The Russia-Ukraine conflict is escalating in the Black Sea, raising fresh concerns over maritime security and global trade. At the same time, tensions continue to simmer in West Asia around the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, two of the world's most strategic shipping chokepoints. With multiple maritime flashpoints under pressure, fears are growing over energy supplies, commercial shipping, and regional stability.

Russia and Ukraine Escalate Black Sea War, Bab Al-Mandeb and Hormuz Tensions Continue in West Asia

European gas prices are climbing sharply as liquefied natural gas cargoes increasingly flow toward Asia, where demand remains strong. The shift is intensifying competition for energy supplies and raising concerns about Europe's energy security ahead of future seasonal demand. Analysts say the changing LNG trade dynamics could have significant implications for global energy markets, prices and supply chains in the months ahead.

Europe's gas prices spike as cargoes head East 

European gas prices are flashing red again. LNG futures touched 62 euros, or about 70 dollars, per megawatt-hour on July 22nd, the highest since the Iran-Israel conflict rattled markets earlier this year. It is up nearly 50 percent from June's 40-42 euros range. The reason isn't a new supply shock. It's a bidding war Europe is losing.

Europe Loses LNG Bidding War to Asia | World Business Watch 

East Africa is set for a major energy transformation as leaders including Kenya’s President William Ruto and Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni back a mega refinery project aimed at strengthening regional energy security. The ambitious initiative is expected to reduce fuel import dependence, boost local refining capacity, and support industrial growth across the region.


East Africa Mega Refinery Backed by Ruto & Museveni to Boost Energy Security

As the Iran-US War enters its seventh week and the Strait of Hormuz blockade throttles 20% of global oil supplies, the Trump administration is quietly executing what insiders are calling 'The Trump Card' — a radical strategic pivot to Venezuela's colossal untapped oil reserves as a permanent bypass 

'The Trump Card': Can Venezuela solve Strait of Hormuz dependency forever after Iran war?

India on Saturday (Feb 07) clarified its stand on the purchase of Russian oil, saying that safeguarding the country's energy needs is the top priority for New Delhi. The statement comes after the United States revoked the punitive 25 per cent tariffs levied on New Delhi over its oil trade with Moscow as part of the recently concluded India-US bilateral trade agreement.&nbsp;"Regarding India's energy sourcing, the government has stated publicly on several occasions that ensuring the energy security of 1.4 billion Indians is the supreme priority of the government," the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said.&nbsp;The MEA specified that diversifying energy sourcing in line with objective market conditions and evolving international dynamics remains central to India's strategy to ensure energy security for its population.&nbsp;It further underscored that the decisions taken by India's energy sector are guided by this overarching principle.&nbsp;"Diversifying our energy sourcing in keeping with objective market conditions and evolving international dynamics is at the core of our strategy to ensure this," Jaiswal said, adding that "All of India's actions are taken and will be taken with this in mind."&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-sets-june-deadline-for-ukraine-and-russia-to-end-war-says-zelensky-1770467368962">US sets June deadline for Ukraine and Russia to end war, says Zelensky</a>&nbsp;The MEA spokesperson's remark came after a statement from the White House stated that India has "committed to stop directly or indirectly importing" oil from Russia, as per the framework of the bilateral trade agreement between the two countries.&nbsp;Earlier in the day, Union Minister Piyush Goyal described the announcement of the interim framework of the India-US trade agreement on Saturday as "the day etched in golden letter." He stated that the $30 trillion US economy will be open to Indian exporters, with the lowest tariffs compared to neighbouring countries. At the same time, several sectors, such as gems and pharmaceuticals, are exempt from tariffs. "A $30 trillion economy is now open to our exporters. This joint statement gives every Indian citizen an opportunity for new hope, enthusiasm, and new resolutions. The 50 per cent tariff that Indian exporters faced will now be only 18 per cent. We will have the lowest tariffs compared to our neighbouring countries. Exporters of gems and pharmaceuticals will face zero duty in the US," he said.

The MEA said that diversifying energy sources, in line with market realities and evolving international dynamics, remains central to India’s strategy to ensure energy security for its 1.4 billion people.

India on Saturday (Feb 07) clarified its stand on the purchase of Russian oil, saying that safeguarding the country's energy needs is the top priority for New Delhi. The statement comes after the United States revoked the punitive 25 per cent tariffs levied on New Delhi over its oil trade with Moscow as part of the recently concluded India-US bilateral trade agreement. "Regarding India's energy sourcing, the government has stated publicly on several occasions that ensuring the energy security of 1.4 billion Indians is the supreme priority of the government," the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said. The MEA specified that diversifying energy sourcing in line with objective market conditions and evolving international dynamics remains central to India's strategy to ensure energy security for its population. It further underscored that the decisions taken by India's energy sector are guided by this overarching principle. "Diversifying our energy sourcing in keeping with objective market conditions and evolving international dynamics is at the core of our strategy to ensure this," Jaiswal said, adding that "All of India's actions are taken and will be taken with this in mind." Also Read: US sets June deadline for Ukraine and Russia to end war, says Zelensky The MEA spokesperson's remark came after a statement from the White House stated that India has "committed to stop directly or indirectly importing" oil from Russia, as per the framework of the bilateral trade agreement between the two countries. Earlier in the day, Union Minister Piyush Goyal described the announcement of the interim framework of the India-US trade agreement on Saturday as "the day etched in golden letter." He stated that the $30 trillion US economy will be open to Indian exporters, with the lowest tariffs compared to neighbouring countries. At the same time, several sectors, such as gems and pharmaceuticals, are exempt from tariffs. "A $30 trillion economy is now open to our exporters. This joint statement gives every Indian citizen an opportunity for new hope, enthusiasm, and new resolutions. The 50 per cent tariff that Indian exporters faced will now be only 18 per cent. We will have the lowest tariffs compared to our neighbouring countries. Exporters of gems and pharmaceuticals will face zero duty in the US," he said.

The MEA said that diversifying energy sources, in line with market realities and evolving international dynamics, remains central to India’s strategy to ensure energy security for its 1.4 billion people.

India on Russian oil imports: Diversification central to energy security for 1.4 bn citizens

International Energy Agency (IEA) has sounded alarm about a substantial surplus in global oil supply,&nbsp;forecasting an excess of millions of barrels per day by the end of this decade.

The IEA’s latest medium-term oil market outlook underscored a dramatic shift as energy transitions gain momentum and global oil production capacity surges.

The report, Oil 2024, revealed that while the world’s demand for oil is set to slow down in the coming years, production is expected to rise. This trend is likely to alleviate market pressures and elevate spare capacity to levels unprecedented outside of the Covid-19 pandemic, as per the report.

"As the pandemic rebound loses steam, clean energy transitions advance, and the structure of China’s economy shifts, growth in global oil demand is slowing down and set to reach its peak by 2030," stated IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.

"This year, we expect demand to rise by around 1 million barrels per day."

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-police-charge-man-who-hurled-objects-at-british-right-wing-leader-nigel-farage-731139">UK police charge man who hurled objects at British right-wing leader Nigel Farage</a>

Global oil demand is projected to increase by 3.2 million barrels per day from 2023 to 2030 unless more robust policies or behavioural changes are adopted.

Emerging economies in Asia, particularly India’s transportation sector and China’s booming petrochemicals industry, are expected to drive this demand.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-publicly-hugs-son-hunter-after-latters-conviction-on-federal-gun-charges-731140">Joe Biden publicly hugs son Hunter after latter's conviction on federal gun charges</a>

Conversely, advanced economies are likely to see a decline in oil consumption, falling from nearly 46 million barrels per day in 2023 to under 43 million barrels per day by 2030 - a level last seen in 1991 outside of the pandemic period.

<h2>Global oil production capacity</h2>

In tandem with these demand trends, global oil production capacity is forecast to rise to nearly 114 million barrels per day by 2030, an astonishing 8 million barrels per day above the projected global demand.

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/hunter-biden-convicted-in-gun-trial-will-the-conviction-impact-joe-bidens-presidential-race-731137">Hunter Biden convicted in gun trial: Will the conviction impact Joe Biden's Presidential race?</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/hunter-biden-convicted-in-gun-trial-will-the-conviction-impact-joe-bidens-presidential-race-731137/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

This would create a level of spare capacity not seen since the peak of the Covid-19 lockdowns in 2020.

Such a surplus could have major repercussions for oil markets and may impact producer economies in OPEC and others.&nbsp;

To meet the demand, the expansion of production capacity is being led predominantly by producers outside of OPEC+, with the United States poised to contribute an additional 2.1 million barrels per day.

Other contributions are expected from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and Guyana, collectively adding 2.7 million barrels per day.

(With inputs from agencies)

International Energy Agency (IEA) has sounded alarm about a substantial surplus in global oil supply, forecasting an excess of millions of barrels per day by the end of this decade.

International Energy Agency (IEA) has sounded alarm about a substantial surplus in global oil supply, forecasting an excess of millions of barrels per day by the end of this decade. The IEA’s latest medium-term oil market outlook underscored a dramatic shift as energy transitions gain momentum and global oil production capacity surges. The report, Oil 2024, revealed that while the world’s demand for oil is set to slow down in the coming years, production is expected to rise. This trend is likely to alleviate market pressures and elevate spare capacity to levels unprecedented outside of the Covid-19 pandemic, as per the report. "As the pandemic rebound loses steam, clean energy transitions advance, and the structure of China’s economy shifts, growth in global oil demand is slowing down and set to reach its peak by 2030," stated IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. "This year, we expect demand to rise by around 1 million barrels per day." Also Read | UK police charge man who hurled objects at British right-wing leader Nigel Farage Global oil demand is projected to increase by 3.2 million barrels per day from 2023 to 2030 unless more robust policies or behavioural changes are adopted. Emerging economies in Asia, particularly India’s transportation sector and China’s booming petrochemicals industry, are expected to drive this demand. Also Read | Joe Biden publicly hugs son Hunter after latter's conviction on federal gun charges Conversely, advanced economies are likely to see a decline in oil consumption, falling from nearly 46 million barrels per day in 2023 to under 43 million barrels per day by 2030 - a level last seen in 1991 outside of the pandemic period. Global oil production capacity In tandem with these demand trends, global oil production capacity is forecast to rise to nearly 114 million barrels per day by 2030, an astonishing 8 million barrels per day above the projected global demand. Watch | Hunter Biden convicted in gun trial: Will the conviction impact Joe Biden's Presidential race? × This would create a level of spare capacity not seen since the peak of the Covid-19 lockdowns in 2020. Such a surplus could have major repercussions for oil markets and may impact producer economies in OPEC and others. To meet the demand, the expansion of production capacity is being led predominantly by producers outside of OPEC+, with the United States poised to contribute an additional 2.1 million barrels per day. Other contributions are expected from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and Guyana, collectively adding 2.7 million barrels per day. (With inputs from agencies)

Global oil surplus to hit millions of barrels daily by 2030 amid slowing demand, rising production

Qatar and Bangladesh will sign 11 cooperation documents -- six agreements and five MoUs -- as Dhaka is ready to welcome Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani tomorrow afternoon. Watch to know more

Qatar's emir arrives in Bangladesh for visit, Bangladesh seeking to boost its energy security

Our past often determines our present circumstances. The ongoing turmoil in West Asia bears testimony to it.&nbsp;

As the Israel-Hamas war continues, market watchers are worried&nbsp;about the conflict's cascading effect on oil prices and the global economy. Their fears are not unfounded, but deeply rooted in recent history.

In October 1973, a coalition of Arab countries, primarily led by Egypt and Syria, surprised Israel by launching a joint attack on Yom Kippur -- the holiest day for Jews.&nbsp;

Western nations led by the United States immediately came out in support of Israel, their long-time ally in West Asia. The then&nbsp;US President Richard Nixon&nbsp;announced his decision to supply Israel with arms worth $2.2 billion.

But this announcement&nbsp;irked the oil-rich Arab world, which did not recognise Israel's right to exist as a nation. As a result, the&nbsp;OAPEC, which stands for the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries, decided to impose an oil embargo on the West.

Subsequently, a series of production cuts and rate&nbsp;hikes led to skyrocketing oil prices. A barrel of oil traded for around $3 before the Yom Kippur war. It rose four-folds to nearly $12 per barrel by March 1974, when the embargo was lifted.&nbsp;

The United States, a major oil consumer, was badly hit by the embargo, as fuel prices rose from an average of 39 cents per gallon to 53 cents per gallon by 1974.The oil embargo came at a wrong time for the world's largest economy.

Even before the crisis, wholesale prices of industrial commodities were rising at an annual rate of over 10 per cent, while many major industrial materials were in short supply. Moreover, it is widely believed the U.S. oil industry at the time did not posses excess production capacity, especially in times of a crisis.&nbsp;

More than the US, the embargo had a massive impact on Western Europe, ending its three-decade-long period of unaffected prosperity. For some context: Aided by the Marshall Plan, Western Europe witnessed unprecedented levels of economic boom after the second world war.

Western Europe largely depended on oil-rich West Asia for its energy needs, and the embargo not only led to high fuel prices but also exposed the region's fragile energy security. In fact, fuel rationing and dim streetlights, as seen during a wartime, became common in several European countries.&nbsp;

On a wider economic level, some estimates suggest that the oil crisis led to a 4.7 per cent decline in the US' GDP and a 2.5 per cent cut in Europe's GDP.&nbsp;

The West's loss, however, was a massive gain for the oil-producing Arab nations.&nbsp;

While the embargo ended in March 1974, oil prices remained elevated for much of the 1970s. Consequently, high prices helped several oil producing countries to maintain a healthy trade and current account surplus with the West.&nbsp;

Notably, the crisis gave rise to the term 'petro dollar', which is still used in the matters of oil trade, as the commodity is heavily traded in the official US currency.&nbsp;

But the biggest geo-economic impact of the crisis, which can be felt in 2023 too, was the mainstreaming of energy security through oil. Until then, the question of energy security rose only intermittently and was limited to a few countries.

But the global impact of the oil crisis forced countries, especially those in the developed world, to prioritise alternate energy sources and energy conservation.&nbsp;

All in all, the impact of the 1973 oil crisis reverberates to this day.&nbsp;

Our past often determines our present circumstances. The ongoing turmoil in West Asia bears testimony to it. As the Israel-Hamas war continues, market watchers are worried about the conflict's cascading effect on oil prices and the global economy.

Our past often determines our present circumstances. The ongoing turmoil in West Asia bears testimony to it. As the Israel-Hamas war continues, market watchers are worried about the conflict's cascading effect on oil prices and the global economy. Their fears are not unfounded, but deeply rooted in recent history. In October 1973, a coalition of Arab countries, primarily led by Egypt and Syria, surprised Israel by launching a joint attack on Yom Kippur -- the holiest day for Jews. Western nations led by the United States immediately came out in support of Israel, their long-time ally in West Asia. The then US President Richard Nixon announced his decision to supply Israel with arms worth $2.2 billion. But this announcement irked the oil-rich Arab world, which did not recognise Israel's right to exist as a nation. As a result, the OAPEC, which stands for the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries, decided to impose an oil embargo on the West. Subsequently, a series of production cuts and rate hikes led to skyrocketing oil prices. A barrel of oil traded for around $3 before the Yom Kippur war. It rose four-folds to nearly $12 per barrel by March 1974, when the embargo was lifted. The United States, a major oil consumer, was badly hit by the embargo, as fuel prices rose from an average of 39 cents per gallon to 53 cents per gallon by 1974.The oil embargo came at a wrong time for the world's largest economy. Even before the crisis, wholesale prices of industrial commodities were rising at an annual rate of over 10 per cent, while many major industrial materials were in short supply. Moreover, it is widely believed the U.S. oil industry at the time did not posses excess production capacity, especially in times of a crisis. More than the US, the embargo had a massive impact on Western Europe, ending its three-decade-long period of unaffected prosperity. For some context: Aided by the Marshall Plan, Western Europe witnessed unprecedented levels of economic boom after the second world war. Western Europe largely depended on oil-rich West Asia for its energy needs, and the embargo not only led to high fuel prices but also exposed the region's fragile energy security. In fact, fuel rationing and dim streetlights, as seen during a wartime, became common in several European countries. On a wider economic level, some estimates suggest that the oil crisis led to a 4.7 per cent decline in the US' GDP and a 2.5 per cent cut in Europe's GDP. The West's loss, however, was a massive gain for the oil-producing Arab nations. While the embargo ended in March 1974, oil prices remained elevated for much of the 1970s. Consequently, high prices helped several oil producing countries to maintain a healthy trade and current account surplus with the West. Notably, the crisis gave rise to the term 'petro dollar', which is still used in the matters of oil trade, as the commodity is heavily traded in the official US currency. But the biggest geo-economic impact of the crisis, which can be felt in 2023 too, was the mainstreaming of energy security through oil. Until then, the question of energy security rose only intermittently and was limited to a few countries. But the global impact of the oil crisis forced countries, especially those in the developed world, to prioritise alternate energy sources and energy conservation. All in all, the impact of the 1973 oil crisis reverberates to this day.

Flashback Friday: 50 years later, the impact of 1973 oil crisis continues to be felt

Thanks to a remarkable oil and gas boom, the United States has achieved the long-sought goal of energy self-sufficiency: We now produce more oil and refined products, natural gas and coal than we consume. In particular, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — fracking — transformed the United States from the world’s largest oil importer to a net exporter of both oil and gas.

This kind of physical energy security is a blessing when conflict disrupts the global energy trade. Europe’s frantic dash to free itself of Russian energy illustrates how deeply problematic it can be to not have it.

Yet look at prices at the pump, and you’ll see why we can’t drill our way to true energy security. That’s why the Senate must finalize legislation now that will marshal the full might of America’s energy arsenal to defeat Vladimir Putin, reduce energy costs, secure our economy against the next energy crisis and confront the critical threat of climate change.

Oil, coal and, increasingly, natural gas are globally traded commodities, which leaves the U.S. economy dangerously exposed to the vagaries and volatility of energy prices. The decisions of a single autocrat on the other side of the world can send the cost of filling the tank in Des Moines or Denver soaring. Every $10 per barrel increase in the price of oil is a nearly $200 million per day tax on American households and businesses, and soaring energy costs are a primary driver of inflation, threatening to topple the U.S. economy back into recession.

These threats to America’s economic security will persist as long as our households, businesses and industry remain dependent on fossil fuels. Only by reducing our use of oil and gas can we insulate America’s economy from fossil fuel price shocks.

Prices at the pump today are at their highest levels since 2008. Back then, the United States imported over half of our oil and U.S. natural gas production had just begun to climb out of a four-decade-long plateau. Wind and solar power were expensive, supplied less than 2 percent of U.S. electricity and could not, it seemed, scale to meet the moment. And just 100 of Tesla’s original Roadsters had rolled off production lines.

In that context, it is almost understandable to think even more drilling is America’s only path to energy security. But in the ensuing years, the energy landscape fundamentally changed. Even as oil and gas production boomed, supportive public policies at home and across the world scaled up wind and solar power, driving down costs by 72 percent for wind and 90 percent for solar since 2009. These once-costly alternative energy technologies are now the cheapest and fastest growing sources of electricity available today.

Lithium-ion battery costs have also plummeted as fast as solar, and all major automakers are now racing to bring affordable, mass-market electric vehicles to every consumer segment, including perennially popular pickup trucks and S.U.V.s.

It is true that to aid our European allies (including Ukraine), cut off Russia’s biggest source of foreign currency and starve the Kremlin’s war effort, the United States must export as much liquefied natural gas, oil and coal as we can muster. Yet that’s only the start of a new approach to energy security. Congress must also enact a bold investment package to grow renewable electricity, preserve existing nuclear plants, catalyze new hydrogen, carbon capture and advanced nuclear industries, help American households and businesses adopt electric vehicles and efficient electric heating and increase energy productivity in American industries.

The House of Representatives has already passed such an energy investment package as part of the Build Back Better Act, but it has stalled in the Senate. The REPEAT Project, which I lead, has modeled the energy provisions in that bill. If enacted, we estimate that by 2028, U.S. oil consumption could fall by nearly 500 million barrels per year and natural gas consumption could decline by two trillion cubic feet. At current energy prices, that’s roughly $70 billion in annual savings for American homes and businesses, making the U.S. economy far more energy secure.

We also find these investments in energy security would put the United States within easy reach of the nation’s commitment to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent of peak levels by 2030, confronting another urgent threat to national and global security.

Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia has been a key holdout on the energy package in the Build Back Better Act passed by the House, but he also seems to recognize that Mr. Putin’s assault on Ukraine changes the context for energy legislation. “This is, in many ways, an energy war,” Mr. Manchin aptly stated as the conflict began, and he’s since convened talks to try to hammer out a deal to address “our nation’s climate and energy security needs head on,” according to a spokesman. But with summer recess on the horizon and midterm campaigning ramping up, the sands are running out of the hourglass for Congress to act.

The only viable strategy is to simultaneously increase domestic fossil fuel production while driving down oil and gas use at home through investment in clean energy, efficiency and electrification. That strategy would allow the United States to surge exports to our allies abroad much faster than a “drill, baby drill” approach alone. In fact, the REPEAT Project estimates that by 2028, this strategy could increase U.S. exports enough (relative to 2021 levels) to completely replace the oil and natural gas Russia supplies to Europe. Boosting production and decreasing demand will also open a second front to drive down global energy prices that focusing on the supply side only would not.

Hand in hand with tax credits for carbon capture and storage and new efforts to eliminate wasteful and polluting methane leaks in the oil and gas supply chain — two measures Mr. Manchin supports — the United States can ensure our energy exports are the cleanest in the world, a critical step to remain globally competitive in a carbon-concerned world.

Finally, tax credits and loans for advanced energy manufacturing and production of critical components and materials can secure the supply of technologies that will be the foundation of energy security in the 21st century.

Presented with yet another energy crisis, we cannot afford to ignore America’s persistent economic vulnerability. It’s time to do whatever it takes to deliver true energy security for America’s economy, citizens and allies.

Thanks to a remarkable oil and gas boom, the United States has achieved the long-sought goal of energy self-sufficiency: We now produce more oil and refined products, natural gas and coal than we consume.

Thanks to a remarkable oil and gas boom, the United States has achieved the long-sought goal of energy self-sufficiency: We now produce more oil and refined products, natural gas and coal than we consume. In particular, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — fracking — transformed the United States from the world’s largest oil importer to a net exporter of both oil and gas. This kind of physical energy security is a blessing when conflict disrupts the global energy trade. Europe’s frantic dash to free itself of Russian energy illustrates how deeply problematic it can be to not have it. Yet look at prices at the pump, and you’ll see why we can’t drill our way to true energy security. That’s why the Senate must finalize legislation now that will marshal the full might of America’s energy arsenal to defeat Vladimir Putin, reduce energy costs, secure our economy against the next energy crisis and confront the critical threat of climate change. Oil, coal and, increasingly, natural gas are globally traded commodities, which leaves the U.S. economy dangerously exposed to the vagaries and volatility of energy prices. The decisions of a single autocrat on the other side of the world can send the cost of filling the tank in Des Moines or Denver soaring. Every $10 per barrel increase in the price of oil is a nearly $200 million per day tax on American households and businesses, and soaring energy costs are a primary driver of inflation, threatening to topple the U.S. economy back into recession. These threats to America’s economic security will persist as long as our households, businesses and industry remain dependent on fossil fuels. Only by reducing our use of oil and gas can we insulate America’s economy from fossil fuel price shocks. Prices at the pump today are at their highest levels since 2008. Back then, the United States imported over half of our oil and U.S. natural gas production had just begun to climb out of a four-decade-long plateau. Wind and solar power were expensive, supplied less than 2 percent of U.S. electricity and could not, it seemed, scale to meet the moment. And just 100 of Tesla’s original Roadsters had rolled off production lines. In that context, it is almost understandable to think even more drilling is America’s only path to energy security. But in the ensuing years, the energy landscape fundamentally changed. Even as oil and gas production boomed, supportive public policies at home and across the world scaled up wind and solar power, driving down costs by 72 percent for wind and 90 percent for solar since 2009. These once-costly alternative energy technologies are now the cheapest and fastest growing sources of electricity available today. Lithium-ion battery costs have also plummeted as fast as solar, and all major automakers are now racing to bring affordable, mass-market electric vehicles to every consumer segment, including perennially popular pickup trucks and S.U.V.s. It is true that to aid our European allies (including Ukraine), cut off Russia’s biggest source of foreign currency and starve the Kremlin’s war effort, the United States must export as much liquefied natural gas, oil and coal as we can muster. Yet that’s only the start of a new approach to energy security. Congress must also enact a bold investment package to grow renewable electricity, preserve existing nuclear plants, catalyze new hydrogen, carbon capture and advanced nuclear industries, help American households and businesses adopt electric vehicles and efficient electric heating and increase energy productivity in American industries. The House of Representatives has already passed such an energy investment package as part of the Build Back Better Act, but it has stalled in the Senate. The REPEAT Project, which I lead, has modeled the energy provisions in that bill. If enacted, we estimate that by 2028, U.S. oil consumption could fall by nearly 500 million barrels per year and natural gas consumption could decline by two trillion cubic feet. At current energy prices, that’s roughly $70 billion in annual savings for American homes and businesses, making the U.S. economy far more energy secure. We also find these investments in energy security would put the United States within easy reach of the nation’s commitment to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent of peak levels by 2030, confronting another urgent threat to national and global security. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia has been a key holdout on the energy package in the Build Back Better Act passed by the House, but he also seems to recognize that Mr. Putin’s assault on Ukraine changes the context for energy legislation. “This is, in many ways, an energy war,” Mr. Manchin aptly stated as the conflict began, and he’s since convened talks to try to hammer out a deal to address “our nation’s climate and energy security needs head on,” according to a spokesman. But with summer recess on the horizon and midterm campaigning ramping up, the sands are running out of the hourglass for Congress to act. The only viable strategy is to simultaneously increase domestic fossil fuel production while driving down oil and gas use at home through investment in clean energy, efficiency and electrification. That strategy would allow the United States to surge exports to our allies abroad much faster than a “drill, baby drill” approach alone. In fact, the REPEAT Project estimates that by 2028, this strategy could increase U.S. exports enough (relative to 2021 levels) to completely replace the oil and natural gas Russia supplies to Europe. Boosting production and decreasing demand will also open a second front to drive down global energy prices that focusing on the supply side only would not. Hand in hand with tax credits for carbon capture and storage and new efforts to eliminate wasteful and polluting methane leaks in the oil and gas supply chain — two measures Mr. Manchin supports — the United States can ensure our energy exports are the cleanest in the world, a critical step to remain globally competitive in a carbon-concerned world. Finally, tax credits and loans for advanced energy manufacturing and production of critical components and materials can secure the supply of technologies that will be the foundation of energy security in the 21st century. Presented with yet another energy crisis, we cannot afford to ignore America’s persistent economic vulnerability. It’s time to do whatever it takes to deliver true energy security for America’s economy, citizens and allies.

We can’t drill our way to energy security

The Russian media hit out at a report that claimed the country presents a "geopolitical risk of threats to supply" of helium which is &nbsp;"finite resource".

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russian-spies-hacked-ukrainian-energy-firm-at-center-of-trumps-impeachment-274153">Also Read:&nbsp;Russian spies hacked Ukrainian energy firm at center of Trump impeachment</a>

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/big-push-into-helium-could-have-the-world-on-russias-string-348830">New York Times </a>in its report said that that "Siberia holds some of the largest known untapped reserves of natural gas with high levels of helium, and Russia is preparing for a major leap in production when its new complex of factories comes online next year."

NYT said that Russia is "well-positioned to supply China and the technology industry on the US West Coast" and the Gazprom the Russian company is "will export canisters of cryogenically cooled liquid helium from the Pacific Ocean port of Vladivostok."

The report said after ramping up production by the middle of the decade "Russia expects to produce 25 per cent to 30 per cent of all helium used worldwide without breaking a sweat". <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-signs-offshore-pipeline-agreement-with-russian-energy-giant-gazprom-195970">Gazprom</a> said in September that its Siberian helium machine was more than 60% completed, the report said.

The report said US and Qatar at present generate vast amounts of world’s helium but Russia is already self-sufficient, however, the US has exited the business which the NYT report claims would allow Russia to become a major exporter from 2021.

The report claimed that the US holds 2.8 billion cubic feet of helium in an "abandoned gas field outside Amarillo, Texas".

"It has raised worries that Russia could bring to helium the same politically influenced trading practices that worry buyers of Russian natural gas and crude oil," the NYT report said.

There are several uses for liquid helium which is widely used in MRI machines also to propel space rockets including in welding and printing computer chips and is seen as a "critical resource".

The report also mentioned the controversial <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/proposed-us-sanctions-on-nord-stream-2-pipeline-is-unfair-competition-russia-347540">Nord Stream 2 </a>natural gas pipeline linking Russia to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/germany-threatens-to-put-nord-stream-2-project-on-hold-as-russia-fails-to-cooperate-in-navalny-probe-326080">Germany</a> which has been embargoed by the Trump administration with its "complicated mix of politics and economics influences the Kremlin’s decisions."

The Russian media hit out at a report that claimed the country presents a "geopolitical risk of threats to supply" of helium which is "finite resource". Also Read: Russian spies hacked Ukrainian energy firm at center of Trump impeachment The New York Times in its report said that that "Siberia holds some of the largest known untapped reserves of natural gas with high levels of helium, and Russia is preparing for a major leap in production when its new complex of factories comes online next year.

The Russian media hit out at a report that claimed the country presents a "geopolitical risk of threats to supply" of helium which is "finite resource". Also Read: Russian spies hacked Ukrainian energy firm at center of Trump impeachment The New York Times in its report said that that "Siberia holds some of the largest known untapped reserves of natural gas with high levels of helium, and Russia is preparing for a major leap in production when its new complex of factories comes online next year." NYT said that Russia is "well-positioned to supply China and the technology industry on the US West Coast" and the Gazprom the Russian company is "will export canisters of cryogenically cooled liquid helium from the Pacific Ocean port of Vladivostok." The report said after ramping up production by the middle of the decade "Russia expects to produce 25 per cent to 30 per cent of all helium used worldwide without breaking a sweat". Gazprom said in September that its Siberian helium machine was more than 60% completed, the report said. The report said US and Qatar at present generate vast amounts of world’s helium but Russia is already self-sufficient, however, the US has exited the business which the NYT report claims would allow Russia to become a major exporter from 2021. The report claimed that the US holds 2.8 billion cubic feet of helium in an "abandoned gas field outside Amarillo, Texas". "It has raised worries that Russia could bring to helium the same politically influenced trading practices that worry buyers of Russian natural gas and crude oil," the NYT report said. There are several uses for liquid helium which is widely used in MRI machines also to propel space rockets including in welding and printing computer chips and is seen as a "critical resource". The report also mentioned the controversial Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline linking Russia to Germany which has been embargoed by the Trump administration with its "complicated mix of politics and economics influences the Kremlin’s decisions."

Russia's push towards helium could present 'geopolitical risk of threats to supply': Report

In a move to cement energy security, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping launched a natural gas pipeline linking Siberia to northeast China.

"This is a genuinely historic event not only for the global energy market but above all for us, for Russia and China," Putin said via a video link in Sochi.

"This step takes Russo-Chinese strategic cooperation in energy to a qualitative new level and brings us closer to (fulfilling) the task, set together with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, of taking bilateral trade to $200 billion by 2024," the Russian president added.

The new pipeline also called "Power of Siberia" pipeline will start from the Russian border in Heilongjiang and will link China's northeastern province&nbsp;Jilin and Liaoning.

Xi said it was "a landmark project of bilateral energy cooperation" and an "example of deep integration and mutually beneficial cooperation".

Russia is in fact set to boost gas trade by supplying to European countries - its principal market, while trying to set up its gas commerce elsewhere.

In January, Russia and Turkey will launch the TurkStream while Nord Stream-2 will boost gas output with Germany next year.

Ahead of the opening of the Siberia pipeline, Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov had said that the significance of the pipeline was hard to overestimate.

The pipeline will be fully operational in 2025.

Russian giant Gazprom will be supplying China with 38 billion cubic metres of gas annually through "swampy, mountainous, seismically active, permafrost and rocky areas with extreme environmental conditions", the Russian gas company said,&nbsp;with temperatures in the region often falling below 60 degrees Celsius.

Chinese vice foreign minister Le Yucheng said the pipeline would boost cooperation and allow the two countries "to complement each other's strengths and pursue common rejuvenation."

In a move to cement energy security, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping launched a natural gas pipeline linking Siberia to northeast China.

In a move to cement energy security, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping launched a natural gas pipeline linking Siberia to northeast China. "This is a genuinely historic event not only for the global energy market but above all for us, for Russia and China," Putin said via a video link in Sochi. "This step takes Russo-Chinese strategic cooperation in energy to a qualitative new level and brings us closer to (fulfilling) the task, set together with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, of taking bilateral trade to $200 billion by 2024," the Russian president added. The new pipeline also called "Power of Siberia" pipeline will start from the Russian border in Heilongjiang and will link China's northeastern province Jilin and Liaoning. Xi said it was "a landmark project of bilateral energy cooperation" and an "example of deep integration and mutually beneficial cooperation". Russia is in fact set to boost gas trade by supplying to European countries - its principal market, while trying to set up its gas commerce elsewhere. In January, Russia and Turkey will launch the TurkStream while Nord Stream-2 will boost gas output with Germany next year. Ahead of the opening of the Siberia pipeline, Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov had said that the significance of the pipeline was hard to overestimate. The pipeline will be fully operational in 2025. Russian giant Gazprom will be supplying China with 38 billion cubic metres of gas annually through "swampy, mountainous, seismically active, permafrost and rocky areas with extreme environmental conditions", the Russian gas company said, with temperatures in the region often falling below 60 degrees Celsius. Chinese vice foreign minister Le Yucheng said the pipeline would boost cooperation and allow the two countries "to complement each other's strengths and pursue common rejuvenation."

Putin, Xi inaugurate 'Power of Siberia' pipeline to boost energy ties

energy-security

Energy Security, News on Energy Security, stories on Energy Security, articles on Energy Security, Energy Security stories at Wion, Energy Security news, Energy Security latest news