Aggregator
This Alix Earle-approved blush is our favorite hack for a natural, sun-kissed glow
Beloved country musician Tommy Detamore dead at 70
Beloved country musician Tommy Detamore dead at 70
Elon Musk to build the biggest building in the world — spanning a colossal 100M square feet
NYC homeowners sue over Mamdani admin’s alleged bungled pied-à-terre tax rollout
NJ dad miraculously survives after ‘huge’ tree branch impales his jaw into his brain: ‘Mind boggling’
Well-known extremist group revealed as SoCal hospital bomb threat plotters as FBI steps in
Don’t sleep on Walmart’s deals of the week: Shop everything home, tech, and beauty on sale
‘My Life with the Walter Boys’ Cast Guide: Who The Heck Are All These Kids in The Walter Family?
Polymarket promo code NYPMAX1: Deposit $10, get $20 for NFL awards markets
Saudi Arabia's $5 Oil Detour Is Expensive... But Worth It
Authored by Leon Stille via OilPrice.com,
-
Rerouting Saudi crude to Asia via Yanbu, Egypt’s SUMED pipeline and the Cape of Good Hope may add around $5 per barrel and up to four weeks to a voyage.
-
That premium is small compared with the economic damage caused by losing access to Hormuz or Bab el-Mandeb altogether.
-
Saudi Arabia’s alternative export infrastructure is not a temporary workaround but a strategic asset—although it cannot replace the kingdom’s wider need to diversify beyond oil.
The latest Saudi oil route looks absurd on a map.
Crude moves west across Saudi Arabia to Yanbu, north through the Red Sea to Egypt, across the SUMED pipeline from Ain Sokhna to Sidi Kerir, then west through the Mediterranean before tankers sail around the Cape of Good Hope to reach customers in Asia.
Oil that started relatively close to Asia first travels thousands of kilometres in the opposite direction.
The detour reportedly adds around $5 per barrel once extra freight, fuel, insurance and pipeline charges are included. For a two-million-barrel cargo, that approaches $10 million. Aramco is therefore considering a separate pricing mechanism for crude loaded from Egypt’s Mediterranean port of Sidi Kerir, because its normal Asian official selling price no longer reflects the logistics.
The immediate conclusion is that avoiding Hormuz has made Saudi oil structurally more expensive.
That is true. But it misses the more important point.
Five dollars per barrel is not only the cost of disruption. It is the price of having another option when two of the world’s most vulnerable shipping chokepoints can no longer be treated as permanently available.
Two chokepoints turned one contingency route into another
Saudi Arabia’s first line of defence against disruption in the Strait of Hormuz is its East-West Pipeline. It carries crude from the kingdom’s producing region in the east to Yanbu on the Red Sea, avoiding Hormuz completely.
That system has proved its value. Aramco says it ramped the pipeline up to its maximum capacity of 7 million barrels per day during the first quarter of 2026. Around 2 million barrels per day feed western refineries, leaving roughly 5 million barrels per day of export capacity.
However, moving oil to Yanbu solves only the first geographical problem. Asian buyers would normally take those cargoes south through the Red Sea and exit via Bab el-Mandeb. Houthi threats and attacks have made that route unreliable as well.
The newer workaround therefore does not avoid the Red Sea entirely, as some viral descriptions claim. It uses the northern Red Sea between Yanbu and Ain Sokhna, but avoids the Houthi-exposed Bab el-Mandeb passage by moving through Egypt and into the Mediterranean.
From there, the ship still faces a remarkable journey. It must leave the Mediterranean through Gibraltar, sail around Africa and cross the Indian Ocean back towards Asia.
Reuters calculated that the journey to Asia can increase from about 19 days to 48 days. Fuel costs for a tanker can rise from approximately $1.26 million to $2.87 million, before adding around $1 million in Suez Canal fees. Fully laden very large crude carriers may also need to discharge part of their cargo into the SUMED pipeline before transiting the canal and reload it at Sidi Kerir.
None of this is cheap or efficient.
But the relevant alternative is not the old route operating normally. It is a delayed cargo versus no cargo.
The $5 premium is smaller than the risk it insures
Oil markets are accustomed to treating infrastructure efficiency as a question of cents per barrel. Under stable conditions, that makes sense. Producers compete on transport costs, crude quality and refinery margins, while buyers optimise routes aggressively.
Geopolitical resilience follows different economics.
An extra $5 on an $85 barrel is a material cost increase, but it is small compared with the price spikes, refinery shortages and lost export revenues caused by a major supply interruption. Saudi exports were down by around 2.4 million barrels per day year-on-year during the recent disruption, while Gulf exports fell to only 36% of pre-war levels.
Even more importantly, the risks do not disappear the moment both straits formally reopen.
Iran does not need to close Hormuz permanently to influence shipping. Mines, drone attacks, seizures or even credible threats can raise insurance premiums and persuade shipowners to wait. The Houthis have demonstrated a similar ability to disrupt Red Sea traffic with relatively inexpensive weapons.
A reopened chokepoint is therefore not the same thing as a dependable chokepoint.
That changes how the detour should be valued. The additional route is comparable to spare generation capacity in an electricity system or a second supplier in an industrial supply chain. It may look expensive when everything works. Its value becomes obvious only when the primary route fails.
Saudi Arabia has maintained this kind of optionality better than many producers. Despite the severe regional disruption, Aramco reported 98.4% supply reliability in the second quarter, supported by the East-West Pipeline, storage, alternative terminals and its international logistics network.
The $5 premium is part of the cost of preserving that record.
Redundancy is becoming part of the barrelThe important shift is that Aramco may now need different pricing formulas for the same crude depending on where it is loaded and how it reaches the buyer.
Official selling prices, or OSPs, are the monthly differentials that producers apply relative to regional crude benchmarks. They normally reflect grade quality, market conditions and destination. A separate Sidi Kerir formula would make logistics resilience an explicit component of the barrel’s price.
That is not necessarily permanent for every cargo. If Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb become reliably navigable again, the longest route will lose its commercial appeal. Asian refiners will not voluntarily pay millions more for an unnecessary voyage.
But the infrastructure should not be viewed as stranded the moment normal shipping resumes. Saudi Arabia is already considering expanding its east-west pipeline capacity by as much as 2 million barrels per day. Yanbu is being repositioned from a secondary outlet into a strategic export hub. SUMED, Suez, Mediterranean storage and flexible tanker arrangements add further options.
The lesson of 2026 is that relying on a single efficient route can be more expensive than maintaining several imperfect ones.
This will influence investment decisions well beyond Saudi Arabia. Pipelines, terminals and storage assets previously judged as underutilised may acquire a resilience premium. Buyers may accept higher costs for supply contracts with genuine routing flexibility. Insurers and lenders will increasingly distinguish between producers that have contingency infrastructure and those whose exports depend on one exposed waterway.
The result is a higher structural logistics cost for some barrels, even if benchmark oil prices fall.
Better oil logistics do not solve Saudi Arabia’s larger problemThere is, however, a danger in celebrating resilience too much.
Saudi Arabia can spend billions making oil exports harder to interrupt, but it cannot make global oil demand permanent. Electric vehicles, efficiency, alternative fuels and climate policy will gradually erode demand growth. The kingdom ultimately needs business models that do not depend on exporting ever-larger volumes of crude.
Riyadh understands this. According to its Vision 2030 annual report, non-oil activities accounted for 55% of real GDP in 2025, while non-oil government revenue had risen substantially since 2016. Investment in tourism, logistics, mining, manufacturing, technology and renewable energy is intended to reduce the economy’s exposure to oil.
Those figures should not be confused with completed diversification. Oil remains central to exports, fiscal capacity and the financing of many non-oil investments. Some flagship projects are expensive, and turning state-led spending into self-sustaining private activity remains difficult.
Yet this is not an either-or choice.
Saudi Arabia needs to protect the oil revenues it still earns while using those revenues to build an economy that will eventually need them less. More flexible export infrastructure supports the first task. Vision 2030 is supposed to deliver the second.
The Cape route may add $5 per barrel. That is the visible cost.
The invisible value is that Saudi Arabia can still sell the barrel when the shortest routes become unusable.
In an oil market shaped increasingly by drones, missiles and maritime chokepoints, redundancy is no longer wasted infrastructure.
It is part of the product.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/07/2026 - 13:205th Small Modular Reactor Validated Since June, Poised For Mass Production
Another small nuclear reactor has achieved “criticality,” marking the fifth new reactor type to be certified as operationally viable in the United States since June, after none were certified for more than a half-century, as the nation’s “nuclear renaissance” quickly advances to commercial mass-production.
Santa Clara, California-based Oklo’s Groves Isotope Test Reactor reached criticality on Aug. 5 at the company’s plant in Lockhart, Texas, and will produce isotopes for medicine, advanced manufacturing, scientific research, space exploration, and national security needs.
Unlike massive cement-siloed, utility-scale reactors such as the Westinghouse AP1000, the Groves reactor is a circular 22.5-foot-diameter nuclear generator that can be shipped by truck or rail and planted in a 35-foot-deep reinforced concrete cavity, making it a distinct entry in an expanding range of small, portable reactors on the cusp of being retail ready.
As John Haughey details for The Epoch Times, Oklo is one of 10 companies selected by the Department of Energy (DOE) in August 2025 to develop 11 “first mover” innovations under a reactor pilot program authorized by President Donald Trump in four May 2025 “Nuclear Renaissance” executive orders that call for licensing 10 new reactors by 2030 and quadrupling the nation’s nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
The president’s executive orders included incentives for three prototypes to reach “criticality” by July 4 to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding. That goal was eclipsed when Aalo Atomics’ Aalo-X became the fourth small reactor to attain criticality on July 4 after Antares Nuclear’s Mark-0 on June 4 became the first new reactor type in the United States to achieve the status since 1973.
With Oklo’s Groves reactor becoming the fifth to reach criticality in the last two months, Trump’s five-year goal for 10 small reactor types to be validated is already halfway accomplished. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said as many as seven would achieve criticality by year’s end.
The Groves reactor is one of two Oklo reactor developments that qualified for the pilot program. The company is also building a 75 megawatt reactor to anchor its Aurora Powerhouse Project at Idaho National Laboratory’s Materials and Fuels Complex, a prototype the company anticipates will be ready for “commercial operations” by 2028.
The Groves reactor is also one of two that attained viability in a privately owned plant rather than on the 890-square-mile Idaho National Lab near Idaho Falls.
“Thanks to President Trump’s precedent-setting directive to create the Reactor Pilot Program, Oklo’s Groves Isotope Test Reactor is part of the revival of America’s nuclear energy industry,” Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Ted Garrish said in a statement. “We applaud the work of the Oklo, DOE, and Idaho National Laboratory staff who helped achieve this milestone.”
United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright speaks with Kiewit Construction Site Manager Marvin Robb (L) and Atlas Engineering Project Manager Hillary Hack during a June 25 tour of Oklo’s Aurora Powerhouse Project at Idaho National Laboratory. John Haughey/The Epoch Times
Built in a YearDuring a tour of Idaho National Laboratory in late June, Oklo Co-Founder and CEO Jacob DeWitte said the company’s Groves reactor in Texas would soon reach criticality despite being built from scratch in less than a year.
The company began building the open, water-cooled reactor designed to supply domestic radioisotopes for medical imaging, cancer treatments, and national defense in September 2025, he said, and received DOE’s “substantial completion” certification in April, clearing it for criticality.
“It’s dang impressive that we hit substantial completion in 227 days, and that we'll be able to turn that reactor on in critical in less than a year,” he said. “We’re just waiting on the green light to take fuel, load it, and turn it on.”
That green light came late on Aug. 5.
“Reaching criticality in less than a year is an incredible milestone for our team,” DeWitte said in an Aug. 6 statement. “Oklo developed Groves from a greenfield site on private land, completed full-scale civil excavation and construction, manufactured or commercially procured all components, including fuel, and developed its operating programs in-house.
“Taken together,” he added, “we believe these accomplishments establish a new benchmark for the Reactor Pilot Program and set the stage for the future of advanced nuclear deployment at scale.”
The nation—the world—is poised to see “advanced nuclear deployment at scale” with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expected this fall to adopt Part 57, a micro-reactor regulatory framework that trims license reviews from often more than a decade to between six and 12 months.
Under Part 57, when the commission issues a license for a prototype reactor, the developer doesn’t need further approvals to mass produce it. Public comment on the rule closed July 15. Commissioners are expected to debate and adopt a final rule no later than early 2027.
“Ordering one [reactor] is cool, but ordering 10 is a lot better,” DeWitte said in Idaho. “There’s a future for that, for sure.”
Oklo is engaged in multiple nuclear energy projects in addition to its Groves reactor and Aurora Powerhouse, including a fuel fabrication plant prototype to recycle fuels from Idaho National Lab’s Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, idle since 1994; a co-partnership with Nvidia in a fuel project at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico; and its September 2025 contract with hyperscaler Meta to power a 200-acre data center campus in Pike County, Ohio, with a small reactor by the early 2030s.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/07/2026 - 13:00