Who stands to gain most from the UN’s critical minerals push in Africa?

/ bne IntelliNewsFacebook

TwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By Brian Kenety October 6, 2026

Chinese companies already operating or building processing plants in Zimbabwe, Guinea and Nigeria are best placed to benefit from a new United Nations programme to help five African states keep more of their mineral wealth at home.

On September 23, the UN chose Guinea, Madagascar, Nigeria, Zambia and Zimbabwe, along with Indonesia, for its Country Support Mechanism on Critical Energy Transition Minerals. The programme names no companies and carries no announced funding. So any corporate gain depends on whether its policy and regulatory advice makes local processing easier to finance and operate.

Chinese groups start with a clear advantage because they can often combine mine finance, construction, processing technology and long-term offtake in a single investment package. A programme that offers advice rather than capital does not by itself change that.

The picture is less clear for the African states themselves, and for the domestic and non-Chinese companies operating there.

What the UN is offering

The UN mechanism is intended to help mineral-rich developing countries move beyond raw-material exports into processing, manufacturing and other higher-value activities.

Announced by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, it will provide policy advice, legal and regulatory expertise, environmental and social safeguards, and support for building domestic mineral value chains. The UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Development Coordination Office are leading it.

It grows out of the Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals, established in 2024, and a task force launched in December 2025 that coordinates UN work across value addition, traceability, mining legacies, artisanal mining and circularity.

Selwin Hart, Guterres’ special adviser and assistant secretary-general for climate action, warned that without such support, resource-rich countries risk remaining “mere exporters of raw materials, while others benefit enormously from their mineral wealth”.

Why processing is the prize

The strategic concern increasingly lies in processing rather than in where ores are mined. The International Energy Agency said in its 2026 outlook that China is the dominant refiner for most key energy minerals and accounts for more than 90% of global refined supply of gallium, graphite, manganese and magnet rare earths. China’s share of global copper-smelting capacity has also risen from about 15% in 2005 to around 50% in 2025.

Africa captures only a small share of the value generated from the minerals it produces. The IEA estimates that the continent supplies around 75% of the world’s manganese, 70% of its cobalt and nearly 20% of its copper, yet captures less than 1% of the value generated by manufacturing clean-energy technologies and components. Moving downstream requires more than access to ore: processors need reliable electricity, transport infrastructure, finance, technical skills and customers.

What counts as a critical mineral varies by jurisdiction. The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act identifies 34 critical raw materials, 17 of them classed as strategic for green and digital technologies, defence and aerospace, while the United States’ 2025 list contains 60 critical minerals; both include materials central to the mining sectors of the five African countries in the programme, including aluminium, copper, cobalt, lithium, graphite, nickel, manganese and rare earths.

See IntelliNews: China’s grip on Africa’s critical minerals faces growing pushback from the continent's leaders, while the US and EU compete for access

See IntelliNews: Africa’s push for local mineral processing reshapes mining investment

Zimbabwe: one plant built, others racing the ban

Zimbabwe has taken one of the most interventionist approaches to forcing the shift downstream. It suspended lithium concentrate exports in February, resumed them in April under quotas and a 10% export tax, and plans a full ban from January 1, 2027.

Miners are moving towards deeper local processing, although Benchmark Mineral Intelligence has warned that slow construction of planned lithium sulphate plants could make the timetable difficult to meet.

Zimbabwe exported 1.128mn tonnes of spodumene concentrate to China in 2025, about 15% of China’s lithium concentrate imports, Reuters reported, and Chinese companies dominate the sector.

Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt (SSE: 603799; SIX: HUAYO) is furthest ahead, having built a $400mn plant to turn concentrate into lithium sulphate. Sinomine (SZSE: 002738) and Yahua (SZSE: 002497) have announced similar investments, while Chengxin Lithium Group (SZSE: 002240) and Tsingshan Holding Group are also active, Miningmx reported, citing Reuters.

The Lithium Producers Association of Zimbabwe asked the government for a grace period, citing limited plant readiness. However, Mines Minister Polite Kambamura rejected the request in July, saying the government was “still sticking with January 1”. Companies able to convert concentrate into permitted processed products will therefore be better positioned to continue exporting after the concentrate ban takes effect.

Zimbabwe already offers an early indication of the sums involved. Huayou’s Arcadia operation made the country’s first commercial shipment of lithium sulphate in April, moving beyond spodumene concentrate into an intermediate battery chemical. The Lithium Producers Association of Zimbabwe said in August that industry turnover had averaged about $580mn annually in 2023-2025 after raw-ore exports generated roughly $60mn in 2022, and projected turnover of about $1bn in 2026 following the first lithium-sulphate exports. The figures are industry estimates rather than audited sector data, and they also reflect changes in volumes and prices.

See IntelliNews: Zimbabwe eyes $1bn turnover from lithium sulphate exports amid beneficiation drive

Guinea: three Chinese refinery projects

Guinea faces the same value-capture problem at a different stage of the chain. The country was the world’s largest bauxite producer in 2024, accounting for an estimated 33.2% of global output, according to the US Geological Survey. Still, far less value is retained locally through alumina refining. Chinese state-controlled aluminium producer Aluminum Corporation of China Limited, or Chalco (SSE: 601600; HKEX: 2600), began building a roughly $1bn alumina refinery at Boffa on June 13, with a planned capacity of 1.2mn tonnes a year.

Chalco’s plant is one of three new Chinese-backed refinery projects of similar scale. State Power Investment Corporation and Winning Consortium Alumina Guinea, both Chinese, have each announced refineries of 1.2mn tonnes a year, with each of the three investments put at about $1bn, Ecofin Agency reported.

Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinée (CBG), in which the state holds 49% alongside partners including Alcoa (NYSE: AA; ASX: AAI) and Rio Tinto (ASX: RIO; LSE: RIO; NYSE: RIO), aims to start building its own refinery by the end of 2026. Guinea’s mines ministry said on September 21 that it had discussed possible involvement in that project with the US International Development Finance Corporation and the US Export-Import Bank. The country’s only operating refinery, Friguia, is run by Russia’s Rusal (HKEX: 486; MOEX: RUAL).

Nigeria: Chinese capital, US framework

Nigeria is also trying to push more mineral processing onshore. On July 2 it commissioned the $250mn Diamond New Energy lithium mining and processing plant in Nasarawa State, with capacity to process 6,000 tonnes of lithium ore a day. The project was developed by Chinese investors in partnership with the state government, Jiuling Lithium and Canmax Technologies (SZSE: 300390).

Chinese capital dominates the rest of the sector too. An earlier plant in Lafia, also in Nasarawa State, is operated by Avatar New Energy Materials and has a capacity of 4,000 tonnes a day. Reuters reported in 2025 that Chinese firms had provided more than 80% of the funding for four new lithium processing plants in Nigeria.

Nigeria has also turned to the United States, signing a critical-minerals framework in New York in September covering exploration, mining, processing, infrastructure and technical capacity, although details of projects and financing have not been made public.

See IntelliNews: Nigeria opens Chinese-built $250mn lithium plant, targets leading role in battery supply chain

Zambia: smelting capacity is the constraint

Zambia shows how limited smelting capacity can undercut a beneficiation policy. The government wants to move further down the copper value chain but suspended a 10% export duty on copper concentrates to help clear stockpiles while major smelters underwent extended maintenance.

The waiver covered 271,742 tonnes of concentrate. The suspension expired on September 30 without a replacement measure being announced, meaning the standard duty reverted, renewing the tension between domestic beneficiation goals and available smelting capacity.

The waiver was shared among six producers. Mopani Copper Mines, owned by Abu Dhabi-based International Resources Holding and state investment vehicle ZCCM Investments Holdings (LuSE: ZCCM-IH; Euronext Paris: MLZAM; LSE: ZCC), held the largest duty-free quota at 100,000 tonnes, followed by the Lumwana mine of Barrick Mining (NYSE: B; TSX: ABX) at 56,986 tonnes. First Quantum Minerals (TSX: FM) and Chinese-owned Nkana Mining and Minerals Processing each held about 43,000 tonnes, while Lubambe Copper Mine, 70% owned by China’s JCHX Mining (SSE: 603979), and Vedanta’s Konkola Copper Mines held 15,000 tonnes and 12,541 tonnes respectively.

The allocations show which producers were eligible for the waiver, not how exposed each is to the duty. Mopani declined to use its quota and intends to process all available concentrate through its own smelter, Bloomberg reported in June. Producers able to process more of their concentrate domestically are generally less exposed to the duty’s return.

See IntelliNews: Zambia extends copper concentrate export-duty waiver, prioritising output over beneficiation amid smelter constraints

Madagascar: processing planned offshore

Madagascar illustrates perhaps the clearest gap between mineral endowment and domestic downstream processing. It has important graphite, nickel and cobalt resources but remains concentrated in upstream activity, and it imposes no major local-processing requirement on graphite producers, Ecofin Agency reported.

The main examples are in graphite and mineral sands. Canada’s NextSource Materials (TSX: NEXT; OTCQB: NSRCF), which operates the Molo graphite mine, has approved a battery-anode plant in Abu Dhabi. Energy Fuels (NYSE American: UUUU; TSX: EFR) is developing the Vara Mada mineral sands and rare-earths project, formerly known as Toliara, and plans to ship its monazite to its White Mesa mill in Utah for processing.

The Ambatovy nickel and cobalt operation is one of the few examples of significant local processing. It has been owned since May by Ambatovy Mineral Resources Investment Holding Company, a consortium led by Essenwood Partners with Zungu Investments that took over Sumitomo Corporation’s stake, and Korea Mine Rehabilitation and Mineral Resources Corporation.

Among other operators, Rio Tinto holds 80% of the QMM mineral sands mine, and Total Graphite (LSE: TGR; OTCQX: TGRHF), formerly Tirupati Graphite, owns the Vatomina and Sahamamy graphite projects in the Toamasina region, of which Vatomina has been paused since July for an optimisation programme and Sahamamy is on care and maintenance.

A UNCTAD assessment published in June identified 124 actionable products across eight sectors, most of them outside mining, that could create about 19,700 direct and indirect jobs.

See IntelliNews: How graphite could make Madagascar prosperous

Selection and reaction

Hart told Bloomberg that 15 countries had been considered, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, the world’s largest cobalt producer. Work already under way in the countries not selected would continue, he said. His office later said the six were selected using five criteria: government commitment; mineral endowment and development potential; UN system readiness; prospects for resource mobilisation; and demonstration and replicability value.

Governments in the first cohort welcomed the move. Zambia’s Foreign Minister Mulambo Haimbe said the country’s ambition was not simply to produce more copper but to create greater value at home through investment, value addition, industrialisation and jobs. Zimbabwe’s Foreign Minister Amon Murwira said the country, as one of the world’s leading lithium producers, recognised that critical minerals were central to the global energy transition.

UNDP Administrator Alexander de Croo said critical minerals could help countries diversify and transform their economies if value creation, environmental protection and good governance were pursued together. UN Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen said the agency would help countries protect environmental integrity and advance circularity.

The limits: finance and governance

Financing remains a central constraint. Building refineries, processing plants and the supporting power and transport infrastructure needed to move further down mineral value chains will require capital on a scale beyond policy and regulatory assistance alone.

Independent governance experts have welcomed the initiative but cautioned that value addition will require more than technical assistance. Suneeta Kaimal, president and chief executive of the Natural Resource Governance Institute, said participating countries would need stronger negotiating positions, robust governance and meaningful participation by civil society and affected communities to avoid repeating the inequities of earlier mineral booms.

Publish What You Pay Indonesia, a transparency campaign group based in the cohort’s only non-African member, raised a more specific concern about implementation. National coordinator Aryanto Nugroho said in a September 25 statement that it must be clear who will have a seat at the table before country-level work plans are drawn up, because communities around mines and smelters bear the greatest social and ecological costs. The UN announcement did not mention the role of civil society and Indigenous peoples, or set out a funding scheme or implementation timeline, Tempo reported.

For the companies involved, the programme’s value will be measured by whether processing plants become easier to finance, power and supply. Until then, the advantage lies with those already building or operating capacity: Chinese groups in Guinea, Nigeria and Zimbabwe, and producers with domestic smelting capacity such as Mopani in Zambia. Western-backed projects include CBG’s proposed Guinean refinery, which is still seeking finance, and Madagascar ventures whose planned downstream processing is offshore. The states’ own direct stakes include Guinea’s 49% of CBG and the Zambian state investment vehicle’s share of Mopani.

REVANCHISM

Lithuania takes further step towards lifting nuclear weapons ban

Copyright Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP

By Giedre Peseckyte

Published on 06/10/2026 - EURONEWS

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that Lithuania’s move, alongside broader plans to expand US and NATO military infrastructure in the region, risked further escalating tensions.

Lithuania has taken a step towards removing a constitutional ban on nuclear weapons from its territory, bringing the Baltic state closer to the legal position of its neighbours as European allies debate how to strengthen NATO’s deterrence in the face of Russia.

The Lithuanian parliament, the Seimas, voted 106-18, with six abstentions, on Tuesday to advance a constitutional amendment removing a provision that bars weapons of mass destruction and foreign military bases from Lithuanian territory.

The change still requires a second vote after a constitutionally mandated three-month waiting period. At least 94 of the Seimas’ 141 members must back it on both occasions. The final vote is expected on January 12.

“This constitutional amendment would enable Lithuania’s armed forces to participate fully in the planning and exercises of all of NATO’s deterrence measures,” said Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen, leader of the Liberal Movement parliamentary group.

Currently, Article 137 of the Lithuanian Constitution stipulates that weapons of mass destruction and military bases of foreign states may not be located in Lithuania, which borders Belarus and Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave. This means that under current laws, allied aircraft or ships carrying nuclear weapons could not enter Lithuanian territory for deterrence purposes.

Added urgency in Lithuania's case

Supporters of the amendment argue that the constitutional provision has become a legal obstacle to Lithuania’s full participation in NATO’s nuclear deterrence arrangements and leaves the country at a disadvantage compared with other NATO allies.

“Our neighbouring countries, such as Latvia, Estonia and Poland, have no such restrictions either,” Remigijus Motuzas, chairman of the Seimas Foreign Affairs Committee, said during a parliamentary session in September. “We cannot be less protected than other NATO countries. We must send a signal that Lithuania is a full part of NATO’s nuclear deterrence.”

NATO describes nuclear deterrence as part of its collective defence, alongside conventional and missile-defence capabilities. The Alliance also says its nuclear policy remains consistent with its commitments to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation.

For Lithuania, the issue has taken on added urgency. “NATO deterrence, including nuclear deterrence, is part of collective defence,” Motuzas said, adding that Russia has rapidly modernised its nuclear arsenal in recent years and deployed nuclear weapons close to Lithuania — in Kaliningrad and Belarus.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that Lithuania’s move, alongside broader plans to expand US and NATO military infrastructure in the region, risked further escalating tensions, Reuters reported.

The warnings come as Russia has stepped up its nuclear rhetoric towards NATO. Moscow recently threatened nuclear retaliation in the event of what it described as attempts to isolate its Kaliningrad exclave, which borders Lithuania and Poland.

Finland has already made the move

Lithuania is not acting in isolation.

Finland, which joined NATO in 2023 after decades of military non-alignment, removed its own statutory prohibition on nuclear weapons earlier this year, citing the need to ensure that Finnish law did not restrict the country’s ability to fulfil its obligations as a NATO ally.

In June, the Finnish parliament approved amendments to the Nuclear Energy Act repealing the country’s ban on nuclear explosives. The legislation entered into force on July 1.

“This historic reform strengthens the security of Finland and of NATO as a whole,” Defence Minister Antti Häkkänen said on X.

Helsinki has stressed, however, that the change does not mean Finland intends to acquire or host nuclear weapons, and that NATO has no plans to station them there.

Finland has since joined a French-led initiative aimed at strengthening European security through closer cooperation on nuclear deterrence. French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed what Paris calls “forward deterrence” — closer cooperation with European allies around France’s independent nuclear capabilities.

The United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Denmark, and Norway have already signed up to France's initiative.

 

After Russian Threats, Macron Puts Nuclear Deterrent at the Forefront

Macron (center) and French officials watch the launch of an M51.3 ballistic missile (Courtesy Elysee)

Published Oct 6, 2026 8:27 PM by The Maritime Executive

The administration of French President Emmanuel Macron is putting new emphasis on France's nuclear deterrent, and specifically on its nuclear ballistic missile submarine fleet. In March, Macron used a launch ceremony at the L'Île Longue submarine base to announce that France would expand its arsenal and cooperate with other European countries on a broader nuclear deterrence system. On Tuesday, he made an unannounced trip to a frigate off Brittany for the first seagoing test-launch of an M51.3 ballistic missile - and he reiterated that message. 

"To be free, one must be feared. And to be feared, one must be powerful," Macron said in a ship-wide PA address to the crew. "Our nuclear deterrence protects us and will continue to protect us. Long live the Republic, and long live France."

The launch was a post-drydocking test shot for Le Vigilant, one of France's four Le Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarines, as well as the first sub-launched test of the third variant of France's M51 sub-launched ballistic missile. Macron's attendance was not expected at the routine test, according to Le Monde, but the launch provided a powerful and somber visual to accompany his message: that France can respond to nuclear threats. 

The rationale for Macron's newly-serious focus on nuclear arms can be found in Russia's increasingly aggressive stance towards NATO. Last month, the Russian government sent a diplomatic note to NATO (later shared with Reuters) that threatened "Russian strikes against decision-making centers" in Europe at the very start of any conflict. Exercises near the Baltic Sea exclave of Kaliningrad are of particular concern, Moscow suggested. 

"Russia will be ready to use the entire arsenal of forces and capabilities at its disposal, including nuclear weapons, in order to defend its territory should NATO countries undertake any attempt aimed at isolating the Kaliningrad Region from the ?rest of the country," the Kremlin warned in the note.  
 
France has been upgrading its ballistic missile inventory to account for increasingly capable air defense technology. U.S. and Israeli systems managed a 90-percent interception rate against Iranian ballistic missiles in 2024, and sustained a high success rate throughout the more recent Mideast conflict from March 2026 onwards. According to Sidharth Kaushal of the Royal United Services Institute, Russia's investments in similar air defense systems could render the French deterrent - reliant upon the nuclear missiles fielded by its subs and strike fighters - somewhat less effective. ArianeGroup is developing a fourth generation variant of the missile with "enhanced range, precision and penetration capabilities" to counteract these developments. 

 

HD Hyundai Delivers World's First "Lashing-Free" Containership to CMA CGM

First vessel to use the new Lashing-Free system was recently delivered to CMA CGM (HD Hyundai)

Published Oct 6, 2026 8:34 PM by The Maritime Executive

South Korean shipbuilding group HD Hyundai is reporting the delivery of its first container vessel using the company’s newly developed "Lashing-Free" system that eliminates the need for workers to manually secure containers on board. It highlights benefits of increased capacity and ease of handling while also reporting that the system will be able to handle heavy weather and provide other benefits to the ships.

The system was installed on a new containership built for CMA CGM, which underwent sea trials in September. The ship has a capacity of 13,000 TEU while using HD Hyundai’s hybrid-type Lashing-Free Technology. The ship is methanol-fueled and otherwise appears to use a conventional layout for the placement of containers above deck.

HD Hyundai Heavy Industries reports it independently developed and validated all key components of the Lashing-Free technology. HD Hyundai Samho was responsible for the detailed design and construction of the vessel incorporating the system.

The vessel extends the cell guides, which support containers stacked vertically in alignment inside the cargo hold, above deck. HD Hyundai says that it also incorporates technologies designed to prevent cargo loss and maximize logistics efficiency. The technology the shipbuilder says is expected to play a key role in accelerating automation and unmanned operations across the broader logistics network connecting land and sea, including container terminals.

The Lashing-Free containership removes the need for manual container lashing, which traditionally is carried out by workers using lashing equipment on large container vessels. Improperly attached containers and failures of the locking system have often been cited as a concern and one of the potential contributors to stack collapse or overboard containers.

The conventional large hatch covers used on container vessels currently would obstruct the extended cell guides, preventing them from reaching above deck. To overcome this structural limitation, HD Hyundai Heavy Industries developed a standardized “portable bench" that can be installed between the cell guides. The portable bench is built to the same dimensions as a 40-foot container, allowing it to be handled using the same port cranes used to load and unload containers. 

HD Hyundai Heavy Industries has also developed a “Twistlock Rooting System,” which it says securely fastens containers stowed outside the cell guide area to the vessel's structure.

Sea trials conducted by HD Hyundai in September for this first vessel, it says, also showed that the Lashing-Free system significantly reduces vibration during operation compared with conventional designs using hatch covers and lashing bridges. 

HD Hyundai reports another benefit of the system is that the Lashing-Free containership can carry over 10 percent additional cargo weight on deck compared with conventional vessels of the same type. The system is reported to also provide stable support for containers even in rough seas and strong winds, helping prevent cargo loss, enhance maritime safety, and reduce the risk of marine pollution.

"We plan to expand the application of this new container transportation technology to small- and medium-sized vessels," said Hongryeul Ryu, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at HD Hyundai Heavy Industries. The company says it is also developing a next-generation version of the technology incorporating weathertight features.

MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

MARAD, TOTE and Hanwha Philly Finalize Deal to Build MDA's Tracking Ships

Rendering courtesy TOTE Services

By The Maritime Executive 2026-10-07 15:04:45

U.S. maritime conglomerate TOTE has accepted a contract with MARAD to manage the Missile Range Instrumentation Vessel (MRIV) project, a three-ship series for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), and immediately awarded a subcontract to Hanwha Philly for the construction of the first hull plus two options.

In July, MARAD announced that it had awarded Hanwha Philly and TOTE Services the bid to build the MRIVs (not to be confused with MIRVs, the munition class underlying MDA's primary mission). 

Outfitted with house-sized radar units, the MRIVs will be used to track and analyze missile flights during testing. They will be deployed to MDA's missile testing ranges for R&D work in support of the Trump administration's Golden Dome project. They will replace two aging vessels, Pacific Tracker and Pacific Collector, which are both over 50 years old.

The design for the MRIV is derived from the previous Hanwha Philly / TOTE design for the National Security Multi-Mission Vessel (NSMV), the school-ship series built for America's state maritime academies.  The selection of an existing design as the basis for the MDA's ships should produce efficiencies, as the Hanwha / TOTE team and their suppliers are already familiar with it. TOTE and Hanwha believe that having a vessel construction manager between the shipyard and the government contracting authority will itself save about 50 percent of the construction cost of a typical federal shipbuilding program.

Illustrations released by TOTE show two giant radomes on the new vessel's foredeck and one box-shaped radar array mounted on the stern. The graphics also suggest that the NSMV's characteristic double-level wheelhouse - designed for training many cadets simultaneously - has been reduced to a single level. The accommodations block has also been shortened, leaving more space for the gigantic aft radar, and the number of life boats has been reduced. 

The design of the NSMV was always intended for a naval auxiliary role when and if required, and is just seeing its first action in that application. SUNY Maritime's NSMV is now preparing to deploy in support of U.S. forces overseas, demonstrating the design's secondary capability in a national-security mission. 

The MRIV comes off of a hot production line for NSMV at Hanwha Philly, and the first should be delivered in 2030, the yard says. 

"The MRIV program demonstrates the value of maintaining an active, capable U.S. shipbuilding industrial base, one that can take proven platforms, experienced people and established production infrastructure and put them to work for new and increasingly important missions," said David Kim, CEO of Hanwha Philly Shipyard.

BUY CANADIAN!

VP Vance Acknowledges "Details" to be Resolved on Alaska LNG Investment 

THE GRIFT

File illustration courtesy Alaska LNG

Published Oct 5, 2026 11:26 PM by The Maritime Executive

Just days after President Donald Trump unveiled a multi-billion-dollar South Korean investment in the Alaska LNG pipeline megaproject, officials in Seoul and the United States are walking back the timing and review status of the commitment. On Monday, Vice President JD Vance acknowledged to Reuters that there are still "details" to work out on the agreement. 

Alaska LNG is among the most ambitious infrastructure proposals in the United States, an 800-mile line connecting gas fields on the Artic tundra of the North Slope with a liquefaction plant on the Gulf of Alaska. It would be a big boost for Alaska's economy and state budget, but it would also be a major commitment of capital. At inception, the proposal had big-name backing, at one time boasting involvement from BP, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. All three oil majors backed out by 2016. At present, the investment company Glenfarne Group and the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation are in charge of pursuing permits, investors and customers, with considerable assistance from the state and the White House. 

If built, the project would deliver 20 million tonnes per annum of LNG to buyers in Asian markets, but at considerable financial cost and risk. The pipeline route has to traverse remote, rugged areas of central Alaska, where logistics are difficult and seasonal weather is harsh. With the need to construct a treatment plant at the North Slope side of the project, then build an overland supply pipeline, the megaproject is expected to cost $45-55 billion. This works out to as much as $2.7 billion per mtpa - approaching three times the capex required for Gulf Coast LNG projects, according to Reuters. So far, the sponsors have preliminary commitments for offtake totaling about 13 mtpa - but no binding sales contracts. 

Accordingly, energy analysts and South Korean regulators are looking closely at the financial details. Korea's energy ministry says that it will need a complete commecial feasibility study before it can commit to an investment decision. Multiple analysts predict that the LNG will have be more expensive at the pier because of the capex of the treatment and pipeline system, so other factors will have to determine the decision - like the short shipping distance, the available alternatives in British Columbia, and the strategic benefits of having a new U.S. supplier. 

"Currently, there is no evidence that any entity is willing to fund this project, nor is there any evidence that customers have stepped forward to purchase the gas," one former senior State of Alaska official with experience on Alaska LNG told Chosun Ilbo. 

South Korea's government has stated that the deal described by the White House last week is not yet finalized. "We are initiating a review premised on commercial rationality and domestic legal procedures, and neither the decision on whether to invest nor the scale has been determined," South Korea's Ministry of Trade said in a statement. 

Lawmaker Choi Su-jin of the conservative People Power Party (the country's main opposition party) objected strongly to the terms as currently proposed. Choi told Korean outlet MK that the U.S. government has not historically been willing to underwrite Alaska LNG's performance with its own public funds, and it is unclear why Korea should take on that risk itself. 

"It is a typical unfair and toxic contract in which the South Korean government fully assumes the astronomical funds and risks of $50 billion . . . without any U.S. federal guarantee," Choi said. 

On Friday, President Trump threatened to penalize South Korea's government if it did not follow through on his announcement of a final deal on Alaska LNG. "If they don’t want to do it, that’s OK with me. I’ll just charge them more. Tell them if they don’t sign shortly, I’m going to double it up," Trump told reporters. 

On the same day, he announced an $8.4 billion Korean investment in an enhanced oil recovery project; this was reportedly disputed by South Korea's Industry Ministry, according to Chosun. 

Germany Blocks COSCO’s Acquisition of Domestic Freight Company

COSCO which already has a presence in the Port of Hamburg wanted to acquire a domestic German freight forwarder (Port of Hamburg)

By The Maritime Executive 2026-10-07 17:10:49

Germany’s federal government made official the decision to block the acquisition of a domestic freight forwarder and logistics company by the Chinese state-controlled COSCO Group. Political opposition had been mounting against the deal, with reports saying it demonstrates an emerging hardline against Chinese investments in Germany and Europe.

COSCO had announced in January 2026 plans to acquire an 80 percent stake in the German freight company Konrad Zippel. A domestic freight and logistics company that dates back to 1876, reports said it plays a key role in moving cargo between the Port of Hamburg and inland, especially into the eastern regions of Germany. It has a fleet of more than 200 trucks and also handles a range of intermodal transport, including by rail.

The two managing directors of Zippel had agreed to sell 80 percent of the company to a COSCO affiliate. One managing director was to retain 20 percent ownership and continue in a management role, while the other was selling all his shares and leaving the company.

The Federal Cartel Office cleared the deal weeks later, reporting that it did not find concerns based on competition law. It said there was no risk of a dominant market position being established in freight transport, but it does not oversee the broader issues of foreign investment.

Concerns began to emerge over the acquisition after the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution voiced fears about foreign investments. By September, however, it became clear that the Ministry for Economic Affairs, the Foreign Office, and the Ministry of Defense were all expressing economic and security concerns over the sale of Zippel to a Chinese state company. It was highlighted that Zippel provides logistical support to NATO and the German Armed Forces.

The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs announced on Wednesday, October 7, that the Bundestag (the federal parliament) had officially voted to reject the sale. The Ministry reported the decision, saying concerns had been raised about security and dangers to German and European supply chains. 

“The acquisition would have deepened dependencies and jeopardized the resilience of supply chains in Germany and the EU," the Ministry told the Financial Times.

Media reports indicate that Germany has only rejected eight foreign investment deals. It is said to review more than 300 each year.

It also represents a tightening of the government’s position toward China. Four years ago, COSCO announced plans to invest in Tollerport, one of the container terminal operators in the Port of Hamburg. The deal sparked strong debate in the German government. It finally decided to permit COSCO to acquire up to 25 percent of the terminal operator, limiting the larger investment of 35 percent that COSCO had sought.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the Financial Times highlights, has taken a more aggressive position against China and foreign investment since taking office in May 2025. The paper says Germany has been seeking to counter the influx of Chinese electric vehicles and cheap steel, which is hurting German companies and exports. Germany was also caught in the Chinese embargo on the export of some rare earth minerals, which reportedly impacted German car manufacturing because of shortages.