Oil prices rose above $114 a barrel on Friday as attacks in Saudi Arabia and the prospect of further Middle Eastern escalation increased concern about the security of global energy supplies.

Brent crude futures reached $114.72 during the session, their highest level since early May, before easing slightly. The benchmark was trading around $114.31, while US West Texas Intermediate futures rose above $101.

The immediate pressure followed Houthi attacks in Saudi Arabia and intensifying concerns about shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb strait, the narrow passage connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Saudi Aramco reportedly ordered the evacuation of its headquarters in Dhahran.

For Europe, the rise introduces an additional cost pressure when natural gas prices are also climbing sharply and policymakers are trying to contain inflation without further weakening industrial growth.

The developments are detailed in the latest reporting and official material, against the background of EU Today’s earlier coverage.

A fragile energy market

The significance of the attacks is not confined to facilities directly affected. Traders price the probability of interruption across production, ports, tankers and shipping routes. Even a limited episode can raise insurance premiums and freight charges while companies adjust deliveries.

Bab el-Mandeb is an important shipping bottleneck for commercial traffic using the Suez Canal. Sustained insecurity can force vessels onto longer routes around Africa, delaying cargoes and increasing transport costs.

Other disruptions have compounded uncertainty, including concerns about a Libyan pipeline and an oil spill near the United Arab Emirates. The scale and duration of their impact remain uncertain.

What higher prices mean for Europe

European manufacturers, haulage companies, airlines and agricultural producers are sensitive to increases in fuel and transport costs. Those pressures can eventually reach consumer prices, although the timing and size depend on contracts, taxes and domestic competition.

The European Union has sought to reduce its reliance on Russian fossil fuels since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. That diversification does not insulate the bloc from global prices, which reflect worldwide trading conditions.

European natural gas prices have also moved higher in October, adding to the burden faced by energy-intensive industries. Gas and oil are different markets, but geopolitical tensions can affect both.

Central banks and governments

Persistent energy-price increases complicate the inflation outlook for the European Central Bank. Higher imported energy costs can reduce household purchasing power and slow investment, even before interest-rate decisions respond.

A temporary spike may reverse if shipping lanes remain open and supplies are restored. A sustained interruption would produce a different economic calculation, particularly ahead of winter.

The immediate priority for European governments is to assess exposure through import contracts, reserve levels and supply routes rather than assume that a quoted oil price translates directly into the same percentage increase in household bills.

The price of a 13-kg bottle of butane gas – the most commonly used by Portuguese consumers – could reach €40 by year-end due to pressure on energy prices, consumer

The post Price of bottled gas expected to hit €40 by year end appeared first on Portugal Resident.

California Governor Gavin Newsom will spend more than $230 billion on a train that may never run, yet he won’t let a single trainload of Wyoming coal reach a port taxpayers already funded.

Last month, the California governor signed a bill to kill a coal export terminal in Oakland before it even opens. The project would be the West Coast’s first terminal, a direct link between Wyoming miners and buyers across the globe who want affordable, reliable power. President Trump backed it this summer with $75 million through the Defense Production Act. Far-left politicians in Sacramento responded to this historical investment with a new layer of environmental review written to stall the project until its investors give up.

California Democrats introduced the bill immediately after the president’s announcement. The bill’s author sold it as a way to block coal and defy the president. At least she was honest about her intentions.

GAVIN NEWSOM'S 'HIDDEN CLIMATE TAX' HITTING AMERICANS NATIONWIDE, LAWMAKER WARNS

The Oakland terminal spent years navigating the gauntlet of California’s burdensome regulatory and legal regime. The project passed environmental review, among the most punishing in the country. Hundreds of millions of dollars were invested in the site, including more than $240 million from California taxpayers. After years of litigation, all won by the developers, the City of Oakland conceded and began advancing development of the terminal.

California politicians didn’t like the result — so they changed the rules.

AMERICAN BUSINESSES AREN’T ALLOWED TO BUILD. IT’S TIME CONGRESS HELPED THEM

That should alarm anyone who builds anything in California, whatever they think of coal. America and the world need affordable, available, reliable energy. If lawmakers can void a permit retroactively because they dislike the product or the president who supports it, no approval in the state is safe. Today it is Wyoming coal. Tomorrow it could be an oil refinery, a manufacturing facility or a housing development that runs afoul of Sacramento’s political priorities.

The governor further revealed his extreme priorities that same day when he vetoed another bill to speed up the hiring of auditors for California’s high-speed rail project. California spent $15 billion over 18 years. It has failed to lay a single mile of track.

California promised voters a passenger line connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco by 2020 for a cost of $33 billion. It is now estimated to cost between $126 to $231 billion with completion not expected until 2040.

When Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy revoked $4 billion in federal grants to California’s bullet train boondoggle last year, Newsom sued and lost. He still defends the wasteful spending. Meanwhile, California Democrats continue to sacrifice economic growth, jobs and taxpayer dollars at the altar of climate extremism.

CEO SAYS DOING BUSINESS IN STATE ‘SUCKS’ AS COMPANY HEADS TO TEXAS AMID CALIFORNIA EXODUS

Wyoming offers the opposite model. We sit atop more than 600 years of coal reserves. Demand for electricity across Asia is climbing fast. Those nations will burn coal whether California approves of it or not. The only question is whose coal. American coal offers the United States an abundance of affordable, reliable power here at home and enhanced diplomatic leverage abroad.

Wyoming will not sit quietly while California politicians attempt to shut our energy producers out of global markets. Wyoming has made clear that we will use every tool at our disposal, including legal action, to defend our state and its industries. Wyoming coal supports families and communities across our state, strengthens America’s energy security and can help meet enormous global demand for reliable energy.

This fight is bigger than coal. California has already driven out its builders and manufacturers. Now it wants to export its dysfunction to every state that relies on its port.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Wyoming will keep mining. California can keep its train.

U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis is a Republican from Wyoming who sits on the Senate Banking, Commerce, and Environment and Public Works committees. 

Harriet Hageman, a Republican, is the lone member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Wyoming. 

The European Parliament voted on Thursday, 22nd October, to support a three-year postponement of certain methane emissions obligations for oil, gas and coal imports, substantially extending the timetable proposed by the European Commission.

The decision follows pressure from European governments, energy companies and the United States, which have warned that implementing the regulations under the existing timetable could complicate fossil fuel supplies to the European market.

MEPs approved the amendments by 341 votes to 225, with six abstentions. The revised deadlines must now be negotiated with EU governments before they can become legally binding.

The parliamentary position also extends some postponements to European oil and gas producers, going beyond the Commission’s original proposal.

EU moves away from original timetable

The EU Methane Regulation, adopted in 2024, established requirements intended to reduce methane emissions associated with fossil fuel production, transportation and imports.

Methane is a greenhouse gas with a considerably greater warming effect than carbon dioxide over shorter periods. Emissions occur throughout the oil and gas supply chain, particularly through leaks, venting and incomplete combustion.

Under the existing legislation, new monitoring, reporting and verification requirements for imported fossil fuels were scheduled to begin on 1 January 2027.

However, the Commission proposed amendments on 14 October 2026 to give companies additional time to comply.

The European Parliament has now supported a longer postponement than the Commission requested.

Under the parliamentary amendments, importers of crude oil, natural gas and coal would have until 31 May 2031 to demonstrate equivalent monitoring, reporting and verification arrangements for relevant supplies delivered in 2030.

The requirements would cover supply contracts concluded or renewed since 4 August 2024. Older contracts would remain subject to separate reporting requirements concerning efforts to obtain compliance.

Pressure from the United States and EU governments

Energy security concerns have been central to the debate. The United States has become Europe’s largest supplier of liquefied natural gas, particularly following the reduction of Russian pipeline gas deliveries after Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

American officials have argued that certain provisions of the methane legislation could create substantial compliance difficulties for exporters and potentially disrupt gas deliveries.

France, Italy and the Czech Republic have also supported adjustments to the timetable, reflecting concerns about energy costs, administrative burdens and the availability of alternative supplies.

European industrial consumers remain sensitive to fluctuations in natural gas prices, while the continuing conflict in the Middle East has increased uncertainty in international energy markets.

For importers, the principal concern is obtaining reliable information about emissions generated by suppliers operating outside EU jurisdiction.

European companies must demonstrate compliance using data collected throughout production and transportation networks that they do not necessarily control.

Additional changes for European producers

Parliament’s position includes extensions for certain reporting obligations affecting oil and gas operators within the European Union.

Verified reports combining measurements of methane emissions at individual sources and production sites would be subject to revised deadlines.

For assets operated directly by reporting companies, the proposed deadline would move to February 2030. Certain non-operated assets would be covered by a later deadline in August 2031.

The amendments would also permit continuous monitoring systems to replace separate measurement campaigns where the equipment meets the required technical standards.

Independent verification would remain necessary. Romanian MEP Virgil Popescu, a former energy minister, supported the longer timetable, arguing that companies require additional time to make investments in monitoring infrastructure.

Environmental organisations have opposed further postponements, arguing that delays could prolong avoidable emissions and weaken the regulatory framework established in 2024.

Sanctions and energy security provisions

Parliament also supported an exception preventing fossil fuel supplies covered by relevant EU import sanctions from benefiting from the extended deadlines.

Importers would be required to identify the affected volumes, including where restricted-origin fuels form part of mixed shipments.

The exemption would not authorise trade already prohibited by EU sanctions.

A further amendment would require the European Commission to review implementation readiness by July 2029, including the availability of accredited verifiers and potential risks to energy supplies.

The Commission would then be able to propose additional legislative changes if substantial implementation problems remained.

Negotiations with member states

Thursday’s vote does not repeal the methane legislation or automatically postpone its requirements.

The adopted amendments represent the European Parliament’s negotiating position. The Council of the European Union must agree to any changes before the revised legislation can enter into force.

The outcome forms part of a broader debate over European industrial competitiveness and the economic consequences of environmental regulation.

As EU Today recently reported, Brussels is already adjusting parts of its climate-policy framework in response to pressure from energy-intensive industries.

Negotiations over methane reporting will now determine how far those adjustments extend into Europe’s international energy supply chains and whether the EU can preserve the regulation’s emissions objectives under a longer implementation timetable.

Official forecasts show country will meet energy demand by paying high prices to secure imports

Great Britain is expected to pay some of the highest energy costs in Europe this winter as its reliance on imports to ensure a steady supply is forecast to deepen.

Energy system operators have said the country will have enough gas and electricity to meet demand over the coldest months – in part because of paying higher market prices than neighbouring markets to secure imports.

Official forecasts show country will meet energy demand by paying high prices to secure imports

Great Britain is expected to pay some of the highest energy costs in Europe this winter as its reliance on imports to ensure a steady supply is forecast to deepen.

Energy system operators have said the country will have enough gas and electricity to meet demand over the coldest months – in part because of paying higher market prices than neighbouring markets to secure imports.

With Beijing keeping its rare earth refining technology, equipment and technicians at home, Washington is funding private refiners to develop new ways to process the strategic metals rather than copying Chinese methods. A senior US official told Asia Times that American refiners would rely on their own innovation to make the country self-sufficient in critical […]

The post US reinvents rare earth refining as China guards know-how appeared first on Asia Times.

PM pledges commitment to address climate crisis, saying in Guardian article that his ‘determination is unwavering’

• Andy Burnham: We will make the net-zero transition work for Britain

Andy Burnham has said he will not “abandon the responsibility” of fighting the climate crisis after the government approved the Jackdaw gasfield, pledging to block new North Sea licences and keep Britain on track for net zero by 2050.

The comments are the prime minister’s most forthright yet on net zero, after many MPs have privately cast doubt on the authenticity of his commitment to tackling the climate crisis.

• O'Leary Digital's CEO says a Wall Street firm's analysis misses work happening before construction.
• Paul Palandjian, the CEO, said the company's two campuses will generate their own electricity.
• He outlined land deals, permitting, and early funding, saying delivery should be judged in phases.

Kevin O'Leary's data center company has a message for analysts who doubt its enormous AI ambitions: You're not seeing the whole picture.

Paul Palandjian, CEO of O'Leary Digital, pushed back on a Bernstein Research assessment that put the firm near the bottom of the data center industry's credibility rankings. In an emailed response to Business Insider, he detailed land agreements, water applications and licensing, engineering work, and funding that he said the analysis overlooks.

"Scrutiny during this cycle is fair," Palandjian wrote. He added, "A score built from announced-capacity data ranks every pre-construction project low on construction progress by definition, and it cannot see confidential work."

His response gets at a central question in the AI building boom: How much weight should investors give the work that happens before data center construction begins?

Bernstein examined thousands of data center projects using data from the tracking firm Aterio, assessing factors such as construction progress, electricity availability, and industry experience. Its analysis concluded that only about 35% of announced data center capacity in the US will get built.

O'Leary Digital received a credibility score of 0.35 out of 5. Bernstein estimated that 489 megawatts of its announced 15-gigawatt pipeline would materialize, roughly 3%. The analysts grouped it with ambitious newcomers described as "bragawatts."

Palandjian said the 15-gigawatt figure represents the full build-out of two campuses in Utah and Alberta over several years.

"We would rather be judged on milestones than on a model," he wrote.

Data center power without the queue

Palandjian's clearest distinction concerns electricity, one of the biggest obstacles facing data center developers.

"We are not in an interconnection queue," he wrote, referring to the waiting lists for connections to the electricity grid.

Instead, both campuses are designed to generate all their electricity on-site, he said, with direct access to natural gas pipelines and supplies. That's what the industry calls "behind the meter": producing power at the facility rather than relying on an electricity utility to supply it from the grid.

Data center land, water, and early money

In Utah, Palandjian said the Military Installation Development Authority had approved and executed a 30-year development agreement naming O'Leary Digital as master developer of the project area.

About 11,000 acres are under binding agreements, he said. Master planning, ground studies, and laser-based land surveying have finished at both sites, and the company filed an engineered Utah water application in late September, he added.

In Alberta, about 13,000 acres are under a binding agreement, and a water license for 6 million cubic meters a year has been granted, Palandjian said. He also said that both sites are away from densely populated residential communities.

On money, Palandjian said his firm has capital for both pre-development and advancing the project toward key milestones. He did not specify a funding amount or say the entire build-out was financed.

He said that the engineering, power, and construction firms working with the company, and the global banks advising it, provide evidence of its ability to deliver.

"With that team, every critical part of the project is being worked through, gaps are identified early, and we are closing them to raise our probability of success," he wrote.

Palandjian said that while O'Leary Digital is young, its team has decades of experience in real estate, power, and infrastructure.

Bernstein's skepticism does not mean every newcomer will fail.

"It's not that all of these guys are sort of terrible and not going to deliver, but we just have lower confidence because we don't know them," analyst Madison Rezaei said.

With Palandjian's update, now we know a bit more.

Sign up for the AI Insider newsletter here. Reach out to me via email at abarr@businessinsider.com

Earlier this week, EU officials said in unusually staunch terms that they would not buy Arctic oil and gas.

Even if someone (Norway) decided to drill new oil or gas wells in the Barents Sea, which is well above the Arctic Circle, the EU would not purchase it.

The goal is to dissuade investors. It costs many billions of euros to develop gas or oil at scale in the harsh conditions of the far north.

If there is no offtake market in continental Europe, no-one is going to take the risk.

The thing is, EU buyers already buy gas (and oil) from the Arctic. A lot of it.

Most of the gas, some 12 million tonnes so far this year, comes from Russia’s Yamal LNG plant, which sits on the shore of the biggest estuary you have never heard of, the Gulf of Ob (Obskaya Guba in Russian).

But that will end 10 weeks from now, when the EU ban on Russian LNG kicks in.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership