King Charles delivered a humiliating public slapdown to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle yesterday after the couple’s surprise return to Britain, making it crystal clear they remain firmly out of the Royal Family.

Buckingham Palace issued a stinging letter on Monday spelling out that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have no official role, no working duties and no hope of a half-in, half-out arrangement.

“It is well known that in January 2020 the Duke and Duchess stepped down from undertaking representative duties on behalf of The Sovereign, and are no longer working Members of The Royal Family,” read the letter sent by the Lord Chamberlain, the royal household’s top official. “This position, distinct from the State and Royal duties undertaken by the working Royal Family, and with the personal latitude it brings the couple in respect of financial independence and protection of their privacy as they would wish, will continue to be fully respected.”

Buckingham Palace stressed that simply pitching up on British soil does not restore their royal standing.

“It follows that there is no change to the current status of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex,” the letter added. “Their styles as His and Her Royal Highness remain in abeyance and are not used. The charitable work of the Duke and Duchess is a personal matter for them both and undertaken in their private capacity. In short, their position is akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interests.”

A spokesman for Harry and Meghan responded to the letter with a terse statement, claiming that the pair had been blindsided.

“We were a little surprised not to have been told about this in advance. The publication of the letter had caught the couple off guard,” their statement reads.

However, Palace officials only told them of the King’s position an hour before the letter was published, according to GB News.

Meanwhile, some royal watchers said that no one should be remotely shocked by the king’s actions.

While Harry and Meghan are returning, they are not regaining official royal roles,” British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News. “Nor was there any agreement to a ‘half-in, half-out’ construct. They have been thwarted by trying to do what they agreed to with Queen Elizabeth II.”

Brent crude futures topped $100 a barrel for the first time since July as US strikes on Iranian oil tankers and renewed attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure and a US base in Jordan suggested to UBS energy specialist Dominic Ellis that a “US-Iran off-ramp remains elusive.”

Ellis adds more color on the overnight Gulf developments and response in the crude oil market:

Brent topped $100/bbl as the US and Iran continue to trade strikes around the Strait of Hormuz. 

The US says it has destroyed multiple Iranian vessels (including 5 on Sept. 8) in response to Iranian attacks, and says it will respond to each subsequent Iranian hit (actual or attempted) by destroying another Iranian tanker.

CENTCOM forces destroyed five Iranian crude oil carriers, Sept. 8, after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targeted a U.S. Navy warship with ballistic missiles twice over the past two days. The U.S. warship successfully evaded the attempted Iranian attacks and… pic.twitter.com/Gi8a2tloN1

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) September 8, 2026

Iran hit a US base in Jordan, and has stepped up attacks on the US’ regional allies, with Saudi Arabia’s energy infrastructure under particular pressure. 

Some investors have shown signs of wanting to fade the rally in oil and related equities, but the change in tone from all concerned makes it seem less likely (if not impossible) that we will see a return to the de-escalation narrative that has historically triggered a drop in oil and profit-taking in equities. 

With the tailwind into Q3 numbers for the integrated energy sector, I think most will be inclined to leave long positions open until there is evidence of real progress back toward a diplomatic off ramp.

Iran has reportedly rejected the latest US offer of talks, and the conflict seems likely to support oil at current levels and potentially push prices higher in the near term.

The global crude benchmark broke above $100 a barrel in European trading but initially failed to hold the level. Just over an hour later, at around 4:36 a.m. ET, Brent reclaimed triple digits and extended gains to $100.83 by around 6:00 a.m. ET.

Goldman’s head commodity strategist, Daan Struyven, wrote in a note on Monday that, given the renewed turmoil in the Gulf region, he raised his Brent/WTI price forecasts by $5 to $85/$80 for December 2026 and to $80/$75 for 2027, on the assumption that Mideast shipping disruptions continue into 2027.

Struyven outlined significant net upside price risks with two Gulf output and Brent scenarios:

• Price upside scenario: Brent might exceed $120/bbl if 2027 average Gulf output remains 4mb/d below pre-war levels, versus 0.5mb/d below in the base case. The bank views more intense shipping attacks in Hormuz and the Red Sea as the most likely driver of this lower-output, higher-price scenario.
• Price downside scenario: Brent might decline into the $60s in 2027 if 2027 average Gulf output rises 1mb/d above pre-war levels. Goldman still recommends hedging geopolitical risk through deferred Mar27-Dec27 European diesel timespreads, which would rise over 100% if persistent Russia or Mideast refinery outages keep the nearby 9-month spread near current levels.

Separately, Darrell Fletcher, managing director for commodities at Bannockburn Capital Markets, warned that the “path of least resistance is a strong and steady grind higher as the war enters seven months,” adding, “The fundamental picture for products remains bullish with global inventories and reserves deteriorating. In the typical pattern, the US and Iran continue their counterattacks and warnings.” 

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) navy announced Tuesday it had captured an unmanned US submersible at the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz, a claim which corresponding photographs appear to back.

The US side has yet to confirm the capture of the advanced naval drone, but some reports suggest it was “lost” after failing to operate properly. The IRGC statement called it a “complex intelligence and operational action.”

Tasnim identified the captured system is a Dive-LD in a report, describing the autonomous unmanned underwater vehicle built by US defense firm Anduril Industries.

The Dive-LD is a very new, cutting edge weapon system, having only been delivered to the US military in 2025. It is able to operate up to ten days at a time without coming back to port or ship, and is reported to have a maximum operating depth of about 19,700 feet (6,000 meters).

Later on the same day, an unnamed US official issued the following (via Newsquawk wire):

US official says a US military underwater drone malfunctioned more than a day ago in the Middle East

The sea drone may have been operating as part of a US mission to de-mine the Strait of Hormuz. It is capable of mapping the ocean floor, as well as rapidly locating floating mines and other water hazards.

There have been recent widespread reports that elite Navy Seals have been engaged in a four-month mission to remove mines set in place by Iranian forces as part of its effort to close the Strait of Hormuz and hold global energy markets hostages to use as leverage against Washington.

This undoubtedly confirms that in recent weeks, the U.S. has attempted to conduct a covert operation to clear the Strait of Hormuz.

In fact, this naval drone is precisely a Dive LD, primarily used for mapping the seabed, inspecting underwater infrastructure, relaying and… https://t.co/z6zV7tmxDq pic.twitter.com/Cjb3egGW50

— MoloMonitor 🇮🇹 (@MoloWarMonitor) September 8, 2026

The above was not the only big Tuesday announcement by the Iranians:

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claims its air defenses have “intercepted and destroyed” an MQ-1 drone over the Strait of Hormuz, according to an IRGC statement carried by Iranian broadcaster IRIB.

The MQ-1 is a US-made remotely piloted drone often used for surveillance and reconnaissance.

The Pentagon has not yet definitively weigh in on this claim either. A huge number of advanced US drones have either crashed or been intercepted throughout the war, so this would hardly be the first such loss by American forces.

More images of sub capture: The submersible shown closely matches Anduril’s Dive-LD, an advanced large-displacement autonomous underwater vehicle deployed by the US Navy.

🇮🇷🇺🇸 IRGC captures advanced U.S.-made underwater drone in Strait of Hormuz

The IRGC Navy has released new footage and photographs of the autonomous underwater vehicle it says it captured while entering the Strait of Hormuz.

The vehicle shown closely matches Anduril’s Dive-LD,… pic.twitter.com/8t2QBtpmro

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) September 8, 2026

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Was this the turning point of the summer, a kind of summer-sun Merz-turnaround?

Latest figures from the Federal Statistical Office show a significant jump in industrial orders in Germany: The order volume of companies across all sectors rose by 2.5 percent in July compared with the previous month – the third consecutive increase.

These are good numbers for the Chancellor, who is desperately looking for supporting arguments for his political course ahead of the state elections in eastern Germany. The economic reporting of the past week was striking: Economic institutes are revising their growth forecasts for the current year upward. LBBW, for example, now expects growth of 0.7 percent for the current year, up from 0.5% previously.

Growth of 0.7% – given an officially reported government spending ratio of 52.5% and new borrowing of around 4% this year, this is a pitiful figure. It marks no turning point. The figure merely shows that the private sector remains on a path of contraction and will lose at least two to three percent in substance.

We are witnessing a statistical effect. Merz is inflating a debt-financed economic phantom, raising the question: How can real economic prosperity grow out of artificially created credit? If the world were really that simple, all of humanity could catapult itself into the economic stratosphere from one day to the next with a debt-financed Keynesian demand program.

But reality, unfortunately, does not correspond to the voodoo economics of long-faded theories.

Let us therefore return from the Keynesian dream world to the world of true economics.

Comparing incoming orders with the situation a year ago could give the impression that we have reached the peak of an economic boom: In July, incoming orders were 13 percent above the previous year’s level – a fabulous figure, one the German economy may have last seen during the years of the post-war economic miracle. The July figure stands out so markedly that investment demand is pushing up the entire gross domestic product and more than compensating for the dramatically poor figures in the other sectors of the economy.

A brief classification: Retail sales were down 2.5% in real terms in July compared with the previous year. Hospitality revenue fell by more than 5% in real terms year-on-year. All in all, consumption stagnated in the first half of the year; only credit-financed government demand prevented a dramatically negative figure. On top of this, inflation, now at three percent, is slowly but surely eating holes into the purchasing power of private households.

But the beautiful appearance of the numbers is deceptive. Everything stands and falls with the large orders recorded statistically. Looking into the mechanics of the statisticians, one sector in particular catches the eye: other transport equipment. It contains, above all, orders for military goods. The statistics currently reflect the development of the military sector almost exclusively, because the private sector is not investing in major projects.

If this sector, which had exploded by a staggering 126.4% compared with the previous month, is excluded, industrial orders as a whole actually fell by 1.4% in July. That would hardly be a reason for celebration, including for the Chancellor, who seems to have gotten lost somewhere in the east on his campaign tour while searching for media-friendly crumbs.

Looking at individual items, the situation in German industry remains dramatic. In the automotive industry, it looks downright apocalyptic. German automakers had to absorb a 12.5% decline in orders compared with the previous month.

Free fall in Germany, the land of the automobile.

Foreign orders overall fell by 2.1% – customers outside the eurozone ordered even 10.1% fewer industrial goods. Domestic orders, by contrast, rose by 9.1% compared with June – another indication supporting the thesis that these may be the first larger waves generated by the German government’s debt-financed special fund.

Friedrich Merz and his debt minister Lars Klingbeil are presenting us with an economic experiment that has been performed many times in the past and has always failed.

Once caught in the ideological degrowth trap, the pressure to act in the political boiler continues to rise. As a result of climate policy, dark clouds are gathering over the economic horizon, and political rescue efforts begin reflexively. Friedrich Merz is prescribing the debt-financed military Keynesianism described above as the extinguishing agent for the economic wildfire. Tanks, drones and howitzers are supposed, if the Chancellor has his way, to replace specialized machinery, motor vehicles, machine tools and industrial plants.

Welcome to the economic military yoke of the statist Merz.

But, like every form of interventionism, this policy will leave nothing behind but new mountains of debt, if not an entire Himalayas of debt.

And, as if to confirm this, statisticians reported at the beginning of the week that Germany’s new borrowing had risen from €35 billion to €71 billion in the first half of the year.

Correctly calculated and expanded to include municipal debt as well as the special fund that will only become effective in terms of payments in the second half of the year, Germany’s debt will increase by at least €180 billion this year. That corresponds to new borrowing of more than 4 percent of GDP. We are facing the disastrous legacy of the debt king Merz, who has sacrificed his country’s creditworthiness in pursuit of his personal political goals.

Only economic illiterates regard debt-financed government consumption as economic prosperity.

The construction of the state economy has consequences.

Germany has been seized by a process of economic erosion. Total industrial production in Germany has lost around 15 percent of its volume since the best year, 2018 – a political scandal that to this day is successfully ignored by the relevant circles in the specialist press, the daily media and politics alike, if it is not simply dismissed as a figment of the imagination of malicious opponents.

The booming arms manufacturers, too, should not celebrate too early. The path of the booming sector is predetermined, and it points toward the same abysses toward which civilian industry is heading. The fog will lift the moment the flow of subsidies dries up as a result of the economic crisis in the country.

Then the abyss will become visible. Because at the toxic German location, with its high energy costs, excessive regulation and unfavorable political climate, industrial investment simply no longer pays off.

The flash in the pan of Merz-style military Keynesianism will not change this finding either.

* * * 

About the author:  Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

In the end, economic reality prevails. Green steel has no future in Germany, regardless of how much funding may continue to flow through the channels of the green subsidy machine: At Germany’s overregulated, energy-policy-driven and increasingly sidelined industrial location, industrial production is becoming less and less profitable.

That ArcelorMittal, one of the green economy’s poster boys, threw in the towel at the end of the week and announced that it would end steel production at its Duisburg site is the latest painful blow to the proponents of the green transformation ideology.

From October next year, ArcelorMittal will completely close the Duisburg steelworks and will also cease operating the billet rolling mill, where around 800 employees are currently employed. Around 550 employees could be affected by the closure. Only the wire rod mill is to remain. The semi-finished products required to operate it will in future be sourced from other ArcelorMittal sites and external producers.

The news carries a double weight: That green steel — meaning steel produced through a production route in which hydrogen is used instead of carbon as the reducing agent — would not be able to compete in the face of significantly lower production costs at other locations is hardly surprising. But the fact that, ultimately, even conventional steel production is gradually having to retreat from Germany is tragic — a resounding no from business to the ideologically contaminated energy and location policies of the slowly crumbling industrial heart of Europe.

The basic materials industry is a fundamental component of industrial value chains. Particularly in view of geopolitical tensions, national control over raw materials and primary products is becoming increasingly important. Since the best year, 2018, crude steel production in Germany has fallen from 42.4 million tons to 34.09 million tons in 2025, a decline of around 20 percent — a dramatic indication of the complete failure of Germany’s energy and industrial location policies.

The green transformation is crumbling before our eyes while Germany’s industrial base is being deindustrialized. Capital seeks better returns, regardless of how rosy the world of the green transformers surrounding former Economy Minister Robert Habeck, the spiritus rector of the ecological central planners, may have been.

For Habeck, green steel “Made in Germany and Europe” was indispensable. The Green politician was convinced that steel produced with coal would have no future on the world market. How wrong one can be!

Representatives of this transformation ideology are presumably looking on at developments in the industry in bewilderment. Where is the traitor? they will ask themselves. After all, limitless subsidies, credit assistance and artificially imposed cost disadvantages through the CO₂ mechanism were all made available to traditional competitors in order to push this artificial product forward.

ArcelorMittal is by no means the only corporation pulling back. Previously, thyssenkrupp and Salzgitter also abandoned the misguided notion that they would one day be able to produce green steel in Germany.

Ultimately, everyone has to ask themselves: What does it actually cost to produce one ton of green steel? And who will compensate for the loss-making operation in the face of substantially cheaper, considerably more cost-effective competition, for example from India or China? Will these companies have to remain dependent on the taxpayer forever?

The cost gap is enormous: Depending on the calculation and production conditions, green steel increases production costs by around $100 to $500 per ton. For the European steel industry, the conversion to low-carbon production methods is estimated to entail additional costs of 35 to 100 percent per ton. This simply cannot work.

Green steel was one of the political pet projects of the Green Deal. Companies that decided — or were politically encouraged — to convert their production were supposed to be supported through two subsidy channels.

On the one hand, there was the classic subsidy payment. In the case of ArcelorMittal, around €1.3 billion in funding was earmarked for converting the plants in Bremen and Eisenhüttenstadt; the overall project was estimated at around €2.5 billion. Direct reduction plants and electric arc furnaces were planned, with everything ultimately intended to run on hydrogen. Then came the surprise withdrawal: On June 19, 2025, ArcelorMittal announced the end of the projects. According to the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the €1.3 billion was never drawn down. What a blow to green ideology: Even massive public funding could not make the project profitable.

A second subsidy channel for green cronyism runs through the CO₂ emissions trading system. Energy-intensive producers such as the steel industry receive free certificates to protect them against international competitors with lower climate-related costs. If a company emits less CO₂ than permitted by its freely allocated certificates, it avoids purchasing additional allowances and can sell surplus pollution rights to other companies. Conventional steel production is made relatively more expensive by this allocation mechanism — everything possible is being done to keep the industrial homunculus of green steel somehow breathing.

Since January 1, 2026, the CBAM mechanism is supposed to provide additional protection for industry. It is not a formal tariff barrier, but it serves a similar function: CO₂-intensive imports such as steel are now subject to comparable regulatory costs imposed by the EU climate machine. Yet even this market barrier cannot change the fact that industrial production in Germany has simply become unprofitable.

Along the entire value chain — from conversion subsidies and free certificates to protection against foreign competition — the state is playing every card in its hand to impose its centrally planned environmentalism on the private sector.

Brussels and Berlin are thus providing an impressive demonstration of the internal contradictions and high costs of a centrally planned state economy. Everyone can now see what happens when the state interferes with price formation and dictates technology and the actions of individual companies: It becomes expensive for the taxpayer. Costs do not simply disappear; they are merely redistributed and concealed through subsidies. When the state repeatedly intervenes in the economy, scarce resources no longer flow to where competition would generate the greatest benefit. Instead, they flow into the pockets of those whose ingenuity lies in hunting for grants and subsidies. This is how the final chapter of the market economy begins.

* * * 

About the author:  Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

China, the world’s largest oil importer, is bidding up crude prices across Africa, Canada, and Latin American markets as disruptions in the Hormuz chokepoint and limited Iranian supplies intensify competition for alternatives. The scramble is squeezing smaller Chinese refineries that once relied on heavily discounted Iranian barrels, according to a new Bloomberg report. 

The renewed Chinese buying marks a major shift from a period when subdued Chinese buying helped restrain crude oil prices. With Iranian exports almost entirely shut off by the US blockade and fighting flaring again, as seen Monday when Saudi Aramco’s Jizan oil facilities were reportedly hit, the race to find replacement supplies around the world is becoming an increasingly expensive task for the Chinese. 

Traders spoke with Bloomberg. Here’s what they had to say:

The turnaround is producing spikes in the price of various grades. Congo’s Djeno crude was offered to Chinese buyers at premiums of as high as $20 a barrel over ICE Brent this week, up from around $15 a couple of weeks ago, according to traders who asked not to be named as they’re not authorized to speak to the media.

Chinese buyers are also buying tanker loads of crude from Canada, Brazil, and Argentina, while stronger demand has lifted prices for Russia’s ESPO crude. Asian buyers are also pushing Dubai crude futures toward $100 per barrel.  

Chinese seaborne crude imports aren’t back to prewar levels and are currently trending toward 10 million barrels per day – still below pre-conflict levels. That means the race for alternative supplies may still intensify. 

Bloomberg pointed out that the rebound in crude imports comes as refinery math improves and inventories are being rebuilt in China. Improved processing margins, the resumption of fuel exports, and commercial restocking are encouraging refiners to ramp up purchases, according to GL Consulting founder Liao Na. 

Smaller independent refiners, known as teapots, face the greatest pressure because their traditional sourcing channels for Iranian and Venezuelan crude have eroded this year as access to those supplies has collapsed amid the Trump administration’s push to rewire global energy markets. 

Liao said, “China’s robust buying lately is largely driven by refiners taking advantage of decent margins,” adding, “Active restocking by commercial players has also helped, but it’s not necessarily a sign of stronger underlying demand that’s supporting the recovery.”

Separately, Goldman Sachs energy expert Daan Struyven expects China’s ability to adjust purchases to prices to help moderate any spikes in crude prices.

Brent Crude 

Notably, China has a massive SPR against Brent crude prices in triple-digit territory. Its crude inventories are estimated at at least 1 billion barrels, giving buyers room to reduce purchases when prices become unattractive.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

On Thursday evening, Volkswagen’s Supervisory Board unanimously approved the company’s “Future Plan 2030.” The decision had originally been scheduled for Friday. By moving faster, Volkswagen is not only seeking to underline that the situation is genuinely serious, but also that it has recognized the danger and is now taking control of the situation again. Symbolism is everything these days, as the damage caused by the company’s business strategy of recent years has become visible like a gaping wound. Supervisory Board Chairman Hans Dieter Pötsch described the decision as evidence of the Group’s determination to transform itself and work with all its strength toward its long-term future and competitiveness, as Pötsch put it. Nevertheless, the impression remains that the Group’s consolidation course represents less a controlled downsizing than an internal corporate collapse — the twilight of an economic era.

50,000 jobs worldwide are to be eliminated by the middle of the 2030s. Social plans and early-retirement offers will probably account for the lion’s share of the workforce reduction. Volkswagen is said to be facing an overcapacity of 500,000 vehicles in Europe. The restructuring costs for the Group could amount to as much as €10 billion. VW is stumbling over social hurdles that the company itself created during the good times — German labor law prevents a rapid, situation-appropriate adjustment of corporate structures to the conditions of the market and the company’s actual economic strength.

For Germany as an industrial location, the outlook is bleak: VW’s plants in Emden, Hanover and Zwickau, as well as the Audi plant in Neckarsulm, are likely to fall victim to the Group’s downsizing. The decision has not yet been formally made — by the end of June 2027, the company intends to clarify how the individual sites will proceed. From 2031 to 2034 onward, there will no longer be a competitive follow-up allocation of production at these plants, suggesting that VW is preparing to abandon the sites.

Remarkably, only a few days ago, CEO Oliver Blume had emphasized during a visit to the Zwickau plant that the site would, as he put it, receive the same chance as every other plant in Europe. Blume, however, had already pointed to its lack of profitability compared with other locations: Labor costs there were more than twice those of comparable European sites, according to Blume.

This is where the real problem lies: Volkswagen is no longer competitive. Excessive labor costs, excessive energy costs and rampant overregulation are driving not only carmakers but industrial production in general away from Germany.

There is indeed an urgent need for action in Wolfsburg. The China business in particular has virtually collapsed. Overall, revenue in the first half of the current year fell slightly to €158.1 billion. The problem is that operating profit plunged by 11.6 percent to €5.9 billion, leaving an embarrassingly low operating margin of just 3.8 percent. It is the continuing negative trend that is causing concern. Volkswagen therefore does not merely have a sales problem, but above all an immense cost problem. The possibility that liquidity problems may also be becoming visible was demonstrated by the sale of the Group’s large-engine subsidiary Everllence, formerly MAN Energy Solutions: Volkswagen sold a majority stake to U.S. investment firm Bain Capital, generating proceeds of €7.4 billion.

Volkswagen — and with it the entire German automotive sector as well as energy-intensive industries more generally — has its back against the wall. As Bild reports, citing internal Volkswagen Group data, factory costs per vehicle at the Emden plant amount to €4,850, roughly 4.5 times the comparable figure at VW’s Chinese plant in Tianjin, where the figure is €1,078. Direct production labor costs are reportedly €74 per hour in Emden, compared with €12 in Tianjin — a factor of more than six.

The mistakes of the past become particularly apparent when looking at labor productivity. In Emden, the calculation comes to 29 vehicles per employee per year, compared with 51.3 in Tianjin. That corresponds to roughly 77 percent more vehicles per employee. Absenteeism due to illness also differs dramatically in the internal comparison: In Emden, the rate is 10.5 percent, compared with 1.0 percent in Tianjin. This figure is more than merely a personnel-policy issue affecting internal operations. Has the downward spiral into which the Group and the entire industry have fallen perhaps already left its mark on employee morale? In any case, this particular figure requires interpretation, precisely because it is so striking.

The consequences of Germany’s nuclear phase-out and the continued expansion of climate regulation have been discussed often enough here. Taken together, they create the impression of an ideologically driven economic suicide by a satiated society that was convinced of its own success — and must now watch as its industrial substance, the engine of prosperity, is ground down between excessive energy and labor costs, growing regulation and the merciless forces of global competition.

Volkswagen has become a victim of increasing political central planning and the permeation of the corporate landscape with environmental ideology. The lesson now is clear: corporatism and reliance on political steering do not pay off in the long run. In the end, things turn out as they always do: Others pay the bill — namely employees and investors who had placed their trust in the future of the automaker.

* * * 

About the author:  Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

European natural gas prices are trading near their highest level in more than three years as the race to replenish storage puts a bid under prices, while ongoing disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz intensify competition for scarce LNG cargoes ahead of winter.

On Tuesday morning, European natural gas benchmark futures edged up nearly 3% to trade around 75 euros per megawatt-hour, the highest level since early January 2023.

Bloomberg reporter Priscila Azevedo Rocha noted, “Europe needs higher gas prices in order to attract more seaborne cargoes to its shores, but with less than a month left until the heating season, the region’s inventories are still lagging behind.”

Rocha’s view was very similar to the assessment in Goldman Sachs commodities expert Samantha Dart’s note last week, in which she said December 2026 TTF prices may need to exceed 100 euros per megawatt-hour to discourage Asian LNG demand.

“We have argued that, in the absence of an improvement in LNG exports through the Strait of Hormuz (SoH) (Exhibit 1), European gas prices (TTF) would need to rise to discourage Asia LNG demand, thereby freeing incremental cargoes to be sent to Europe to help manage European gas storage levels,” Dart explained.

EU natural gas storage facilities were around 67% full at the start of the week, compared with a 15-year average of around 72.5% for this time of year. Readers can see the latest chart pack from MarketEar on EU natural gas here.

Separately, Timera Energy analysts wrote in a note earlier, “As the European gas market heads into winter with unusually low inventories, its flexibility to absorb further supply or demand shocks is limited,” adding, “Europe is pricing up to outcompete Asia for marginal LNG.”

Beyond tight gas markets, the struggling continent also has to contend with a diesel crisis. As we warned in early August, “winter is coming“…

The National Weather Service has issued heat advisories across California’s Central Valley and coastal areas, including the Bay Area and Los Angeles, with more severe extreme heat warnings in parts of Southern California. Cooling demand is expected to soar over the next several days, putting pressure on the power grid, particularly in the evening as solar generation declines.

Bloomberg reports that Los Angeles-area temperatures are forecast to reach 85F to 105F, roughly 10 to 15 degrees above normal. San Francisco could hit 86 degrees Wednesday, while Sacramento is expected to reach 100 degrees Thursday.

The California Independent System Operator forecasts that peak power demand will hit 47,379 megawatts Wednesday, below the September 2022 record of 52,061 megawatts.

CAISO, which operates the power grid serving roughly 80% of California and a small part of Nevada, forecasts Thursday’s peak at around 45,183 megawatts.

Wholesale power prices are already reflecting the incoming surge in cooling demand. Southern California’s SP15 hub saw its day-ahead price for Tuesday’s 6 p.m. hour reach $87.69 per megawatt-hour, the highest hourly reading in a little over a week. Grid monitoring company Arcus Power compiled the data on its NRGStream platform.

Forecasts from Bloomberg show that maximum temperatures in California will peak Thursday at around 95F before sliding to about 75F by mid-month.

Authored by Paul D. Thacker via The DisInformation Chronicle,

Senior officials inside the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were baffled late last week when Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro issued a statement that Pentagon officials are trying to “raid” NIH funds to cover defense shortfalls. “The administration must provide Congress with a full accounting of how this interagency agreement was developed and exactly how much taxpayer money it is trying to transfer to DOD,” wrote DeLauro, who serves as the top Democrat on House Appropriations.

DeLauro’s statement spurred a flurry of media reports, including a fact-addled piece by Nature Magazine’s Max Koslov, who falsely implied NIH was transferring hundreds of millions of dollars in research monies to the Department of War (DOW). Koslov also erred in misreporting that NIH maintains a biodefense research portfolio, even though NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya announced that he was cutting NIH’s biodefense portfolio in an essay last January.

Ironically, Bhattacharya’s essay appeared in Nature Medicine, a journal published by Koslov’s own employer.

“Koslov is a fiction writer,” said an exasperated HHS official. “Absolute fiction. Our comms people at NIH don’t respond to him because he lies.”

DOW released the interagency agreement with NIH on Friday, which shows no money has been transferred to NIH. The agreement was signed in early August by Bhattacharya and Robert Kadlec, a physician and former CIA officer who wrote most of our biodefense laws while working for several decades as a congressional staffer. Kadlec is now an assistant secretary at DOW in charge of counterterrorism and biodefense.

According to HHS and NIH officials, who have negotiated the agreement with Kadlec since February, Kadlec asked NIH to transfer the $2 billion allocated to NIH for biodefense over to DOW. NIH denied this request, although DOW officials have continued to press the $2 billion matter in private discussions.

The agreement allows two types of cooperation. One is called 7600A which lists the rules and terms for cooperation on a project, while a 7600B allows transfer of funds as payment. NIH has not signed any 7600Bs, and an official negotiating with DOW said NIH doesn’t have any dollars to transfer to the Pentagon, because the money is already spent.

“The money on emerging infectious diseases is booked up for years in advance with contracts and grants,” said the NIH staffer.

Part of the confusion stems from conflicting definitions and terminology deployed over the last two decades by Tony Fauci while he ran the biodefense program at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

As reported by Ashley Rindsberg in UnHerd, Fauci began the NIH’s biodefense program in 2003 with billions of dollars directed to him by Vice President Dick Cheney, following an increase in biodefense spending after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks in 2001. This moved biodefense for the first time out of Pentagon oversight, while providing Fauci direct access to the White House and a $2 billion pot of money each year since.

But over succeeding decades Fauci began mixing the dollars designated for biodefense with programs targeted at other infectious diseases – eroding the distinction between public health research and scientific studies for biodefense. “Fauci spread the bioterrorism money into programs on emerging diseases,” said the NIH official. “The reality is there’s no $2 billion to give.”

A senior Trump appointee who has worked with Bhattacharya and Kadlec to hammer out the agreement said that DeLauro is right to ask hard questions, which NIH needs to answer. But after the COVID pandemic mess, NIH is not the place to run bioterror research. “Look, everyone in this field knows that Kadlec is an operator,” said the Trump official. “But Kadlec is an experienced hand and we need aggressive oversight on this research.”

Referring to NIH money Fauci directed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, he added, “What was the point of NIAID funding a BSL-4 lab in a foreign country? Nobody has explained that.”

For the last three decades, Kadlec has labored to counter biological weapons for an alphabet soup of various agencies – JSOC, DOD, CIA, DHS, and the UN. Kadlec also wrote the critical legislation that undergirds America’s biodefense infrastructure while a staffer for Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina.

Now the country’s leading biodefense lobbyist at DLA Piper, Burr represents the University of North Carolina and sits on the board of READDI, a North Carolina biodefense company founded by virologist Ralph Baric.

In a 2023 interview with The DisInformation Chronicle, Kadlec pointed to a 2015 virus study published by Ralph Baric and funded by Fauci as evidence that the virology community had been dishonest with the American public about the scientific evidence that the pandemic started from a lab. Fauci and others, Kadlec said, served as a “cabal” to bury this evidence in an “information operation.”

Last April, I reported for RealClearInvestigations that the NIH had yanked all of Baric’s grants after determining that his research helped create the COVID virus. UNC put Baric on leave and he retired from the university in June.

“We gave Fauci billions and he burned the house down,” said the Trump official working with NIH and DOW. “The world was on fire for two years and millions died. And if Democrats want the NIH to remain in the biodefense business, I wish them luck on selling voters on that.”

A senior HHS official said it remains unclear how much money might eventually migrate over to DOW but it won’t be anywhere near $2 billion as biodefense research is now gone from NIH’s portfolio. Nonetheless, NIH faces an uphill battle convincing Congress that they are no longer in the biodefense game.

After determining it was biodefense research and unsafe for Americans, NIH dissolved an $82 million Fauci initiative last June called the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID). CREID grantees included Peter Daszak of the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance and Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research. But earlier this year, lobbyists inserted language into an appropriations bill that forces NIH to spend $18.2 million to fund CREID centers once again.

“We’re not funding Kristian Andersen and that virologist crew,” said the senior HHS official. “We’re out of biodefense, and that CREID money will go to people looking at infectious diseases in public health.”