistic assumptions of GDP and receipt is telling you it will make you poorer.

When a politician promises that he or she will cut prices, they are always lying. A weaker currency is a tool to increase government power in the economy. By the time you find out, it may be too late.

Money is credit, and government debt is fiat currency. Currency depreciation is inflation, and inflation is equivalent to an implicit default. No interventionist government or central bank wants lower prices because inflation allows the government to increase its power while slowly breaching its monetary commitments.

There is some good news and some bad news for China bulls this morning (local time).

First the good news: since mainland China (aka A-shares) were closed for the past week, mainland Indexes such as the Shanghai Shenzhen CSI 300 are up – just barely – because after opening up almost 11% to catch up with the frenzied rally in offshore markets and ETFs, the index has erased almost all gains since it closed for trading on Sept 30.

For the real action, one has to go to neighboring Hong Kong, which was open while China was closed, and which proceeded to soar as much as 30% since the China stimulus bazooka was fired on Sept 23 (just two days after we said it would be). It’s also were the bad news is because one look at what the local Hang Seng China Enterprises Index is doing, and HK longs will want to throw up: as shown below, not only are HK stocks down as much as 11% after the open, but they have somehow managed to wipe out almost half the gains since the bazooka was launched in less than two hours!

What sparked this liquidation? Well, yesterday China unveiled yet another “emergency” stimulus meeting, this time held by the National Development and Reform Commission (i.e., China’s central planning bureau). Expectations were high that just like the emergency Sept 26 Politburo meeting which was led by president Xi himself, today China would unveil even more sweet, sweet stimmies.

Alas it was not meant to be, and the press conference led by Zheng Shanjie, chairman of China’s top economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission was an epic dud: in it, Shanjie said that while external risks and downward economic pressures were increasing, they remained confident of achieving the full-year GDP growth target. He said new policy measures will focus on expanding domestic demand, increasing support and the property and capital markets.

In short, nothing new, and certainly nothing even remotely close to the Rmb 10 trillion in fiscal stimmies that many were expecting. As UBS writes, “the NDRC press conference has released no details on fiscal stimulus so far, with the Q&A session ongoing. Zheng Shanjie along with deputy heads Liu Sushe, Zhao Chenxin, Li Chunlin and Zheng Bei, were widely expected to announce an action plan at the press conference. As a result, USDCNH is coming up, while iron ore and copper are declining. Shenzhen’s ChiNext has narrowed gains to 13% from more than 18% earlier as China returned from the Golden Week holiday.“

What is the take home message here? First, that Jim Cramer was – as usual – a fade.

Cramer: “You have to come in China stocks right now”

That’s the top.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 2, 2024

The second, and far more important message, is that the half life of Beijing’s latest attempt to goose markets, at just around 10 days is the shortest of all…

… and it means that with the market having called Beijing’s bluff, Xi has two options:

• Do another half-assed attempt to stimulate the economy with the very limited measures already unveiled, which he knows – and more importantly the market knows – will achieve nothing, and spark another market crash and economic meltdown, or
• Do what Goldman trader Borislav Vladimirov laid out yesterday, when he said that China Must Do QE Now, “Or It Will End Up In A Bigger Hole In 12 Months.”

And since for Xi the time for half-measures is now over, especially if he wants to avoid a deflationary spiral, social insurrection and political mutiny, this only leaves one option open: the truly nuclear one. The only question is when, because while the market may have peaked at +30% the first time China tried to goose markets, the next time we are talking triple digits, not to mention $3K gold and $100K+ bitcoin.