Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Escalating Cost of Global Energy VolatilityDriven by the US-Israel conflict with Iran, UK household energy costs are projected to hit their highest level in two years this summer. This surge places Energy Secretary Ed Miliband in a precarious position, as his promises of cheaper bills through green power clash with the immediate reality of fossil fuel dependence. While critics like former Prime Minister Sir Tony Blair circle to challenge the green agenda, the core issue remains that global carbon emissions must reach net zero, even as short-term geopolitical shocks disrupt traditional supply chains.The Geopolitical Squeeze on LNG Supply ChainsThe immediate crisis stems from a dangerous transition gap: Britain's clean power infrastructure is not yet fully operational, while its traditional fossil fuel system is being depleted. Economist Patricia Pino, in a new paper for the Common Wealth thinktank, highlights that the Middle East conflict has severely restricted the flow of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) through the Strait of Hormuz.When domestic production and pipeline imports fall short, the UK is forced to rely on scarce and expensive LNG.This expensive LNG dictates the price for both gas and electricity markets.Gas demand is currently not falling fast enough to offset the decline in domestic production and surging winter peak requirements.The Financial Logic of Pre-emptive Market InterventionDuring the 2022 energy price shock, the UK government was forced to retroactively subsidize household bills to the tune of £23 billion. Pino's economic analysis suggests that proactive market intervention would cost only a fraction of this amount. By shifting the electricity system away from gas-indexed pricing and securing domestic gas reserves, the state can avoid massive emergency bailouts and alter the market incentives that currently allow emergency prices to apply so widely.Political Pressure and the Clean Power Transition GapMiliband remains politically vulnerable because he explicitly promised that embracing a clean, green power plan would result in cheaper bills. The current crisis underscores the danger of the UK remaining a global price taker. While the 2030 clean power target remains essential for long-term climate stability, the lack of a bridge strategy leaves the country fully exposed to international market shocks while domestic production declines.A Strategic Blueprint for the Coming WinterTo prevent a winter cost-of-living crisis, the Common Wealth report outlines a four-step emergency plan that must be executed between April and September:Retain Domestic Gas: Implement an export levy to keep UK gas within the country, making it cheaper than European alternatives.Nationalize Storage: Acquire Centrica’s Rough gas storage facility to create a buffer stock that can smooth out peak winter prices.Signal Import Support: Secure commitments for gas supplies before they are allocated elsewhere globally.Decouple Electricity Pricing: Purchase electricity at fixed prices from clean providers and allocate it directly to suppliers, moving the system off gas-indexed pricing.While such interventions—particularly energy taxes—may cause friction with the EU, immediate action is necessary to shift the UK from passively bracing for impact to actively managing its energy security.

Lead: Overview of the tentative 60‑day cease‑fire extensionOfficials from the United States and Iran say they have drafted a preliminary memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would prolong the existing cease‑fire for 60 days and launch negotiations aimed at ending the war permanently. The framework still requires final sign‑off from President Donald Trump and has not yet been publicly confirmed by either side.Key provisions of the proposed memorandumStrait of Hormuz: Shipping would become “unrestricted,” mines removed within 30 days and the U.S. naval blockade lifted proportionally.Sanctions and aid: The U.S. would waive selected sanctions, allow Iran to sell oil freely, and discuss humanitarian aid and the unfreezing of billions of dollars in frozen assets.Nuclear commitment: Iran would pledge not to pursue a nuclear weapon and negotiate the disposition of its estimated 440 kg of 60 % enriched uranium.Regional conflicts: The agreement envisions an end to Israel’s offensive in southern Lebanon and a broader discussion of Iran’s support for proxy groups.Numbers that shape the deal60 days – the duration of the cease‑fire extension.20 percent – share of global oil and LNG that transits the Strait of Hormuz under normal conditions.$2 million – tolls some vessels have been forced to pay during the conflict.Billions of dollars – value of Iranian assets currently frozen abroad.Strategic implications for the region and global marketsUnrestricted passage through the Strait of Hormuz would ease pressure on global energy prices, which have been volatile since the blockade began in April. A credible nuclear‑non‑proliferation commitment could reduce the risk of a regional arms race, while sanctions relief would provide Iran with much‑needed foreign exchange. The cessation of Israeli operations in Lebanon could also de‑escalate the broader Israel‑Iran proxy confrontation.What the next 60 days could mean for peace talksIf the MOU is ratified, the 60‑day window will become a high‑stakes diplomatic sprint. Negotiators are expected to focus first on the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, followed by detailed discussions on sanctions, proxy support and a permanent cease‑fire mechanism. Continued skirmishes—such as recent U.S. strikes near the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian drone attacks—highlight the fragility of the pause and underscore the importance of swift, coordinated implementation.

Executive summary: Trump says deal is largely negotiatedDonald Trump announced on Truth Social that a proposed agreement between the United States, Iran and several regional partners has been "largely negotiated" and will be finalised soon, sparking optimism that hostilities could subside. Proposed MoU outlines steps to end the US‑Israel war on IranThe draft memorandum of understanding (MoU) reportedly includes three staged actions: Formally ending the war on all fronts.Resolving the Strait of Hormuz crisis.Opening a 30‑day negotiation window for a broader peace framework, with a possible extension. Countries mentioned as participants are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkiye, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain. The MoU also envisions a 60‑day period for nuclear‑related talks. Quantitative stakes: shipping volumes, timelines and nuclear enrichment limitsBefore the conflict, roughly one‑fifth of the world’s oil and LNG shipments passed through the Strait of Hormuz. The agreement would reopen this vital lane, which has been effectively closed since the war began on 28 February 2026. The proposed timeline includes: 30‑day window to address Hormuz‑related procedures.60‑day window for discussions on Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile. Reuters cited a draft clause indicating Iran might surrender its highly enriched uranium, though details of transfer remain undefined. Regional implications: Hormuz sovereignty, sanctions relief and Israeli oppositionIran insists on sovereign control over the strait and has floated the idea of levying tolls, while the United States demands unrestricted navigation. Simultaneously, the United States is prepared to waive sanctions on Iranian oil during negotiations, a point Tehran has not yet linked to concessions on its nuclear programme. Iranian officials, including Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei, describe the MoU as a framework that will set broad principles before detailed talks. They stress that ending the war and preventing future U.S. attacks are immediate priorities. Israeli leadership remains skeptical; analysts note that Israeli acquiescence will be crucial for any durable settlement. Outlook: hurdles and scenarios for a final agreementExperts such as Quincy Institute co‑founder Trita Parsi view the MoU as a sign of willingness but warn that substantive concessions are still lacking. The next 30‑60 days will test whether both sides can bridge gaps on Hormuz navigation, nuclear enrichment limits and reparations. If sanctions are lifted and the nuclear issue resolved, observers suggest the deal could surpass the 2015 JCPOA in scope. Conversely, continued Israeli resistance or unresolved sovereignty disputes could stall or collapse the process.

With the Strait of Hormuz effectively shut and strategic oil reserves being drawn down at record speed, the global energy system is edging toward a chaotic “non‑linear adjustment.” A timely US‑Iran agreement could halt the slide and restore market confidence.Why Oil Markets Are Teetering on a Tipping PointThe market has bounced around the $100 mark since Iran’s retaliation to Operation Epic Fury. Although prices have not yet reached historic peaks, the underlying dynamics point to an imminent crisis:Record coordinated release of strategic oil reserves has bought temporary breathing room.Some Gulf production is being rerouted through pipelines, bypassing the strait.China’s import decline suggests stockpiling and demand shifts.Numbers Showing the Strain: Prices, Stocks, and Consumer CostsThe International Energy Agency (IEA) reports oil stocks are being depleted at a “record rate.” Analysts such as Hamad Hussain warn that if the strait stays closed, OECD inventories could hit “critically low levels” by the end of June, pushing Brent to $130‑$140 a barrel.Research by Jeff Colgan (Brown University) estimates U.S. consumers have already absorbed an extra $40 bn (≈$300 per household) in gasoline costs since the conflict began.Broader Economic Ripple Effects of Prolonged TensionsThe Washington‑based Institute for International Finance (IIF) notes the shock is spilling beyond crude:LNG, refined products, fertilisers, and freight costs remain elevated.Supply reliability across the global production system is now “tighter and more fragile.”GDP forecasts for oil‑importing economies are being revised downward as inflationary pressure mounts.Even if marine traffic resumes, the IIF expects only a “partial normalisation,” leaving the energy system vulnerable.What a US‑Iran Agreement Could Mean for Energy StabilityA comprehensive deal that reopens the strait would likely:Restore confidence, causing spot prices to retreat from peak levels.Allow inventories to rebuild, averting the “operational stress” scenario warned by Natasha Kaneva of JP Morgan.Mitigate the second‑phase shock affecting LNG, fertilisers, and industrial inputs.Conversely, continued stalemate could trigger “demand destruction,” with consumers cutting back, airlines trimming schedules, and refiners throttling throughput—shifting the market from a managed to a forced adjustment.

Renewed Diplomatic Push in TehranThe latest wave of back‑channel diplomacy centers on Mohsin Naqvi's visit to Tehran, where he met Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni. While details remain confidential, the trip marks the second high‑level Pakistani engagement in less than a week, suggesting a concerted effort to narrow the gaps that have stalled a durable US‑Iran peace settlement.Pakistani Mediation Gains Traction Amid Ongoing HostilitiesKey developments surrounding the visit include:Saudi Arabia reported intercepting three drones on the day after a drone strike targeted the UAE’s Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant.The Iranian IRGC coordinated the transit of 26 vessels through the Strait of Hormuz in the past 24 hours, keeping a critical oil route partially open.Iran is reviewing a new US peace proposal conveyed via Pakistan, while Tehran has submitted a revised 14‑point peace plan to end the war.Quantifying the Regional Stakes: Drones, Vessels, and Energy FlowNumbers underscore the fragility of the situation:20% of the world’s oil and LNG supplies normally pass through the Strait of Hormuz, making any disruption a global market concern.Three drones intercepted by Saudi forces highlight the risk of rapid escalation.The coordinated movement of 26 vessels shows limited but ongoing commercial activity despite diplomatic deadlock.Implications for Gulf Stability and Global Energy MarketsThe convergence of diplomatic talks and security incidents creates a volatile mix:Continued US‑Iran disagreement over Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and a proposed 20‑year moratorium threatens non‑proliferation goals.Iran’s selective control of Strait of Hormuz traffic, coupled with US threats of a naval blockade, raises the specter of supply shocks.China’s recent hosting of Russian President Vladimir Putin and upcoming meetings with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif suggest a broader geopolitical contest that could influence mediation outcomes.Outlook: Potential Paths for a US‑Iran Settlement and Regional RealignmentAnalysts see three plausible trajectories:Breakthrough Scenario: Pakistan’s intensified shuttle diplomacy, backed by limited Chinese facilitation, yields a revised framework that addresses uranium concerns and establishes a confidence‑building mechanism for Strait of Hormuz traffic.Stalemate Scenario: Persistent gaps on nuclear enrichment and proxy support keep negotiations at a “borderline” stage, prompting renewed low‑level hostilities and further drone attacks.Escalation Scenario: A miscalculation—such as an unanticipated drone strike or a US naval action—triggers a rapid escalation, threatening regional oil flows and global markets.For now, the diplomatic cadence set by Naqvi and the upcoming potential visit of Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir to Tehran will be the barometer for whether the talks can move beyond proposal exchanges toward a concrete memorandum of understanding.

The LeadEleven weeks after the start of the Iran war, the Strait of Hormuz has remained closed to naval traffic, bleeding the global economy far beyond the Gulf. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) maintains an iron grip over this narrow, strategic waterway, while a corresponding United States naval blockade on Iranian ports has failed to reopen it.Before the war began, between 120 and 140 ships travelled through the strait each day, about half of them oil tankers carrying some 20 million barrels of oil between them. Now, only a few vessels whose owners have negotiated with the IRGC are permitted to pass.The Strategic Control of HormuzOn Wednesday, Iran said it coordinated the transit of 26 vessels through the Strait of Hormuz in 24 hours, two days after announcing the formation of the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), a new body to provide "real-time updates" on operations in the strait.Since the announcement of a temporary ceasefire between the US and Iran in April, Iran has been working on formalising a mechanism to charge a transit fee from ships crossing the critical chokepoint, through which 20 percent of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) are shipped during peacetime.Tehran has reportedly already charged fees as high as $2m per ship for transit since the war started. Even though countries opposing Tehran say this is illegal, it may still be less expensive than the overall cost of the closure of the strait each day.The Economic Cost of BlockadeNearly one-fifth of global oil and LNG exports were shipped by Gulf producers through the Strait of Hormuz before the US and Israel bombed Iran on February 28, triggering the Iranian closure of the waterway. The strait is the only waterway linking Gulf producers to the open ocean – there is no other route through which they can ship exports.About 20.3 million barrels per day of oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz in peacetime – nearly 27 percent of global maritime oil trade. The lion's share of that crude went to Asian markets.Global LNG trade has been similarly hard hit. On the day before the war broke out, Brent crude – the global benchmark for oil prices – closed at $72.48 per barrel. After Iran closed the waterway on March 4 and began attacks on vessels attempting to sail through, traffic came to a standstill, stranding about 2,000 ships on either side of the strait.In terms of lost oil revenues, this amounts to $114.8bn of losses per day. About 10 billion cubic feet of LNG per day also used to pass through the strait, worth a further $7.8bn.The Cost-Benefit Analysis of Transit FeesFor hundreds of ships stranded in the Gulf with thousands of sailors on board, the cost of remaining anchored is steep, including crew wages, loan repayments, repair and management, coupled with inflated war risk premiums.In turn, Iran has reportedly been charging up to $2m for authorisation to pass. Experts say many will see this as worthwhile purely in terms of monetary cost."There is no doubt that paying Iran is cheaper than a continuous blockade because a sitting tanker bleeds money," said Nader Habibi, an Iranian American economist."It makes sense from an economic point of view, but it is not politically feasible," he added. "The companies are under pressure from the US sanctions and not to make arrangements with Iran. This is not just a purely economic cost-benefit analysis, but long-term considerations that are taken into account."International Legal PerspectivesInternational law protects free transit through strategic waters such as natural straits like Hormuz, barring countries from imposing passage tolls even where the waterways fall entirely into territorial waters, like in the case of Hormuz.However, services such as security controls, inspections and insurance regimes can be charged for. Chargeable fees also partly depend on whether a waterway is a man-made passageway or a natural one.These are three different precedents in maritime traffic flow:Panama Canal: An artificial waterway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Vessels pass through a unique system of locks that raise and lower vessels across elevated terrain. Since Panama built, maintains and operates the canal, it can charge transit fees based on vessel size, cargo capacity and booking priority. These range from several hundred thousand dollars per transit to some slots sold for millions of dollars.Suez Canal: Another artificial canal, linking the Mediterranean and Red seas. Egypt charges transit fees for the use of canal infrastructure, maintenance and traffic management services through the narrow waterway. Container ships and oil tankers pay from several hundred thousand dollars to more than one million dollars per voyage.Turkiye's Bosporus Strait and Dardanelles: These are different because they are natural straits, rather than man-made canals. Turkiye charges for navigation-related services such as lighthouse operations, rescue readiness, medical support and traffic management – and tightly controls ship scheduling and navigation.Regional Cooperation PossibilitiesIran's newly-formed PGSA published a new map of Hormuz, stretching from Kuh-e Mubarak in Iran to south of Fujairah, in the UAE, at the eastern entrance of the strait, and from the tip of Qeshm Island to Umm al-Quwain at the western entrance.Given how the Iran war has spilled over into the Gulf region – with the UAE taking the brunt of Iranian strikes – economist Mohammad Reza Farzanegan said "regional cooperation with Iran is the most realistic path to stable transit through the Strait of Hormuz."The UAE, Oman, Qatar and Iran will have to work together because their economies require it, he argued. A workable arrangement could include a joint maritime authority, shared monitoring, emergency coordination, environmental protection and service-based contributions for maintaining safe passage."This would give Iran a recognised role in the security of the waterway while giving Persian Gulf economies more predictability," Farzanegan added. "Such a framework is also more realistic than relying on external military enforcement, which has been more a source of trouble for these states."The Future OutlookWhile it may seem that the economics of the closure of the strait are currently skewed towards Iran, Aniseh Tabrizi, an associate fellow on the Middle East and North Africa Programme at think tank Chatham House, noted that "the economics by itself is not going to be the driver to change calculation or move from the current standpoint."She emphasized that Iran and the US need to reach a "diplomatic compromise, with other calculations linked in to the economic factor", before there can be an end to the energy supply crisis.Farzanegan added that if the world expects stable access to the Strait of Hormuz, then paying Iran could well be accepted as the price of keeping the vital waterway predictable. "From an economic perspective, a negotiated transit arrangement [with Iran] now makes more sense than continued closure," he concluded.

Lead: A Climate Champion Turns Policy ReverserWithin weeks of taking office, Mark Carney—once celebrated for his 2015 Bank of England speech on climate‑related financial risk—has abandoned the consumer carbon price, weakened methane rules, and opened the door to new oil‑and‑gas infrastructure. The rapid policy reversal has left climate‑concerned voters feeling betrayed and has sparked a national debate over Canada’s environmental direction. Carney’s Immediate Dismantling of Canada’s Climate FrameworkAmong his first actions, the prime minister:Scrapped the nationwide consumer carbon price.Rebranded the climate agenda as a “Climate Competitiveness Strategy” focused on investment rather than regulation.Delayed clean‑electricity mandates from 2035 to 2050, allowing new gas‑powered plants.Weakened methane regulations and postponed their implementation.Cancelled the planned oil‑and‑gas emissions cap that had been under consultation for years. Quantifying the Policy Reversals: Carbon Pricing and Emission TargetsThe federal‑Alberta agreement reduces the industrial carbon price from the projected $170 per tonne by 2030 to $130 per tonne by 2040, effectively rendering the tool “virtually irrelevant.” The removal of the consumer price and the delay of zero‑emission‑vehicle mandates have already triggered a “dramatic drop‑off” in EV sales, according to recent market data. Domestic and International Repercussions of Canada’s Climate ShiftThese moves have multiple layers of impact:Domestic emissions: Weakening of carbon pricing and the fast‑tracking of LNG and pipeline projects are expected to raise Canada’s total greenhouse‑gas output.Provincial politics: The deal appeases Alberta’s separatist‑leaning faction but alienates climate‑focused voters nationwide.Global credibility: Canada’s commitment to the 2050 net‑zero goal is now described by the Canadian Climate Institute as “firmly out of reach,” undermining its standing in international climate negotiations. What Lies Ahead for Canada’s Climate AgendaAnalysts warn that without a coherent carbon‑pricing mechanism, Canada may struggle to attract private investment in clean‑energy projects, while Indigenous groups have signaled readiness to block new fossil‑fuel infrastructure. The government’s reliance on a sovereign‑wealth‑fund model to subsidize these projects mirrors a “mirror opposite of Norway’s successful fund,” raising questions about fiscal sustainability. If the current trajectory continues, Canada could see both higher domestic emissions and increased downstream carbon leakage as exported oil and gas feed global markets.

During the Russia‑China summit on 20 May 2026, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping announced a shared understanding on the main parameters of the Power of Siberia 2 (POS‑2) pipeline – its route through western Siberia, Mongolia and into China, and the construction approach. Detailed commercial terms remain unresolved.Summit Consensus on Route and Construction of POS‑2The leaders confirmed agreement on the pipeline’s alignment and the technical framework, but emphasized that pricing, financing and a detailed timetable still need to be finalised.Pipeline Capacity and Economic Scale Compared to Global BenchmarksThe proposed line will span roughly 2,600 km (1,616 mi) and transport up to 50 billion cubic metres (1.77 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas per year, equivalent to about 525 TWh – almost twice the United Kingdom’s annual electricity consumption. For perspective:Nord Stream 1 capacity: 55 bcm/yrPOS‑1 reached full capacity in 2024 after construction began in 2014Estimated project horizon: up to 10 years from construction start to full outputGeopolitical and Market Ramifications for Russia and ChinaFor Russia, POS‑2 offers a new outlet for gas previously destined for Europe, helping Gazprom recoup revenue lost after the 2022 sanctions. The pipeline also promises multiplier effects for Russian steel and construction firms.For China, the line reduces dependence on seaborne LNG that must navigate chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca, providing a more secure, lower‑cost supply and shielding the market from geopolitical volatility.Outlook: Timeline, Pricing Negotiations and Energy Market ShiftsNegotiations are stalled primarily over price – China seeks rates linked to its heavily subsidised domestic gas, while Russia aims for terms closer to those of POS‑1. No definitive timetable has been set. Analysts project that, if an agreement is reached, the pipeline could begin deliveries in the early 2030s, reshaping global gas flows by:Cutting China’s future LNG import demandSoftening Atlantic‑based LNG price pressuresAccelerating a regionalised gas market centred on long‑term bilateral contractsNevertheless, both sides face risks: Russia may become a price‑taker to a single customer, and China could over‑concentrate supply from a politically volatile partner.

The Lead: A New Global OrderRussian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, have signed a joint declaration following their meeting in Beijing, focusing on building a "multipolar world and a new type of international relations". The two countries also announced that they had signed a large package of deals solidifying bilateral cooperation in the future.The meeting came just days after United States President Donald Trump completed his own visit to China for a two-day summit with Xi.Establishing a Multipolar World OrderOn Wednesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said: "The two countries will also issue a joint statement on advocating for a multipolar world and a new type of international relations." Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov described this declaration as a 47-page policy document.A "multipolar world" is understood as one in which economic, military and diplomatic power and influence are placed in the hands of three or more countries, rather than just one or two."Xi is calling for a more multipolar world, where the US has less power and influence," Al Jazeera's Katrina Yu reported from Beijing as the meeting was under way.Both Putin and Xi have spoken out against the "unipolar" hegemony that they say the US has over the world.In 2022, shortly after the beginning of Russia's war with Ukraine, Putin accused the US of stoking hostilities in Ukraine to maintain its global influence."They need conflicts to retain their hegemony," Putin said during a speech. "The era of the unipolar world order is nearing its end."Chinese state media reported that during the latest meeting, Xi said to Putin: "The tide of unilateral hegemony is running rampant."Russia-China Relations Reach Unprecedented LevelA press statement posted on the Kremlin website said relations between Russia and China had reached "a truly unprecedented level and continue to develop".The Chinese Foreign Ministry statement said: "Both sides should follow the trend of peace, development, cooperation, and win-win results to promote higher-quality development of China-Russia relations."The statements added that bilateral cooperation extends to the worlds of economics, sport, education and the media.The Kremlin statement adds that this year marks the 70th anniversary of partnership between the Russian TASS news agency and the Chinese Xinhua news agency.Deepening Economic Cooperation and Moving Away from the US DollarThe Kremlin statement said Beijing and Moscow had signed around 40 intergovernmental, interagency and corporate documents. "Many of these focus on the further deepening of our economic cooperation," it noted.The statement added that, last year, trade between the two countries reached almost $240bn, while the Chinese statement said bilateral trade grew by 20 percent in the first four months of this year.Since the war in Ukraine broke out in February 2022, Russia has become increasingly reliant on Chinese technology and manufacturing. Last month, Bloomberg reported that Russia now imports more than 90 percent of the technology targeted by US and European Union sanctions via China, using Chinese suppliers and intermediaries to obtain components with military and dual‑use applications vital to drone production and other defence industries."Both sides should build on this momentum, deepen the alignment of China's 15th Five-Year Plan with Russia's development strategy until 2030, promote the upgrading of mutually beneficial cooperation in various fields, and serve the development and revitalization of both countries," the Chinese ministry statement said.The Kremlin statement said that nearly all import and export transactions between Russia and China are in roubles and yuan. "In other words, we have actually created a stable system of mutual trade that is protected from external influence and negative trends in the global markets," it said.Securing Energy Supplies Through Siberia 2 PipelineThe Kremlin said on Wednesday that an understanding had been reached for the route and construction of the long-delayed joint Siberia 2 pipeline, but details are still being negotiated. Once completed, the pipeline will transport 50 billion cubic metres of Russian gas annually to China via Mongolia, significantly expanding energy flows between the two countries.The Kremlin's statement said that Russia and China are actively cooperating in the sphere of energy."Our country is one of the largest exporters of oil, natural gas (including LNG) and coal to China. We are definitely ready to continue to ensure reliable and uninterrupted supplies of these types of fuel to the rapidly growing Chinese market," the statement said.As European markets have largely closed to Russia as a result of the war in Ukraine, China has emerged as a crucial buyer of Russian oil and other energy products, benefitting from steep discounts on Russian products.In December 2022, the Group of Seven (G7), the EU and Australia placed a cap on the price of Russian oil at $60 per barrel, ostensibly to reduce Russia's ability to fund its war in Ukraine. The cap was later reduced to around $48 by the EU and the United Kingdom.Expanding Educational and Scientific TiesBoth statements said Xi and Putin had agreed to expand student exchange programmes and cooperation between universities and research platforms to boost joint scientific research.