“The ice has begun to crack” between Russia and America, announced Kirill Dmitriev,  a key actor in the negotiations between Moscow and Washington to end the war in Ukraine.

*

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “already knows”.

Namely, that US American leader Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin seem to be already devising new, joint energy projects of Washington and Moscow. Which ones? Neither Zelenskyy, nor Trump or Putin reveal that… Perhaps, one connected to the collapsed “North Stream”? (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-russia-explore-gas-sale-europe-amid-ukraine-war-say-sources-2026-10-08/

” There’s intuition, there’s intelligence, and there are various details”. In that order of words, on Friday, October 16, Zelenskyy explained in Brussels his assessment that the official Washington and Moscow in mutual energy connections will not stop only at the recent agreement between Trump and Putin on the export of Russian diesel to the USA (https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-warns-trump-could-ease-more-sanctions-on-russia/).

“The gas deal is next. I’m sure of it. After the gas, they (the Americans?) will lift the sanctions, and other things,” Zelenskyy warned, during a stormy session of EU leaders, focused on formulating a profile of further financial and any other assistance to Kiev in continuing the fight against Russia’s “special military operation”. (https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-warns-trump-could-ease-more-sanctions-on-russia/).

Intuition seems to have partially failed Zelenskyy. On the same Friday evening, US President Donald Trump announced an executive order in which he waived “indefinitely” the implementation of the package of “hellish sanctions” against Russia that he signed at the end of September. (https://www.ft.com/content/836eddd7-3adc-4cbb-8527-7a0a7a277e50?syn-25a6b1a6=1).

“I am hereby waiving the application of such sanctions, restrictions and duties provided for in the Graham Act,” it stated.

The “ramp” to further sanctions against Russia seems to have been a priority now.

Meanwhile, The Lindsey O Graham—(otherwise known as a staunch ally of Ukraine) Russia and Iran Act mandates sanctions against Russian defence and energy sectors, as well as its fleet of shadow fleet of aging oil tankers.

Now, how far is Donald Trump ready to enter into new energy arrangements with Moscow, and then of what profile?Washington is not revealing its cards yet.

However, Moscow is already sending signals that the Americans and the Russians already have there something in mind.

“The ice (on the photo: Arctic ice) has, in fact, begun to break” (in relations between Russia and the US), vividly described Friday by Kirill Dmitriev, a key actor in the Russian-American negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine. (https://www.reuters.com/world/dmitriev-says-russian-wealth-fund-will-work-with-us-payment-diesel-deal-2026-10-16/), during the Russian Energy Week in Moscow.

The timing of the signalled cooperation between Moscow and Washington attracts attention.

“We are effectively implementing projects with the US, at this very moment, and we will continue to do so until the special military operation is over,” Dmitriev added, while also mentioning “the use of small nuclear power plants”…

Russians and Americans are already implementing joint projects, and will continue until the war in Ukraine ends?!

The ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran are not limited to only 60 days, which could lead to an extension of the period of exemption from Iran’s petro-sanctions.

China is the only country that continues to buy Iranian oil, others have remained cautious, due to the uncertainty surrounding the possible re-imposition of sanctions by Washington on Tehran, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant (pictured) said this week, describing the emerging situation in the global oil market, following the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (M o U) between the US and Iran on June 17. (https://iranwire.com/en/news/154378-us-treasury-secretary-china-is-the-only-buyer-of-iranian-oil/).

The M o U otherwise contains a provision—”Authorization for the production, delivery and sale of crude oil, petrochemicals and petroleum products of Iranian origin until August 21, 2026″ (https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/936206/download?inline).

Meanwhile, China has been the leading buyer of Iranian oil for years (https://www.uscc.gov/research/china-iran-fact-sheet-short-primer-relationship), where Beijing and Tehran long established petro-buying and selling in yuan.

Now, when Bessent says that “Iran could start invoicing oil sales in US dollars as part of ongoing negotiations with Washington” (https://shafaq.com/en/World/US-Treasury-Iran-could-trade-oil-in-dollars)- why is “China the only one”? That is, why have the others “remained cautious” to venture into that newly offered, at first glance short-term business…?

The US Treasury Secretary is actually very precise in his announcement about the possibility of “dollarization” of Iranian oil. Namely, Scott Bessent explicitly states that such a possibility exists “within the ongoing negotiations with Washington”. But nowhere does it say that these negotiations will last only 60 days. The M o U states very clearly that this initial time frame is “expandable”. That is “extensions” are possible…

How realistic is it to expect that the ongoing negotiations between the US and Iran could continue even after the first 60 days, so that the “removal of Iranian petro sanctions” might last even longer? The answer seems to be still uncertain. (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260702-us-iran-expected-to-hold-direct-talks-in-doha-in-3rd-week-of-july-sources/).

In that arena, the “dollarization” of Iranian oil could be a magnet of importance for both Washington and Tehran. “The dominance of the dollar is essential… all we are doing is pushing the dollar… it has never stopped being the centre of the global currency system, but we are strengthening it,” Bessent pointed out in an interview with the CNBC network. (https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/24/cnbc-transcript-us-treasury-secretary-scott-bessent-speaks-with-cnbcs-joe-kernen-on-squawk-box-today.html).

It seems that Iranian oil could have a place and a role in the mission of further strengthening the US dollar? Such an “assignment” then would probably not be limited to only 60 days.

*

What happens to the world price of oil at the moment when the petro-exchanges stop believing in the imminent end of the conflict between the USA and Israel against Iran (which broke out on February 28)? “Imminent end”, for example by the end of this month,  by the end of summer,  or by the end of this year?

The end of the conflict in the Persian Gulf, and especially the timing of the opening of the Strait of Hormuz (on the photo, a view of the strategic strait from the Musandam exclave, part of Oman), are of crucial importance for the price of the barrel—an extremely heterogeneous gallery of actors pointed out right from the beginning of “mini war”: From the Iranian National Guard (IRCG) to the legendary US bank “JP Morgan”.

“Get ready for (a barrel of) oil to cost $200 per barrel, because the price of oil depends on regional security, which you have destabilized,” warned Ebrahim Zolfaghari, a spokesman for Iran’s military command, in comments to Washington on March 11. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/combatants-mideast-war-trade-more-air-strikes-iran-clamps-down-dissent-2026-03-11/.

If the Strait of Hormuz is closed to civilian maritime traffic “by mid-May” (after the Iranian blockade “as a sign of retaliation”), the price of a barrel could reach the value of 150 US dollars, the bank “JP Morgan” estimated at the beginning of April). https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/irans-200-oil-threat-isnt-that-far-fetched-2026-03-17/.

Soon after, the Federal Reserves of Dallas, came out with an estimate that a barrel of oil could cost 167 US dollars, if the Strait of Hormuz remains inaccessible for energy exports from the Persian Gulf until the end of the year. https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/dallas-fed-extended-hormuz-closure-180620943.html

On top of that, Kristalina Georgieva, executive director of the IMF, mentioned what could happen to the price of a barrel (and the world economy) in case the “Iranian war” continues in 2027 (https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/imf-chief-georgieva-warns-much-worse-outcome-if-middle-east-war-drags-into-2027-2026-05-04/).

In that case, the barrel could cost as much as 125 dollars, Georgieva estimated.

This assessment from the top of the IMF seems to indicate that in the Bretton Woods institution there is room for a dilemma regarding the potential length of the conflict in the region of the Strait of Hormuz. So, beyond the continuous “hot-cold” narrative of the member with the largest voting rights in the IMF…

Be that as it may, now there are frequent warnings and announcements that already from June there will be significant shortages of oil and petro-derivatives around the world: Martin Wolff, the chief economic commentator of the London “Financial Times”, on this occasion points out that “the energy crisis could just begin”. https://www.ft.com/content/fb290ca1-4fa0-4309-b406-8c850d0b2449?syn-25a6b1a6=1.

If so, what is the expected price of the barrel, the very next day?

 Hello—Hello of Prince bin Farhan and Araqchi,  of unspecified time of the call and its duration, was otherwise the first publicly announced telephone contact between the two heads of diplomacy since the outbreak of the conflict between Israel and the US against Iran on February 28^th . Retaliating against American-Israeli actions, in the 40 days of the conflict, Tehran repeatedly hit targets on the Arabian Peninsula (https://www.instagram.com/reel/DW3jnspDi1d/).

As of Wednesday afternoon, the Ministry of Defence in Riyadh reported that the air defence of the Saudi Kingdom “intercepted nine drones in the previous few hours, without specifying either the locations or the targets” (https://www.ft.com/content/115eb832-9a62-424f-a893-57156ce8abf7?syn-25a6b1a6=1).

On the same day, a little earlier, the first report arrived that the key Saudi “East-West” oil pipeline (on the map, between the Abqaiq field in the east of the country and the Yanbu oil port on the Red Sea, about 1,200 kilometres long) was exposed to some kind of armed attack. Whether it was a drone strike, and eventually whose, is not stated in the carefully worded text of the London “Financial Times”’ article , which was the first to report on the incident.

By the way, in mid-March, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince bin Farhan told Iran that the attacks on its neighbours in the region had destroyed all confidence in Tehran. “Iran is no longer a strategic partner, it never was,” and it could have been “if it took a different course” (https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/gulf/2026/04/09/saudi-and-iranian-foreign-ministers-hold-first-call-since-start-of-iran-war/).

In those days, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi called on Saudi Arabia to evict US bases from its territory, remarking that Tehran only targets enemy targets, that is, that “Iran respects the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and considers it a brotherly nation.”

As of Wednesday, some kind of incident—officially unconfirmed, seems to have happened on the Saudi oil pipeline “East-West”. On the same day, ministers of foreign affairs of Saudi Arabia and Iran,  held a telephone conversation, which was not disclosed until a day later, on Thursday.

Is there something wrong about the attack on the only oil pipeline through which the Saudis can reliably deliver oil to customers in Asia at the moment?

*

No, it still doesn’t seem that “investors really want to believe in fairy tales” (https://www.ft.com/ontent/57f1c55a-7eab-4a3e-83d5-c8e228b7e99d?syn-25a6b1a6=1) as Katie Martin, a columnist for the London “Financial Times” tries to understand the stock market players’ actions, who have been literally reacting since February 28^th  to any announcement and statement of the 47^th President of the USA.

“Markets really do still respond to the president’s pronouncements”—a  sentence from the text entitled “Trump’s tales are still muddling markets”  is the reason for our question here. : “What happens when/if the world’s stock markets stop reacting to Donald Trump’s statements”? More precisely, to the announcements of the current president of the USA, the leader of the world’s largest economy, the commander-in-chief of the world’s strongest army?

As things stand now, the US-Israel conflict against Iran is far from a “fairy tale”, and does not yet portend a happy ending, whatever that might be for the opposing actors in the ongoing war drama in the Persian Gulf. Whether the “end” could happen soon, and what it might look like, is quite uncertain. Maybe even scary.

How petro-markets are to relate to the latest threats of US President Donald Trump to the Iranians like “open the fucking Hormuz Pass, you crazy bastards, or you will live in hell” (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/04/trump-iran-war-weapons/686685/)?

Or, the other:”Peace deal on Monday-Tuesday, or I will blow up the whole country” (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/trump-says-iran-deal-possible-by-monday-or-tuesday-threatens-to-blow-everything-up-if-talks-fail/3892760) ?

Leaving aside later reactions of Tehran, Pope Leo, international humanitarian organizations… the direction of the next move of the world stock markets tomorrow, Monday, April 6, seems to be known in advance.

Namely, in the setting of the Bretton-Woods global order, world markets are not in a position to distrust the US president.

It is therefore not a “fairytale”, but a fundamental setting of the global order with key addresses in Washington since 1944. In that setting, Donald Trump is the president of the USA (in his second term) elected by an overwhelming majority of voters, who at the end of February, in alliance with Israel, led America into a war against Iran.

International stock markets by default respect the systemic position of the US president in the current global order.Hence the fairy-tale nightmares after Trump’s war declarations these days, some of which literally eclipse those of the day before.

Stock markets, even in the case of such contradictory presentations of the White House’s war course, are in no position to ignore Trump’s messages: many dollars and a handful of other factors are in this long and fabulous game.

On the other hand, how could stock market “ignorance” manifest itself in the event of a war led by America?

Thus, when the President of the USA announces that the American army could soon return the Iranians to the “Stone Age, where they belong” (https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7151916), the stock market as soon as tomorrow will connect it to the assessment of the further supply of oil and gas to the world… Previously, the actors of the global oil trade should somehow imagine a trip “to the Stone Age”…

Considering all that is happening in the Persian Gulf now, perhaps the recent, separate estimates by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and Wood Mackenzie—that a barrel of oil could cost as much as US$200 ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/11/irans-irgc-says-not-one-liter-of-oil-will-get-through-strait-of-hormuz;

https://www.woodmac.com/blogs/the-edge/boiling-a-frog-could-oil-prices-test-us$200bbl/)

 – were shy after all?

*

The world’s petro-exchanges are now flooded with signals that the hostilities in the Hormuz Strait zone could lead to an “apocalyptic” deterioration in the further supply of oil to the global market, erasing, at least for now, any glimmer of hope that the conflict between Israel and the US against Iran could soon end.

“There is a ‘big, big risk’ that petro-infrastructure in the Strait of Hormuz could be damaged this coming weekend…For example, Iran’s Kharg Island (area 20 square kilometres) (on the photo), which is a key export petro-terminal” — Bjarne Schieldrop, chief analyst at “Scandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB) warned today (March 13)( https://www.rigzone.com/news/analyst_warns_of_big_big_risk_for_oil_over_weekend-13-mar-2026-183201-article/.

According to Schieldrop, “If (petro-facility on Kharg Island) is damaged, we would have a longer supply shortage, far beyond Trump’s announced of ‘two more weeks’ .It will make the spot price spike higher …”.

On this line of consideration of possible scenarios for the development of the war that began on February 28, the US investment bank JP Morgan on March 9, pointed out that “if the US and Israel seize Kharg Island, oil production in Iran would stall…triggering further attacks from Tehran on regional petro-infrastructure” (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-shock-worsen-should-us-israel-seize-irans-kharg-island-jp-morgan-says-2026-03-09/).

The storage capacities on the island of Kharg normally amount to about 30 million barrels: while there are now about 18 million barrels in the tanks there (a quantity equivalent to 10-12 days of export under more normal circumstances).

It is uncertain whether an invasion of Kharg is really being prepared, even this weekend.

Meanwhile, news is coming out of Washington that US Defense Secretary Pete Hegsett has approved a request from US Central Command to deploy a Marine Expeditionary Force, which typically includes several warships and 5,000 troops. (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/us-israel-iran-war-news-2026?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_1).

A day earlier, Mojtaba Khamenei, the new supreme leader of Iran, emphasized in a written message that he insists on a further “blockade” of the Hormuz Strait  (https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/oil-holds-above-100-stocks-030351605.html).

Kharg Island is 25 kilometres off the coast of Iran, and about 483 kilometres northwest of the Strait of Hormuz.

For the world price of oil, “apocalypse now” might start right there … this weekend.

The US fleet “is ready, willing and able to quickly fulfil its mission, quickly and violently, if necessary”, US President Donald Trump said on the occasion (https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20260129-warships-fighter-jets-what-is-massive-us-armada-on-way-to-iran)

Is an American attack on Iran on the horizon, and then Tehran’s response?

Global petro-traders are today losing their composure in the face of such geopolitical conundrums : the barrel of Brent barrel is experiencing a new price increase ($70.90), i.e., the highest value since last June. At the same time, the light Texas oil WTI goes for $65.56 (close to the value at the end of last September) (https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/585440/oil-prices-surge-4-percent-to-five-month-high-on-worries-us-could-take-action-against-iran). About 20 percent of the oil intended for the global market passes through the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian barrels are of strategic importance for China: speculations about what could happen in the case of armed confrontations, mess up the accounts of all those who trade in “black gold”.

Despite all the rising tensions, the American leader, as well as the Iranian side, each in their own way emphasize the possibility of an eventual dialogue…( https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly5pd459gko)

; (https://www.news18.com/world/iran-says-open-to-talks-with-us-if-negotiations-genuine-amid-trumps-renewed-threats-ws-kl-9862529.html)

A question could be asked here: what happens if, in something similar to the “last moment”, the two sides come to an understanding that … Muscat, the capital of Oman, seems quite decent for “That contact”?

All other aspects aside, oil traders might be able to relax… if only for a moment. In that, at this hour, seemingly improbable scenario (let’s not forget how much the US president believes in his role as a global peacemaker)—what could be the next sailing plan of the “armada”…?

The Indian Ocean – the third largest in the world – for the “armada” might seem quite far from home. But the US base on Diego Garcia (on the photo) is not. Perhaps it might not be surprising that Great Britain and the US, on Wednesday, January 28, reportedly renewed talks about the future of the Chagos Archipelago—where Diego Garcia’s base is located, after US President Donald Trump last week called London’s intention to return the archipelago under the sovereignty of Mauritius “a great stupidity “. (https://www.foxnews.com/world/uk-reopens-chagos-islands-talks-us-following-trump-criticism-deal-reports)

World oil traders, and leading buyers of barrels from the direction of the Strait of Hormuz, on the open seas of the Indian Ocean, are probably to witness new equations with more unknowns.

How can Russian President Vladimir Putin offer Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “uninterrupted fuel supply for India’s booming economy” (https://newswav.com/article/from-bear-hugs-to-oil-what-were-the-key-.outcomes-of-modi-putin-talks-in-del-A2512_yY4ZAg) ?

Sounds illogical, perhaps even impossible, given the numerous the headwinds that the West has directed against the Russian petro-business since the beginning of Moscow’s “special military operation” in Ukraine, and especially in recent times. As far back in August, US President Donald Trump raised the “punitive” customs regime on imports from India to “plus 50 percent”, with the key rationale being that the purchase of Siberian oil (and the procurement of weapons) supports the conflict in Ukraine. (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/6/trump-imposes-25-percent-tariff-on-indian-goods-over-russian-oil).

While before the Russian-Ukrainian war, India only procured about two percent of its oil from Russia, from the spring of 2022 it became the second largest buyer (after China), mainly due to the extremely affordable price of a Siberian barrel. As of June, India bought about 2.1 million barrels of oil from Russia—defying a wide array of Western sanctions. That amount—mainly due to strong pressure from Washington (including the October sanctions against “Rosneft” and “Lukoil”)—could, according to stock market estimates, fall to around 600,000 barrels per day, i.e. to the lowest level since the beginning of 2022. (https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/russia-s-vital-oil-trade-with-india-falls-for-now-but-is-far-from-over-125120600074_1.ht).

Meanwhile, the next round of tense India-US trade talks is scheduled for December 10-12 in New Delhi. (https://www.financialexpress.com/business/news/us-trade-talks-to-resume-from-december-10/4068354/).

On the other hand, Putin’s promised willingness of Russia to provide India with an “uninterrupted fuel supply” could stumble and to the latest package of sanctions that are being prepared by the EU and the G7. According to that announcement, the EU and the G7 are preparing to ban any servicing of the maritime transport of Siberian oil. (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-g7-weigh-ban-maritime-services-russian-oil-exports-end-price-cap-2025-12-05/).

How then – in addition to Washington’s ongoing dissatisfaction with Indian purchases (and even reduced) of Russian oil, and the announced new EU and G7 sanctions regime, could Russian oil move to petro-terminals in India?

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi politely referred to Putin’s “uninterrupted” offer. Namely, during the recent meetings with Putin in New Delhi, Modi pointed out that increasing the “connection” between Russia and India was a “main priority” for India, while he emphasized that “energy security was a strong and important pillar of the partnership between India and Russia”, but on that occasion he did not specifically mention oil. (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g482m3yyzo)

As recently as Saturday, December 6, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar reminded of the “strategic autonomy” of the world’s most populous country. “I think we’ve always made it clear that we have multiple relationships. We have freedom of choice. We’re talking about what’s called strategic autonomy and that continues… I can’t imagine why anyone would have any reason to expect otherwise,” Jaishankar said. (https://indianexpress.com/article/india/indias-freedom-of-choice-putins-visit-wont-affect-us-ties-says-jaishankar-10406690/).

How New Delhi will present that strategy in the upcoming trade negotiations with Washington, remains to be seen.

In the meantime, one might ask: On what premises could Putin now have based the offer for “uninterrupted supply” of fuel to India?

The answer could be here, between the lines, to look for the latest decision by Washington to remove the designation of “direct threat” from Russia to America. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/world/968736/kremlin-welcomes-end-to-direct-threat-label-in-us-strategy-report/story/.

What that decision of the Trump administration could include is still uncertain. After all, Washington has been sending signals since spring, that under certain conditions, part of the petro-sanctions system against Russia could be abolished. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/03/trump-sanctions-russia).

Maybe Putin already knows something more about it?

Meanwhile, from the meeting between US President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House, it may become clearer whether Riyadh has in mind rapprochement with some other countries, for example with Venezuela.

Where did the mention of Venezuela come from?

On the one hand, because Venezuela and Saudi Arabia are the first and second countries on the global list of petro-countries with the largest proven oil reserves (303 billion barrels, respectively 267.2 billion barrels). Petro-giants of such potential, Caracas and Riyadh in some ideal world, should be multidimensional partners long ago. That there are current thoughts about this—seemingly quite “sideways”—is evidenced by the presentation of Leticia Gomez, Minister of Tourism of Venezuela, these days in Riyadh, during the UN General Assembly on Tourism. There are “extraordinary” opportunities for the development of tourism cooperation between Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, emphasized Minister Gomez, emphasizing the intention of the official Caracas to make Venezuela a “gateway” for travellers intending to that region of Latin America. (https://english.aawsat.com/business/5206898-venezuela-says-%E2%80%98extraordinary%E2%80%99-opportunities-available-tourism-cooperation-saudi). By the way, China is currently the leading buyer of Venezuelan oil and an active petro-investor (in the region of Lago di Maracaibo, on the photo).

(https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/venezuela-oil-industry-navigates-sanctions-places-90-percent-of-exports-to-china/).

Meanwhile, things about Venezuela’s oil are getting more and more complicated.

Namely, the USA – the world’s leading oil producer, recently sent a super-powerful armada to the direction of Latin America, especially Venezuela. All with the official explanation that it is a decisive fight against illegal drug smuggling in the USA. A fight in which more than 60 people have already been killed on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Meanwhile, observers are increasingly questioning Washington’s “anti-drugs ” argument.

Thus, the media house bne IntelliNews (based in Berlin) states that: “Data from the US intelligence services show that Venezuela is not a major transit route for cocaine and that it does not produce or export fentanyl, the synthetic opioid responsible for the majority of overdose deaths in America.” https://www.intellinews.com/is-venezuela-s-resource-wealth-trump-s-real-target-409446/

At the same time, the narrative—that the “military-naval siege” of Venezuela is in fact a possible excuse for the ambition to take over Venezuela’s oil fields—is increasingly present (in the Lago di Maracaibo area, on the photo).

(https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/04/us/politics/trump-weighs-attacks-venezuela.html)

The connection of Venezuela with the question —about the possible profile of further relations between Riyadh and Washington, could be guessed and from the indicators of how much (record) American oil refineries in the American Gulf have been importing heating oil from the Middle East in recent months. (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-gulf-coast-fuel-oil-imports-hit-25-year-high-amid-venezuelan-russian-2025-10-02).

The record growth reported by Reuters is the result of the fact that more desirable “heavier” petro molecules from Venezuela and Russia are currently unavailable to US refineries (both petro-states are under the growing regime of US sanctions and pressure). Meanwhile, the “lighter” petro molecules from the Arabian Peninsula that are on offer to American refineries simply do not have “all that” that different petro-molecules from Venezuela would bring them.

It could be expected that, in the absence of a clear bow from Riyadh towards Washington this month, the American armada in front of Venezuela will become even more forceful.

According to Minister Puri’s assessment, this is a possible investment breakthrough for India, worth around 100 billion dollars by 2030.

Meanwhile, India’s coastline is 7,517 kilometres long; of which 5,423 kilometres belong to the Indian peninsula, and 2,094 kilometres to the Andaman (on the photo), Nicobar and Lakshadweep island chains. At the same time, India’s maritime territory includes a territorial sea of ​​12 nautical miles, an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles and a contiguous zone of 24 nautical miles. The territorial sea is under full sovereignty, while the EEZ gives India exclusive rights to explore and exploit natural resources. India also claims an extended continental shelf (ECS) outside the EEZ and shares a maritime border with seven countries.

How did it happen that the seventh largest country in the world, with an area of ​​3.2 million square kilometres, with about 1.46 billion inhabitants (gained independence in 1947) has been importing oil on a large scale for decades (mostly from the Persian Gulf, and from 2022, mainly cheaper Siberian barrels), is an open question.

Only, it seems that US President Donald Trump’s global tariff salvo since spring, and his targeted message to India—that the tariff regime of “plus 50 percent” on all exports to the US, will remain in force as long as it imports barrels from Russia, fuelled the domestic oil fever. True, it would have been said even then more as a counter-reaction to “injustice”. Why is India being picked on (with the high American tariff regime), the Indian Minister of Commerce Piyush Goyal asked bitterly at the recent “Berlin Global Dialogue”.

(https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=ee794735903e3348&q=Jaishankar+meets+Rubio+in+Kuala+Lumpur+in+the+backdrop+of+US+Sanctions+on+Rosneft,+Lukoil&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP3ID3qsWQAxXPgv0HHRVWHMsQBSgAegQIDhAB&biw=1366&bih=599&dpr=1).

All in all, after the recent US sanctions on “Rosneft” and “Lukoil”, otherwise the key petro-suppliers of India until recently, the oil buyers there began to turn their backs on Siberian barrels, and at the same time increase the import of oil from the US (at the highest level since 2022, i.e. before the start of Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine).

In addition, the official New Delhi is increasingly realizing that reliance on domestic renewable energy sources, but also potential oil and gas, could greatly bring what almost all countries of the world are striving for today, namely: greater energy independence. Thus Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in August the beginning of a new phase of research into India’s energy potential. (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/india-intensifying-search-oil-gas-080200173.html).

How much “black gold” can be buried in the land and waters of India is a puzzle whose solution could change a lot, in Asia and far beyond.