Pennsylvania DEP Study Indicates Radioactivity from Shale Drilling Waste Landfill Leachate is Not Dangerous

    

     A study by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection found that the liquid runoff, or leachate, from Pennsylvania landfills that receive solid oil and gas waste poses no “significant” threat to the public from radioactive materials found in that waste. The DEP sampled leachate at 49 landfills. The results indicate that most were below federal drinking water guidelines of 5 picocuries per liter, and that none of the results were over a much higher standard of 600 pCi/L established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for wastewater sent to treatment plants from facilities like nuclear power plants. 

     DEP notes:

 “DEP did not identify any levels of radiation associated with the landfill radium leachate investigation that raised concern for environmental protection or public health and safety. No results were observed that would require landfill action or suggest changes to engineering or operational controls.”

     I would say that this result was expected. Over a decade ago, I attended a talk by West Virginia water resources expert Paul Ziemkiewicz that explored research he and his students had done to characterize the leachate from landfilled oil and gas waste, including drill cuttings. He concluded that the risk was small for pollutants, although they did not go into detail about radioactivity. Previous studies of releasing untreated oil and gas wastewater into rivers, which was done for the first few years of Pennsylvania’s shale gas revolution until 2011, when the practice was stopped. Those studies did find that radium increased in those downstream waters and sediments after the wastewater was released.

     According to an article by the environmental group Allegheny Front, some other scientists who study radioactivity were underwhelmed. A previous study, published in 2023 in the journal Ecological Indicators, found that radium levels in sediment downstream municipal water treatment plants receiving such leachate were two to four times the background level of radium upstream of the plants. Those researchers believe that radium levels can accumulate and increase over time and become more toxic. A 2016 DEP study also found that the risks from radioactivity were not significant for workers or nearby residents. However, in 2021, they did recommend further study of landfill leachates. Tracy Pawelski, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Waste Industries Association, which represents the state’s landfills, noted in 2023:

“Pennsylvania landfills have long been equipped with sophisticated radiation detection equipment that monitors every load of waste entering the facility,” Pawelski said. “Any load with unacceptable radiation levels, regardless of its source, are managed pursuant to radiation waste management plans approved by the DEP.”

     Nathaniel Warner, associate professor in civil and environmental engineering at Penn State, criticized the current study as inadequate due to how radium levels were calculated and where samples were collected.

“The state didn’t collect, or didn’t appear to collect, a single sample of the water actually leaving either the sewage treatment plants or the leachate treatment plants of the facilities,” he said. “To conclude that there’s no risk seemed like a stretch because they didn’t test the sediment or the water at the discharge.”    

     The Marcellus Shale, source of most of the oil & gas waste, contains higher than usual amounts of radioactive material due to the shale’s uranium and thorium content, which decays into radium. The current DEP study included two ways to measure radium levels. The first way, which is less precise but also less expensive, yielded higher radium levels between 308 and 540 picocuries per liter. The second method, more precise but also more expensive, yielded much lower radium levels of between 1.43 and 122.731 picocuries per liter.

“In the more accurate radiochemistry test, only 11 landfills had radium levels above the federal drinking water guidelines of 5 picocuries per liter. And of those 11, only four landfills had “reportedly” accepted oil and gas waste between 2015 and 2024.”

“DEP found no correlation between radium levels above 5 pCi/L and the acceptance of oil and gas waste at the landfill,” the report said.

     Thus, as can be seen, some of the landfills sampled that had radium levels above 5pCi/L did not even accept oil & gas waste. This shows that there are likely other sources of radium. One might be runoff from exposed shale outcrops, but I am just speculating here.

     The DEP noted that results were similar to its 2016 TENORM study. The report explained landfill leachate containment and treatment in the state:

“Landfills are designed with a leachate collection system to ensure leachate does not enter the groundwater and is collected for treatment. Collected leachate must be subsequently treated by a permitted wastewater treatment operation.  Upon meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) water quality standards, the treated leachate may be discharged to a receiving body of water. Some landfills operate onsite treatment systems while others are connected to local publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), which treat landfill leachate prior to discharge. Because landfills accept oil and gas industry wastes, such as drill cuttings and treatment sludge that may contain TENORM, there is a potential for leachate from those facilities to also contain TENORM.”

     The radiochemistry results, more accurate than the gamma spectroscopy results, were also much lower, with few exceeding drinking water limits, which, after further dilution in the environment, would drop considerably before affecting drinking water supplies, if at all. As noted in the study’s conclusions below, the DEP recommends a year of further study of these landfills to collect more radiochemistry samples. The bottom line is that radioactivity from the most radioactive organic shales, such as the Marcellus, is not likely to be of concern to the environment or public health, but it should still be monitored.

 

 

References:

 

PA DEP says ‘no risk’ to the public from radioactive materials in oil and gas waste sent to landfills. Reid Frazier. The Allegheny Front. March 20, 2026. PA DEP says ‘no risk’ from radioactive materials in fracking waste sent to landfills - The Allegheny Front

DEP Study Shows No Radiation Risk from Leachate in Pennsylvania's Landfills. Pennsylvania DEP. March 13, 2026. DEP Study Shows No Radiation Risk from Leachate in Pennsylvania's Landfills | Department of Environmental Protection | Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Landfill Leachate Study. Pennsylvania DEP. Landfill Leachate Study | Department of Environmental Protection | Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

RADIUM IN UNTREATED LANDFILL LEACHATE INVESTIGATION. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. January 2026. PA DEP Final Radium Leachate Report.pdf

Study finds radioactive materials in waterways near treatment plants associated with fracking waste. Reid Frazier. The Allegheny Front. July 20, 2023. Study finds radioactive materials in waterways near treatment plants associated with fracking waste

 

 

German Study Finds That Solar Panel Efficiency Degrades by 0.52–0.61% Annually, About Half of Previous Estimates: This Means Better Economics, Higher Levelized Cost of Electricity, and Longer Life

     

      A large German study of solar panel degradation was recently published in the journal Energy Economics. A million solar PV systems owners were surveyed about solar installations as old as 16 years for the study, which is a much bigger study and longer time period than other studies, the biggest of which included about 4200 installations over a 2-to-7-year time period. The results indicate that solar panel degradation rates are much lower than predicted by nearly half. This means that the panels can provide more power for longer, improving their overall economic performance a little bit. A lower degradation rate also means that the panels can last longer before becoming uneconomical. Some other interesting observations come from the study. One is that degradation rates are often higher early in the panels’ lives and slow down when they get older. The study also measured the effects of things that commonly temporarily degrade panel efficiency, including heat, cold, precipitation, and particulate air pollution. The new study suggests that previous modeling overestimated degradation rates by between 20% to 50%.

“Back of the envelope,” the authors admit, “the estimated cost of degradation would decrease, compared to previous findings, by about €638 million per year to maintain installed capacity in 2040.”

     Germany has deployed about 60GW of solar since 2006. The new study involved scientists from Brandenburg University of Technology and a collaborator from University College London, and about 1.25 million large and small solar installations across Germany, totaling 34 gigawatts of capacity. Annual degradation rates of 0.52–0.61%, roughly half the average reported in prior studies. The finding that degradation rates slow through time and that larger installations degrade more quickly than smaller ones was confirmed. This is likely due to higher failure risks in central inverters and complex setups. 

     Andy Corbley of Good News Network summarizes the different variables that affect solar panel degradation at different parts of their lifespan:

“Frost, extreme heat, and air pollution affect PV panels differently at different stages of their lifespan. Extreme heat tends to reduce the efficiency of older panels more than newer ones, even though for frost and air pollution, it’s the opposite.’

     The results indicate a 4.8% reduction in the levelized cost of electricity from solar panels. This also means that less than half as much new generation needs to be installed annually to keep up the nameplate capacity.  

“Solar is growing fast and aging better than many people thought,” the research's corresponding author, Diego Prieto Melo, told pv magazine. “Looking at more than a million real-world PV systems, we found that output declines by about 0.59% per year on average, which is lower than many previous assumptions.”

“The dataset included detailed information on energy production, installed capacity, tilt, azimuth, and location. System efficiency over time was measured using performance ratios (PR) calculated according to IEC standards. Specific yield was derived from energy output divided by nominal capacity, while reference yield was based on incident solar radiation.”

     The study focused on four key variables: hot days, frost days, precipitation, and air pollution. Hot days, defined as days exceeding 30 C, can reduce PV efficiency. Frost days, defined as days below 0 C, can cause mechanical stress or delamination under extreme conditions. Precipitation has mixed effects: it can cool panels and clean dust, but may also scatter light and reduce efficiency depending on incidence angles. Air pollution affects performance through the accumulation of particulate matter and dust on solar panels. Where particulate matter is heavy, such as in deserts where sand and dust accumulate and in areas of heavy air pollution, the overall efficiency depends on whether and how much maintenance is done to clean off the panels. Precipitation was shown to have the least effect of the four variables. Heat stress on panels was found to worsen with age, whereas frost and pollution impacts diminish over time.

     The bottom line of the study supports PV solar as a viable energy generation source, which can now be seen as slightly less degrading, longer lasting, and with slightly lower cost than previous modeling.

 

 

 

References:

 

Scientists Were Wrong About How Fast Solar Panels Degrade – They May Last Twice as Long. Andy Corbley. Good News Network. March 26, 2026. Scientists Were Wrong About How Fast Solar Panels Degrade - They May Last Twice as Long

From shine to decline: Degradation of over 1 million solar photovoltaic systems in Germany. Diego Alejandro Prieto Melo, Christin Hoffmann, Iain Staffell, and Felix Müsgens. Energy Economics. Volume 157, May 2026, 109282. From shine to decline: Degradation of over 1 million solar photovoltaic systems in Germany - ScienceDirect

Survey reveals PV systems in Germany outperform lifespan expectations. Emiliano Bellini. PC Magazine. March 18, 2026. Survey reveals PV systems in Germany outperform lifespan expectations – pv magazine International

 

Prediction Markets: Should Betting on Events Be Allowed or Encouraged? There are Ethical Concerns and Security Concerns

 

     Prediction markets are a form of betting that involves betting in favor of or against events occurring. When this is applied to things like wars, assassinations, and human injuries and deaths, many ethical questions arise. To bet on such things seems decadent and seems to make light of such heavy events. It seems like a dystopian view of the future where basic human compassion is set aside for selfish personal goals. I can imagine such markets being elevated in some dystopian novel or movie.  

     According to Wikipedia:

“Prediction markets, also known as betting markets, information markets, decision markets, idea futures, or event derivatives, are open markets that enable the prediction of specific outcomes using financial incentives (gambling on real world events). They are exchange-traded markets established for trading bets in the outcome of various events.”

     Political betting has been around for a long time. One historical instance is betting on who would become the new pope in 1503, but it goes back way farther than that.

“Prediction markets are based on the theory that individuals with financial stakes in an outcome can collectively predict it more accurately than any single expert. Even if participants are not highly informed, the collective wisdom emerges from their shared incentive to avoid financial loss. Eric Zitzewitz, an economics professor at Dartmouth, explains "Financial markets are generally pretty efficient, and the evidence suggests that the same is true of prediction markets. There’s no virtue-signaling in an anonymous market when you’re betting", and that "what you’re seeing with the market is some average of all of those different opinions, weighted by their willingness to put their money where their mouth is."

     Prediction markets essentially forecast future events, something commodities traders also do with futures markets, which makes them similar. One could say that prediction markets are a kind of futures market, usually based on events more so than future prices. As noted by Investopedia, online prediction markets began in 1988 with Iowa Electronic Markets, which predicts the winners of presidential elections.

     Successful prediction of future events can enable business advantages. Utilization of existing available data can be optimized by AI and improve success rates theoretically, so AI-enabled forecasting can improve results. Investopedia explains below how prediction markets are a kind of “crowdsourcing.”

“Prediction markets can be thought of as belonging to the more general concept of crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is specifically designed to aggregate information on particular topics of interest. The main purpose of prediction markets is eliciting aggregating beliefs over an unknown future outcome. Traders with different beliefs trade on contracts whose payoffs are related to the unknown future outcome; the market prices of the contracts are considered as the aggregated belief.”

     The Investopedia article goes on to explain the different types of prediction markets. Some are very similar to sports betting. Indeed, they are a form of crowdsourced gambling. Gambling has its own addiction concerns. For an understanding of habit, which includes the societal problem of habitual gambling, I would recommend Charles Duhigg’s 2012 book, The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do In Life and Business, which details the nature of habit as a form of conditioning that involves the habit loop consisting of cue, routine, and reward.

     Advocates for prediction markets argue that crowdsourced prediction enables better accuracy, which has been borne out by experiment. Crowdsourcing forecasts often perform better than forecasts by single predictors.  One might say prediction markets harness the power of “collective intelligence.”

     An article in Crypto News considers prediction markets to be like a stock market for questions. The article describes two systemic dangers of prediction markets: oracle manipulation and smart contract vulnerabilities. Oracle manipulation involves blockchain oracles being tricked due to false data. They note a 2025 Polymarket case where data was manipulated, then voted on with a payable outcome different from what actually occurred. This outraged others. Smart contract vulnerabilities and liquidity traps refer to the details of the question and how results are interpreted. An example given was bets on an invasion of Venezuela in January. The smart contract apparently did not consider the extraction of Maduro as an invasion, which outraged some who disagreed.

     One of the biggest concerns about prediction markets is insider trading or otherwise leveraging insider information for advantage. Below are examples from the Crypto News article of controversial predictions that have been suspected of being influenced by insider information. One concerning issue is that the anonymity of the online process gives a kind of immunity to being detected, which can lead to more widespread market manipulation. This is due to the decentralization of these markets. With decentralization and anonymity, insiders can bet without detection. (And once again, cryptocurrencies enable manipulation and support, and protect criminal behavior).

“Decentralization makes cheating harder to punish because it removes the identity layer. On traditional exchanges, suspicious trades can be investigated and tied to real people who face legal consequences.”

“On decentralized prediction markets, trades happen through anonymous crypto wallets, often with no KYC checks. Everyone can see that a wallet made a fortune on a well-timed bet. Proving who controls that wallet is the hard part.”

“So far, enforcement agencies have not prosecuted a crypto prediction market insider case. They would need to prove both identity and misuse of confidential information. That bar is high. In practice, it is the honor system, and there is a lot of money on the table.”

     Below, they list some red flags that suggest possible market manipulation.

     They get into the psychology of gambling as well, noting that prediction markets can be as addictive or even more addictive than other forms of gambling since the element of skill produces an illusion of control. Prediction is a part of life and an important part of business. As an economic geologist, I had the job of predicting where the best places to drill oil & gas wells would be. To do this, I relied on geological data. If successful, I was rewarded by getting to keep my job or a raise in pay. The article notes that prediction markets can be more addictive because they feel more like conducting research rather than betting. With decentralization and anonymity, insiders can bet.

     With prediction markets, there are also ethical concerns when betting on situations that involve human tragedy, such as wars, assassinations, coups, calamities, and death. The Crypto News article goes on to suggest that desensitization and the gamification of reality can be dangerous. That is why some prediction market platforms are more regulated than others. Below is a list and some examples, followed by a comparison of regulated and unregulated prediction markets.

     Regulations for prediction markets are likely on the horizon. Congress is considering them, as are some states. Businesses are also concerned about prediction markets. Below are some recommendations for public companies from law firm Morrison Foerster.

    An article in MEXC describes the U.S. legislation proposed in January 2026 regarding prediction markets:

“On January 10, 2026, a bill titled the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026 was introduced in the House. The measure, sponsored by Representative Ritchie Torres and co-sponsored by a group of Democrats, would prohibit federal elected officials, political appointees, executive-branch employees, and congressional staff from betting on government policy, official actions, or political outcomes in situations where they might possess material non-public information.”

“Proponents argue the bill aims to remove perverse incentives and restore public trust in both government and market mechanisms. Critics of existing prediction-market activity assert that without targeted regulation, a small group of well-informed actors could gain unfair advantages or even influence policy for personal profit.”

     After the Iran war predictions on prediction markets, Congressional Democrats are leaning heavily into restricting such markets. Below is some information about how prediction markets are growing quickly and, in some cases, replacing sports betting.

     On March 12, 2026, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission called for public comment ahead of a regulatory proposal that would require government oversight of prediction markets. The public comment period is for six weeks.

     It was recently reported that an Israeli reporter has been subjected to Polymarket blackmail and death threats tied to his Iran War coverage. This is quite concerning.

“When an Israeli journalist wrote about an Iranian missile strike, he was deluged with threatening messages from online bettors demanding he alter his reporting. 'It wouldn't surprise me' if there are more Polymarket-related influence attempts on journalism than previously thought, he tells Haaretz.”

     At issue was whether the strike at Beit Shemesh in Israel was from an Iranian missile or from an Israeli interceptor strike on the missile, with the falling debris causing the damage. The terms of the bet were that an interceptor strike would not count as a missile hit. The issue here is also insider trading and market manipulation, and shows another good reason to avoid and regulate prediction markets. It was reported in February that two people, including an IDF reservist, had been charged with using classified information to place bets on Polymarket during the June 2025 war between Israel and Iran. Thus, we see that there is temptation provided by prediction markets for insider trading among those with inside information.

  

References:

 

US Democrats working on bill to rein in prediction markets after Iran bets. Michelle Price. Reuters. March 5, 2026. US Democrats working on bill to rein in prediction markets after Iran bets

Prediction Markets Explained: Types, Uses, and Real-World Examples. Katelyn Peters. Investopedia. Updated January 27, 2026. Reviewed by Robert C. Kelly. Prediction Markets Explained: Types, Uses, and Real-World Examples

Polymarket. Polymarket | The World's Largest Prediction Market™

Kalshi's $2.2 million Iran mess exposes prediction markets' fine-print problem. Jack Newsham, Business Insider. March 5, 2026. Kalshi Amends Rules Amid Khamenei 'Death Market' Controversy - Business Insider

Prediction market. Wikipedia. Prediction market - Wikipedia

Prediction Market Risks (2026): A Guide to Security, Ethics, and Addiction. Crypto Content Editor (SEO). Camila Karam. Fact Checked by Ines S. Tavares. Last updated: February 4, 2026. Crypto News. Prediction Market Risks (2026): A Guide to Security, Ethics, & Legal Issues

Prediction Markets and the Law of Insider Trading: A Practical Guide. Morrison Foerster. March 3, 2026. Prediction Markets and the Law of Insider Trading: A Practical Guide | Morrison Foerster

Prediction Markets Spark Ethics and Regulation Debate.  MEXC Blog. January 12, 2026. Prediction Markets Spark Ethics And Regulation Debate | MEXC

Democratic senator says 'we need to ban' certain prediction markets, but CFTC chairman Selig has other ideas. Daragh Thomas. Benzinga. March 5, 2026. Democratic senator says 'we need to ban' certain prediction markets, but CFTC chairman Selig has other ideas

US commodity regulator kicks off rulemaking for prediction markets. Reuters. March 12, 2026. US commodity regulator kicks off rulemaking for prediction markets

Israeli reporter on Polymarket blackmail and death threats tied to his Iran war coverage. Ben Kroll. Haaretz. March 18, 2026. Israeli reporter on Polymarket blackmail and death threats tied to his Iran war coverage

Energy Information Administration Releases International Energy Consumption Data Set Sorted by Fuel and End-Use Sector

     The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) just released a new data set that sorts international energy consumption by fuel and end-use sector. The data is through 2023. The end-use sectors are subdivided into 34 end-use sub-sectors. The data includes most countries in the world. End-use consumption by region, country, fuel, sector, and sub-sector in which the energy is consumed is included. Below, they explain the reason for the data and its organization:

“Our new end-use data fulfill the requirement under Section 40416 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, to provide “detail on energy consumption by fuel, economic sector, and end use within countries for which data are available.” We will update this new international end-use dataset annually.”

“We designed the end-use dataset to align with the World Energy Projection System (WEPS). In our end-use data, we assigned energy sources into one of six groups (petroleum, coking coal, natural gas, other energy for power and heat, steam coal, and electricity) to align with design of the WEPS demand modules as shown in the figure below. Electricity is distinct from the other categories because it is created as a secondary energy source in one of the power plant sub-sectors, after which it flows to final consumption in other end-use sectors.”

     As can be seen below, they differentiated types of consumption into three categories: direct, heat and power, or non-energy. Then they differentiated it into sectors and sub-sectors.

     In its announcement, EIA provided two example graphs. The first is of fuels used in European chemical manufacturing from 2010 through 2023, as seen in the first graph below, and the second is Europe’s annual petroleum consumption by sector and sub-sector for 2023, as seen in the second graph below.

 

   

References:

 

EIA releases new international consumption data sorted by end-use sector and fuel. EIA. March 24, 2026. EIA releases new international consumption data sorted by end-use sector and fuel - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

 

Robert Bryce: Five Reasons Not to Bomb Iran’s Power Plants

    As exemplified by the war between Russia and Ukraine, the bombing of civilian targets such as power plants is a war crime. While Ukraine bombs Russia’s energy production facilities that power and finance its war effort, Russia bombs Ukraine’s power plants to cause pain to the general population, i.e., civilians. They have bombed hydroelectric dams, natural gas production, coal plants, and natural gas plants, and many parts of the electricity grid, such as substations. It is an undignified way to conduct warfare. Ukraine is to be commended for avoiding similar behavior, although they come close at times. Russia does not play fair. Neither does Iran. That does not mean the U.S. should revert to such behavior.

     I have read Robert Bryce’s book, A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations, which details the characteristics and the importance of power grids and access to electricity. He focused on different power grids in several places, their strengths and vulnerabilities.

     It should also be noted that power grids of different countries are often connected together. Just this week, Russia bombed out a power line connecting Ukraine and Moldova, through which Ukraine exported electricity to Moldova. As a result, Moldova is currently under a power emergency. I also know that Iran exports a significant amount of electricity to neighboring Iraq, although Iraq is in the process of moving away from that arrangement, in part by capturing natural gas at its oil fields to power natural gas plants. Thus, bombing Iran’s power grid could affect electricity access in Iraq. Trump has threatened to bomb Iran’s power plants and has received threats in return to bomb desalination plants in the Gulf states. Each is threatening war crimes.

     In a Substack post, Bryce gives five reasons why Trump should not bomb Iran’s power plants. The first is simply that power plants are not considered to be a legitimate military target, but civilian infrastructure. He also notes that doing so does not advance the stated war aims of degrading nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.

     Secondly, bombing the power plants could result in mass civilian death since electricity powers and supplies necessities like freshwater, wastewater treatment, communications, and hospitals. This could create a humanitarian disaster.

     Third is simply that it invites tit-for-tat retaliation, which Iran can do with its drones, even if only 10% are getting through, against similar civilian infrastructure in targeted countries. Indeed, after Trump made the threat, the Iranians proposed doing just that.

     Fourth, he notes, is that if the power infrastructure is bombed, it could lead to the next rulers, friendly or not, being rendered unable to manage their society. He notes that Iran also exports electricity to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

     Fifth, he cites what the University of Chicago’s Robert Pape calls the escalation trap, where the original attacker starts out with escalation dominance but, without immediate success, decides to escalate further and consider more risky approaches to achieve strategic goals.

     I don’t always agree with Bryce, but I usually do, and in this case, I do as well.

  

 

References:

 

Don’t: Five reasons why Trump should not bomb Iran’s electric grid. Robert Bryce. Substack. March 22, 2026. Don't. - Robert Bryce

Hormuz Chokepoint Exemplifies a Vulnerable Global and Regional Energy Delivery System as Well as a Sanctions Evasion System

     The Strait of Hormuz, formed from the geological processes that shaped the gigantic South Pars Natural Gas Field (see paywalled Scientific American article), has given us an example of both a global and regional delivery system for hydrocarbons and related products. It has also been acknowledged for half a century that Iran could develop leverage over it. Indeed, they have been fortifying it heavily with a military presence. Closing the Strait, which is considered to be international waters under international laws, is, of course, a breach of international law. Hitting commercial shipping with military force is a war crime.

     As I write, Iran is reportedly charging ships as much as $2million to go through, in what has been termed a toll booth and compared to a mafia shakedown. This is also highly illegal in international waters, although it allows the ships to pass through its territorial waters while keeping the international waters and those of the territories of the Gulf States across the Strait under threat of attack. This won’t be tolerated for long, I suspect. As of yesterday – March 23 – about 20 ships have gone this route. This new revenue stream combined with the U.S. temporarily un-sanctioning some Iranian oil is also a boon but is only a one-month reprieve to ease markets. Iran is also reportedly requiring payment in Chinese yuan with some ships already enroute to China and India. An article by Max Meizlish in the Washington Examiner recommends disrupting this pay for transport scheme by targeting  Larak Island, which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is reportedly using to monitor vessels transiting the “safe” route. Then they should track down the finances of the Chinese and Indian sanctions-evading ships for enforcement actions.

“Washington should aggressively sanction Chinese businesses and financial institutions that have historically facilitated Iranian sanctions evasion — and that are well positioned to process any yuan-denominated payments linked to the corridor’s operation. These firms and the schemes they operate have been detailed at length by the press and research institutions.”

“The Treasury Department should impose sanctions on the Chinese financial intermediaries most likely servicing Iran’s accounts, sending a clear signal that there are consequences for helping to solidify the regime’s control over the strait. The Trump administration has thus far shown little appetite for such coercive action directed at Beijing. Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz may shift that strategic thinking.”

     Of course, doing this might be seen as counter to stabilizing the market and Trump’s recent actions to allow India to buy sanctioned Russian oil and now India, China, and others to buy Iranian sanctioned oil at premium prices. In any case, allowing Iran to control who goes through and who doesn’t won’t be and should be tolerated for long.  

     Meiklish continues:

“Washington should also consider broader coercive options. Richard Haass has proposed an “Open for All or Closed to All” policy, which would establish a defensive line across the Gulf of Oman to prevent Iranian vessels from reaching their final destinations until Tehran unconditionally reopens the strait. The approach would force the countries buying Iranian oil — China, India, Pakistan, and Turkey — to pressure Iran directly. It is worth serious consideration.”

“Iran’s “safe” corridor is a protection racket. The U.S. has the military assets, sanctions authorities, and diplomatic leverage to shut it down. What it needs is the will to act before Iran’s control over the strait becomes the status quo.”

     Meanwhile, due to the effective embargo, things have changed on the ground in several Asian countries due to the sudden unavailability of crude oil and refined fuels. About 90% of the fuels that pass through the Strait are sold to Asian countries. A national emergency has been declared in the Philippines due to high fuel costs. China has limited a plan fuel price hike. Other countries are implementing emergency energy conservation measures. Shorter work weeks and work-at-home plans have been implemented. India’s ceramic industry can’t buy or afford natural gas so much of it has shut down. There is also a widespread shortage of LP Gas, which has become an important fuel in India and other Asian countries, and a cleaner replacement for wood, charcoal, and dung for cooking fuel. Hotels and schools have also been shut down or working on limited hours.

     When prices skyrocket, people are affected. The difference between profit and loss becomes smaller, and lives are upended. Perhaps Trump should have considered that before going ahead with the war, although I understand the goal of hitting the sinister regime, which has been a growing threat in the region and the world.  

     Apparently, Europe is also on the verge of fuel shortages. By next week, there will be energy conservation measures enacted in EU countries, according to an article in The Telegraph. However, others have argued that Europe would only be affected if the closure lasts into summer. Along with 20% of the world’s oil, about 20% of the world’s LNG trade passes through the strait. The International Energy Agency has recommended energy conservation measures. Europe is currently competing with Asia for U.S. oil and LNG supplies. As in Asia, high energy prices are a big concern for people.

    

 

References:

 

Everyday life in Asia is being upended by Iran war fuel crisis. Koh Ewe and Flora Drury. BBC. March 24, 2026. Everyday life in Asia is being upended by Iran war fuel crisis

Iran’s shakedown in the strait. Max Meizlish. Washington Examiner. March 24, 2026. Iran’s shakedown in the strait

The reason the Middle East has so much oil is the same reason it’s all stuck there now: A continental collision trapped oil within what is today Iran. The same collision explains why that oil is trapped behind the Strait of Hormuz now. Stephanie Pappas. edited by Andrea Thompson Scientific American. March 6, 2026. A quirk of geology explains Iran's oil—and why it's stuck in the Persian Gulf | Scientific American

Europe facing fuel shortage within days, warns Shell boss. Matt Oliver, Connor Stringer, and Emma Taggart. The Telegraph. March 24, 2026. Europe facing fuel shortage within days, warns Shell boss

High Payment Delinquency Rate for Anaerobic Digestor Loans for Farmers Leads to USDA Pause

     The USDA just paused loans for anaerobic digestors for U.S. farmers due to a high delinquency rate for loans. The pause, announced in late January, is for up to 90 days while USDA investigates delinquencies and project underperformance, according to Jacob Wallace at Waste Dive. The loans were under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which is (or was) a very generous subsidized program. The Rural Business Cooperative Service (RBCS) announced the pause after a letter from 34 agricultural and environmental groups included a petition to end federal grants for on-farm digestors. The petition noted that $257 million of the $3.2 billion dispersed from REAP, which is 8% of the program’s dispersals from 2021 to 2025. They also noted that the average grant for these was much higher than for REAP-subsidized solar or wind projects.

     The goals of funding digestor projects are to reduce emissions and to help farmers, but the groups argued that the environmental benefits of digestors were nullified by their detriments. They also argued that the loans were helping larger consolidated farms, i.e., factory farms, rather than the small farms they were intended to benefit. Biogas and RNG groups disagreed with that assessment. They also argued that the digestors reduce emissions, provide a revenue stream for farmers, and lower their cost of fertilizers. Another complaint by those opposed to the digestor loans is that they have allowed large dairy farms to increase the size of their herds, and that digestate storage leads to higher ammonia production. Ammonia is an air and water pollutant. Digestors also yield more water-soluble nitrogen and phosphorus, increasing runoff. They noted several unauthorized discharges by large digestor operations into local water bodies. They cite chronic discharge of runoff and leachate.

     In addition to the environmental issues, they also noted that the projects often do not recoup their costs. Their analysis shows that 17% of large subsidized digestors have shut down, often for financial reasons.

     Wallace writes:

“In the letter, RBCS disclosed 21 loans to digestor projects totaling $386.4 million are seeing a delinquency rate of 27%. The pause also applies to “controlled environmental agriculture,” a category that includes vertical farming and hydroponics, which have a reported 43% delinquency rate.”

     It was noted in the petition that costs to taxpayers for digestors were too high compared to solar projects, and they generated less energy per dollar, noting that:

“…digestor projects needed almost three times more money to generate over four times less energy per dollar” than solar projects.

     Biogas and RNG groups have argued that on-farm digestors provide revenue for farmers and a cost-effective solution to manure management. The American Biogas Council notes that there are more than 600 anaerobic digestors on U.S. farms, and some digest food waste along with manure. They also noted that the high delinquency rate was unknown to them and requested more information about it.

"We look forward to learning more about what USDA claims are delinquent loans. The most important thing for Americans and rural communities is to help farmers recycle their manure into renewable energy and soil products," Serfass said in an emailed statement.

     Wallace notes that REAP funding was accelerated under the Biden administration and downsized under the Trump administration, along with the common rewording, dropping any references such as those to climate change, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Last June, the USDA paused REAP applications due to overwhelming response and continued popularity.

     In conclusion, it appears that the environmental and agricultural groups want the program to provide more bang for the buck, and the USDA appears to agree.

 

    

References

 

USDA pauses on-farm digestor loan agreements amid high delinquency rate. Jacob Wallace. Waste Dive. January 22, 2026. USDA pauses on-farm digester loan agreements amid high delinquency rate | Waste Dive

Environmental groups petition to end federal grants for on-farm digestors. Jaco Wallace. Waste Dive. January 15, 2026. Environmental groups petition to end federal grants for on-farm digesters | Waste Dive

Jones Act Waiver May Help Gasoline Prices A Little, but Effects Will Be Limited

      The U.S. government issued a 60-day waiver of the 1920 Jones Act on March 18, which allows foreign-flagged tankers to transport crude oil and refined products between U.S. ports. The goal is to keep gasoline prices low, but its effect on prices might not be enough to notice, say some. The original goal of the law was to protect the U.S. shipping and shipbuilding industry and to ensure a reliable merchant fleet for national defense and emergency response.

     According to RBN Energy’s Lisa Shidler:

“In the energy sector, the Jones Act fleet breaks down into five main vessel types: smaller inland barges that typically carry about 10 Mbbl or 30 Mbbl of crude or refined products on rivers and coastal canals; regional offshore tank barges (such as those in New York Harbor) with capacities of 50 Mbbl to 135 Mbbl; coastal barges, including larger articulated tug barges (ATBs) with capacities of roughly 142 Mbbl to more than 320 Mbbl; product and crude tankers that run in coastal and international trades and generally carry around 330 Mbbl; and large crude tankers dedicated to the Alaskan trade.”

“According to Bloomberg and RBN data, there are currently about 101 Jones Act-eligible ships in the market today. That number was as high as 400 ships in 1950, with the count largely flat but edging lower over the past decade.”

     The Jones Act is costly for the U.S., and transport using non-U.S. ships could lower costs.

“We’ll note that by far the largest Jones Act refined product movements occur between various Gulf Coast ports and destinations on both coasts of Florida (>700 Mb/d), which aren’t served by pipelines.”

     White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt noted the rationale for waiving the requirement for 60 days:

“This action will allow vital resources like oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and coal to flow freely to U.S. ports for 60 days, and the administration remains committed to continuing to strengthen our critical supply chains.”

     This is not the first time a Jones Act waiver has been issued. RBN’s Shidler explains:

“Most recently, after Hurricane Fiona in 2022, the Biden administration approved a temporary waiver allowing one foreign-flagged tanker carrying about 300 Mbbl of diesel to deliver fuel to Puerto Rico, easing concerns about generator supplies. In 2017, during Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, President Trump authorized and DHS issued a 10-day waiver covering goods shipped to the island to support emergency relief. During hurricanes Harvey and Irma in 2017, a temporary waiver was also granted, allowing foreign ships to carry refined petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, from the Gulf Coast to the East Coast. In 2005, DHS issued an 18-day waiver allowing foreign-flagged tankers to move petroleum and petroleum products between U.S. ports after Gulf Coast pipelines and refineries were disrupted by Hurricane Katrina, followed by a similar waiver after Hurricane Rita a few weeks later.”

     Below, she explains the potential effects of the waiver on U.S. refiners:

“It makes it more expensive to move crude and products between the U.S. coasts, which can prop up East Coast prices and cap how many barrels from the Gulf Coast can flow there. Dropping that coastwise premium could widen the outlet for Gulf Coast barrels and help refinery economics there, making it easier and cheaper to push more light crude and products into domestic coastal markets rather than exports. For East Coast refiners, it’s more of a double‑edged sword. Their costs might improve with more Gulf Coast light sweet crude potentially able to move coastwise at lower cost, but competition from Gulf Coast refineries on the product side would also intensify.”

     She also explains how California’s refinery closures have led to a situation where the Jones Act requirements have been circumvented in recent years via a “two-step movement of gasoline blendstocks from Gulf Coast refineries to the Bahamas on foreign-flagged vessels, where a very modest “manufacturing/blending operation” takes place and then is re-shipped to U.S. West Coast markets.” The waiver could allow the trip to the Bahamas, so that a more direct and much cheaper route could deliver refined products from the Gulf Coast to California.

     She also notes that the Renewable Fuel Standard increases fuel prices even more than the Jones Act:

“Before we close, we should note another government policy that impacts fuel prices: the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This very complex policy, which mandates that refiners include specified minimum amounts (on a percentage basis) of renewable components (ethanol, renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF) into their overall production, adds significantly more costs at the pump than any other government program (including the Jones Act).”

    

    

References:

 

Me and Mrs. Jones – White House Issues Jones Act Waiver, But Market Impact Could Be Limited. Lisa Shidler. RBN Energy. March 18, 2026. Me and Mrs. Jones – White House Issues Jones Act Waiver, But Market Impact Could Be Limited | RBN Energy