تابع رؤية 2030
بذكاء سياقي

The Middle Eastern crisis has prompted a reprioritization among international oil companies. Previously unattractive drilling destinations are suddenly looking quite attractive—even Alaska. The oldest oil and gas producing part of the United States has for years been out of the spotlight as the industry moves to cheaper and faster-growing locations. The only news of any substance about Alaska recently was the Biden administration’s approval of the Willow project, led by ConocoPhillips, which was set to boost the state’s oil output by 160,000 barrels daily, and Australian Santos’ Pikka project, set to start commercial production this year. That was years ago. Now, Big Oil is eager to drill in Alaska. Earlier this month, a lease sale in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska attracted record bids, worth a total $163 million. Among the bidders were Exxon, Shell, and Repsol, with the latter already partnering with Santos on the Pikka development. And this may be just the beginning. Related: Saudi Aramco Looks to Raise $10 Billion from Real Estate Asset Deal The Bureau of Land Management offered 625 tracts across about 5.5 million acres for bid in the sale, revived at the end of last year by the Trump administration. No lease sales were held in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska under President Biden. Yet under Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, there will be a total of five lease sales in Alaska over the next ten years. “With the imminent start-up of the Pikka project on the North Slope, the reversal in the decline of oil production in the great state of Alaska is going to help put more oil in the Pacific area at an important moment,” Repsol’s head of upstream operations, Francisco Gea, said as quoted by the Financial Times. Gea called Alaska “a fantastic opportunity”. The Pikka project, which has a price tag of $4.5 billion, will produce up to 80,000 barrels daily. It is indeed a fantastic opportunity, at the very least because it is nowhere near the Middle East and as such is a highly secure energy exploration destination. Canada is in a similar position, by the way: the head of the International Energy Agency earlier this month told an industry event Canada had a golden opportunity to step in as a secure energy supplier in a world that’s currently 14 million barrels daily short on supply because of the Middle Eastern crisis. Security, then, is what has prompted Big Oil to return to the North—even Shell, which left in 2015 after writing off as much as $7 billion on an unsuccessful drilling campaign hampered, among other things, by strong environmentalist opposition. According to the Financial Times, the supermajor’s decision to partake in the latest Alaska lease sale was surprising for analysts. However, according to chief executive Wael Sawan, the lease sale concerns a different part of the state. “It is a very, very, very different part of Alaska that we have gone to,” he told the Financial Times. “This is an onshore exploration opportunity in a very well-established basin that has been producing for some time… So this is not offshore Alaska where we have had the challenges in the past.” Crude oil is not the only thing drawing the energy industry to Alaska in these times of oil and gas trouble. Gas is also a magnet—in this case, in the form of the Alaska LNG project. Interest in the Alaska LNG export project has spiked since the war in the Middle East choked 20% of global LNG supply and sent Asian buyers scrambling for expensive spot cargoes. Glenfarne Group, the majority owner and developer of the facility, aims to sign binding offtake agreements with buyers soon and advance final investment decisions to later in 2026 and early 2027, company executives told media earlier this year on the sidelines of an energy conference in Tokyo. “There's a real interest, particularly with everything happening in the Middle East right now. Everyone would like to get those (preliminary deals) turned into long-term agreements,” Adam Prestidge, president of Glenfarne Alaska LNG, told Reuters in March. Alaska LNG is designed to deliver North Slope natural gas to Alaskans and export LNG to U.S. allies across the Pacific. An 800-mile pipeline is planned to transport the gas from the production centers in the North Slope to south-central Alaska for exports. In addition, multiple gas interconnection points will ensure meeting in-state gas demand. The latest Alaska developments show clearly how the Middle East war has put energy security back in the spotlight, making previously challenging locations desirable again. With an estimated 1 billion barrels of oil supply wiped out of markets since the war began, according to Aramco’s Amin Nasser, alternative supply sources have become urgently needed, and not just for the short term. Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens soon—which at the moment seems unlikely—energy security will in all probability remain a top priority both for energy producers and for consumers. By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com More Top Reads From Oilprice.com

Hello and welcome to Regulator, the newsletter for Verge subscribers that goes into tech shenanigans that take place in the backrooms of Washington. Really, it sometimes does feel like the online series The Backrooms: a parallel universe with no internal logic, evil corporations lurking in the background, and mind-rending eldritch horrors around every corner. (Not a subscriber yet? Sign up here today. Have any tips about mind-rending eldritch horrors lurking in DC? Send that intel to me at tina.nguyen+tips@theverge.com.) Speaking of liminal spaces and endless hallways that drive their inhabitants insane: Today, we’re going to Capitol Hill, where the Senate is, at long last, finally revisiting the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act. And it is, indeed, driving everyone insane. On Sunday, as the crypto industry was about to take victory laps for getting the Clarity Act back to the Senate, the American Bankers Association, one of the largest financial industry interest groups in the country, sent out an email that immediately ruined their Mother’s Day. Apologizing to all the moms he’d messaged, Rob Nichols, the president and CEO of the ABA, begged the CEOs on the email, from Wall Street to local community banks, to drop everything and start contacting their Senators ASAP — “Please encourage your employees to do the same” — because the Clarity Act posed an existential threat to their industry. “The current version of the legislation, although improved from an earlier version, still does not adequately prevent crypto companies from offering interest-like rewards on payment stablecoins,” wrote Nichols, warning that if the “loophole” was not closed, customers would be incentivized to move their cash holdings into stablecoins, leading to a bank deposit flight that would severely undermine banks. Rarely does one see Wall Street panic this much over pending legislation, but the Clarity Act, which is slated to return to the Senate Banking Committee for markup on Thursday, does pose a meaningful threat to traditional finance — or at least, the tradition of “holding money in bank accounts that pay interest to customers.” This is not a regular bill that hammers out finer details addressing a preexisting issue in a regulated industry. This is the market structure bill — i.e., the comprehensive law that will instruct the market on how stablecoins, or digital tokens pegged to the value of $1 USD, will be legally regulated. In fact, it’s so consequential to the future of crypto that back in January, just before the Senate Banking Committee began debate over the bill’s draft, Coinbase, the largest US company in the industry, abruptly announced that it would not support the version as it existed, claiming that the banks had rewritten it in a way that would harm crypto in the long term and kicking off months of furious negotiations over the bill’s language. (As an industry watcher pointed out to me at the time, one cannot pass a crypto market structure bill in the United States without the support of the largest crypto company in the country.) The upside for the crypto industry is that they all seem to be on the same page now. After months of negotiations held at the White House, organized by former special adviser on AI and crypto David Sacks and his administration underlings, Coinbase reached a compromise with the other digital asset companies and the major financial institutions represented in the meetings. “The word ‘compromise’ is etymologically very accurate,” said Vassilis Tziokas, the vice president of growth at the blockchain technology company Matter Labs, who was not in negotiations but has analyzed all 300-plus pages of the current bill. As the language currently stands, the bill does not allow stablecoins to offer cash interest yields — but it doesn’t prevent them from offering yields, either. It’s enough of a legal window for crypto companies to offer activity-based rewards on transactions, similar to how credit card points can be redeemed for things like flights. “The current wording on the Clarity Act is perfect for the legal industry, because once Clarity becomes a law, it depends on lawyers to interpret what ‘activity based rewards’ means,” Tziokas noted. The creative wording seems to have made everyone in the room not unhappy — especially since the administration has made it clear that passing a crypto market structure bill is a top priority for them, demanding that the bill end up on Trump’s desk by July 4th. “For the people who have been living in it full time, it’s really compromise #150,” joked Peter Smith, the CEO of Blockchain.com, whose team has been in contact with all the key players involved in the drafting and negotiation process. But now that there are words on paper, and those words are in front of the Senate Banking Committee, which regulates securities, it appears that every major crypto player and their TradFi counterparts are flying into DC for last-minute backchanneling, lobbying, and leaking damaging opposition research to Capitol Hill reporters, before the committee convenes for markup on Thursday. The committee markup process is one of the best and last opportunities to meaningfully change legislation before it gets taken to the floor for a full vote, and the committee’s members can still be swayed. The process of swaying those senators, however, is getting somewhat tricky. The public-facing opposition to Clarity comes from the community banks — not the monoliths on Wall Street, but the smaller operations that service regions, states, and towns. While a JPMorgan Chase-sized bank could handle customers moving their cash to stablecoin, these smaller banks would be threatened. But these smaller banks are also local political powerbrokers that can place more meaningful pressure on their elected officials than a large nationwide entity can. Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) has been seeing the most pressure on this front. To a somewhat more complicated extent, so has Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), whose state is home to several major banks, including the headquarters of Bank of America. The second layer of opposition: the big banks, which are also members of the same trade associations as the community banks. Their concern is the potential loss of high-net-worth individuals rather than the general consumer: If their wealthy clients decided that stablecoin wallets and companies would offer them more return on investment, either through interest yields or a rewards program, they might ultimately decide to move their cash out of the banks. (A major Wall Street bank can’t win public sympathy with that argument, though, so don’t expect to see JPMorgan Chase making a fuss.) Then there’s the Donald Trump of it all. The Democrats who oppose the Clarity Act are pointing to the lack of an ethics clause that would restrict government employees, including lawmakers, from profiting off of crypto interests while in office. That category would include Trump, whose family has investments in several crypto companies. “This bill puts investors, our national security and our entire financial system at risk — and it will turbocharge Donald Trump’s crypto corruption,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a harsh critic of the crypto industry and the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee. “In just one year in office, the President and his family have raked in at least $1.4 billion in gains from crypto deals alone, and yet this bill stunningly includes zero provisions to prevent that.” And then there’s the actual backchannel negotiations, which is where things get goofy. “An interesting last-minute development is that it looks like some kind of housing bill has been rolled into the Clarity Act itself,” said Sam Lyman, head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, which has been closely tracking the bill for protections on open-source software developers. According to Lyman, the deal, a federal program funding local housing development called the Build Now Act that was tacked onto the very end of the draft, seems to have been a concession made for both Sen. Warren and Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA). “The first thing is, it ups the bipartisan bonafides of the bill, if you’re getting some legislative language that’s supported by a prominent Republican and a prominent Democrat,” Lyman noted. “It also gets Senator Kennedy more supportive of the bill because he was one of the few Republicans who was dragging his feet somewhat when it comes to the Clarity Act. But getting this language in the bill seems to be some kind of concession to him to support Clarity while also allowing Warren one of her concessions as well.” And a top-tier silly season moment, as Lyman pointed out, was the strangeness of Warren, a huge crusader against the banks, somehow coming down on their side in this fight. “I feel like it’s the biggest irony that no one sees,” he joked. And now, Recess. I would like to share a beautiful tribute to Ted Turner, and please read this in Ric Flair’s voice, because that’s how Turner would have wanted it: See you next week.

Electric company annual reports describe technological risk in the vaguest of terms, asserting that firms face numerous, generalized risks— boiler plate to provide legal cover just in case something happens, such as an ET invasion. What specific risks do the companies face? You’ll never know from reading their reports. Anyway, it often takes years for something to happen in the utility industry, so why bother worrying now? Brokerage reports, generally optimistic, focus on a utility’s rate base growth (mostly their assets), AI demand, ongoing regulatory complacency all within a 3-5 year horizon. Technological disruption of business that may be 5-10 years out seems beyond the decision time horizon of big investors. They can always sell out ahead of time, right? “What, me worry?” sums up the picture, aided by lofty market valuations. This relaxed attitude of utilities toward technology risk and their present business makes little sense for three reasons. First, tech innovation can sneak up faster than expected, so the investor (the capital provider) might not have enough time to exit in an orderly fashion, and the company might not have enough time to prepare to deal with the financial disruption. Second, a likely or probable event even five years in the future affects the value of utility capital investments made today that have expected 20-30 year lives. Third, the utility industry overall pays so little attention to science and technology (it spends a pathetic 0.1% of revenues on R&D) that it may be the last to know when new technologies are about to emerge and disrupt their business. We could go into other reasons why the industry and its investors will tardily perceive or act on risks, including herd mentality, cultural issues, indexing, paradigm shifts, and regulation, but why bother? Simply put, we think that emerging technological developments, all staring us in the face right now, could start to disrupt the electricity industry’s structure and market in the coming 5-10 years. This should affect the industry’s financing picture even sooner. Investors will react to possible adverse business developments sooner than entrenched utility managers and quickly reflect those new worries about the industry’s declining prospects into stock prices and interest rates. Related: US Crude Oil, Gasoline Inventories Continue to Crash as Iran War Takes Its Toll Before going on, though, let’s accept two academic definitions of risk: either the possibility of loss or the possibility that actual returns will not rise to expected levels. If your investment cannot earn its expected return, it probably will decline in value, whether you sell it or not, so the second definition really says the same thing as the first, but less directly. Now, let us examine a trio of obvious risks. There are more, of course. Risk one: Batteries Batteries have already changed the electricity industry, reducing the need for transmission and redundant generating capacity and enabling the industry to treat renewable resources in the same way as ordinary generation. We expect more change and not just from lower costs. The battery industry suffers from massive overcapacity while in the midst of a huge product improvement program. Surely it will seek more markets, with residential and small commercial customers as likely targets. They consume over half the electricity output and pay the highest prices of any customer class. Imagine combining inexpensive solar (see RISK TWO) with inexpensive, compact, safe storage. Many customers, especially in rural areas, might finally cut the cord that ties them (expensively) to the electrical grid. If enough customers begin to exit and self generate, the grid will become more and more a provider of last resort for those who cannot install or afford to own their own on-site equipment, in other words, small and low income consumers. This prospect should really alarm public policy makers. A grid with a shrinking customer base of this sort is likely to require meaningful government support (or face financial distress). We’d bet on commercial development of low cost, small residential and commercial batteries within five years. Risk Two: Perovskites Photovoltaic cells made with perovskite mineral compounds are more efficient than silicon cells but they are not as durable and have not achieved flexibility targets. Manufacturers and researchers have launched an impressive effort to solve those problems in order to produce high efficiency, durable, and flexible perovskite cells within a few years. These improvements will do more than increase the efficiency of the cells. Buyers of the new flexible cells could install them anywhere, wrap them around buildings, put them in window blinds or even on clothes, making the perovskite cells ubiquitous. Think about it. The new cells will produce 30-50% more electricity per cell than the old ones, and wrapping an entire building might increase installation surface by 50-100%. That would permit twice the power production on the site. Combined with a low cost battery, the perovskite cell will make off-the-grid electricity even more attractive. Is this science fiction? No, read the technical papers. Commercialization seems likely within five years. Risk Three: Nuclear Fusion Privately financed firms have announced plans to build fusion reactors within 5-10 years — plants roughly the size of planned small modular reactors (SMRs) which will, supposedly, enter commercial operation within the same time period. SMRs are like present day fission reactors, just smaller, with a modular build out, and even more expensive than current gigawatt scale nuclear designs. And, if you don’t like existing nukes for environmental, national security, ideological or safety reasons, you probably won’t like SMRs, either. However, fusion reactors won’t require uranium, emit carbon dioxide, produce long-lived radioactive wastes, enable nuclear proliferation and can’t melt down — a list which might convince even hard core anti-nuclear activists to give them a pass. Fusion is nuclear power without the baggage. (And it's not based on a recycled submarine propulsion technology either.) It does not present a threat to central station electricity, per se, but rather to SMR development (fusion and SMRs are competitors) and ultimately to fossil-fueled power plants which fusion could replace. Opponents of renewables insist that the country and the utility industry need base load power plants. Fusion could provide base load power without either carbon dioxide emissions or the nuclear fission liabilities. Of course, fusion is all talk, right now but as we previously pointed out, a lot of new capital is entering the field. If it should work, and produce competitively priced electricity, though, the age of electrification will really come. Renewables and fusion reactors would power the economy. But that seems unlikely for at least a decade. Best advice: rest easy but be wary. Why Worry? Admittedly, we did not discuss all technological risks, such as plug-in solar (already big in Europe), which will dampen utility sales, or solar power satellites (a goal for billionaire space entrepreneurs), which could upend the generation market. You can never tell what will come along. Nor did we consider the risks to the natural gas industry, which are substantial, given that electric generators consume 40% of gas sold, and that is the only gas market that has shown any dynamism. Technological innovation in the electricity sector (mostly batteries right now) will reduce natural gas sales to the power sector and sales of gas for heating and cooking, too. The natural gas industry will have to export a lot of gas to make up for those losses. Then there is the impact of tech change on the consumption patterns of high-tech electricity users. Try this one. Quantum computers or space-based computer centers render earth-bound AI obsolete. For that matter, what might happen if the next administration in Washington takes environmental issues seriously, thereby forcing tech change on the industry? And finally, we admit it, we did not discuss technological changes that might offset the risks posed in this essay, or technological changes that might boost industry prospects. That is because risk was the topic. Anyway, everyone touts the benefits, so they probably are in the stock prices. Finally, why worry? The short answer is that the utility industry we know is fragile in ways we don’t often talk about. Capital-intensive industries are often like that. So, how about this back- of- the -envelope calculation that takes into account that much of the industry’s costs are fixed, that is, won’t decline proportionately with the loss of sales. We concluded that a 5% loss of residential and commercial sales (if consumers deserted the grid) could reduce electric company pretax net income by 15-20%. Plus, the now distressed utility would also have to account for losses on assets rendered redundant after a meaningful decline in sales. (These are not assets that could be transferred to an AI customer.) Finally, consider that once a consumer trend begins, and people see that their neighbors are on board, the trend can snowball. In other words, 5% may be the beginning. We have repeated here a form of the utility “death spiral" argument to show how these new and emerging technologies represent a real and persistent threat to future utility revenues and business prospects. This discussion may sound like science fiction to you, an inventory of non-existent risks based on academic musings and commercial hyperbole, but we already live in a world resembling that of science fiction: rockets to the moon, autonomous vehicles, thinking machines, people with mechanical parts. So, what is so outlandish about people making their own electricity from the sun, storing it in boxes, or producing power in machines fueled by products extracted from water and left over fro

The war with Iran is not going well. It is difficult to supply US troops with adequate food and other necessities. With summer arriving soon, the region will soon be an even more inhospitable place for ground troops to fight. An underlying problem is that the world economy was reaching resource limits even before the Iran War began, adding to the difficulties. The most pressing resource limit is distillate fuel oil–an industry term for what we think of as diesel and jet fuel. This fuel is heavily used in transportation. It is also used extensively in agriculture and industry. Somehow, the system needs to cut back on these fuels for international trade so that more fuel is available for agriculture and industry. President Trump of the US and President Xi of China will be meeting in Beijing on May 14-15. This meeting would seem to be the perfect time to start reorganizing the world with shorter trade routes, so that the world economy uses less fuel for transportation. China and the US are the two great powers in the world. Keeping trade mostly within the two areas shown in Figure 1 would be a way of using fuel oil more sparingly. Figure 1. Map of the world showing how Gail Tverberg expects Presidents Xi and Trump might split most world trade. The vast majority of trade would take place within the two areas shown. Within these groupings, the centers of trade might be the yellow areas shown. An advantage of such a plan, besides saving on fuel, is that it could stop the Iran War without clearly declaring one side the winner or loser. In this post, I will attempt to explain the situation further. [1] Based on the ideas of Dr. Mohammed Marandi, I believe that China might be able to mediate a settlement between the US and Iran. Dr. Marandi was born in the United States of Iranian parents. He currently lives in Iran, where he is a professor at the University of Tehran. In the video, One Country Quietly Won this War, he points out that, often, when two countries battle each other, neither one emerges as the clear winner. Both of them are damaged by the war. The actual winner may be a country that does not seem to be directly involved in the war. In the video referenced above, Dr. Marandi discusses three historical situations in which a nation not directly involved in a conflict gained stature by being the “adult in the room,” when two other nations battled each other. In this case, Dr. Marandi believes that China could very well be the country that can exert enough pressure on both sides to get them to accept a proposed solution. He says that China has acted behind the scenes to bring about the ceasefire, and that Trump has acknowledged China’s role. Dr. Marandi suggests the idea that the upcoming meeting of the two presidents might be an opportune moment to make major steps toward a mutually agreed settlement. I believe that the underlying problem is that there isn’t enough energy (particularly oil) to support a world population of over eight billion. Dividing up markets in the way I have suggested would at least somewhat alleviate the shortage. Of course, there may be other terms of a settlement, as well. In addition, not all the terms may be determined precisely at this time. [2] The world doesn’t have enough diesel and jet fuel to maintain the current level of trade across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Figure 2. Combined diesel and jet fuel supply, divided by world population, based on data of the 2025 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute. Figure 2 shows that per capita diesel and jet fuel started to drop at the time of the Great Financial Crisis in 2007-2009. Their supply took a larger step down in 2020, and it hasn’t completely recovered. In 2026, the Iran War has taken out more crude oil supply, for an unknown period of time. Diesel and jet fuel are both very important as transportation fuels. Diesel is also important in agriculture because it provides the power needed for heavy machinery to till fields, even under the most adverse conditions. Diesel provides the power needed for large commercial trucks, many trains, and ships. Earth moving equipment is also typically operated by diesel fuel. If the amount of trade across the Atlantic and Pacific could be greatly reduced, it would help alleviate the shortage of distillates. Of course, the tourist trade would also need to be greatly reduced. With recent spikes in aviation fuel prices, many flights are being cut. Some airlines, including Spirit Airlines in the US, are going bankrupt. The problem is starting to solve itself, but more changes will be needed. [3] Looking at population and oil supplies, the Americas seems likely to come out somewhat ahead. [3a] Comparing the populations of the two areas, the World ex Americas is much larger, and its population is growing faster. Figure 3. World population between the Americas and the world excluding the Americas, based on data of the 2025 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute. President Xi (leading one hemisphere) would get the very large and still rapidly growing part of the world population. President Trump would get a smaller and less rapidly growing share of the world population. Between 2021 and 2024, world population grew an average of 0.6% per year in the Americas, and an average of 0.9% per year in the World ex Americas. [3b] The Americas seem to have an advantage with respect to crude oil production. Figure 4. Crude oil production per capita, based on data of the US Energy Information Administration. It makes sense to look at energy amounts on a per-capita basis because the quantity needed depends on the number of people requiring the benefits of transportation, agriculture, and industry. On this basis, crude oil production of the Americas has clearly been outshining that of the World ex Americas. It is higher on a per-capita basis. In addition, the amount available has been increasing in recent years. Figure 5, below, shows total crude oil production (not per capita). Figure 5. Crude oil production of the Americas compared to that of the World ex Americas, based on data of the US Energy Information Administration. Figure 5 suggests that since 2005, crude oil production for the World ex Americas has hardly increased. In fact, total extraction has decreased since 2019. A person viewing this data might conclude that crude oil production in this area may already be past its peak. On the other hand, Figure 5 shows that oil production of the Americas has increased by about 65% since 2005. Many people believe that US shale production will soon decline. At the same time, however, increases seem likely in several other countries in the Americas, including Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Guyana. Thus, while crude oil production for the Americas may decline in the near future, its decline is likely to be gradual. [3c] Crude oil production by geographical area outside of the Americas shows declining production in all areas. Figure 6. Crude oil production by geographical area for the World ex Americas, based on data from the US Energy Information Administration. Russia+ refers to Russia plus nearby countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. Figure 6 shows that Europe’s crude oil production started its permanent decline in 2001. Asia-Pacific’s production hit a maximum in 2010, and it has been declining since. Africa’s peak oil production took place in 2008, and it has been mostly declining since. Russia+, which I use to refer to Russia plus nearby countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union, has an unusual production pattern. Its crude oil production started to decline in 1989, two years before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. (This collapse in crude oil production likely contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.) Crude oil production for Russia+ rose from 1998 to 2019. Russia+’s production took a big step down in 2020, and it has not been able to recover since. A person might think that Russia+’s oil production was post peak, even before the 2022 conflict with Ukraine broke out. If an oil exporter doesn’t have enough oil to export, it tends to create financial problems within an economy. Participating in a war can appear to mitigate the country’s problems. Many people assume that the Middle East has endless inexpensive-to-produce crude oil. I don’t think that this is the case. Crude oil production of the Middle East (Figure 6 above) hit two similar peaks in 2016 and 2018, and it has been lower in years since then. I think that Middle Eastern oil production is likely past peak partly because of depletion issues and partly because most countries in the area require high taxes on oil exports to provide subsidies for their ever-growing populations. This leads OPEC to try to maintain high prices. Lower crude oil production since 2018 is consistent with the hypothesis that oil production for the Middle East is mostly post-peak. One additional difficulty of the World ex Americas is that it is so heavily populated that it cannot access tight oil that might be available without displacing a large number of residents. Another difficulty is that very old wells, such as those in Saudi Arabia and Iran, are ones that it might not be possible to restart if they are shut in for an extended time. [4] In terms of mining and manufacturing, the Americas seems to come out behind the World ex Americas. The World ex Americas has rapidly ramped up mining and manufacturing. Coal has been the preferred industrial fuel, with natural gas consumption also increasing. Figure 7. Energy consumption by type for World ex Americas, based on data of the 2025 Statistical Review of World Energy, based on data of the Energy Institute. Fossil fuel extenders include hydroelectric power, nuclear power, wind power, solar power, biofuels including ethanol, and any other types of add-ons to fossil fuels. Figure 7 shows

From 12h ago 16.54 CEST Six people dead in 'ongoing' Russian strikes on Ukraine, Zelenskyy says Just as the leaders are talking in Bucharest, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy took to social media to post an update saying that at least six people were reported dead after Russian attacks on Ukraine today. “At least 800 Russian drones have already been launched, and the attack is ongoing, with additional drones entering our country’s airspace,” he said. He suggested that Russia seeks to “disrupt the overall political atmosphere” as it times its attacks for the duration of US president Donald Trump’s visit to China. “It is important that the world does not remain silent about this. It is important that Russia’s true intentions are made clear to leaders and countries. It is important to apply real pressure on the Russian aggressor so that this terror is brought to an end.” Share 11h ago 17.38 CEST Separately, Russia hit Ukraine’s railway facilities 23 times during its drone attacks on Wednesday, damaging trains, carriages, railway depots, and bridges, a senior advisor to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said. Share 11h ago 17.12 CEST Slovakia closes border crossing with Ukraine amid warnings of further Russian strikes Meanwhile, the scale of the continuing Russian attacks on Ukraine today is so significant that some of its neighbours had to take precautionary measures, too. Slovakia has temporarily closed all border crossings with Ukraine until further notice, citing expectations of a large-scale attack on the city of Uzhhorod and the neighboring Zakarpattia region with attacks reported as close as 50 km from the Slovak border. “The Financial Administration recommends that the public monitor up-to-date information and comply with the instructions of the Financial Administration and Police Force officers. We will keep you informed of further developments,” it said in a statement. Earlier, Poland briefly bolstered air defence along the Ukrainian border following earlier strikes. The operation ended after several hours with no recorded airspace violations. Share Updated at 17.13 CEST 12h ago 17.04 CEST Nato’s Rutte says he is “cautiously optimistic” about the upcoming Nato summit in Ankara as he repeats his “Nato 3.0” theory of Europe taking more responsibility for its own security, allowing the US to pivot to its other interests without abandoning Europe. He says the focus is on making sure there is no gap in “our deterrence and defence.” Poland’s Nawrocki and Romania’s Dan essentially toe the same line. And that ends the press conference. Share 12h ago 17.00 CEST Reporters are now again fishing for lines on Trump’s relations with its Nato allies, but Rutte stays fully on message, repeating that there’s some “disappointment” in the US, and the European allies are responding to it. Poland’s Nawrocki was also asked about how the fugitive former minister Zbigniew Ziobro’s decision to move to the US would affect Poland’s relations with the US. Poland says it expects US to extradite ex-minister who fled from Hungary Read more In stark contrast to the government figures, he says he “cannot imagine” how this could affect the relationship with Washington given its importance for Poland’s security and foreign policy. He also claims that Ziobro, a senior figure in the Law and Justice party that endorsed him in last year’s presidential election, would not get a “fair trial” in Poland. Share 12h ago 16.54 CEST Six people dead in 'ongoing' Russian strikes on Ukraine, Zelenskyy says Just as the leaders are talking in Bucharest, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy took to social media to post an update saying that at least six people were reported dead after Russian attacks on Ukraine today. “At least 800 Russian drones have already been launched, and the attack is ongoing, with additional drones entering our country’s airspace,” he said. He suggested that Russia seeks to “disrupt the overall political atmosphere” as it times its attacks for the duration of US president Donald Trump’s visit to China. “It is important that the world does not remain silent about this. It is important that Russia’s true intentions are made clear to leaders and countries. It is important to apply real pressure on the Russian aggressor so that this terror is brought to an end.” Share 12h ago 16.50 CEST Another question concerns the presence of US troops in Europe amid talk of the White House looking to pull some of them out of the region. Nato’s Rutte says that “the US presence in Europe is still vast and massive,” and shows “a clear commitment” of the US administration to Europe. “We have always known that the United States, overtime, has to pivot more towards Asia, what we have to make sure of and the US, the Europeans agree on this, that … the overall level of deterrence and defence stays strong.” Poland’s Nawrocki says the topic did not come up during the official talks today, but Poland is always ready to welcome more US troops as it continues to campaign for the 5,000 troops pulled out of Germany to be relocated on the eastern flank of Nato. Romania’s Dan confirms the issue was not on the table today, but all allies are determined to work to maintain substantial US presence in Europe. Share 12h ago 16.43 CEST For talks with Russia, 'Putin has to play ball and he is not playing,' Nato's Rutte says The leaders get asked about the prospects for Ukraine and any potential peace discussions with Russia. Poland’s Nawrocki goes first and says that supporting Ukraine remains a “strategic” aim of the B9 group, as he notes the importance of Zelenskyy attending the meeting. He repeatedly says Russia’s Putin is responsible for the war, and calls for a “long-term, just peace settlement.” Nato’s Rutte says “Putin has to play ball, and at the moment he is not.” “He has to be willing to play ball to engage, really, in peace negotiations,” he says. “I must say the ball is clearly in Putin’s court. He has to play ball. He is not doing that yet. Let’s see what happens. And the Ukrainians, in the meantime, are maintaining the fight, doing well on the frontline, but obviously they did not ask for this, and many people have been killed because of Putin in Ukraine.” Share 12h ago 16.38 CEST Asked about the relations with the US, Rutte concedes that "we know that there was some disappointment in the US when it came to the reaction of some allies regarding Iran and the war against Iran by the US and Israel.” “But I would say that clearly, allies have heard the message … and that is on two fronts: first, … when it comes to living up to all the commitments to basic requests [from the US] … and then when it comes to the strait of Hormuz, the next phase…” He says that the Italians, for example, are sending more assets in the area, “so they can be active there when necessary,” with other initiatives taken by other countries, including France and the UK. “So my message to the United States is: The Europeans hear the message. They are following up. We are really working together on this.” Share 12h ago 16.35 CEST 'We cannot let down our guard,' as Russia remains 'most significant, direct threat to Nato,' Rutte says Nato’s Rutte says that the meeting showed the group of nine countries is “firmly anchored in Nato and the transatlantic relationship.” He warns that Russia “remains, indeed, the most significant and direct threat to Nato, as it continues its ruthless war of aggression against Ukraine.” “We cannot let down our guard. We will always do what is necessary to defend every inch of Nato territory.” Looking ahead to Nato’s summit in Ankara, Rutte says that “cash is crucial” as countries are urged to increase their spending, but he adds the talks will also be about “combat ready capabilities and significantly scaling up our defence industries.” Turning to Ukraine, he pays tribute to its continued fight against Russia, as he says “a strong Ukraine today and a strong Ukraine for the future is how Russian aggression can be stopped.” Share 12h ago 16.35 CEST Nato's Hague targets are not ceiling, but 'minimum' needed, Poland's Nawrocki says Romania’s Dan opens up by thanking all participants, including the US delegation. View image in fullscreen Poland’s president Karol Nawrocki, Romania’s President Nicusor Dan and Nato secretary general Mark Rutte arrive for a press conference during the summit of the Bucharest Nine (B9) and the Nordic countries at the Cotroceni Palace in Bucharest, Romania. Photograph: Mihai Barbu/AFP/Getty Images He says that allies in this part of Europe have “common concerns and a common threat” from Russia, and need to coordinate. He also pointedly backs Moldova, raising the issue of supporting Chișinău as it faces pressure from Russia. Poland’s Nawrocki picks up a broader discussion on defence spending, as he says that the spending targets adopted in the Hague last year “are not the ceiling, but the minimum needed that is necessary.” He says Russia “is and will remain the most serious, long-term and direct threat to the security of allied countries.” He warns that Russia wants to “rebuild its spheres of influence, weaken the integrity of Nato … and question the sovereignty and democracy of countries in our region.” Nawrocki also criticises some European leaders – he doesn’t name them – who in his view “question the alliance between the B9, the EU and the US in a way that is far from any logic.” “Tearing apart transatlantic relations, breaking up the relations of the European Union and nation states with the United States is in the interest of the Russian Federation. We should all be deeply aware of this,” he warns. Share Updated at 16.36 CEST 13h ago 16.07 CEST Leaders brief press after Bucharest Nine meeting on security, Nato As promised, you can watch along below, and I will bring you the key lines here. Romanian and Polish presidents deliver joint remarks at Nato Bucharest Nine summit – watch live Share 13h ago 15.59 CEST As we are waiting for the press c