Those constantly distracted by their phone will just find other ways to procrastinate if it isn’t nearby

A researcher put physical distance between people and their phones and found that our devices may not be the cause of our distraction – it’s what we do with them

Frontiers

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBluesky
Email

If you just put away your phone to read this, chances are you’re not alone. Our phones are an endless source of distraction, and we interact with them every four to six minutes. This is often driven by habit as well as notifications, leading to a disrupted flow of activity while we’re trying to be productive.

A new study published in Frontiers in Computer Science investigated if placing smartphones just out of our reach while we’re at work influenced device use for activities not related to work.  

“The study shows that putting the smartphone away may not be sufficient to reduce disruption and procrastination, or increase focus,” said the paper’s author Dr Maxi Heitmayer, a researcher at the London School of Economics. “The problem is not rooted within the device itself, but in the habits and routines that we have developed with our devices.”

Device vs distance

In the study, 22 participants were asked to work for two days in a private, soundproof room to which they brought the devices they usually have on them for work, a laptop and phone at a minimum. They did not change notification settings, and the notifications they received were in no way controlled by the researcher. Two settings that only differed by the distance between participant and their phone were explored: in the first, phones were placed on the desk participants were working from, in the second, the phone was placed on a separate desk 1.5 meters away.

Limited smartphone accessibility led to reduced smartphone use, but instead of becoming less distracted, participants shifted their attention to their laptops. Across conditions, participants did not spend different amounts of time on work or leisure activities.

In addition, the results showed that phones were the preferred device for distraction. “It’s your connection with loved ones and with work. It’s your navigation system, alarm clock, music player, and source of information. Unsurprisingly, people turn to the tool that does everything,” Heitmayer pointed out. “Even if you have no clear purpose, you know it has your socials and can provide entertainment.” While computers can fulfill the same functions, using one is less haptically pleasant, and they are not as handy and portable.

“In my research I want to shift the discourse beyond device-centric debates,” Heitmayer said. “The smartphone itself is not the problem. It’s what we do with it and, frankly, the apps that generate and reinforce these habits.”

Made to distract

To optimize time spent without distractions, notifications can be set to arrive at specific times or be silenced altogether. Any way that helps users be more mindful with their time is a step in the right direction, Heitmayer said. Despite these strategies, he cautioned that, realistically, we’re not stopping to pick up our phones anytime soon. “Whenever there is a small break, people check their phone, regardless of whatever system they have in place. And then there’s the socials, which is an entirely different beast.”

“There is a very unequal battle fought out every single day by each and every one of us when we use our phones,” Heitmayer continued. “The things inside phones that are the biggest attention sinks are developed by large corporations who greatly profit from our failure to resist the temptation to use them; all of this is literally by design.”

Heitmayer also said that in the future we should focus on protecting users, particularly young ones. “These devices are incredibly useful and can facilitate learning and creativity, but they come at a cost that most adults struggle to manage, so we simply cannot ignore this.”

---

Journal

Frontiers in Computer Science

DOI

10.3389/fcomp.2025.1422244 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

When the Phone's Away, People Use Their Computer to Play Distance to the Smartphone Reduces Device Usage but not Overall Distraction and Task Fragmentation during Work

Article Publication Date

28-Mar-2025

Smartphone bans alone fail to equip children for healthy use of technology

Focus should shift to a rights based approach, argue experts

BMJ Group

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatEmail

Banning smartphone and social media access alone fails to equip children for healthy use of technology, argues a group of international experts in The BMJ today.

They say the focus should shift to a rights based approach, underpinned by age appropriate design and education, that protects children from harm while developing skills to help them participate in a digital society.

Bans on smartphone and social media access have been advocated in many countries to protect children from harm despite lack of evidence on their effects, explain Victoria Goodyear and colleagues.

For example, a recent evaluation of school smartphone policies in England reported that restricted smartphone use in schools was not associated with benefits to adolescent mental health and wellbeing, physical activity and sleep, educational attainment, or classroom behaviour. 

That study also found no evidence of school restrictions being associated with lower levels of overall phone or media use or problematic social media use.

While technology-free moments and spaces are important for children, the authors argue that blanket restrictions are “stop gap solutions that do little to support children’s longer term healthy engagement with digital spaces across school, home, and other contexts, and their successful transition into adolescence and adulthood in a technology filled world.”

Instead, they call for a rights based approach to smartphone and social media use, in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recommends ways of protecting children from harm while nurturing the healthy development of smartphone and social media use.

Recent international legislation, such as the European Union’s Digital Services Act and the UK Online Safety Act, also reflect a clear understanding of the need to ensure children’s uses of technology are compatible with their wellbeing.

Immediate priorities are to improve legislation for the tech industry grounded in children’s rights and create professional training and guidance for schools, teachers, and parents to help them be actively involved in the development of children’s healthy technology use and in shaping future policies and approaches, they write. 

They acknowledge several potential challenges, but say in the longer term, this approach is likely to be more beneficial and sustainable as it is focused on building a safe ecosystem in a digital society.

“Ultimately, there is a need to shift debates, policies, and practices from a sole focus on restricting smartphone and social media access toward an emphasis on nurturing children’s skills for healthy technology use,” they conclude.

[Ends]

---

Journal

The BMJ

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2024-082569 

Method of Research

Commentary/editorial

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Approaches to children’s smartphone and social media use must go beyond bans

Article Publication Date

27-Mar-2025

COI Statement

We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have the following interests to declare: GS is president of Games for Change Latin America, a non-profit organisation that supports work to use games for social benefit; VG is a consortium member for a UK Department for Science Innovation and Technology funded project led by AO focused on children’s smartphone and social media use. VG was the principal investigator responsible for leading the programme focused on digital literacy education for teachers funded by Google in 2019.

Ottoman Empire’s religious ‘tolerance’ another form of control

Non-Muslim communities were recognized, given authority as way to monitor themselves amid Ottoman suspicions in wake of Greek revolt

Osaka Metropolitan University

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

The Ottoman Empire’s seeming tolerance of non-Muslim religions was part of a way to manage communities that drew the empire’s suspicions, according to an Osaka Metropolitan University historian.

view more 

Credit: Osaka Metropolitan University

Population surveillance. The carrying of identification while traveling. Add to that the public presence of diverse religions and it sounds like 2025, but this was life in the Ottoman Empire 200 years ago. Yet this seeming tolerance of non-Muslim faiths was in fact tied to the first two aspects, according to research by Osaka Metropolitan University Associate Professor Masayuki Ueno.

The Ottoman Empire lasted from around 1300 until 1922, and at various points in its history ruled present-day Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Hungary, and beyond. In the wake of the 1821 Greek revolt, the Ottoman Empire instituted several changes to maintain control over the population, especially in its capital of Istanbul. Internal passports were issued and surveillance was conducted not by infiltrating non-Muslim communities, including Greek populations, but by granting powers to those non-Muslim religious authorities to monitor their own people.

Behind the recognition of religions and the representation of non-Muslim religious authorities in the governing system was deep Ottoman suspicion, not a policy of tolerance, concludes Professor Ueno of the Graduate School of Literature and Human Sciences, an expert on the history of Christian Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

“Uncovering this history helps form a bridge between what we know about the Ottoman Empire during two periods that have been studied separately, the early modern (16th to 18th centuries) and the modern (19th to early 20th centuries), in the context of a series of recent studies that have reexamined our understanding of the treatment of non-Muslims in the empire,” Professor Ueno explained. “I hope this will lead to further discussions.”

The findings were published in Comparative Studies in Society and History.

###

About OMU 

Established in Osaka as one of the largest public universities in Japan, Osaka Metropolitan University is committed to shaping the future of society through “Convergence of Knowledge” and the promotion of world-class research. For more research news, visit https://www.omu.ac.jp/en/ and follow us on social media: X, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn.

---

Journal

Comparative Studies in Society and History

DOI

10.1017/S0010417524000343 

Method of Research

Case study

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Purifying Istanbul: The Greek Revolution, Population Surveillance, and Non-Muslim Religious Authorities in the Early Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire

Ukraine Rare Earths Deal Is Nonsense To Mining Experts

By Andrew Topf - Mar 26, 2025

The U.S. is eyeing Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth—including rare earths, lithium, and titanium—as a way to recoup war-related aid.

Experts warn that Ukraine’s rare earth deposits are overstated, outdated, and largely inaccessible.

Despite the risks and limited returns, a minerals-for-reconstruction deal appears to be moving forward.



The United States is pinning its hopes on reclaiming expenses incurred on Ukraine during its war with Russia by tapping Ukraine’s vast mineral potential including the development of rare earth element deposits.

The problem with this deal is two-fold: one, the deposits in question are mostly within Russian-occupied territory; and two, rare earths are difficult to find lumped together in economic quantities, and even harder to separate into rare earth oxides, that are used in everything from cell phones to electric vehicles to high-tech weaponry.

The deal

First, the proposed deal. It outlines a plan to use future revenues from Ukraine’s rare earth and critical mineral reserves, as well as oil and gas.

According to Al Jazeera, a Reconstruction Investment Fund would be created, using revenues generated from Ukraine’s natural resources to reinvest in reconstruction following over three years of intense war.


Ukraine would contribute 50 percent of revenues from state-owned resources to the fund. It is unclear where the remaining half would come from and how much control the US would wield over the funds, says Al Jazeera, adding the US will support Ukraine’s efforts to secure lasting peace but offers no direct security guarantees.

How much aid was sent to Ukraine?

In that now-infamous meeting between Trump, Vice President Vance and Ukraine’s President Zelensky, Trump said the US has paid more than $350 billion in military aid/ support to Ukraine.

Zelensky disputed that figure — likely an unsubstantiated Trump guesstimate, which started at $500B — saying it was much lower.

The Kiel Institute for the World Economy, which has tracked military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine since the war began, said the United States has donated $118 billion.


The US Department of Defense puts the number at $183 billion, which includes the cost of replenishing Ukraine’s defense stocks.

What minerals does Ukraine have?

According to Ukraine’s Economy Ministry, the country holds deposits of 22 out of 34 minerals classified as critical by the European Union.

These critical minerals — whose reserves made up approximately 5 percent of the global supply as of 2022 — include precious and non-ferrous metals, ferroalloys and minerals such as titanium, zirconium, graphite and lithium.

Ukraine has an estimated 500,000 tonnes of lithium reserves, which are considered among Europe’s largest repositories of the battery metal.Related: Iraq Hands BP Final Approval for Kirkuk Oil Development


As for the rare earths, according to The Independent, Ukraine has rare earth elements such as lanthanum and cerium, used in TVs and lighting; neodymium, used in wind turbines and EV batteries; and erbium and yttrium, whose applications range from nuclear power to lasers. EU-funded research also indicates Ukraine has reserves of high-priced scandium, but the data is classified.

These rare-earth resources are estimated to have a value of more than £12 trillion, and according to The Independent, Zelensky has been trying to develop them for years. He reportedly offered outside investors tax breaks and investment rights to help mine these minerals in 2021, but war broke out a year later.

More than 95 percent of industrially useful rare-earth metals are produced by China, creating supply chain and national security vulnerabilities in the US and elsewhere.

A recent graphic by Visual Capitalist says Ukraine claims to hold nearly $15 trillion worth of mineral resources, making it one of the most resource-rich nations in Europe. The country is home to the continent’s largest reserves of lithium, titanium, and uranium.

According to data from the Ukrainian geologic survey, Ukraine possesses 5% of the world’s mineral resources, including 23 of the 50 materials deemed critical by the U.S. government. These include:Titanium– Used in aerospace and military applications
Graphite– Essential for battery production
Lithium– A key component of lithium-ion batteries
Beryllium– Vital for defense and telecommunications
Rare Earth Elements– Crucial for electronics, renewable energy, and defense industries




Source: Visual Capitalist

Where are the deposits?

The Independent says A little over £6 trillion of Ukraine’s mineral resources, which is around 53 per cent of the country’s total, are contained in the four regions Mr Putin illegally annexed in September 2022, and of which his army occupies a considerable swathe.


That includes Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, though Kherson holds little value in terms of minerals.



The Crimean peninsula, illegally annexed and occupied by Mr Putin’s forces in 2014, also holds roughly £165bn worth of minerals.


The region of Dnipropetrovsk, which borders the largely occupied regions of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia, and sits in the face of an advancing Russian army, contains an additional £2.8 trillion in mineral resources.


Russian difficulties with major military operations seem likely to preclude a serious attempt to take the region but mining operations in the area would be perilous with Moscow’s soldiers so close.

Before the Russian invasion, Ukraine had registered 20,000 mineral deposits, with 8,700 of them proven and encompassing 117 of the world’s 120 most used metals and minerals, according to the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development.

Other key points made by Al Jazeera:The country has some of the world’s top recoverable coal, gas, iron, manganese, nickel, ore, titanium and uranium reserves.


Most of these minerals span Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporzhizhia, Dnipropetrovsk, Korovohrad, Poltava and Kharkiv.


Russia, which controls approximately 20 percent of Ukraine, including large parts of Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporzhizhia, is sitting on about 40 percent of Ukraine’s metal resources.


Ukraine has said that a significant portion of its rare earth elements are in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

However, despite all the hype about rare earths in Ukraine, the country doesn’t even make the top 12 countries ranked by the US Geological Survey as having the largest rare-earth mineral reserves. These countries are, in order, China, Brazil, India, Australia, Russia, Vietnam, the US, Greenland, Tanzania, South Africa, Canada and Thailand.

Are they mineable?

According to IEEE Spectrum, Ukraine doesn’t have any mineable rare earths. The publication quotes Erik Jonsson, senior geologist with the Geological Survey of Sweden, who says there are four areas with substantial deposits of rare earth ores, and four slightly bigger deposits: Yastrubetske, Novopoltavske, Azovske and Mazurivske.

All but one are within the zone that the Russians currently control.

The other problem is identifying the size of the deposits. While numbers are available, there is no detailed outline of how they were arrived at, and they are believed to come from the Soviet era dating as far back as the 1960s.

“The rare-earth deposits don’t look that relevant,” Jonsson concludes. “I mean, I wouldn’t go for them.” Two of the deposits are dominated by a mineral called britholite, he notes, which is not desirable because it has not been processed for rare earths, which means that almost nothing exists in the way of process chemistry and equipment.

Jack Lifton, executive chairman of the Critical Minerals Institute, is more scathing in his criticism.

“If you want critical minerals, Ukraine ain’t the place to look for them. It’s a fantasy,” he says. “There’s no point to any of this. There’s some other agenda going on here. I can’t believe that anybody in Washington actually believes that it makes sense to get rare earths in Ukraine.”

“I doubt very much that President Trump cares about rare earths,” adds Lifton. “He’s being told they’re important. He’s operating as a pure businessman.”

There is ample truth in what Lifton is saying, if one knows anything about rare earths.

Mining rare earth elements is fairly straightforward but separating and extracting a single REE takes a great deal of time, effort and expertise.

According to one expert, the ore is first ground up using crushers and rotating grinding mills, magnetic separation and flotation gives the lowest-value sellable product in the rare earth supply chain: the concentrated ore. The milling equipment — crushers, grinding mills, flotation devices, and electrostatic separators – all have to be configured in a way that suits the type of ore being mined. No two ores respond the same way.

The next step is to chemically extract the mixed rare earths from the concentrated ore (cons) by chemical processing. The cons must undergo chemical treatment to allow further separation and upgrading of the REEs. This process, called cracking, includes techniques like roasting, salt or caustic fusion, high-temperature sulfidation, and acid leaching which allow the REEs within a concentrate to be dissolved. This separates the mixed rare earths from any other metals that may be present in the ore. The result will be still-mixed-together rare earths.

The major value in REE processing lies in the production of high-purity rare earth oxides (REOs) and metals but it isn’t easy. A REE refinery uses ion exchange and/or multi-stage solvent extraction technology to separate and purify the REEs. Solvent-extraction processes involve re-immersing processed ore into different chemical solutions to separate individual elements. The elements are so close to each other in terms of atomic weight that each of these processes involve multiple stages to complete the separation process. In some cases it requires several hundred tanks of different solutions to separate one rare earth element. HREEs are the hardest, most time consuming to separate.

The composition of REOs can also vary greatly. They can and often are designed to meet the specifications laid out by the end product users — a REO that suits one manufacturer’s needs may not suit another’s.

Less technically, The Independent says investors highlight a number of barriers to investment in Ukraine, such as inefficient, complex regulatory processes, difficulty accessing geological data, and obtaining land plots. They said such projects would take years to develop and require considerable up-front investment.

It's worth noting that the United States currently has only one operating rare earths mine, Mountain Pass in California. Rare earths are mined and made into a concentrate before being shipped to China for further processing.

Developing a mine from discovery to production in places like the United States and Canada can take upwards of 20 years.

Is the minerals deal still on?

It appears to be. After the disastrous meeting in the Oval Office, Zelensky wrote a letter to Trump saying that Ukraine is ready to sign the minerals deal — even though the US hasn’t offered Ukraine any security guarantees.

The current ceasefire deal looks to be heavily skewed toward Russia’s demands. Ukraine and Russia have agreed to a moratorium on attacking each other’s ships in the Black Sea. However, the Kremlin said it would only implement the ceasefire once the US delivers sanctions relief on Russian agricultural products and fertilizers, The Guardian pointed out Wednesday, noting that observers are questioning whether Russia has given anything to secure its first offer of sanctions relief since the beginning of the war. Ukraine has opposed any sanctions rollback on Russia.

The Guardian analysis said the Trump administration appears ready to make a deal with Russia that offers two prices to halt its war with Ukraine: political and military concessions from Ukraine as well as an escape from the international isolation that began after its full-scale invasion in 2022.

By Andrew Topf for Oilprice.com

Truce or stalemate? The fault lines between Ukraine, Russia and the United States

Russia's Black Sea Deal Demands Raise Concerns

By RFE/RL staff - Mar 27, 2025

Russia has linked the Black Sea cease-fire deal to the lifting of Western sanctions on Russian banks and agricultural exports, conditions that are not explicitly stated in the White House version of the agreement.

Experts suggest that Russia's demands may be an attempt to test the Trump administration's desire for a deal and potentially shift blame to Europe if the agreement falls through.

The negotiations surrounding the Black Sea Initiative also involve discussions about restoring broader US-Russian relations, which have been strained for over a decade.



US and Russian statements laying out a framework for limiting military actions in the Black Sea were widely welcomed as a step to wider cease-fire in the Kremlin’s war on Ukraine: Both Moscow and Washington would “continue working toward a durable and lasting peace,” the Kremlin and the White House said.

But the Kremlin statement also had specific language absent from the White House’s.

Moscow would only abide by the agreement, the Kremlin said, after the West lifted sanctions on Russian banks that have been involved trading agriculture products, as well as on Russian ships. Rosselkhozbank, a major state-owned lender for Russian agrobusiness, was mentioned specifically, including connecting it and other Russian entities to the global SWIFT system of bank transfers.

So was lifting restrictions on fertilizer exports and insurance companies covering them.

That’s all potentially a major stumbling block, experts say: Rejoining the SWIFT system, for example, would require European consent -- at a time when US-European relations are spiraling downward.

Is it a “poison pill” aimed at torpedoing the entire deal? Is it Russia pushing maximalist negotiating positions, similar to what it’s done since before the start of the all-out invasion of Ukraine? Or is the Kremlin language merely more explicit in its wording?

“The Russian demands are completely unproportional to what Russia is offering,” Janis Kluge, deputy chief of Eastern Europe and Eurasia division at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, told RFE/RL.

“Moscow wants to test [the Trump administration] here. It wants to see how desperate he really is to get even a partial cease-fire done,” Kluge said. “But it is also important who will get blamed by Trump when there is no deal. Russia's conditions are meant to turn Trump's anger away from Moscow and toward Europe.”

'Root Causes'

Trump has made ending Russia’s three-year assault on Ukraine one of his top foreign policy priorities. In contrast to his predecessor, Joe Biden, who refused to engage with Moscow, Trump’s administration has done just that, holding at least two phone calls with President Vladimir Putin and dispatching top advisers, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to Saudi Arabia to open negotiations.


Talks have focused not only on resolving the war, but more broadly restoring US-Russian relations, which have nosedived since at least 2012, under then-President Barack Obama, and then plummeted after the February 2022 invasion. Putin has referred to the broader issues as the “root causes” of the standoff over Ukraine.

The agreement reached this week -- which included a parallel set of US talks with Ukrainian officials -- involved “technical experts” tasked with focusing on just one area: the Black Sea Initiative.

That’s a deal brokered by Turkey and the United Nations aimed at getting Ukrainian and Russian grain exports out of the Black Sea and into world markets, heading off fears of price inflation and famine.

It expired in July 2023 after Russia refused to renew its participation.

The sweeping Western sanctions aimed at punishing Russia for the invasion included cutting off Russian banks from SWIFT, a messaging system that helps banks conduct transfers and payments.

The sanctions did not, however, target Russian exports of food and fertilizer; Moscow remains a major supplier to global markets for agriculture-related goods. However, Russian officials have repeatedly complained that sanctions on things like insurance or shipping and logistics have hindered that trade.

The demands laid out in the Kremlin’s March 25 statement, Kluge said, are similar to what Russia wanted during the 2023 negotiations.


“Back then, Ukraine was in a desperate situation, a solution for grain exports was needed,” he said. “The EU was worried about too much grain coming to Europe, triggering protests by farmers. So the EU was willing to compromise, and ‘re-SWIFTING’ Rosselkhozbank was seen as an option to get it done.”

“We’ve seen this before. They’re basically copying and pasting their own language from the summer of 2023,” said Iulia-Sabina Joja, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C., and former Romanian presidential adviser. “They weren’t as daring as now, with the SWIFT language, and particularly with fertilizer exports, which they’re making a lot of money off of.”

'A Negotiating Tactic’

A week before the Black Sea agreement was announced, the Kremlin and the White House sketched out the framework for a limited cease-fire that aimed to restrict targeting energy infrastructure -- things like power plants, transmission lines, and substations.

Still, Ukrainian and Russian forces have continued to pound one another with drones and missiles, including overnight on March 26.

Dmytro Lytvyn, an adviser to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, told RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service that Russia had targeted Ukrainian energy facilities at least eight times since March 18.

In comments to reporters, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov insisted that Putin's order for a moratorium on targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure remained in place.

He also said, however, that the Black Sea initiative would be "activated after a number of conditions are met."

The White House’s March 25 statement broadly signaled that Washington would help restore Russia’s access to the market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, along with lowering maritime insurance costs and improving access to ports

In comments to reporters, Trump later signaled that his administration was looking at lifting additional sanctions.

“It’s a negotiating tactic, but it’s not something surprising or unusual,” Joja said of Russia’s position. “They don’t want a cease-fire, or to stop the war. They keep finding excuses not to, keep putting in conditions which are in pursuit of their national interest.”

Russia has made clear its ultimate goal is to have the Western sanctions lifted. But those sanctions remain a bargaining chip for the Trump administration, so it’s unlikely the White House would seek to lift them all at once, Ukrainian economist Borys Kushniruk said.

“It's not advantageous for Trump to lift all the sanctions against Russia. This is an instrument of influence, so why get rid of it?" Kushniruk told RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service.

Mark Galeotti, a longtime expert on Russia’s security services, argued that Russian officials were setting a trap for the Europeans.

“Many of the concessions Moscow demands are not simply in Washington’s gift,” he said in an op-ed for The Spectator magazine. “Does Europe meekly go along with the American plan, heightening frustrations that it is not also at the negotiating table, or does it resist, again running the risk of further alienating an already Europhobic administration?”

By RFE/RL

Guyana is the World’s Newest Petro-State

By Matthew Smith - Mar 25, 2025

Guyana has become a major player in the global oil market due to substantial offshore oil discoveries, particularly within the Stabroek Block led by ExxonMobil.

The country is projected to become the world’s largest per capita oil producer, with production anticipated to exceed one million barrels per day by 2027.

The rapid development of Guyana’s oil industry has led to exponential economic growth, making it the world’s fastest-growing economy in 2024.





In a mere six years, one of South America’s poorest nations, Guyana, has emerged as the world’s newest petrostate. There is speculation that the tiny country of less than one million is on track to become the continent’s second-largest oil producer. Even neighboring Venezuela’s President Maduro’s never-ending saber rattling over the Essequibo is not distracting the national government, in the capital Georgetown, from promoting the world’s fastest-growing oil boom. Guyana is now a major contributor to the world petroleum supply and will become the largest per capita oil producer, with production anticipated to exceed one million barrels per day by the end of 2027.

After decades of poor exploration results, which led to industry insiders concluding Guyana had little to no hydrocarbon potential, global energy supermajor ExxonMobil in 2015 hit it big in offshore Guyana’s 6.6 million-acre Stabroek Block. The Liza-1 well was drilled to a depth of 17,825 feet (5,433 meters) and encountered 290 feet of oil-bearing reservoirs (90 meters). Production from Liza-1 began in 2019, only four years after the discovery was made in an industry where it can take a decade, even more, to develop major deepwater petroleum resources. Importantly, in a world where low-emission fuels are in increasing demand, the oil being produced is light and sweet with an API gravity of 31.9 degrees and 0.59% sulfur content.

The 6.6-million-acre Stabroek Block is a stunning success for Exxon. The super major, which is the operator controlling 45% of the offshore acreage along with partners Hess (30% ownership) and CNOOC (holding a 20% interest), is investing heavily to develop the block. Exxon’s exploration spending is paying handsome dividends, with it making 46 discoveries in the Stabroek Block since 2015, which are estimated to contain at least 12 billion barrels of oil resources. There are now three floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) vessels operating in the Stabroek Block: Liza, Unity Gold and Payara Gold. Eventually, there will be six FPSOs operating by 2027, with the capacity expected to exceed 1.3 million barrels per day.

During November 2024, the Stabroek Block hit the impressive 500-million-barrel production milestone with significant growth ahead as the Exxon-led consortium continues to invest heavily in developing the Stabroek Block. January 2025 data, from Guyana’s Ministry of Natural Resources, shows the country was pumping more than 658,000 barrels per day from the three FPSOs operating in the Stabroek Block. The consortium has completed three projects in the block, with a further three being sanctioned by Georgetown in various stages of development. Exxon is seeking approval for two additional operations: the 180,000 barrel per day Hammerhead project and the Longtail gas development, which will target up to 1.5 billion cubic feet of non-associated gas production and 290,000 barrels of condensate per day.

The 250,000 barrel per day Yellow Tail project will be the fourth facility to come online in the block, with operations slated to commence during 2025 with the ONEGUYANA FPSO. This will see Guyana lifting over 900,000 barrels per day once the Yellow Tail facility reaches capacity, making the former British colony the world’s largest per capita oil producer. Exxon is developing two more projects, Uaru and Whiptail, in the Stabroek Block, which will come online in 2026 and 2027, respectively.


The $12.7 billion Uaru project will have a nameplate capacity of 250,000 barrels per day and will commence production in 2026. Uaru will be composed of 10 drill centers and 44 production and injection wells targeting an oil resource estimated to contain more than 800 million barrels. Exxon’s sixth project is the Whiptail development with a budgeted cost of $12.7 billion and capacity of 250,000 barrels per day from 10 drill centers with 48 production and injection wells. Start-up of Whiptail, which will see a sixth FPSO installed and brought online, is targeted for 2027.

While analysts anticipate that the Exxon-led consortium will be pumping 1.3 million barrels per day from the Stabroek Block by the end of 2027, that number could be significantly higher. When operational, the Uaru and Whiptail projects will add a combined 500,000 barrels per day of production capacity to the Stabroek Block, which, with 900,000 barrels per day already being lifted, should see output rise to 1.4 million barrels daily.

The rapid development of the Stabroek Block and sheer volume of world-class discoveries in offshore Guyana, now exceeding 50 since 2015, underscores the considerable oil potential possessed by the country of less than one million. Those numbers highlight that the US Geological Survey (USGS) seriously underestimated the hydrocarbon potential of the Guyana-Suriname Basin. In a 2012 assessment, the USGS estimated the Guyana-Suriname Basin had recoverable undiscovered oil resources of 13 billion barrels. That number is only slightly higher than the 11.6 billion barrels discovered by Exxon in the Stabroek Block.

Indeed, there is a swathe of hydrocarbon discoveries in the Guyana-Suriname Basin outside of the Stabroek Block, emphasizing how severely the USGS underestimated the basin’s oil potential. Six oil discoveries were made in offshore Guyana outside of the Stabroek Block, which have yet to be formally appraised. Those include the Kawa-1 and Wei-1 wells in the Corentyne Block, which are the subject of a dispute between Georgetown and the majority owner Frontera Energy. There were also four non-commercial discoveries: three in the Canje Block and one in the Kaieteur Block.

There are 10 deep water discoveries in offshore Suriname to consider, particularly with it estimated they contain 2.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil resources. The five world-class discoveries in Block 58, which is contiguous to Stabroek Block, are the most important. TotalEnergies, the operator, and partner APA Corporation are developing a 750-million-barrel resource contained in the Sapakara and Krabdagu discoveries, called the GranMorgu project, which is expected to commence production in 2028. Malaysia’s national oil company, Petronas, the operator with a 100% working interest, made three discoveries in Block 52 offshore Suriname, which are believed to contain 500 million barrels of oil.

Those developments underscore the considerable petroleum potential waiting to be exploited in offshore Guyana, which will boost reserves and production with the former British colony on track to become a leading global oil exporter. The rapid growth of Guyana’s oil industry is responsible for skyrocketing national gross product (GDP). For 2024, the former British colony is experiencing real GDP growth of a whopping 43.8%, taking its value to nearly $63 billion, making Guyana the world’s fastest-growing economy that year. That strong growth will continue into 2025, with the economy forecast to expand by over 14% to see GDP exceed $70 billion. This bodes well for Guyana, which is expected to become South America’s wealthiest country on a GDP per capita basis

By Matthew Smith for Oilprice.com

India Set to Tap Vast Oil Reserves With Multi-Billion Dollar Investments

By Alex Kimani - Mar 24, 2025

Motilal Oswal sees U.S. tariff pressure as an opportunity for India to boost domestic production and reduce its trade reliance.

India imports 87% of its oil but holds an estimated 22 billion barrels of untapped reserves in underexplored basins like Mahanadi, Andaman, Bengal, and Kerala-Konkan.

With only 10% of India’s sedimentary basins currently under exploration, the government aims to ramp that up to 16% this year.



Amid concerns over U.S. President Donald Trump’s hard-hitting tariff policy, diversified Indian financial services company Motilal Oswal has suggested that India could strengthen its domestic industries and ramp up local production. Trump has a history of imposing heavy tariffs on India, including 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum imposed in 2018. The tariffs had an inimical effect on India’s trade with the U.S., with steel exports plunging 46% one year after the tariffs were announced.

Meanwhile, India’s heavy reliance on oil imports leads to huge capital outflows and a weaker rupee. India imports 87% of its oil, mainly from Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the U.S. India spent $132.4 billion on crude oil imports in the 12 months up to mid-2024, a 16% Y/Y drop thanks to lower oil prices. Luckily, India is well endowed with substantial oil reserves. Last year, S&P Global Commodity Insights reported that four largely unexplored sedimentary basins in India could hold up to 22 billion barrels of oil. In effect, lesser-known Category-II and III basins namely Mahanadi, Andaman Sea, Bengal, and Kerala-Konkan contain more oil than the Permian Basin which has already produced 14 billion of its 34 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves.

Rahul Chauhan, an upstream analyst at Commodity Insights, has emphasized the potential of India’s unexplored Oil & Gas sector, "ONGC and Oil India hold acreages in the Andaman waters under the Open Acreage Licensing Program (OALP) and have planned a few significant projects. However, India still awaits the entry of an international oil company with deepwater and ultra-deepwater exploration expertise to participate in current and upcoming OALP bidding rounds and explore these frontier regions," he has declared.

Currently, only 10% of India’s 3.36 million sq km wide sedimentary basin is under exploration. However, Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri says that figure will jump to 16% in 2024 following the award of blocks under the Open Acreage Licensing Policy (OALP) rounds. So far, OALP has resulted in the award of 144 blocks covering about 244,007 sq km. Under OALP, India allows upstream exploration companies to carve out areas for oil and gas exploration and put in an expression of interest for any area throughout the year. The interests are accumulated thrice a year following which they are put on auction. According to Puri, India’s Exploration and Production (E&P) activities in the oil and gas sector offer investment opportunities worth $100 billion by 2030.

India boasts significant discoveries in the Krishna-Godavari, Barmer, and Assam basins, but exploration in other areas has been slower to develop. Of India's 3.14 million square kilometers of sedimentary basins, 1.3 million sq km are in deep waters. India had its first foray into deepwater exploration in the Bay of Bengal in 2024 in the Krishna-Godavari Basin, courtesy of India's state run Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC). ONGC said it was planning to spend over $10 billion developing multiple deepwater projects in its KG-DWN-98/2 block in that basin.

Meanwhile, state-owned upstream company Oil India Ltd is looking to start exploration activities in Nagaland

“We have a total of 30 blocks under the OALP. We have already drilled all wells under the awarded OALP blocks, except in Nagaland. We are pursuing the ministry and they have set up a high power committee involving OIL, ONGC, government officials, to discuss the issue with the Government of Nagaland and resume exploration,” the official said.

Unlike Pakistan, India is likely to have little trouble attracting the oil and gas majors. Indeed, British energy giant BP Plc (NYSE:BP) has been hunting for more opportunities in the country. BP has forged a joint venture with Indian multinational conglomerate Reliance Industries to operate 1,900 fuel retail stations across India and produces oil and gas from a deepwater block in the Krishna-Godavari basin. The JV has teamed up with ONGC to bid for exploration rights for an offshore block in India.

Analysts have predicted that India is set to become the key driver of global oil demand growth, overtaking China.


“China’s role as a global oil demand growth engine is fading fast,” Emma Richards, senior analyst at London-based Fitch Solutions Ltd, told The Times of India. According to the analyst, over the next decade, China’s share of emerging market oil demand growth will decline from nearly 50% to just 15% while India’s share will double to 24%.

A rapidly growing population, which has likely surpassed China’s, is expected to be the main driver of consumption trends in India. Meanwhile, the country’s transition from traditional gasoline and diesel-fueled transport is expected to lag other regions, in sharp contrast to China’s skyrocketing adoption of electric vehicles and clean energy in general.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com

Saudi Oil Giant Aramco Eyes Investment in Indian Refineries

By Charles Kennedy - Mar 27, 2025, 

Saudi Aramco is discussing investments in two new Indian refineries to secure future crude sales.

The company is offering to supply crude volumes equivalent to three times its future stake in each project.

These discussions involve Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC).


Saudi Aramco, the world’s top oil firm and single biggest crude exporter, is in discussions to invest in two planned refineries in India, sources in India told Reuters on Thursday.

State-owned Indian refiners plan to build several new crude processing plants to meet soaring fuel and petrochemicals demand in the world’s third-largest crude oil importer.

Saudi Arabia, for its part, looks to lock in future term sales for its crude in the top Asian markets, which are set to continue driving global demand growth in the coming years. India has even surpassed China as the single biggest driver of demand growth.

Aramco already has several deals with Chinese refiners and petrochemical producers as the Saudi oil giant has been pursuing deals in recent years to expand its international downstream presence, especially in demand centers such as Asia.

Now Saudi Aramco has set its sights on investment in the new Indian refineries expected to be built. The Saudi oil giant is offering to supply crude volumes equivalent to three times its future stake in each project, according to Reuters’ sources.

Saudi Aramco is discussing buying a stake in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL)’s $11 billion new refining and petrochemical complex in south India, and is in separate talks with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for a proposed refinery in the Gujarat state on India’s west coast, the sources told Reuters.

However, Indian refiners are continuously looking for cheaper crude and diversified supply, and the Saudi proposal to supply a large part of the oil for the new refineries may not work.

BPCL’s refinery project is at a more advanced stage and the state-owned refiner has already launched some preliminary work on the project, including land purchase.

For years Saudi Aramco has been trying to tap downstream opportunities in India. The oil giant has tried – and failed – to reach a deal with private refiner Reliance Industries.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com