Recent years have seen unprecedented shifts in global natural gas trade, precipitated in large part by Russia's war on Ukraine. How this regional conflict impacts the future of natural gas markets is subject to three interconnected factors: (i) Russia's strategy to regain markets for its gas exports; (ii) Europe's push towards increased liquified natural gas (LNG) and the pace of its low carbon transition; and (iii) China's gas demand and how it balances its climate and energy security objectives. A scenario modelling approach is applied to explore the potential implications of this geopolitical crisis. We find that Russia struggles to regain pre-crisis gas export levels, with the degrees of its success contingent on China's strategy. Compared to 2020, Russia's gas exports are down by 31-47% in 2040 where new markets are limited and by 13-38% under a pivot to Asia strategy. We demonstrate how integrating energy geopolitics and modelling enhances our understanding of energy futures.

The ongoing Global Energy System Transformation (GEST) has attracted the attention of multiple academic disciplines and practitioners, approaching the process with different analytical and conceptual tools. We explore the ‘integration gap’ that exists between, on the one hand, Energy System Modelling and the stylised scenarios they use, and on the other, energy geopolitics. We consider how these approaches can complement each other to further our understanding of the global energy system’s future. Using a novel qualitative analytical framework, we review the extent to which a range of state-of-the-art global energy scenarios capture and reflect key issues in energy geopolitics in their narratives and model implementation. We find that few scenarios consider geopolitics in any depth. Those that do often treat it as a barrier to decarbonisation efforts that are aligned with the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement. Normative, Paris-aligned scenarios describe smooth processes of change where cooperation and coordination between countries are assumed and where geopolitics is often completely absent. Our findings emphasise the need for a more intricate understanding of the difference between ‘paper transitions’ and the real-world messiness and complexities of GEST, where geopolitics has a dual quality of simultaneously accelerating and hindering the transformation process.

We are in the midst of a global energy system transformation (GEST) which is rewiring the world economy, opening new axes of political contestation, and revolutionising the energetic basis of human civilisation. Energy geopolitics has not yet reconciled itself to this challenge. The field has traditionally been preoccupied with the dependence of Western states on cross-border flows of fossil fuels. More recently, efforts have been made to prospectively map out what the geopolitics of a fully renewable world might look like. What both literatures miss, however, is the very fact of the GEST: that we are living through a changing and contested process of global transformation, across interacting high- and low-emissions systems, whose contours are open and actively constructed over time. In this paper, we start to develop a provisional framework to make sense of the GEST, that is able to capture the full scale of the transformation, and its dynamic, contingent, constructed nature. We attend to three areas of geopolitical economy: the wide-ranging material dimensions of the transformation, its geographical space-making, and its conflict-ridden political economy. We then apply this framework to two case studies, one looking at the fraught role of fossil gas as a 'transition fuel', the other at lithium-ion batteries.

Oil and gas (O&G) companies, as key players in the contemporary global energy landscape, have evolved within the context of a dynamic interaction between states and markets. However, their role is being transformed radically by two successive "global shifts": economic globalization-driving energy demand growth patterns-and climate change-driving energy system transformation and decarbonization, both of which require them to reconsider their business strategies. Using an interdisciplinary lens that draws on human geography, strategy and international business, and international political economy, we propose an integrated conceptual framework for two periods-the 1990s-early 2010s and the post-Paris Agreement era-to explore the nature of strategic responses by O&G companies to these global economic and environmental shifts. We illustrate the linkage of O&G companies' two strategies of (re-)globalization and decarbonization by the aspects of production, finance, and knowledge as internal structures. Energy security is one of the priorities in the macro external environment. It is becoming increasingly difficult for O&G companies to deal with current dilemmas: climate goals require a significant reduction in fossil fuel production and consumption, and pressures from governments, nongovernmental organizations, and investors threaten the long-term survival of O&G companies, while fossil fuel demand will remain high in the short to medium term. At the same time, the post-pandemic recovery and Russia's war in Ukraine are resulting in a re-assessment of the benefits of unfettered globalization. Therefore, global O&G companies face dual challenges in the new era of (re-)globalization and decarbonization and need to make changes to ensure their future viability.This article is categorized under:The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand

In January 2014, then British Prime Minister David Cameron declared that his government was 'Going all out for Shale.' In November 2019, during an election campaign, Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Conservative Gov-ernment imposed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing bringing to a halt industry hopes of developing shale gas in the UK. This paper explores what happened, integrating research employing a mixed methods research design including a review of the literature, expert interviews, household interviews, a series of nationally representative and local surveys, and a content analysis of political testimony. It starts with a brief history of the shale gas debate in the UK and social science research on the issue. It then examines the UK's Shale Gas landscape, and in particular energy policy failure, by considering three issues: first, the framing of the shale gas debate in the national Parliament, exploring the arguments for and against it; second, changing public perceptions and atti-tudes towards shale gas development; and third, the attitudes and lived experiences of the communities most affected by shale gas exploration activities. These three dimensions are combined to explain the UK Govern-ment's shale gas failure to-date. The paper concludes by identifying the lessons learnt from the Government's initial policy failure, both in relation to further shale gas exploration, but also for other technologies required for a future Net-Zero energy system.

How actors react to change is a crucial question for social scientists interested in global energy system transformation (EST). The global oil industry's response to the challenges associated with climate change and EST is a particular topic of discussion. Here, we argue for an interdisciplinary approach, bringing together insights from multiple disciplines within the social sciences that study oil companies, to further our understanding of what they are doing and why they are doing it. Although research on the political economy and socio-technical nature of EST has led to important insights, it tends to treat the global oil industry as a monolith with common interests and strategic objectives. We argue that the analytical and conceptual tools provided by the management and business literature can help unpack this ‘black box’. We explain how this is the case by exploring some of these tools and applying them to a novel heuristic, the ‘Transition Strategy Continuum’ that helps categorise and analyse the emerging strategies of the publicly-traded ‘International Oil Companies’ (IOCs). As such, we respond to the call for interdisciplinarity raised in the inaugural issue of this Journal. Ultimately, we want social scientists working on energy to take serious insights from other fields of inquiry that help illuminate the complexities of the task of transformation ahead for the IOCs and other related stakeholders.

In 2009, Geography Compass published a paper on 'The Geopolitics of Global Energy Security' that reviewed research on the key geographical factors influencing the secure and affordable supply of energy resources. Now, just over a decade later, the energy landscape is undergoing a dramatic transformation, and the focus is no longer on fossil fuel scarcity. Rather, this is an age of fossil fuel abundance and the emphasis is on the need to decarbonise the global energy system, constrain the production of fossil fuels and accelerate the deployment of low-carbon energy technologies. We conceive energy system transformation as a twofold process: a set of 'high-carbon' energy transitions related to phasing out fossil fuel consumption, 'low-carbon' energy transitions related to the emergence of new renewable energy and other low-carbon technologies. This paper reviews the past decade's research that examines the nature and pace of energy system transformation, as well as that which identifies a range of geopolitical challenges associated with these two transitions. The paper concludes by advocating for a 'whole systems' approach to energy geopolitics that captures the critical interactions between the two transitions in a global framework.

In this perspectives piece, an interdisciplinary team of social science researchers considers the implications of Covid-19 for the politics of sustainable energy transitions. The emergency measures adopted by states, firms, and individuals in response to this global health crisis have driven a series of political, economic and social changes with potential to influence sustainable energy transitions. We identify some of the initial impacts of the 'great lockdown' on sustainable and fossil sources of energy, and consider how economic stimulus packages and social practices in the wake of the pandemic are likely to shape energy demand, the carbon-intensity of the energy system, and the speed of transitions. Adopting a broad multi-scalar and multi-actor approach to the analysis of energy system change, we highlight continuities and discontinuities with pre-pandemic trends. Discussion focuses on four key themes that shape the politics of sustainable energy transitions: (i) the short, medium and long-term temporalities of energy system change; (ii) practices of investment around clean-tech and divestment from fossil fuels; (iii) structures and scales of energy governance; and (iv) social practices around mobility, work and public health. While the effects of the pandemic continue to unfold, some of its sectoral and geographically differentiated impacts are already emerging. We conclude that the politics of sustainable energy transitions are now at a critical juncture, in which the form and direction of state support for post-pandemic economic recovery will be key.

The COVID-19 pandemic has already disrupted large swathes of the global economy, threatening the growth models of major oil and gas producer countries like Russia. A collapse in oil prices, triggered by the pandemic, once again exposed Russia's enduring susceptibility to sharp falls in oil and gas prices. We argue that this decline in oil prices came at a time when tectonic shifts in global energy markets had already threatened to reduce the value of future oil and gas revenues. These structural changes were accelerated by the collapse in demand caused by the pandemic. Because the Russian leadership had done little to address the threat posed by the emergence of a new energy order, the economy remained highly dependent on oil and gas sales as the primary source of growth. While measures undertaken since 2014 to reduce the government's fiscal dependence on high oil prices will help Russia avoid a worst-case outcome of a fiscal or financial crisis, the dependence of other branches of the economy on the energy sector remains high. This has left Russia set once again to experience a deeper recession than that forecast for other energy exporting economies.

The recent 2017-18 "dash for gas" captured global attention, but also exposed critical failings in China's gas market. The 2019 lull imposed by the Government reflects the need to address local challenges. This paper analyzes the prospects for demand growth and assesses the various ways in which that demand can be met. There is considerable uncertainty surrounding demand growth, with cost competitiveness being the determining factor. Equally, although China has significant natural gas reserves, they are largely unconventional and present significant geological and technical challenges; with domestic production growth failing to keep pace as demand import dependence increases. China's gas imports are met by pipeline gas from Central Asia and Myanmar and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) from avariety of countries. The Power of Siberia pipeline started deliveries of Russian in late 2019. However, plans to expand Central Asian imports have disappointed and China may agree to asecond pipeline from Russia or increase its LNG imports. Asimple "gas balance model" is used in the final discussion and conclusions to explore future developments and their consequences for global gas security.

The COP24 meeting in Katowice, Poland, made clear the divisions between the winners and losers of a low-carbon energy transition. The IPCC's 1.5 degrees C report shows that climate change mitigation must see an early peak in oil demand and a rapid fall in consumption thereafter. The 'shale revolution' and the falling cost and rapid deployment of renewable energy are laying the foundations of a 'new oil order' that threatens the prosperity of oil exporting economies. A review of forecasts and scenarios reveals significant uncertainty surrounding the dynamics of future oil demand. This provides the backdrop for a comparative analysis of the world's largest oil exporters: Saudi Arabia and Russia. Saudi Arabia is shown to be concerned to maintain oil revenues to finance its '2030 vision' to diversify its economy. Russia, by comparison, shows no such ambition, rather it seems determined to increase its reliance on the oil and gas sectors. The conclusions suggest that fossil fuel exporters must act now to prepare for the low carbon transition and that a failure to do so could result in tensions and conflicts that could undermine the collective action required to address climate change.

Transitioning to a low-carbon world will create new rivalries, winners and losers, argue Andreas Goldthau, Kirsten Westphal and colleagues. Transitioning to a low-carbon world will create new rivalries, winners and losers, argue Andreas Goldthau, Kirsten Westphal and colleagues.

This opinion article offers insights into the geopolitics of the ongoing global energy transition. In doing so, it draws heavily on a workshop in Berlin in late 2018, and a subsequent paper in the journal Nature. Four scenarios are presented. First, the "Big Green Deal" offers a positive story of the future, under the assumption that there will be a multilateral approach to tackling climate change. Second, "Dirty Nationalism" explores the fallout of nations choosing to turn inward and pursue a short-term, protectionist, and self-interested agenda. Third, "Technology Breakthrough" illustrates how a technological leap forward could lead to a great power rivalry and distinct regional energy blocs. Finally, "Muddling On" investigates the outcome of an energy transition that reflect business as usual. By comparing and contrasting the different scenarios, the article highlights the potential winners and losers of the different scenarios, and the geopolitical consequences. It also sketches the implications for policy, theory, and scenario thinking more broadly. This article is categorized under: Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Integrated Scenario Development The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Future of Global Energy