Iowa’s Wind Boom Stalls as Politics Clashes With Power Prices

By Haley Zaremba - Feb 07, 2026

• Anti-renewable politics are slowing wind development in states that once led the industry.
• 
  
• Iowa’s wind boom helped lower power prices, but local opposition has largely frozen new projects.
• 
  
• The policy shift comes as U.S. electricity demand surges, raising risks for prices and competitiveness.
• 
  
• 
  

On January 20, the United States Department of Energy released a report on the first year of Donald Trump's second term called “PROMISES MADE, PROMISES KEPT” which touted a return to global energy dominance and a reversal of the “Biden energy subtraction agenda.” But on the ground in energy-industry states, the story is a lot more complicated. 

A groundswell of anti-renewable sentiment has cropped up in rural and red areas of the United States in recent years, echoed and crystallized by the Trump campaign but certainly not created by it. However, this stance has caused many local-level economies to plateau, as some of the nation’s biggest concentrations of renewable energy development were unfolding in red states and counties, which tend to hold the undeveloped land and the blue-collar workforce that such projects call for. 

In Iowa, for example – a state which voted for Trump in all three elections he ran in – wind energy has flourished over the past decade. Iowa is currently the second-largest wind producer after Texas, and wind energy provides around two-thirds of the state’s energy. The state’s largest utility reports that the growth of wind power in the midwestern state “has directly held down Iowans’ electricity bills” according to recent reporting from Politico’s E&E News. But now, Iowa’s wind industry has come to a near-complete standstill.

“Wind energy development has all but ground to a halt in the face of community opposition, a phaseout of federal tax credits and the Trump administration’s actions to slow the approval of federal permits,” reports The Gazette, a local news outlet based in Cedar Rapids. Now, many locals are wondering whether Iowans have shot themselves in the foot by embracing an anti-wind and anti-renewable political agenda.

And Iowans are not alone. “U.S. onshore wind is in its weakest shape in about a decade, not because the technology has stopped being competitive, but because the policy and, to an extent, the macro-environment have turned sharply against it,” Atin Jain, a BloombergNEF energy analyst, told The Gazette.

Embodying this opposition, Trump recently said, “my goal is to not let any windmill be built,” at a White House meeting with oil executives. “They’re losers.”

“We have not approved one windmill since I’ve been in office,” Trump went on to say at last month’s World Economic Forum summit in Davos, “and we’re going to keep it that way.”

This could be a major issue for wind-heavy states like Texas and Iowa, both of which helped to put Trump in office. And the bottoming out of renewable energy growth comes at a particularly painful time. Energy demand across the nation (and the world) is skyrocketing, driven by the AI boom and the voracious energy needs of data centers.

Trump’s energy policy and its gutting of renewable incentives “severely hamstrings the U.S. ability to meet skyrocketing power demands and dilutes its economic competitiveness on the global stage,” Sandhya Ganapathy, CEO of Houston-based EDP Renewables North America, told Forbes last year.

Despite the current administration’s claims that it has made good on promises to lower energy prices nationwide, data from the United States Energy Information Administration suggest otherwise. Between November 2024 and 2025, nearly every state has seen an energy price jump, with many mid-Atlantic states seeing hikes between 10 and 15 percent.

Iowa, for its part, has only seen a 1.2 percent energy price increase over the last year. And many Iowans are standing strongly with Trump, and in opposition to any expansion of the wind industry that currently makes up the lion’s share of the country’s energy mix. At present, 58 of Iowa’s 99 counties have rules limiting wind power development, many of which have the strongest wind resources in the state.

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

World Nuclear News

US campaign puts case for disposal, not reprocessing, of used fuel

Thursday, 12 February 2026

The Nuclear Scaling Initiative’s Scale What Works campaign says that direct disposal of used nuclear fuel in the US is the "safest, most secure and least expensive pathway for the country" as nuclear energy capacity is expanded.
 

A rendering of the Onkalo underground used fuel repository in Finland, which is cited as an example of the benefits of 'clear, straightforward direct disposal policies' (Image: Posiva)

The initiative - which is a collaboration of the Clean Air Task Force, the EFI Foundation and the Nuclear Threat Initiative - aims to "build a new nuclear energy ecosystem that can quickly and economically scale to 50+ gigawatts of safe and secure nuclear energy globally per year by the 2030s".

The Nuclear Scaling Initiative (NSI) Executive Director Steve Comello said: "Making smart fuel management choices today, that acknowledge that reprocessing technologies today are not economically viable and pose security and waste management risks, can drive grid reliability, innovation, and economic and national security for the United States and beyond."

NSI, whose global advisory board is chaired by former US Secretary of State John Kerry, says that all forms of energy production produces waste, and says that in nuclear's case, directly storing and "eventually disposing of intact spent fuel" underground "is a safe, straightforward process that uses existing expertise and infrastructure".

Countries should learn from the reprocessing experience in the UK, Japan and France, NSI says, adding that its view is that reprocessing used fuel is "costly, complex and time-intensive, increasing energy prices for consumers and diverting resources from readily deployable technologies".

Former Deputy Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Energy John Deutch said: "Reprocessing is not a reasonable option: it threatens security, is not cost-effective and will slow our ability to scale nuclear energy."

Reprocessing of used fuel from commercial reactors has been prohibited in the USA since 1977, with all used fuel being treated as high-level waste. However, the nation has more than 250 plant-years of reprocessing operational experience, mostly from reprocessing oxide fuels at government-operated defence plants as part of its military programme. A civil reprocessing plant at West Valley, New York, operated successfully from 1966-1972: a second one at Morris, Illinois, failed to work successfully and was declared inoperable in 1974. A third civil reprocessing plant was built at Barnwell, South Carolina but was not commissioned due to the changed government policy.

Earlier this month the US Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy awarded more than USD19 million to five US companies to research and develop recycling technologies for used nuclear fuel.

The Department of Energy noted that less than 5% of the potential energy in the USA's nuclear fuel is extracted after five years of operation in a commercial reactor. It says recycling used nuclear fuel could increase resource utilisation by 95%, reduce waste by 90%, and decrease the amount of uranium needed to operate nuclear reactors. Additional benefits to nuclear fuel recycling include the recovery and extraction of valuable radioisotopes for medical, industrial, and defence purposes.

In September last year Oklo Inc announced plans to design, build and operate a facility at Oak Ridge in Tennessee to recycle used nuclear fuel into fuel for fast reactors like the company’s own Aurora powerhouse. The Executive Orders signed by President Donald Trump last year included directions to the Department of Energy to bring forward national policies on the management of used fuel and high-level waste and evaluate private-sector reprocessing options, amongst other things.

Study examines benefits of Pallas to future power plant construction

Thursday, 12 February 2026

The knowledge and expertise gained in the Netherlands from the construction of the Pallas research reactor reduces the risk of delays in future nuclear power plant construction thanks to experience with permits, documentation, and supply chain qualification, according to a study by SEO Economic Research.
 

(Image: SEO)

The study - Building on Experience - examined the potential societal value of the Pallas programme for the construction of future Dutch nuclear power plants.

The Pallas research reactor is being built at Petten to replace the existing High Flux Reactor (HFR), which began operating in September 1960 and supplies about 60% of Europe's and 30% of the world's medical radioactive sources. Pallas will be of the "tank-in-pool" type, with a thermal power of around 55 MW, and able to deploy its neutron flux more efficiently and effectively than the HFR. Construction was officially launched in September last year.

"Pallas primarily delivers social added value through risk reduction: fewer surprises, fewer redesigns, and fewer iterations with suppliers or the supervisory authority," SEO said. "This predictability is important before construction begins, because many choices are made during this phase that later impact lead time and costs. At the same time, the learning effect is still developing and will only fully materialise if the acquired knowledge is actively retained and remains transferable.

"A scenario analysis shows that reducing construction delays by one to three years could yield significant financial benefits. For two nuclear power plants, the indicative total benefits range from EUR0.98 billion (USD1.16 billion) to EUR2.13 billion with a one-year reduction in delay to EUR2.96 billion to EUR6.41 billion with a three-year reduction in delay, primarily due to lower delay costs and an earlier start of the operational phase. In addition, smaller but positive savings are possible upfront (tens of millions of euros)."

NRG-Pallas said the construction of the new research reactor "presents an interesting case study because it is the first large-scale nuclear project in the Netherlands since the 1970s. With Pallas, the Netherlands has once again gained practical expertise in quality standards, safety, and supply chain qualification. The position of the supervisory authority, ANVS, has been strengthened with up-to-date expertise and experience".

The report shows that the acquired knowledge primarily reduces risks by reducing the likelihood of redesign and fewer issues with suppliers or regulators, thus lowering the risk of delays. These learnings enable faster and more predictable operations on these types of projects. Pallas also contributes to strengthening the ecosystem by enabling a new generation of professionals to gain experience, and by enabling suppliers to invest in knowledge to meet nuclear quality standards.

In December 2021, the Netherlands' new coalition government placed nuclear power at the heart of its climate and energy policy. In addition to keeping the Borssele plant in operation for longer, the government also called for the construction of new reactors. Based on preliminary plans, two new reactors will be completed around 2035 and each will have a capacity of 1000-1650 MWe. The two reactors would provide 9-13% of the country's electricity production in 2035. The cabinet announced in December 2022 that it currently sees Borssele as the most suitable location for the construction of the new reactors. Three other locations are also being considered for the reactors: the Tweede Maasvlakte near Rotterdam, Terneuzen in Zeeland and Eemshaven in Groningen. The government is also taking steps to prepare the Netherlands for the possible deployment of small modular reactors.

"With Pallas, the Netherlands has been able to gain unique knowledge about the practical aspects of implementing a large-scale nuclear project," said NRG-Pallas CEO Maurits Wolleswinkel. "Research agency SEO was asked whether it would be worthwhile to proactively retain this knowledge and manpower once the programme has completed all its various phases. The research confirms that the realisation of the Pallas reactor represents important pioneering work that could be of great value for the construction of new nuclear power plants. If the Netherlands retains and utilises this knowledge efficiently, its nuclear ambitions can be realised faster and at lower costs."

"Interviews and studies show that the Pallas programme can significantly reduce both time and costs in the construction of new nuclear power plants," said Erik Brouwer, head of the Competition, Aviation and Innovation group within SEO. "With NRG-Pallas, the Netherlands now has an organisation with recent experience in construction and permitting processes."

The report has been submitted to Jan Anthonie Bruijn, Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport, and Sophie Hermans of the Ministry of Climate and Green Growth.

"The report confirms that the investment made by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport extends beyond the domain of public health and is of great value to the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport's major societal mission of achieving a sustainable and reliable energy supply," NRG-Pallas said. "Intensive collaboration between the ministries and the use of this report will ensure that the knowledge and experience are retained and utilised to the fullest extent possible for the Netherlands."

Assessment of proposed Norwegian SMR plant to begin

Thursday, 12 February 2026

The Norwegian government has given Norsk Kjernekraft approval to begin work on an impact assessment for a nuclear power plant in Aure and Heim municipalities, the first step in the licensing process for nuclear power in Norway.
 

The proposed location for the plant (Image: Norsk Kjernekraft)

Nuclear project developer Norsk Kjernekraft submitted a proposal to Norway's Ministry of Energy in November 2023 for an assessment of the construction of the small modular reactor (SMR) plant. According to the preliminary plan, the plant will be located in a common industrial area - the Taftøy industrial park - in the border area between Aure and Heim in Trøndelag county. The plant is planned to consist of several SMRs, which together will produce around 12.5 TWh of electricity annually, if the plant is realised in its entirety.

In April last year, the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Health and Care Services, the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, and the Ministry of Climate and Environment requested the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, and the Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment programme for the proposed plant. A notification with a proposal for an assessment programme for the project was published for consultation in Norway by the Ministry of Energy in May 2024 with a deadline for submissions that same autumn.

At the request of the Ministry of Energy, the Norwegian Environment Agency submitted the proposed impact assessment programme for consultation by neighbouring countries, giving them the opportunity to assess the impacts this could have on them, so that this can be investigated further in a possible further process of planning the licence application and operation. The deadline for other countries to provide input to the assessment programme was 6 January 2026. The consultation responses have now been reviewed and taken into account.

The Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Health and Care Services, and the Ministry of Climate and Environment have now established an impact assessment programme for the plans for the prosed plant.

"The impact assessment shall be prepared in accordance with the established assessment programme, and will constitute a central part of the decision-making basis for any applications for concessions under the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Act, applications for permits under the Pollution Act and other relevant permits and approvals," the Ministry of Energy said.

"By establishing this assessment programme, we are setting minimum requirements for the scope and content of impact assessments for a possible nuclear power plant in Taftøy Business Park," said Minister of Energy Terje Aasland. The fact that we have now established this assessment programme does not mean that a position will be taken on nuclear power production as a power source in the Norwegian power system. Whether nuclear power will be relevant in Norway must be considered more closely in light of the Nuclear Power Committee's report. For the government, it is important to ensure a predictable and safe process."

"It is very pleasing that we have now received a formally binding impact assessment programme from the Ministry of Energy for nuclear power in Aure and Heim municipalities," said Norsk Kjernekraft CEO Jonny Hesthammer. "This is a big step forward for nuclear power in Norway. This confirms that Norway has the regulatory framework for nuclear power."

"Now we will first sit down and make a plan for the implementation of the impact assessment, where an important part is how the local population and other stakeholders will be able to contribute to the benefits and disadvantages of the nuclear power plant being highlighted. We have already started work on parts of the impact assessment, and we look forward to having a good dialogue with neighbours, municipalities and state authorities," he said.

The proposed nuclear power plant in Aure and Heim is the first of ten projects that Norsk Kjernekraft is implementing in Norwegian municipalities.

Safety review completed at South African research reactor

Thursday, 12 February 2026

A team of International Atomic Energy Agency experts has outlined areas of good performance, and areas for strengthening South Africa's Safari-1 research reactor's ageing management programme.
 

(Image: NECSA)

The five-day six-person Safety Review Mission on Ageing Management and Continued Safe Operation was at the invitation of the facility's operator, the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) and was completed on 6 February.

Safari-1 is a tank-in-pool research reactor which reached first criticality in 1965 with a capacity of 6.67 MWt. Over its 60 years of operation it has undergone various power uprates and been converted to use low-enriched uranium fuel and low-enriched uranium targets for isotope production. Today, it has a licensed operating power of 20 MWt and is one of the world's major commercial producers of medical and industrial radioisotopes. It is also used for activation analyses, material modification (such as the neutron transmutation doping of silicon for the semi-conductor industry) and provides support services such as neutron radiography and neutron diffraction for both industry and research.

It is currently licensed to operate until 2030, but could be a sustainable operational irradiation facility beyond that date, pending an engineering assessment supported by an ageing management programme, Necsa has said.

Kaichao Sun, mission team leader and Nuclear Safety Officer at the IAEA, said: "We appreciated the high quality of the discussions during the mission, and the openness of the Safari-1 counterparts is well noted. Systematically implementing the ageing management activities can be challenging. Continuously improving the management system that integrates the existing operational programmes helps address this challenge."

The good performance identified included a "strong commitment and involvement of the reactor management and technical staff by conducting a self-assessment" against the review mission guidelines as part of preparation, and "effective engagement and communication between the operating organisation and the regulatory body at an early stage for the ongoing periodic safety review".

Recommendations to strengthen the ageing management programme included "management of financial and human resources to achieve the organisation's objectives of continued safe operation; development of a systematic screening process to identify the structures, systems and components in the scope of the ageing management programme; and establishment of formalised programmes to proactively address the obsolescence and qualification of equipment".

Sammy Malaka, Acting Group Executive for Nuclear Operations and Reactor Manager of Safari-1, said: "Our responsibility to manage the ageing process becomes increasingly critical. We view this … mission as a collaborative opportunity to strengthen our safety culture, enhance our ageing management programme, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our research reactor operation and capabilities."

A draft report from the mission team was provided and a follow-up mission is being scheduled for 2028.

The South African cabinet approved the construction of a Multipurpose Reactor to succeed the Safari-1 research reactor, in 2021. Last year South Africa's Minister of Electricity and Energy Kgosientso Ramokgopa announced a budget allocation of ZAR1.2 billion (USD66 million) towards the cost of such a new multipurpose reactor.

 

U.S. Strategy in Armenia and Azerbaijan Includes Nuclear and AI

By Eurasianet - Feb 12, 2026

• Vice President Vance's visit successfully broadened US economic and strategic engagement with Armenia and Azerbaijan, moving past the initial focus on the Middle Corridor trade route.
• 
  
• In Baku, the US and Azerbaijan signed a Strategic Partnership Charter, pledging to expand cooperation in energy, aerospace, digital infrastructure, AI, and defense, including the transfer of coastal defense vessels.
• 
  
• The main outcome in Yerevan was a nuclear energy agreement that positions the US as the leading contender to build a new nuclear power plant in Armenia, alongside a major sale of surveillance and drone technology.
• 
  

Vice President JD Vance’s visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan succeeded in widening the scope of US economic engagement with the two South Caucasus nations. In the months immediately after Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a provisional peace deal in Washington last August, the Trump administration’s focus was on the development of the Middle Corridor trade and logistics network. But now other sectors, including civilian nuclear energy, arms sales and artificial intelligence, are part of the discussion.

Vance’s stop in Baku on February 10-11 included the signing of a US-Azerbaijani Charter on Strategic Partnership. While much of the document is devoted to maximizing the economic potential of TRIPP, or the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, there are numerous provisions indicating that the partnership aims to have a much broader foundation.

The two sides pledge to “mobilize public and private sector investment” to expand not just TRIPP, but also Azerbaijan’s energy and aerospace sectors and the country’s digital infrastructure. The document additionally expresses an intention to “expand collaboration on developing AI partnerships.”

Defense and security cooperation are also in play. Vance noted at the signing ceremony that the US will send an undisclosed number of coastal defense vessels to Azerbaijan for use in the country’s sector of the Caspian Sea. 

The US-Azerbaijani relationship “is one that will stick and is one that will continue to produce great fruits for both of our peoples,” Vance said.

Notably, the partnership document outlines an intent to deepen civilian nuclear cooperation, underscoring a US effort to muscle into a Eurasian energy market that has long been dominated by Russia. The countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia are embracing nuclear energy as a means of meeting rapidly growing power needs. 

The main outcome of Vance’s stop in Armenia was a nuclear energy agreement that positions the United States as the front-runner to secure the contract to build a new nuclear plant in the country. A final decision on the tender likely will not come until after Armenia holds parliamentary elections on June 7. 

Somewhat overshadowed by the nuclear agreement, Vance in Yerevan disclosed “a major sale of military technology” in the form of “surveillance and drone technology to the Armenians.”

Vance went on to say that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan will use the new arms “to secure his country and to make sure that the peace we are creating sticks.”

By Eurasianet.org 

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

Red-Hot Canadian Oil Patch M&A Likely to Cool

By Andrew Topf - Feb 11, 2026

• Canada’s upstream oil and gas sector saw a record $31.2 billion in M&A activity in 2025.
• 
  
• 2025 saw major deals such as Whitecap Resources’ merger with Veren and Cenovus Energy’ takeover of MEG Energy.
• 
  
• Sayer Energy Advisors expects deal activity to moderate in 2026 due to a shrinking pool of high-quality targets, strong producer balance sheets, and structural constraints despite improving policy signals.
• 
  

Last year saw a record number of deals in the Canadian oil patch, with sectoral consolidation reaching an eight-year high.

But a new report from Calgary-based Sayer Energy Advisors anticipates mergers and acquisitions in Canada’s upstream oil and gas will moderate over the next 12 months.

The report’s findings go against the expectations of industry analysts and executives of more US buyers searching for acquisition targets, along with more favorable government policies towards the sector spurring more action in 2026.

According to the report, via the Calgary Herald, the upstream oil and gas sector saw an estimated $31.2 billion of M&A activity in 2025, a 53% jump from the previous year and the most dealmaking since 2017, when five large transactions led by foreign firms exiting the oilsands accounted for 80% of the total deal value.

The 2025 total included Whitecap Resources’ (TSX:WCP) $15 billion merger with Veren Inc. last March, and Cenovus Energy’s (TSX:CVE) $8.6B takeover of oilsands producer MEG Energy in November.

Other deals saw Sunoco LP’s (NYSE:SUN) purchase of fuel giant Parkland Corp. for $9.1 billion; Keyera Corp.’s (TSX:KEY) $5.1B acquisition of Plains All American Pipeline’s (NASDAQ:PAA) NGL (Natural Gas Liquids) Division; Ovintiv Inc.’s (TSX:OVV) purchase of NuVista Energy for $3.8 billion, and Canadian Natural Resources’ (NYSE:CNQ) acquisition of Chevron’s (NYSE:CVX) Oilsands/ Duvernay Assets ($1.0B).

Buyers bulked up to achieve better returns and operational synergies during a period of lower oil prices averaging roughly $60 a barrel, rather than investing in new drilling.

About 30% of last year’s M&A activity targeted assets in the Montney formation of northeastern British Columbia and northwestern Alberta — a region known for its natural gas, condensate and NGLs.

Most major deals were completed by domestic players, although interest from US buyers began to increase as US shale wells started to become depleted.

A separate report from ATB Capital Markets notes most producers still have strong balance sheets, which could slow M&A in 2026, as there will be fewer firms looking to sell.

“We anticipate a modest slowdown in Canadian (exploration and production) M&A activity through 2026 following three years of robust consolidation within the sector,” the report states, per the Herald.

“This expected decline in momentum is driven by an intersection of structural and economic factors, most notably the scarcity of remaining high-quality targets that possess adequate scale and inventory depth to justify valuation premiums.”

On the other hand, Grant Zawalsky, senior partner and vice-chair at law firm Burnet, Duckworth and Palmer LLP in Calgary, was quoted by The Canadian Press as saying that “M&A is a way that you can grow when you don’t want to invest in drilling, when you’re not going to get the kind of returns you’re expecting,” he said.

“Until the fundamentals change, we’ll likely see more of the same.”

He should know. Zawalsky worked on three major energy transactions last year: the Cenovus-MEG Energy acquisition, Whitecap’s combination with Veren, and Ovintiv’s purchase of NuVista Energy.

BD&P was involved in eight of the 10 biggest transactions.

Tom Pavic, president of Sayer Energy Advisors, said that while the investment environment has been improving due to the Canadian and Alberta governments reaching an energy accord that includes support for a new West Coast oil pipeline, he hasn’t observed increased global interest in Canadian acquisitions.

Pavic chalked the disinterest up to lingering concerns over regulatory burdens and infrastructure needed for overseas exports.

However, US private equity players have been showing an interest in picking up Canadian assets, building up production and then selling the companies or taking them public.

“Anywhere they see a value arbitrage with Canadian assets selling lower or being developed at a lower cost, they view that as an opportunity,” Zawalsky was quoted by The Canadian Press.

“And they tend to be more willing to take risk on the regulatory side than established oil and gas producers.”

By Andrew Topf for Oilprice.com

Big Oil’s Merger Boom Is Being Driven by a Surprisingly Small Club

By Haley Zaremba - Feb 06, 2026

• Just 20 oil and gas companies accounted for more than half of the total M&A deal value over the past decade, according to Bain & Co.
• 
  
• Frequent acquirers dramatically outperformed non-acquirers, delivering shareholder returns roughly 130% higher over ten years.
• 
  
• Recent mega-deals, including Devon’s acquisition of Coterra, highlight how consolidation is reshaping U.S. shale even as future dealmaking may slow or shift focus.

The oil and gas sector is continuing to consolidate after years of ‘merger-mania’, with ramifications for the entire energy sector and wider economy. But a recent report reveals that the spate of mergers and acquisitions that has characterized the fossil fuels industry over the last decade is not as widespread as it may seem, but rather concentrated among a few key players. 

A newly released report from the consulting firm Bain & Co found that, within the oil and gas sector, “fewer companies are doing more of the deals and creating more of the value.” In fact, over the last ten years, just 20 companies were responsible for 53% of total deal value when it comes to mergers and acquisitions within the sector.

“And it’s not only the large supermajors,” Bain & Co report, “but also independents such as Diamondback Energy and large midstream companies such as ONEOK and Energy Transfer.” Indeed, this consolidation frenzy is reshaping the landscape of Big Oil, with not-quite-supermajors gobbling up more and more of the market.

What is more, the companies that are driving merger-mania are winning big. The report concluded that the companies considered to be ‘frequent acquirers’ ultimately provided shareholder returns that dwarfed the firms that were not involved in acquisitions over the last ten years. Companies completing at least one acquisition per year yielded returns that were a jaw-dropping 130% higher than companies that did not conduct acquisitions. This is more than double the performance gap seen between acquirers and non-acquirers in the sector a decade ago.

What is the math behind this massive performance gap? In layman’s terms, as explained by news outlet Semafor, “mergers tend to allow companies to capture scale and reduce unit costs through operational efficiencies and consolidated infrastructure, savings that have become more important now that oil prices have retreated from their 2022 peak.”

The consolidation boom has been especially concentrated in the United States, where “year-over-year mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity surged 331%, totaling $206.6 billion,” according to an August report from Ernst & Young. In fact, the domestic oil and gas sector has shrunk from a field of 50 major players to one of just 40 big names.

Just in the last two years, Chevron bought Hess for $53 billion, Exxon Mobil bought Pioneer Natural Resources for $60 billion, and Devon bought Grayson Mill Energy for $5 billion. And this merger-mania reached a new height just this month as Devon moved to acquire Coterra for nearly $26 billion in a marriage of two “crown jewels.” This deal “creates a domestic oil and gas juggernaut trailing only household names Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips in sheer production volumes” according to Fortune.

However, not everyone is thrilled about the new United States shale giant. The deal is a pure stock deal, with Devon shareholders set to hold 54 percent and Coterra shareholders 46 percent of the merged company. This makes it a bit contentious for investors. As explained by MarketWatch, “investors in the acquiring companies don’t usually like stock deals, because issuing new shares to fund the purchase dilutes their holdings, meaning they now own a smaller percentage of the company.”

The Devon-Coterra merger, popular or not, is major news after a relatively quiet year for mergers and acquisitions in 2025. In fact, it could be the harbinger of the next big consolidation wave. But probably not.

Some experts think that merger-mania is set to wind down or at least reorient its focus as prices become more volatile on the back of shifting demand patterns. “With ongoing uncertainty around supply and demand, pricing, tariffs, and geopolitics, operational efficiency and capital discipline will be critical,” says Ernst & Young’s Herb Listen. “The companies that adapt quickly, invest strategically and integrate effectively will define the next chapter of U.S. energy.”

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

U.S. Budget Deficit Set to Rise Again Amid Trump Tariffs and Tax Cuts

By Alex Kimani - Feb 12, 2026

• U.S. oil production is plateauing near record highs, making a 3 million b/d increase by 2028 increasingly unlikely.
• 
  
• The CBO projects rising deficits and debt despite tariff revenues, driven by tax cuts, entitlement costs, and surging interest payments.
• 
  
• Republicans dispute CBO assumptions, arguing stronger economic growth could narrow the fiscal gap more than forecast.
• 
  

Last year, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent set a target to cut the U.S. federal budget deficit to just 3% of GDP by the end of President Donald Trump’s second term. The deficit reduction was a key component of his "3-3-3" economic plan, with the other two being achieving 3% real GDP growth and increasing energy production by 3 million barrels a day by 2028. The plan relies on spending constraints, regulatory reforms, and tariff revenue to narrow the deficit. 

With Trump now completing the first year of his second term, energy and economic experts have weighed in, and they’re warning that Bessent could miss some of his targets by a wide margin. 

First off, U.S. oil production is unlikely to increase by 3 million barrels by the end of Trump’s second term. U.S. shale oil production is currently shifting from rapid expansion to an "undulating plateau" near record levels of 13.6 million barrels per day (b/d). While production remains historically high, growth has slowed due to increased capital discipline, depleted inventories, rising costs, and lower oil prices. 

Indeed, there are growing signs that low oil prices will force some U.S. producers to curtail production: Last month, shale drilling pioneer Continental Resources suspended drilling in North Dakota's Bakken shale for the first time in decades, with billionaire founder Harold Hamm decrying low oil prices, "This will be the first time in over 30 years that Harold Hamm has not had an operation with drilling rigs in North Dakota," Hamm told Bloomberg in an interview, "There's no need to drill it when margins are basically gone.” 

According to BloombergNEF, the Bakken is viewed as a bellwether for the U.S. shale sector, with the basin currently having a breakeven price of $58/bbl to cover costs. This implies that the current WTI crude price of $62.4 per barrel offers razor-thin margins for producers.  U.S. oil output is projected to decline slightly in 2026 due to lower oil prices that reduce drilling incentives, slowing activity even as technology improves. Lower prices make some wells uneconomical, leading companies to scale back drilling, with gains in areas like the Permian Basin unable to fully offset losses elsewhere.

Second, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected that the U.S. fiscal gap will continue to widen over the next decade thanks to generous tax cuts by the Trump administration, tariffs, high interest costs, and increased spending on mandatory programs.

According to the CBO, the U.S. budget deficit for fiscal year 2026--Trump’s first full year in office--will climb to $1.853 trillion from $1.775 trillion, or 5.8% of GDP. 

However, the deficit-to-GDP ratio will hit 6.7% by 2036, well above the 50-year average of 3.8%. Cumulative deficits over the next decade are projected at $24.4 trillion, with debt held by the public expected to reach 120% of GDP by 2036. 

The 2025 reconciliation act, aka the "One Big Beautiful Bill," is estimated to add $4.7 trillion to deficits through 2035 due to permanent tax cut extensions and increased defense spending. Net interest outlays are the fastest-growing category of spending, projected to surpass $1 trillion in 2026 and double to $2.1 trillion by 2036. 

Rising costs for Social Security and Medicare for an aging population continue to drive mandatory spending upward. The CBO has warned that the Highway Trust Fund could be exhausted by 2028, followed by the Social Security retirement trust fund in 2032. On the flipside, new tariffs that were introduced in 2025 are projected to generate approximately $3 trillion in revenue over ten years, partially mitigating the deficit increases caused by other policies.

The CBO is a nonpartisan federal agency within the legislative branch that provides independent, objective economic and budgetary analysis to Congress. Established in 1974, it acts as the official "scorekeeper" for Congress, producing cost estimates for legislation and projecting federal revenue and spending to help lawmakers manage the budget. However, Republican politicians have frequently criticized the CBO as being biased toward the political left because its economic models and "scores" (cost estimates) frequently contradict Republican fiscal projections, particularly regarding tax cuts, healthcare, and deficit spending. 

Republican lawmakers and conservative groups argue that its methodologies are flawed, too conservative on growth, and favor the expansion of government programs. Republicans argue the CBO fails to accurately account for the economic growth generated by tax cuts, resulting in overestimations of the deficit impact of their proposals. 

A major point of contention is the CBO's reliance on "static" scoring, which often ignores macroeconomic effects (like increased investment) that Republican lawmakers believe would make their tax cuts pay for themselves. Republicans favor "dynamic" scoring, which they argue better reflects reality.

"CBO will always predict a dark future when Republicans propose tax relief – but the reality is never so dire," Rep. Jason Smith, the U.S. representative for Missouri's 8th congressional district, declared last year. "The CBO assumes long-term GDP growth of an anemic 1.8% and that is absurd," said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. "The American economy is going to boom like never before after the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' is passed."

That said, U.S. economic growth is projected to remain resilient in the current year. After declining by an annualized 0.6% in the first quarter of 2025, real GDP expanded by a much-improved 3.8% in the second quarter and a robust 4.4% in the third quarter, marking the largest quarterly increases since the third quarter of 2023. Goldman Sachs has forecast that GDP will grow by 2.5% in the current year, exceeding the consensus of 2.1%.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com

U.S. Container Imports Expected to Fall in First Half of 2026

Forecast for U.S. imports expects declines for the first half of 2026 (Port of Long Beach file photo)

Published Feb 9, 2026 8:01 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

While there appear to be signs of a normalization in the U.S. container import flows and less impact from frontloading, the expectations are that volumes will continue to fall at least through the first four months of 2026. Uncertainty about the U.S.’s tariffs, policy issues, and geopolitical developments all continue to weigh on the outlook for trade.

Both the National Retail Federation and Descartes Global are pointing to a weak start to 2026 import volumes. Descartes calculates that January container volumes were at a total of 2.3 million TEU, which was up more than 90,000 TEU versus December, but down nearly seven percent versus a year ago. Last year, importers were believed to be frontloading ahead of the return of Donald Trump to the White House.

The retail trade association is forecasting January’s retail import figure at 2.11 million TEU, which it says is down more than five percent from a year ago. It suggests that the month-over-month increase was importers advancing orders to get ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday, which begins next week, and when factories across Asia will be closed.

Analysts have forecast that carriers would take between 10 and 14 percent of capacity out of the market around the Lunar New Year. The major lines typically begin blanking sailings from their schedules around the holiday and afterward and are further encouraged this year, with freight rates already weak.

Imports from China specifically were down nearly 23 percent in January 2026, according to Descartes. It notes that China accounted for a third of U.S. trade but believes the tariff policies and uncertainties are showing in the current levels of imports.

“With tariffs still a matter of debate in the courts and in Congress, their effect on imports is being clearly seen,” said Jonathan Gold, the NRF Vice President for Supply Chain and Customs Policy. “The situation underscores the need for clear and predictable trade policies that support supply chain certainty and reliability, business planning, and consumer affordability.”

The NRF reiterated its earlier projections that imports will show significant year-over-year declines during the first half of 2026. It projects container volumes under two million TEU per month until April. For the first half, it projects a total of 12.27 million TEU, which would be down two percent from 2025.

The first improvements, however, could begin in May 2026, a year after Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day,” when the tariff levels were first rolled out. Retailers and other shippers rushed to get their goods into the U.S. ahead of the policies or during some of the pause windows created as tariff negotiations were proceeding.

Descartes, however, also highlights that with the lack of a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on the tariffs, “policy uncertainty for importers remains elevated, with no near-term change to tariff conditions.” The Trump administration has also threatened new moves if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down its current tariff policies.