Friday, October 24, 2025

Britain's Green Energy Plan To Create 400,000 New Jobs

Two drastically different trends in energy careers are taking place on either side of the Atlantic Ocean. While the Trump administration pulls back billions of dollars in clean energy funding and seeks to prop up coal careers, the United Kingdom is rolling out a plan to add 400,000 clean energy jobs to the national economy.

Just this week Edward Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change of the United Kingdom, announced a national plan to train hundreds of thousands of plumbers, electricians, carpenters, welders, HVAC installers, and more as part of a scheme to double the country’s clean energy workforce by 2030. Priority will go to individuals with heightened vocational needs, including those leaving the fossil fuel sector, school leavers, unemployed individuals, veterans and formerly incarcerated people.

More specifically, the plan designates 31 skilled trades for recruitment and training. The highest priority positions are in plumbing, heating and ventilation, as an additional 8,000 to 10,000 of these workers will be needed by 2030. This is followed by 4,000 to 8,500 each of carpenters, electricians, and welders. 

The plan will likely come up against resistance from the Reform UK, the nation’s preeminent right-wing party. But Miliband is hedging his bets that the prospect of 400,000 high-quality jobs will be popular all along the political spectrum. “Reformers said they’ll wage war on clean energy,” Miliband said. “Well, that’s waging war on these jobs … It’s all part of their attempt at a culture war, but I actually think they’re out of tune with the British people because I think people recognise that we need, that we want the jobs from clean energy.”

Miliband went on to say that this new plan “answers a key question about where the good jobs of the future will come from”, marking a major step forward for a “just transition” away from fossil fuels. The idea of a just transition refers to a responsible and fair clean energy transition that doesn’t leave fossil fuel workers and their communities behind. The plan also addresses a critical skills gap that poses an existential threat to the country’s decarbonization goals.

Professor Dave Reay, who co-chairs Scotland’s Just Transition Commission, told Reuters that unless UK workers are appropriately trained and upskilled for green jobs, “talent has to come in from overseas, (as has already occurred) or it doesn't happen at the speed that's required.” Easing the transition into the sector is essential to retain a homegrown energy-sector workforce, Reay adds. “If folk can't easily make the switch or make the entry into the sector, then they won't do it. A lot of the oil and gas folk that we speak to are saying, ‘I kind of get it, but I can get work in the Middle East or Australia.

Britain’s new clean jobs plan highlights a widening divide between energy-sector leadership in the United States and the United Kingdom, two nations that usually operate by relatively similar principles in line with their “special relationship”. But all that has changed as the nations diverge along climate lines. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has implemented the most ambitious climate target of any industrial economy, while President Trump has pulled out of the Paris agreement altogether. The United Kingdom closed its last coal plant in 2024, while Trump has promised to revitalize “beautiful, clean coal”.

In the United States, jobs are being slashed at alarming degrees, from automaking to clean energy to government positions. And while the Trump administration has attracted lots of investment dollars, critics argue that this won’t translate to long-term jobs. “Even if the US succeeds in reshaping supply chains, it doesn’t guarantee the creation of good jobs,” University of Sussex International Relations Professor Benjamin Selwyn recently wrote for the Conversation. “Despite Trump’s pro-labour rhetoric, his administration’s actions tell a different story.”

As of July, $22 billion in clean energy projects had been canceled, a number which has continued to balloon in past months, leading to the loss of many thousands of jobs. “These cancellations aren’t just numbers on a balance book,” said E2 spokesperson Michael Timberlake in a July statement. “They’re jobs, paychecks and opportunities in communities that were counting on these clean energy projects to drive economic growth. And now they’re gone.”

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com 

Glut Hysteria Clashes with Missing Oil Barrels

  • The IEA, EIA, and BloombergNEF all forecast a major global oil surplus through 2026—up to 4 million bpd.

  • The IEA admitted it couldn’t account for 1.47 million barrels per day of global supply in August, raising doubts about the accuracy of its glut projections.

  • Despite “glut hysteria,” oil prices have ticked higher as traders show fatigue with bearish forecasts and remain sensitive to geopolitical risks.

A looming oil glut has taken over the energy commodities market as the dominating sentiment among traders and analysts. Everyone is predicting a glut—the only difference is in its size. But there is a fly in the bearish ointment. The IEA admitted this week that it was unable to account for 1.47 million barrels of supply.

The International Energy Agency deepened the glut mood last week, when it predicted a supply overhang of 2.35 million barrels daily for this year, and an all-time high surplus of 4 million barrels daily for 2026. In the same report, however, the IEA admitted it cannot place some 1.47 million barrels daily in global supply for August.

This is nothing abnormal in oil supply estimation, Reuters’ Ron Bousso noted in a report on the matter, but the size of the barrels that are unaccounted for casts a shadow over the accuracy of the IEA’s predictions. It suggests that in August, the global supply overhang may have been 1.47 million barrels daily larger than the IEA estimated or, then again, 1.47 million barrels daily smaller. The number for August gains even more significance in light of the fact that it is a sizable increase on earlier “missing barrel” estimates: 850,000 bpd for July and 370,000 bpd for the second quarter of the year, per Bousso, who cited IEA data.

While the IEA looks for the lost barrels, other agencies are updating their supply and demand forecasts for 2026—and prices just inched up because apparently some traders got fed up with the glut hysteria.

BloombergNEF, for instance, not known for its bullish tendencies, has revised its supply growth prediction for 2026 by 200,000 barrels daily for an oversupply size of 3.3 million barrels daily. For this year, the agency sees oversupply at 1.16 million barrels daily, which raises the question of how the prediction for 2026 would come true when gluts tend to push prices and drilling down, curbing output instead of boosting it twofold.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects a supply overhang of 1.9 million barrels daily this year, growing to 2.1 million barrels daily in 2026. The numbers are an upward revision of earlier forecasts for a 1.7-million-bpd surplus this year and a 1.6-million-bpd overhang for 2026.

Bloomberg, meanwhile, stoked the glut fire by reporting there were 1 billion barrels of crude oil on tankers at sea. The report noted this was oil in transit, meaning some of it, at least, is en route from seller to buyer, but the implication was that a lot of the oil was actually looking for a buyer in an oversupplied market.

“Crude cargoes from the Middle East are starting to go unsold and key price gauges signal that supply scarcity is ending,” Bloomberg wrote, which is an interesting point to make, seeing as there has not been talk about any sort of supply scarcity for months.

“For the last 12 months we’ve all known that there’s this surplus that’s coming,” Trafigura’s global head for oil, Ben Luckock, said earlier this month as quoted by Bloomberg. “I think it really is just about here now.”

“The most straightforward of economic concepts is driving this decline: There’s simply too much supply relative to how much the world is consuming,” analyst Rory Johnston from Commodity Context told the Financial Post.

The IEA, meanwhile, reported in its latest monthly update that in August, oil on water declined by 8 million bpd. It followed up with preliminary estimates that oil on water surged to 102 million over the next month. That would be quite a sudden buildup in oil in floating storage over a very short period of time and would perfectly justify preparations for a glut.

Oil prices, in the meantime, however, have ticked higher. One of the reasons seems to be that some market observers have developed something of a glut fatigue and are starting to doubt the predictions. As UBS’ Giovanni Staunovo wrote this week in a note, “While supply concerns have increased in recent weeks again, we believe the oil market is oversupplied but not in a glut.”

Concern about supply security from Russia also contributed to the latest in oil, suggesting that the supply overhang is not large enough, indeed, to leave traders cold to the news that a peace summit between the presidents of Russia and the United States had been put on hold. According to Reuters, U.S. pressure on Asian oil buyers from Russia had also contributed to the shift in oil supply sentiment.

Now, if the supply excess was as large as the IEA, the EIA, BloombergNEF, and Bloomberg proper, plus dozens of other forecasters have suggested, then the above developments in geopolitics would not have really mattered much for oil prices. The fact that they do suggests still existent sensitivity to supply disruptions, meaning the perception of a glut is a fragile one.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

 Russian Drones Pound Ukraine as Trump Slaps Sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil

  • Russian drone strikes hit Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Zaporizhzhya, injuring civilians and damaging homes and infrastructure.

  • The U.S. sanctioned Rosneft and Lukoil within hours of the attacks, aligning with new EU measures targeting Russia’s energy sector.

  • President Trump canceled a planned summit with Putin, signaling growing frustration and a tougher U.S. stance toward Moscow.

Russian drones attacked the Ukrainian capital for the second night in a row on October 22, injuring four people, officials said within hours of an announcement from Washington imposing sanctions on Russia’s two largest oil companies. Tymur Tkachenko, head of Kyiv's military administration, said drones had damaged several dwellings and other buildings.

Air assaults the night before struck throughout the country, killing at seven people and causing power outages. One of the attacks hit a kindergarten in Kharkiv and another hit an apartment building in Zaporizhzhya.

The Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement on Telegram that it struck Ukrainian energy infrastructure in response to Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilian targets.

The US Treasury Department announced the sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil after the European Union unveiled a fresh wave of sanctions earlier on October 22. Both actions were aimed at pressuring Russia to end its full-scale invasion of its neighbor.

“Today is a very big day in terms of what we’re doing. These are tremendous sanctions. These are very big -- against their two big oil companies. And we hope they won’t be on for long. We hope that the war will be settled,” US President Donald Trump said.

The move marks another shift for Trump, who has resisted putting more pressure on Russia in hopes that Russian President Vladimir Putin would agree to end the fighting. But his patience appeared to have run out after plans for a summit with Putin in Budapest collapsed.

“I just felt it was time,” Trump told reporters at the White House after welcoming NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. "Every time I speak with Vladimir, I have good conversations, and then they don't go anywhere."

In another indication that Trump's patience is wearing thing, the president said he had canceled the Budapest meeting.

“It didn’t feel right to me. It didn’t feel like we were going to get to the place we have to get,” he said.

The US sanctions are designed to increase pressure on Russia's energy sector and "degrade" the Kremlin’s ability to raise revenue for its war machine, the Treasury Department said in a news release.

"Given President Putin’s refusal to end this senseless war, Treasury is sanctioning Russia’s two largest oil companies that fund the Kremlin’s war machine," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in the news release.

Related: Oil Prices Surge as Trump Sanctions Russian Energy Giants

Bessent said earlier that Putin had not “come to the table in an honest and forthright manner, as we'd hoped."

The EU sanctions include the blacklisting of oil tankers used by Moscow, travel curbs on Russian diplomats, and a ban on importing liquefied natural gas from Russia by 2027.

The package is the 19th imposed by the EU since the Kremlin's full-scale invasion in 2022. The sanctions were presented last month by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who said the purchase of fossil fuels from Russia is financing the Russian war.

The US sanctions follow a similar move by Britain last week, said Rachel Ziemba, an analyst at the Center for New American Security. They are the first notable sanction on Russia from the Trump administration and should have an impact beyond those imposed by Britain alone, she said.

“So it’s a big deal but not as big as it would have been a year ago,” she said in response to a question from RFE/RL, pointing out that subsidiaries operating energy projects are also sanctioned and that could make getting new parts for rebuilding more expensive.

Ziemba also said that the Russian oil companies currently do little business in dollars or in the US financial sector, and the “evasive infrastructure” they use could “blunt” the impact of the new sanctions.

During his visit with Trump, Rutte praised the US president’s efforts to bring the two sides together even after some observers criticized Trump’s outreach to Putin, saying it only allowed the Russian leader to buy time.

Consistent pressure on Russia and frank talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are necessary to reach a cease-fire, Rutte said.

“Look at the Russian economy. There are long lines of cars into the gas stations,” Rutte told Fox News, adding that the Ukrainians have hit an estimated one-third of the Russian oil and gas infrastructure.

He also pointed to moves in Europe to do more to stop Russia’s use of a shadow fleet to move oil around the world.

“All of this will help change the calculus,” Rutte said. “Collectively, we will change Putin’s calculus and get him to the table and get the cease-fire going. I’m absolutely convinced. It may not be today or tomorrow, but we will get there.”

By RFE/RL

China’s state-owned oil giants halt Russian crude purchases in response to US sanctions

China’s state-owned oil giants halt Russian crude purchases in response to US sanctions
/ Giorgos Barazoglou - Unsplash
By bne IntelliNews October 23, 2025

China’s state-owned oil giants have paused their purchase of Russian crude oil in response to recent US sanctions targeting Moscow’s two largest oil firms, Rosneft and Lukoil, Reuters has reported. 

This suspension, expected to impact global oil markets, is part of a broader shift in international oil trade.

On October 22 2025, the United States imposed sanctions designed to increase economic pressure on Russia amid its ongoing conflict in Ukraine. These sanctions specifically target Rosneft and Lukoil, two of Russia's largest and most influential oil companies, both of which are responsible for a significant portion of the country’s oil exports. In response, Chinese state-owned companies such as PetroChina, Sinopec, CNOOC, and Zhenhua Oil have suspended seaborne oil purchases from Russia, at least in the short term. This move reflects growing concerns over the risks of dealing in Russian oil, which could expose firms to further sanctions or legal complications.

China is one of Russia’s largest oil customers, importing approximately 1.4mn barrels of Russian oil per day, with state-owned enterprises accounting for a significant portion of this volume. However, the suspension by China’s major oil players will not completely disrupt Russian exports. The majority of Russian oil destined for China is purchased by smaller, independent refiners, known as "teapots." These refiners, unlike their state-owned counterparts, are expected to continue assessing the risks but will likely resume imports once they fully evaluate the new sanctions.

China’s decision to halt Russian oil purchases follows similar moves in India, another major buyer of Russian crude. India’s largest refiner, Reliance Industries, has already indicated plans to drastically reduce Russian oil imports, and other major players such as Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum, and Hindustan Petroleum are expected to follow suit. Together, China and India account for roughly 90% of Russia’s seaborne oil exports, meaning any reduction in their purchases could significantly impact global oil supply chains.

The decision by China and India to scale back their Russian oil imports will put additional pressure on Moscow’s oil revenue and could trigger further volatility in global oil prices. As these two countries turn to alternative sources of crude, such as the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, global oil prices are expected to rise. In the meantime, Russian oil producers are seeking alternative markets, but the shift may not be enough to offset the loss of two of their largest buyers. This disruption could also lead to a greater reliance on the so-called "shadow fleet" of tankers designed to circumvent sanctions, although this approach presents its own risks and challenges.

GREENWASHING

Google Backs Carbon-Captured Gas to Power Its AI Future

Google has signed the first U.S. corporate power purchase agreement involving natural gas with carbon capture, marking a major shift in how Big Tech plans to fuel the data-hungry future of artificial intelligence.

The deal centers on the Broadwing Project, a 400-megawatt gas-fired power plant planned for Decatur, Illinois, developed by privately held Low Carbon Infrastructure. The plant will capture and store about 90% of its carbon dioxide emissions in underground wells 5,000 to 7,000 feet deep. Power will flow to Google’s expanding network of Midwestern data centers through the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which covers 15 states.

The agreement builds on Google’s recent efforts to secure cleaner and more reliable electricity for its AI-driven data centers, including partnerships with advanced nuclear, geothermal, and hydropower projects. It is Google’s first foray into carbon capture—a technology praised by the IEA and IPCC as vital for decarbonizing heavy industry but criticized for its high cost and uncertain scalability.

“We’ve been really focused on advancing around-the-clock clean technologies, and this is an important piece of the puzzle,” said Michael Terrell, head of Advanced Energy at Google.

The Broadwing project will be built at an existing Archer Daniels Midland industrial site that already injects carbon dioxide underground from ethanol production. Construction is expected to last four years, employing about 650 union laborers and 100 management and support staff. Low Carbon Infrastructure CEO Jonathan Wiens said the project demonstrates that carbon capture can be commercially viable today.

The company expects to reach a final investment decision in the first half of 2026, with operations beginning in the early 2030s. ADM will also have the option to buy power from the plant. Google and Low Carbon Infrastructure plan additional carbon capture projects across the U.S. as Big Tech searches for dependable, politically acceptable energy sources to power the AI era.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com

ENERGY IS OUR RIGHT!

Spain’s Clean Energy Dilemma

  • Spain now generates over 40% of its electricity from renewables, but excessive capacity and weak storage have caused frequent negative energy prices.

  • Investor confidence is faltering as profitability plunges, and Spain’s 2024 blackout revealed severe grid vulnerabilities.

  • The country’s experience underscores Europe’s broader risk: renewable energy expansion without sufficient infrastructure or market reform can destabilize energy systems.
PEOPLE BEFORE PROFIT

Spain has rapidly transformed its energy industry to be a global leader in renewable deployment and to ease its reliance on foreign oil and gas imports. The sun-baked country now sources more than 40 percent of its electricity supply, with more to come. But while this transition has been a boon for the nation’s energy independence, climate goals, and cheap and abundant clean energy, the costs of clean energy production in Spain have become too cheap for their own good. Instead of serving as a green energy inspiration for the rest of the world, Spain’s energy transition has become a cautionary tale about expanding clean energy too much, too quickly. 

Wind and solar energy are variable, meaning that their production rates don’t respond to demand, but to independent factors like the weather and the time of day. As a result, production rates frequently outpace demand, and vice versa. At times when the grid is flooded with surplus electricity, energy prices can actually go negative – and they do, increasingly often. In the first nine months of 2025, Spain experienced more than 500 hours of negative energy prices, an almost two-fold increase from last year’s total. 

Renewables-driven energy costs 40 percent lower than they would be if the grid looked the same as it did in 2019, according to estimates from the Bank of Spain. While this is great news for paying customers, it’s terrible news for would-be investors, and therefore for the clean energy sector writ large. “An excess of installed capacity, weaker-than-expected power demand, and a gradual erosion of prices are bringing into question the profitability of numerous projects,” says global business consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal. As a result, investor interest is waning, and the nation’s energy security is increasingly volatile.

In April of last year, Spain experienced the worst blackout in European history when a voltage surge at a solar plant in Extremadura shut down the entire grid. The catastrophe highlighted that Spain’s renewable energy deployment has dangerously outpaced essential supportive infrastructure like battery storage, which can capture excess energy at peak production hours and feed it back into the grid when production wanes later in the day.

This is not a uniquely Spanish problem. Negative energy prices have been plaguing investment in renewables across Europe for some time now, as the continent has heavily invested in solar and wind as part of its strategy to wean itself off of Russian oil and gas imports while also propping up the European Union’s climate goals. All of Europe, not only Spain, will break its previous record for hours of negative energy prices in 2025. 

“The risk is that renewables become a victim of their own success,” Bloomberg reported back in February. “Subsidies that encouraged the uptake of wind and solar installations are now being phased out in many markets, and projects need to show they can thrive without government support. But negative prices cut the average wholesale price offered to generators, depressing the profits from green energy.” 

Spain may serve as the proverbial canary in the coal mine for other markets where renewables expansion has boomed without adequate infrastructural support and financial fallback mechanisms. So far, increasing price inversions and energy security fears have resulted in a conflicted market. “While the volume of clean energy mergers and acquisitions in Europe increased by almost a third in the 12 months through June, they dropped by 10% in Spain," states another Bloomberg report from this week. But at the same time, “aggregate value of transactions in the country soared 60% due to high-profile deals.”

This divergence highlights the complex path forward for renewable energy markets. Renewable energy investment is still necessary for energy security and climate goals, and will remain lucrative in the long term. But in the short term, some of that money would be better directed toward energy storage and sorely needed grid updates so that renewable energy installation doesn’t prove to be too much of a good thing.

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com