closure

We have been fearing the Apocalypse for 100 days due to the closure of Hormuz. The blow is going to be given to us by a heat wave in China

by

At the end of February, the clocks in the financial markets seemed to stop. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz was not a simple geopolitical skirmish; It meant amputating, from one day to the next, the main energy artery of the planet. Classical economics manuals dictated that the abrupt disappearance of 20% of the world’s crude oil would trigger industrial paralysis, widespread shortages and an imminent recession. However, more than one hundred days after the start of the blockade, Western economies are still standing and the barrel of crude oil, far from reaching the catastrophic 200 dollars that some investment funds even predicted, has been contained below the $100 barrier. We have survived what, on paper, is the greatest threat to energy security in history. The question that now resonates in the European chancelleries is unanimous: how have we achieved it and, above all, how long will the truce last? The architecture of an unexpected rescue The fact that the world has not collapsed is due to a complex network of counterweights that have absorbed the blow. The first revealing data it is provided by the agency Reuters: The production of OPEC countries has fallen this May to its lowest level since 2000 (16.13 million barrels per day) as a direct consequence of the siege of Iran. Despite this massive hole in supply, global supply has been reorganized in record time. The analyst Javier Blas unfolds in his column of Bloomberg the keys to this logistical miracle. The main lifeline, paradoxically, has arrived from Beijing. China has plunged its oil imports by ship to decade lows (nearly 40% less than last year’s average). According to Blas, this unexpected destruction of Asian demand has acted as a huge escape valve: “If Beijing were buying the same amount of oil as in the past, global inflation would be out of control.” Added to Chinese containment is a tectonic shift in energy hegemony. As documented Reutersthe United States has taken advantage of the chaos to become the largest oil exporter in the world, overtaking Russia and Saudi Arabia by shipping nearly 10.5 million barrels per day in May. Furthermore, the Gulf countries have not sat idly by. The producers They are using a network of pipelines less known through Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that circumvent the Hormuz bottleneck, keeping some five million barrels a day alive, in addition to maintaining “hot” extraction infrastructures for an eventual rapid restart. The silent blow The fact that there are no kilometer-long lines at service stations has generated a false sense of immunity. Hormuz’s economic blow is landing, but it is doing so through the financial system. The war conflict has blown up the roadmap by Christine Lagarde and the European Central Bank (ECB), since the sustained rise in fuel prices has caused eurozone inflation to rise to 3.2% in May. Given the fear that this extra cost will permanently spread to the shopping basket, the ECB has been forced to resume raising interest rates this June, placing them at 2.25%. The true price of the Iran war is already being paid by European households and companies through more expensive mortgages and restricted credit. And the scenario continues to be a powder keg: the extreme volatility of the markets after the latest crossed attacks between the United States and Iran, which have kept Brent crude stressed above $95. The Asian thermometer: the great threat to Spain While the global macroeconomy deals with interest rates, at the local level a perfect storm is brewing for the Spanish consumer in the coming months. And the trigger will not be military, but climate. According to the forecasts of the consulting firm Tempos Energía, collected by Europa Pressthe price of electricity in Spain this summer will not depend on what happens in the Strait of Hormuz, but on the temperatures in Asia. Until now, Europe has been importing American liquefied natural gas (LNG) without much competition because China was not demanding it. However, the general director of Tempos Energía, Antonio Aceituno, warns of an imminent reversal: “When the heat arrives and the thermometer soars in Shanghai, American freighters will be divided between demand from Asia and Europe.” If the Asian market absorbs the supply to feed its air conditioning networks, Europe will be left without cheap alternatives to cover its own summer demand peaks, and with tanks at less than half capacity. The consulting firm’s forecast for Spain is severe: if China breaks into the purchasing market, the electricity bill for July and August could rise to the range of 88 to 95 euros per megawatt hour. This represents an increase of up to 40%, which “would be equivalent to paying double what was paid in 2019.” A truce with an expiration date We have managed to avoid the precipice thanks to the inertia of pre-war inventories, a historic deployment of emergency reserves and the forced reconfiguration of the global market. If diplomacy triumphs, Blas explains how the intact infrastructure of the Gulf would allow 50% of production to be recovered in a matter of days. However, trusting economic stability to an imminent diplomatic agreement is a dangerous game. Emergency reserves are not infinite and the capacity to cushion shocks has a limit. The world has shown astonishing resilience in surviving without its main oil route, but the armor is cracking. If the situation continues and summer demand tightens, the apocalypse that we avoided in spring could arrive in the form of unaffordable bills and an induced recession. The Hormuz bill, sooner or later, will have to be paid. Image | Unsplash 1 and 2 Xataka | Ukraine turned drones into hunters. A helicopter shot down in Hormuz has transformed them into a Spielberg film

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz chokes the Chinese economy. Its only energy solution is a historic pact with Putin

by

“一日不见，如隔三秋” (A day without seeing you is like three autumns). Using the Russian translation of this ancient Chinese proverb, President Vladimir Putin wanted to begin his meeting with Xi Jinping. The gesture of extreme closeness was not accidental. Tiananmen Square was dressed up with a 21-gun salute, a military band and dozens of children waving flags to welcome the Russian president. On the face of it, Beijing displayed the same diplomatic theatrics and pageantry it had offered to US President Donald Trump just days earlier, as detailed Bloomberg. However, the background was diametrically opposite: if with Trump the red carpet sought to appease and choreograph stability with a volatile rival, with Putin the authority and support for a cornered partner was staged. The Chinese leader addressed his counterpart as an “old friend,” a term unusually reserved in the Party bureaucracy for highly regarded foreigners. The visit, which marks the 25th anniversary of the signing of the friendship treaty between both countries and represents Putin’s 25th trip to China, represents a vital alliance at the most critical moment of the decade. Behind the walks through the imperial gardens and the closed-door meetings, there is a suffocating urgency. The global board is burning due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz derived from the war between the United States and Iran, a blockade that has cut off Asia’s energy arteries and has turned this summit into a geopolitical lifeline. The Siberian lifeguard. The response to the crisis has a clear name on the agenda of both leaders: the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline. According to the estimatesOnce completed, this colossal 2,600-kilometer-long infrastructure will transport up to 50 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas per year from the Russian Arctic fields of Yamal to northern China, passing through Mongolia. Moscow and Beijing have already reached a “general understanding” on the project, encompassing consensus on the layout and construction methods, as stated Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov told journalists and spokesman Dmitri Peskov confirmed. Additionally, both governments have signed a legally binding supply memorandum to boost construction. But all that glitters is not gold. As newspapers such as he Financial Times and CNBCthe agreement has been stumbling over the same rock for years: the price, financing and delivery schedule. China, aware of its position of strength, demands that the rate for the new gas pipeline be equal to the price of the heavily subsidized Russian domestic market (between $120 and $130 per 1,000 cubic meters), conditions that would drastically reduce the profit margins for the Russian state giant Gazprom. Furthermore, secrecy and caution reign in Beijing: as pointed out Reuterswhen Gazprom announced the memorandum last September, China did not issue any official statement on the matter. And even if the agreement is closed now, Russian salvation will not be immediate; from the research unit of China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) has already has warned that gas projects of this magnitude require at least eight to ten years for their construction. The Hormuz factor: a geopolitical accelerator. If the gas pipeline had been on the drawing board for years, the Third Gulf War has stepped on the accelerator. The de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused a real cataclysm in the Indo-Pacific region. This maritime blockade has suddenly interrupted the arrival of half of China’s oil imports and almost a third of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply. The consequences they have been immediate: The Asian giant has already reported a rebound in inflation and an abrupt weakening of its domestic economic activity during the month of April. Faced with maritime vulnerability, securing a land supply route is vital for Beijing’s survival. As experts in German Welleinstability in the Gulf has triggered China’s desire for a pipelined energy flow that is immune to Western sanctions or American naval blockades. Still, China faces this crisis with homework done. Far from improvising, Beijing took advantage of the previous years to buy heavily sanctioned crude oil from countries such as Russia, Venezuela and Iran. Thanks to this, China today has colossal strategic reserves, also supported by a fleet of Iranian oil tankers that function as a floating warehouse off its coasts. A deeply strained and asymmetrical relationship. Although official statements speak of “mutual respect” and a “limitless” partnership, economic reality depicts a deeply unequal relationship. President Putin himself has declared that Russia and China want to be equal partners, but the gap is evident: the Chinese economy is almost eight times larger and much more technologically advanced. Without China’s money and technology, the very survival of the Russian regime would be in question. The data is devastating. According to him Financial TimesRussia has suffered a 38% year-on-year drop in its energy export revenues. To survive Western isolation, Moscow has turned China into its lifeline. At the end of last year, more than 99% of bilateral trade was settled in rubles and yuan to circumvent the SWIFT system, and Beijing currently supplies 90% of imports of sanctioned Russian technology, including semiconductors, microelectronics and dual-use goods, essential for its war machine. For his part, Xi Jinping carries out a delicate diplomatic balancing act. His meeting with Putin comes just days after his summit with Donald Trump. This synchronicity allows Russia a key tactical move: as reported EuronewsPutin’s trip serves to receive direct information and exchange views with Beijing on recent negotiations with Washington. Simultaneously, China does not hesitate to invoke its “Blocking Rules” to order its domestic refiners to ignore US sanctions and continue buying Iranian crude. But at the same time, as the newspaper highlights Asahi Shimbunthe Chinese Ministry of Commerce confirmed the purchase of 200 Boeing aircraft just after Trump’s visit, in a clear gesture to stabilize its economic ties with the West. A new world epicenter. The current crisis and the negotiations in Beijing certify an irreversible paradigm shift. The entry into operation of “Power of Siberia 2” is not just a commercial agreement, it is the chronicle of an announced breakup. … Read more

We know that all things are in crisis due to the closure of Hormuz, but the aluminum thing is truly worrying

by

The world economy has come face to face with a scenario that no one wanted to foresee. The global aluminum market is facing what analysts and experts already classify as a “black swan” event. The Third Gulf War has caused a drastic closure in shipping routes, triggering a supply crisis of historic proportions. An unprecedented crisis. “The magnitude of the supply crisis that we are seeing in the aluminum market is probably the largest single supply crisis that a base metals market has suffered in the post-2000 era,” Nick Snowdon, head of metals and mining research at the trading firm Mercuria, summarized it forcefully. in statements collected by the agency Reuters. And the numbers support the alarm: the Persian Gulf region has a smelting capacity of 7 million metric tons annually. That is, almost 9% of this year’s global supply is at the epicenter of a war conflict. A logistical bottleneck. The implications of this blockage go far beyond financial speculation, as aluminum is the backbone of vital industries such as transportation, construction and packaging. Natalie Scott-Gray, Senior Metals Demand Analyst in StoneXfocuses on logistical asphyxiation. According to the expert, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz does not have an easy solution, since “there are no other maritime routes that have a similar capacity.” This disruption, Scott-Gray explains, has the potential to eliminate up to 50% of the Middle East’s aluminum supply, equivalent to a direct 5% hit to global production. In Europe, the impact has already jumped from offices to factories. According to the specialized portal Miningconsumers in the construction and transportation sector are being squeezed. In Rotterdam, the physical premium (the extra cost paid above the market price to ensure delivery) for aluminum extrusion ingots has more than doubled since the start of the war, rising from $530 to $1,100 per metric ton. And the perfect storm arrives. The market has reacted with panic. According to data from Reutersfear of shortages triggered prices on the London Metal Exchange (LME) to a four-year high, reaching $3,672 per ton in mid-April. Since the start of hostilities, the reference price has risen by 14%, how it complements Financial Times. What follows this crisis is an imminent structural deficit. Mercuria estimates that the market will face a minimum deficit of 2 million tons by the end of the year, an alarming figure if we consider that visible global inventories are barely around one and a half million tons. The West is particularly vulnerable. The United States imported almost 22% of its aluminum from the Middle East last year, while Europe relied on the region for 18.5% of its imports. Safety nets are failing: Emirates Global Aluminum (EGA) has been forced to declare status of “force majeure” in several European contracts after suffering an Iranian attack on its foundry in the United Arab Emirates. Simultaneously, Kubal, the only Swedish foundry (owned by the Russian Rusal), has mysteriously stopped its deliveries in Europefurther straining short-term availability. The “kings” of chaos. This aluminum shock does not occur in a vacuum; It is the symptom of a greater illness. Daniel Yergin, vice president of S&P Global, warned in Bloomberg that we are facing “the biggest energy disruption we have ever seen.” The impact transcends oil, affecting natural gas, fertilizers and metals. Aluminum production is extremely energy intensive, so rising fuel prices are driving up the costs of foundries around the world. However, in a troubled river, fishermen gain. While manufacturers suffer, the giants of commodity trading are making a move. He Financial Times reveals that the Swiss firm Mercuria has begun aggressive expansion, investing more than $3 billion in base metals. In a strategic shift, they have gone from simply financing shipments to purchasing real assets, acquiring 25% of an aluminum smelter in Indonesia. “We have both the appetite and the capacity to do more,” he assured the British newspaper Kostas Bintashead of metals at Mercuria, confirming that the company is firmly committed to this metal in the midst of the chaos. The clock is ticking. The current crisis has mutated, In the words of Yergin to Bloombergin a clash between two blockades: American economic pressure versus Tehran’s ability to “wage war on the world economy”. The paradox is that this energy and logistics bottleneck will end up accelerating the transition to electric vehicles and will force countries to redesign their energy security. But in the short term, reality is stubborn. As the analysis concludes ReutersMiddle Eastern aluminum simply cannot be replaced overnight. China, the world’s largest producer, has a strict legal annual production limit of 45 million tonnes, and neither the United States nor Europe have enough idle capacity they can turn on to salvage the situation. The “black swan” has landed, and the global industry will have to learn to survive in a scenario where aluminum, once abundant, has become a treasure caught in the crossfire. Image | Magnificent Xataka | Iran has pulled out a “trick” to sell to China while avoiding the US: turning the ocean into its secret gas station

The closure of Hormuz is the symptom of a much more threatening problem: the straits are no longer reliable

by

The world watches the Strait of Hormuz waiting for a sign of normality that does not come. After weeks of conflict, the official “reopening” narrative faces a devastating mathematical and logistical reality. What we are witnessing is not a temporary blip in trade, but, as experts warnthe confirmation that the system of “bottlenecks” that supported the global economy has been definitively broken. At first glance, the news of a ceasefire and the “reopening” of Hormuz should have reassured the markets. However, the reality on the ground is very different. Cyril Widdershoven, analyst OilPricedescribes this supposed normality as a “mirage.” While under normal conditions the strait registers between 120 and 140 daily transits, data from April 2026 show days with just three boats. Why don’t we see the total disaster on our streets yet? The answer lies in the physics of shipping. As we have already explaineda supertanker moves at the speed of a bicycle. The crude oil we consume today is the one that “pedaled” through the ocean before the conflict broke out. According to the data of Kpler206 million barrels have already “vanished” from the market in just 40 days. Logistical inertia has kept us in a false calm, but the shock wave is about to reach us. The report of Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)titled “The Strait of Hormuz in 8 Charts“, confirms that the strait has been “effectively closed” since March 2. Although Tehran announced an opening on April 17, the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) turned back just 24 hours later, threatening to attack any ship that collaborates with “the enemy.” In Xataka It is true that we have not yet noticed 100% the effect of the closure of Hormuz. The reasons are not at all optimistic The end of trust and the petrodollar What makes this crisis different from Suez is the trust factor. Analyst Widdershoven points out that the system It is not broken by geography, but by the perception of risk. When insurers withdraw “war risk” coverage, the strait ceases to exist economically, even though it is physically open. But the impact goes beyond the price of gasoline. Aaron Brown, in Bloombergissues a historic warning: “The war in Iran has just broken the petrodollar.” The 1974 pact, where the US guaranteed security in the Gulf in exchange for oil being sold in dollars and that money being reinvested in US debt, has collapsed. Countries like India or Türkiye are selling their US Treasury bonds to obtain liquidity and pay for increasingly expensive crude oil. For the first time in decades, central banks hold more gold than US bonds. Even if full peace were signed tomorrow, a return to normality is a technical chimera. Jacob Judah, in Financial Timesdescribes a “demining nightmare.” Iran has seeded the strait with sophisticated mines that can be camouflaged as rocks or buried in the seabed. Clearing a safe lane just a mile wide could take weeks; clear the strait completely, months. And, as Judah points out, the US Navy has neglected its mine warfare capability for decades. On the other hand, the recovery capacity of inventories is discouraging. Fatih Birol, director of the IEA, has declared to Reuters that this crisis is “more serious than those of 1973, 1979 and 2022 combined.” The IEA report from April estimates the collapse of global supply at 10.1 million of barrels daily. However, even producing an extra million barrels a day, it will take the world two years to recover pre-conflict inventory levels. Terrestrial alternatives are not the solution either. According to Holly Ellyatt for the CNBCthe pipelines that cross Saudi Arabia (East-West) and the UAE (Fujairah) only have the capacity to absorb between 3.5 and 5.5 million barrels per day, a fraction of the 20 million that normally flow through Hormuz. Behind the barrel numbers there is an invisible human drama. Wired tells the situation of 20,000 sailors trapped in the Gulf. Stories like that of PK Vijay, an Indian sailor on an abandoned ship, show how the complexity of maritime registration leaves workers in legal limbo, without pay and without the possibility of disembarking in a war zone. On a legal level, the situation is just as swampy. As the West condemns Iran, Maryam Jamshidi in The Nation argues that, technically, the US and Israel are the ones who have violated international law with their “war of aggression.” Iran, having not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), has a legal basis to regulate passage through its territorial waters and collect tolls, something that Western powers describe as “economic hostage-taking.” {“videoId”:”x8j6422″,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”Declassified video of the clash between Russian fighters and the American drone”, “tag”:”united states”, “duration”:”42″} Suez was the warning, but Hormuz is confirmation that the era of just-in-time logistics and cheap, frictionless energy is over. The global economy has discovered, in the worst possible way, that its heart continues to beat to the rhythm of slow ships. As the analysis concludes OilPriceHormuz is no longer just a step; It is a tectonic fault. The world that emerges from this crisis will be one of “resilience over efficiency”, where trade will be more regional, more redundant and, inevitably, much more expensive. The price of security has become permanently embedded in the price of oil, and with it, the future of the world economy. Image |NASA GSFC Xataka |The US resurrected the “right of prey” to capture a ship from China: the problem is that China has taken note (function() { window._JS_MODULES = window._JS_MODULES || {}; var headElement = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)(0); if (_JS_MODULES.instagram) { var instagramScript = document.createElement(‘script’); instagramScript.src=”https://platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js”; instagramScript.async = true; instagramScript.defer = true; headElement.appendChild(instagramScript); – The news The closure of Hormuz is the symptom of a much more threatening problem: the straits are no longer reliable was originally published in Xataka by Alba Otero .

Delaying the closure of a single plant forces us to redesign the entire energy map of Spain

by

Right in the middle of a relentless political and business battle to extend the life of the Spanish atomic park, the harsh reality of the market has imposed itself. While top executives discuss the long-term future, the present has hit the table: the owner of the Almaraz II nuclear power plant notified the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN) of an unscheduled shutdown of its reactor and its decoupling from the electrical grid. The alarms did not go off due to a security problem. In fact, the incident was classified as level 0 (no significance for security) on the international INES scale, to which we have had access. The real reason was purely economic and motivated by causes related to the electricity market. As explained The Extremadura Newspaper, The recent succession of storms triggered renewable production —sinking electricity prices— which, added to an “unaffordable tax burden” that represents more than 75% of its variable costs, made it completely unfeasible to keep the reactor on. The recent pulse: from disconnection to extension This disconnection collides head-on with the intense corporate movements of recent weeks. At the end of October, Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy presented to the Executive a formal request to postpone until June 2030 the closure of Almaraz, whose two reactors were scheduled to be disconnected for 2027 and 2028. But the ambition of the sector does not stop in Cáceres. According to Five Daysthe president of Iberdrola, Ignacio Sánchez Galán, has confirmed that they will request the expansion of other plants in the future, ensuring that “most of them can reach 60 and even 80 years.” This position is supported by technical and logistical arguments from the industry. As detailed in The Economistthe CEO of Endesa, José Bogas, aspires to prolong “in round numbers about 10 more years” the entire Spanish nuclear park. Bogas argues that it does not make logistical sense to proceed with the complex dismantling of two groups of the same plant on different dates (2027 and 2028). Meanwhile, the CSN is already analyzing the documentation to issue its mandatory report, foreseeably in summer, as reported in a press release from the regulator itself. The possible extension of Almaraz has opened a huge gap between two irreconcilable visions of the energy transition. In the block of those who defend extending atomic life, economic and labor arguments set the pace. According to the statements of Ignacio Sánchez Galán collected by Vozpópulinuclear power plants are a key element in reducing the price of electricity. In fact, the president of Iberdrola recalls that European countries that lack this type of energy, such as Italy and Germany, pay “about 20 euros more” per megawatt hour for electricity compared to Spain and France. Added to this defense of competitiveness is the warning about the direct impact on the final consumer’s pocket. A recent report from the OBS Business School alert that if Almaraz closesthe inevitable dependence on gas would increase the electricity bill by around 23% for households – between 150 and 250 euros more per year – and up to 35% for industry. Beyond the receipt, there is the territorial factor. The College of Industrial Engineers, in statements to The Energy Newspaperremember that this plant not only generates 7% of the electricity in all of Spain, complying with the highest international safety standards (WANO 1), but is also a vital economic engine to sustain 4,000 direct and indirect jobs that stop depopulation in the region. However, against this position stands a solid wall of detractors who see the extension as an imminent danger for the green transition. A joint investigation by the Rey Juan Carlos University (URJC) and the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC), prepared on behalf of Greenpeaceconcludes that extending Almaraz for just three years would mean “momentary relief, structural damage.” Researchers calculate that this decision would cost consumers a cumulative extra cost of 3,831 million euros between now and 2033 and would stop up to 26,129 million euros in investments destined for new clean energies. From Greenpeace they also point to the so-called “plug effect”: since nuclear is an inflexible technology that produces fixed gear regardless of demand, it often forces us to disconnect or waste renewable energy—free and clean—in times of high sun or wind. This situation generates a climate of enormous concern in the green sector. In an interview with InfoLibrePedro Fresco, general director of the Valencian renewable employer association Avaesen, warns that granting a “mini-extension” of three years would be the worst possible scenario. In his opinion, this movement would send a message of total uncertainty to investors, threatening to stop the development of future renewable projects in its tracks. The “Domino Effect”: rewriting the energy map The true background of this battle is that Almaraz is not an isolated piece. As several experts warn he Vigo Lighthouse and andl Newspaper of Extremaduradelaying the closure of the Cáceres plant would unleash an unstoppable “domino effect” throughout the national territory. If Almaraz is delayed to 2030, its closure would coincide in time with that of Ascó I (Tarragona) and Cofrentes (Valencia). The electricity companies assume that the Government would also have to postpone these closures to avoid overlapping the gigantic and complex work of dismantling four reactors simultaneously. This would also force the closures of Ascó II, Vandellós II and Trillo to be pushed well beyond 2035, blowing up the current National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC). The final decision is in the hands of the Executive, which for the moment maintains its position. The Government has marked three non-negotiable red lines to accept any change: that it guarantees radiological safety, security of supply and, above all, that it does not cost consumers an extra euro or imply tax reductions for electricity companies. And this is where the circle closes. As Galán insists on Vozpópulithe plants bear an enormous tax burden of “30-35 euros per megawatt hour.” Without a tax reduction, electricity companies threaten economic viability; but without profitability, it is the market itself that, as … Read more

The closure of QatarEnergy shoots up the price by 45%, reviving fears of 2022

by

Just when Europe breathed a sigh of relief, convinced of having stabilized its energy supply after the traumatic cut of ties with Putin’s Russia, the specter of the 2022 crisis has materialized again. A new “Black Monday” has shaken international markets, but this time the epicenter is not in Eastern Europe, but in the waters of the Persian Gulf. An unprecedented escalation of war in the Middle East has culminated with the temporary closure of the largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) export plant in the world. Europe reaches this moment in a position of vulnerability, since the gas market has mutated: it has ceased to be a simple raw material and has become a “high-speed financial asset” dominated by volatility. Added to this is that the continent has changed its dependency of Russian gas pipelines by methane tankers from the US and Qatar, today facing unusually low gas stores. The spark that set the markets on fire jumped on March 2, 2026. The state-owned company QatarEnergy issued a statement announcing the cessation of production of LNG and associated products after suffering military attacks on its strategic facilities in Ras Laffan and the industrial city of Mesaieed. According to the Qatari Ministry of Defense collected by Al Jazeerathe country was attacked by drones launched from Iran. One hit a water tank in Mesaieed and another hit an energy facility in Ras Laffan. Although the toll is about 20 injured and “minimal damage” after a rain of dozens of drones and missiles against the country, the decision to paralyze operations in Ras Laffan – which manages a capacity of 77 million tons per year—has been devastating. The chaos, however, not limited to Qatar. We are facing a regional domino effect. Saudi Arabia has been forced to temporarily close units of its giant Ras Tanura refinery after Iranian drones were intercepted. In parallel, Iraq has stopped the flow of a key pipeline to Türkiye for security reasons, and the Israeli government has ordered Chevron to halt production from its huge Leviathan gas field. The energy system faces a logistical problem There are some 150 ships paralyzed in the areawhich means an effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuzthe bottleneck through which a fifth of the world’s maritime oil and gas trade transits. The situation is so serious that, according to the Financial Timeshalf of the world’s largest marine insurers will suspend their war risk coverage in the area, completely deterring cargo ships. But the paralysis of QatarEnergy has a deeper reading. For geopolitical analyst Bachar El-Halabi, consulted through their social networksthis is not just a supply shock, but a clever maneuver. By stopping production, Doha internationalizes the conflict: sends the message that it will not be a simple passive game board and puts the pressure directly on its partners in Washington, Europe and Asia. The macroeconomic impact is already visible. From the British environment They point to widespread falls in the stock markets -with the Stoxx Europe 600 losing almost 2%— and a flight of investors towards gold. As stated by Simone Tagliapietra, analyst at the Bruegel think tank cited by Bloomberg: “The threat to security of supply is immediate (…) we are facing a new scenario.” So, is the price of gas going to rise? The market’s immediate reaction has been one of true panic. The reference gas contract in Europe (Dutch TTF) recorded intraday increases of more than 50%. According to data collected by The Economistthe megawatt hour jumped sharply from below 40 euros up to touching 47.5 euros. At the same time, Brent oil rose 9%, hovering around $80 per barrel. The European citizen might ask: “If only 10% of the LNG that reaches Europe passes through the Strait of Hormuz, why does it affect us so much?” The energy expert Joaquín Coronado sums it up perfectly: Gas markets do not operate based on isolated physical volumes, but rather based on global prices. If Asia suddenly loses the Qatari tap, it will compete fiercely with checkbook against Europe for shipments from the United States or Africa. In fact, Coronado warns that the consulting firm ICIS projects that a closure 90 days in Hormuz would raise the TTF up to €92/MWh. However, in the midst of the noise, analytical voices ask for calm. The columnist of Bloomberg Javier Blas he remembered on his social networkssupported by the economic journalist Miquel Roig, who although a 45% rise is scary in the headlines, the current ones €46/MWh They are nothing compared to the absolute record of €345/MWh in the summer of 2022. As Blas states: “As always, putting the wide angle lens on helps.” Although we are far from historical highs, the current situation finds Europe unprotected. Joaquin Coronado provides worrying information: European gas storages are at 30%7.5 points below the 2025 level. In Xataka we explain it with the phenomenon of backwardation: since gas in the future was cheaper than current gas, it was not worth it for companies to fill their warehouses. This price spike has direct and immediate consequences. Crowned already advance that the price of electricity in the Spanish wholesale market (OMIE) will reach €106.6/MWh in tomorrow’s peak hours. For intensive industries (such as chemicals, fertilizers or ceramics), the profitability threshold usually is among the 50 and 60 €/MWh. If prices stagnate there, we could see a new wave of factory closures and a rebound in inflation. On this board, Spain lives its own paradox. Although it has regasification plants and ships on its coasts, it functions as an “energy island.” Our country lacks sufficient interconnections (pipes through the Pyrenees) to pump all that gas to Germany or Central Europe, preventing Spain from serving as a total lifeline for the continent. The closure of the QatarEnergy plant serves as a stark reminder of current energy geopolitics. Europe believed it had shielded its system by becoming independent of piped gas from Russia, but it simply has replaced one vulnerability with another: dependence on sea routes and American and Qatari … Read more

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz already points to gasoline at two euros/liter

by

Unpredictable, unexpected and extreme impact. There are three characteristics that define what Nassim TalebLebanese philosopher, mathematician and essayist, pointed out to explain the “black swan theory”. With it he tries to explain what position to take in the face of such an inexplicable event of which we cannot understand its consequences. The theory takes its cue from the poet Juvenal, who once spoke of “a rare bird on earth, and very similar to a black swan“, a phrase that makes it clear that there was a time when it was believed that the swan, invariably, must be white because a black one had never been discovered. The phrase, in fact, was popular in England centuries ago. For Western Europe, swans were white. Spot. But a Dutch expedition at the end of the 17th century in Australia found that the black swan did indeed exist, which forever changed the knowledge we had on this subject. It was an unexpected, unpredictable event whose impact was extreme in its branch. Nacho Rabadán, general director of CEEES (Spanish Confederation of Service Station Employers), the most representative association of the sector, rescues this theory to point out what can happen with a constant block of the Strait of Hormuz. “Whenever there are problems in the Middle East, there is speculation about a possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz and whenever that possibility is on the table, the price of oil rises. If Hormuz were really closed, we would be talking about a black swan, there would be an immediate and violent reaction in the price of oil and we would be in a scenario similar to that of the spring of 2022 with the invasion of Ukraine,” Rabadán explains to ABC. Gasoline at two euros/liter If the prices of the first days of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine are reached, we would be talking about gasoline at a sustained price of between 1.80 and 2.00 euros/liter. At that time, Europe got to work to contain the impact on homes, mitigated in our country with one of subsidy of 20 cents/liter that did not end up stopping the rise in price and which, in fact, came to be used as means to attract clients according to the CNMC. Those days when OPEC maneuvered to keep the price of oil above $80/barrel seems far away. It even reached $130/barrel. But now they seem more alive than ever. The Strait of Hormuz is a key passage for energy for much of the world. It is an enclave of high tension, where the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf narrow to leave just a passage of between 60 and 100 kilometers for ships loaded with oil. For Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, controlling the passage of ships is key. since two weeksthe traffic is committed and with the attack by the United States and Israel on Iranand the country’s response to neighboring countries with US bases, the closure seems confirmed. A closure that has caught some 240 ships stopped in the middle of a historic traffic jam. Of them, Bloomberg The number of detained ships loaded with the precious commodity is estimated at 40 supertankers. The impact on the oil futures market was immediate once the attack became known but, for now, the price per barrel is close to 73 euros/unit (a few days ago it was around 65 dollars/barrel). The impact should be felt in the coming days if the fight becomes entrenched and Hormuz remains closed. For now, the price of gasoline has already risen slightly but the figures we find at the pumps will be, in the opinion of analystsmuch lower than we can expect in a few days. With the Ukrainian War and the Russia’s exit from the market (legal) of fuel, the price of gasoline shot up to 2.15 euros/liter and diesel to 2.10 euros/liter. The fear, of course, is not that only the price of fuel will skyrocket. Increasing its price impacts a general rise in prices since transportation is much more expensive. In fact, indirectly, not only the closure of Hormuz to the passage of oil can make products more expensive. Have to border the entire African coast to reach Europe to avoid attacks by some and others would raise the final bill. Both because of the extra fuel spent and the higher cost of keeping a ship traveling for more than 10 days, which extends the route in traffic between Asia and Europe. Photo | Marek Studzinski and Glenn Fawcett, Gieling, Rob In Xataka | Spain was supposed to raise diesel in 2026. It was supposed

a bizarre vote in Congress leaves the closure intact

by

What started as a political maneuver by the Popular Party to open the door to prolonging the life of Spanish nuclear power plants ended up becoming one of the tightest and most surprising votes of the legislature. The amendment that sought to suppress the closing dates of Almaraz, Ascó and Cofrentes was rejected by a single vote, a minimal difference that was only possible thanks to the – unexpected – abstention of Junts. The result was 171 votes in favor – PP, Vox and UPN -, 171 against and seven abstentions from Junts, who shot down the proposal. The Government breathed a sigh of relief, although the underlying debate—what to do with nuclear energy at the height of electricity demand—remains more open than ever. Congress stops the PP nuclear amendment. The amendment introduced by the PP in the Sustainable Mobility Law It intended to eliminate from the ministerial orders the dates for the definitive cessation of operation of the Almaraz, Ascó and Cofrentes plants. With this, the popular parties sought to open the door to possible extensions, especially at a time when the owners of Almaraz They have already formally requested extend its useful life until 2030. According to El PaísJunts left the vote in suspense until the last moment, leaving it unclear whether they would vote with the PP and Vox or support the Government. His abstention finally tipped the balance. The movement was even surprising due to the political context: it came just 24 hours after a tough confrontation between Míriam Nogueras and Pedro Sánchez, in which the Junts spokesperson accused the president of being “cynical and hypocritical.” However, in the vote the strategy was different because Catalonia consumes more electricity from nuclear origin than any other community. What does this rejection really mean? Although politically the vote had a huge impact, technically things remain more or less the same. The amendment would not have automatically extended the life of the plants, but it would have modified ministerial orders without requiring the report of the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN), a mandatory requirement by law. Besides, They remembered a precedent: In 2012, the PP itself demanded this report when it reopened the discussion on the Garoña plant. The tension was amplified because the debate had no direct relationship with the Mobility Law, a regulation linked to the receipt of 10,000 million euros of European funds, as various media emphasize. The PP amendment thus introduced an energy element in a text on sustainable mobility, which increased unrest among the Government’s partners. So, is the nuclear shutdown schedule still valid? Yes. With the fall of the amendment, the calendar agreed in 2019 between the Government, Enresa and the electricity companies remains intact. The calendar, as we have already explainedit looks like this: Almaraz I: closure in 2027 Almaraz II: 2028 Chests: 2030 Ascó I and II: between 2030 and 2032 Vandellós II and Trillo: until 2035 However, the fact that the calendar is still standing does not mean that an extension is ruled out. Contrary to what it may seem, the rejection of the amendment does not prevent companies from requesting an extension nor does it block the Government from authorizing it. As the Executive himself recalled —as cited by El País—: “The right to request an extension is not created by a ministerial order, but by current regulations.” In fact, as mentioned above, Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy have already formally requested that Almaraz remains operational until 2030. Administrative clash. The real problem is technical and bureaucratic. According to The Independentthe bureaucratic procedure has been crossed unexpectedly: the CSN can take up to a year to issue its report, but the regulations force the plant to request closure in March 2026, if the calendar is not reviewed before. That means Almaraz could be asking to close while the CSN evaluates whether it can continue operating. A scenario that no one thought of in 2019 and that adds more uncertainty to the nuclear transition. Everything that nuclear encompasses. Added to this is the Government’s position. The Minister for the Ecological Transition, Sara Aagesen, has reiterated on several occasions the three red lines of the Executive, that the expansion does not entail costs for citizens, guarantee of nuclear safety and security of supply. However, these three conditions clash precisely with the diagnosis that they make the electric ones: operating the plants beyond 2027 with the current tax burden is economically unviable if the market does not exceed €65-70/MWh. The expected prices are around 55, so Iberdrola and Endesa insist that keeping the nuclear park open requires alleviating taxes that, according to the Ministry, would end up having an impact on consumers’ bills. The economic debate does not end there. Enresa’s fund for the dismantling of the plants only covers 43% of the real cost. According to figures that we have had access to in Xatakathere is a hole of 11.6 billion euros not yet financed, a fact that overrides any discussion about deadlines and extensions Can Spain do without nuclear power? The underlying issue is no longer political, but technical. Spain wants to build a 100% renewable system, but it has yet to be demonstrated that the network can sustain that model without the stability that nuclear energy provides. The new digital systems that must replace inertia of the reactors are still in the testing phase, and the CNMC has detected inconsistencies in the frequency and voltage control procedures. In parallel, regions with strong industrial and digital growth—such as Aragon, which is experiencing a data center boom—warn that the network is practically at the limit. Simply put: companies ask for time; The territories ask for certainties; The Government asks for guarantees. An official closure, but an open debate. Congress has closed the door to the PP’s fast track, but it has not closed the nuclear debate. On paper, the calendar remains intact; In practice, the transition coexists with technical tensions, industrial interests and territories that fear what will come next. The question … Read more

Citizens were not supposed to pay the closure of the nuclear, but there is already a hole of 11,600 euros on the bill

by

Closing nuclear is not just a political decision, but also an economic problem. The dismantling bill and radioactive waste already exceeds 20.3 billion euros, and the debate between electric and government has only started. An invoice that does not stop growing. According to Enresa’s memorythe public company in charge of dismantling, the total expected cost already reaches 20,367 million euros. The majority corresponds to the dismantling of the reactors, with 17,520.5 million, while waste management and spent fuel, the so -called “electric rate”, adds 2,846.8 million. The rest of the activities, such as the management of the enusa fuel factory in Salamanca, complete the invoice. The fund that finances these operations, nourished with contributions from the electricity, accumulated 8,677 million at the end of 2024, after the 30% rise in the valuation rate since July of last year. This means that it only covers 43% of the planned cost, leaving in the air a gap of 11,690 million euros still to finance. The plan that changed everything. The 7th General Radioactive Waste Plan (PGRR), Approved at the end of 2023was a change of stage by definitely abandoning the centralized temporary warehouse project (ATC) in Villar de Cañas. Instead, waste has been chosen in independent temporary stores (ATI) located in each central, waiting for deep geological storage (AGP) that should be ready in 2072. The PGRR extends the forecasts up to 2100 and delays the total closure of the nuclear park until 2035with Trillo and Vandellós II as the latest plants in going out. To this is added the legal obligation to annually review the forecasts, which adjusts the costs to inflation and the new technical conditions. Electric against rates. The companies, headed by Iberdrola and Endesa, say that operating under this cost scheme is unfeasible. Both have presented resources in the courts against the increase of 30% of the Enresa rate and have claimed millionaire compensation. Besides, They have requested that the closing calendar be reopenedarguing that prolonging the useful life of the reactors would relieve pressure on the electrical system. According to a report by the consultant EY cited by Nuclear ForumSpain supports the highest nuclear fiscal burden in Europe, with 27.3 euros per megavatio hour in specific encumbrances, which in the opinion of companies places them at a clear disadvantage against other countries. The red line of the government. The Executive maintains its position: the costs of dismantling and management of waste will not fall on consumers. The minister for ecological transition, Sara Aagesen, has responded to electricity with three conditions for any extension of the nuclear park: that does not involve additional costs for citizens, that supply security is guaranteed and that plants strictly comply With the standards of the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN). The Government insists that there are no formal negotiations to extend the lives of the centrals and accuses companies to try to transfer their invoice to the whole citizenship. The Secretary of State for Energy, Joan Groizard, summarized the position In statements collected by eldiario.es: “They want part of the dismantling costs to be paid among all, and we will not transfer it to the whole citizenship.” Forecasts and uncertainties. Costs can continue to grow. The French case is a notice as they have advanced at eldiario.es: The Andra agency reviewed in 2025 the cost of the AGP Cigéo between 26,100 and 37,500 million, an increase of up to 60% compared to 2016. In Spain they have prepared The 9th R&D Plan (2024-2028) of Enresa It includes 31 million in research to develop containers, confinement materials and recover fuel. A modest figure compared to billions at stake, but key to preparing the future AGP of 2072 and reducing long -term risks. In addition, Spain faces this solo calendar within Europe. While France, Sweden or Switzerland choose to expand the life of their reactors or even promote new projects, the Spanish PGRR maintains a plan of Progressive closure without planned extensions. A debate that goes beyond closing. The balance of the electrical system is also present. This summer a paradox has been evidenced: historical record of solar production in Europe, but invoices fired by the lack of storage and the need to resort to gas in night hours. In that hole is where the nuclear has played so far a stable backup role, but does not solve that background problem: it only postpones the closure, it makes the costs more expensive and aggravates the inheritance of waste. The dilemma is clear: can you do without it before the network is prepared to guarantee the same stability without firing the price of light? For the Government, the response is to accelerate renewables, storage and interconnections. For electricity, to keep the nuclear live longer. Image | Unspash Xataka | The largest nuclear fusion project on the planet has survived the setbacks. This is the date on which Iter should be ready

Spain thought its position regarding the closure of nuclear. That has just changed

by

The debate on a possible extension of nuclear plants has returned to the scene and has turned on the media focus. The electricity insists on lengthening their operation beyond the expected, but the executive denies that formal negotiations are being maintained and refers to the conditions that already set as essential. A letter and three conditions. Iberdrola and Endesa sent a joint letter to the government will make more or less a month. In it, they proposed to reopen the debate on the progressive closure of the nuclear park – which contemplates the shutdown of the Seven reactors between 2027 and 2035– With the argument that maintaining operational some centrals would reduce the cost of electricity for consumers. According to the countrythe Government responded by another letter signed by the Ecological Transition Minister, Sara Aagesen, opening to assess the proposal under three immovable conditions: that there is no additional cost for citizens, that the security of the supply is guaranteed and that the plants comply with the standards of the Nuclear Safety Council. So far they “dialogue.” According to eldiario.esthe government considers the letter of electricity as a declaration of intentions, not a formal request. In addition, Naturgy and EDP – also minority owners of some plants – did not sign the document, which leaves Iberdrola and Endesa alone. The debate intensifies. The situation is complex for a primary reason that is not technical, but the economic viability of nuclear. As the confidential explainedelectricity consider that operating with the current fiscal charge is unfeasible if the market price does not exceed € 65-70/MWh. In contrast, projected prices are around € 55/MWh by 2030. In this context, the Endesa CEO, José Bogas, raises the government a fiscal reduction, especially autonomic taxes (such as the one already eliminated in the Valencian Community) and the Enresa rate, which finances the dismantling of the centrals and waste management. However, according to the miteco, this fiscal reduction would involve damage to citizens, and therefore clashes frontally with their red lines. Almaraz, the first thermometer. The immediate focus is at the Almaraz nuclear power plant (Cáceres), whose first reactor must close in November 2027 and the second in October 2028. Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy – his three owners – have not yet met to approve the necessary investments that would allow their operation beyond those dates. The meeting scheduled for June has not been held, and sector sources admit that it will not occur before September. Meanwhile, companies prepare a new proposal that, According to El Confidencialcould be presented after summer at a meeting not yet confirmed with Minister Aagesen. The plan would be to offer a tax reduction in exchange for prolonging the activity of some centrals until 2030. However, the Ministry insists: if the conditions do not change, there will be no negotiation. A hot topic in Congress. The debate is more than served from the political field. On the one hand, the Popular Party preparing one Law proposition to extend the life of nuclear. The proposal would have the support of several regional governments of the PP – as Extremadura and Community Valencian – and the parliamentary support of Junts and ERC, which have shown flexibility in Congress in relation to the revision of the nuclear calendar. However, the government has reaffirmed its position. As El Confidencial recalledPresident Pedro Sánchez was bluntly in Congress last May, accusing PP and Vox of acting as “amateur lobists” of the electric. “If companies want to keep the centrals open, they pay them, not the citizens,” he settled. Facing an ambivalent European framework. In addition, the legal position of nuclear energy in the EU adds complexity, since European regulations do not consider nuclear energy as a renewable source. This is established by Directive 2018/2001 (Red II), a vision that has also adopted Spanish legislation. However, in 2022, the European Commission took a partial turn by including this technology, under certain conditions, In the so -called “green taxonomy”next to the natural gas. This classification allows certain nuclear investments to be labeled as sustainable from the climate point of view. As Miguel Huarte expanded has indicatedthis places the nuclear in a normative gray area: it is not renewable, but free of emission in its operation. And while France or Belgium have already chosen to extend their atomic parks, Spain maintains the opposite course. Accelerating another route. At the same time, the miteco has processed this July 31 a new Royal Decree by urgent route to reinforce the electrical system. As you have indicated in a press releaseit is a technical standard that does not directly address the nuclear calendar, but it does signal to a reinforcement of the electrical system by means of supervision, electrification of the demand and promotion of energy storage. Among other measures, the proposal increases the technical control of Electricity and CNMC, promotes renewable hybridization with storage systems and limits speculation on connection points. Although the text does not mention the nuclear, it reinforces the idea that the government bet remains clear: moving towards a 100% renewable mix. A door ajar. The crossing of cards between electric and government has served more to draw red lines than to open doors. What is played, beyond the kilowatt, is the country’s energy model: one where renewables are implacable and nuclear tries to scratch time under the promise of stability. But as well He has pointed the newspaper.Without a formal proposal and without an explicit resignation to tax privileges, electricity will continue to wait at the gates of a ministry that, for now, remains firm: either they meet the conditions, or the closing calendar will continue its course. The future of Almaraz – and perhaps that of the entire nuclear park – will be decided, if, after summer. And with many more letters even to play. Image | Foronuclear Xataka | Spain was supposed to have a “antiapagones” plan. It has encountered an insurmountable obstacle: politics

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.