Mainland Chinese equities declined to their weakest point in more than a year on Monday, with technology names bearing the brunt of the selling, according to the South China Morning Post. The report attributed the pressure to investor concerns over higher global borrowing costs and rising oil prices, alongside an approaching holiday break.
The CSI 300 Index fell 2.2 per cent to finish at its lowest reading since August 21 of the prior year, marking a 13-month trough. The technology-focused Star Market 50 index dropped 4.1 per cent, its largest one-day loss in five weeks, and ended near the level touched during a technology sell-off in July.
Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index moved in the opposite direction, gaining 0.5 per cent.
Chinese technology shares weakened as crude oil changed hands above US$100 a barrel. The report linked the elevated crude price to the United States rejecting an Iranian proposal to restore traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Continuing negotiations kept inflation worries in place and left Treasury yields at high levels.
The broader market tone was subdued as the week began, with the technology-led retreat reflecting reduced appetite for risk among investors weighing expensive global capital and energy costs against the prospect of a holiday pause in trading.
Sept. 28 (Reuters) The world’s biggest energy companies are poised to deliver another quarter of bumper profits, fuelled by record refining margins. Flush with cash, Big Oil now needs to chart a course for future growth in a world reshaped by the Middle East crisis.
Big Oil has seen its cash coffers balloon this year. The five largest Western oil companies — BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell and TotalEnergies – are expected to report combined third-quarter profits of around $53 billion, according to RBC Capital Markets estimates, up from $48 billion in the second quarter and more than double year-earlier levels.
Yet since the start of the Iran war in late February, oil majors have largely reacted cautiously to this windfall, directing billions toward debt reduction rather than major new investments. Combined debt is set to drop to $150 billion in the third quarter from $200 billion in the first quarter, according to LSEG estimates.
That approach made sense in the early months of the conflict, when energy markets were swinging wildly on every headline and investors largely accepted US President Donald Trump’s prediction that the war would be short-lived.
Seven months later, the industry finds itself facing a very different reality.
What began as a confrontation between the US, Israel and Iran has evolved into a protracted, low-intensity regional conflict characterized by attacks on energy infrastructure, refineries and shipping lanes. Many of the consequences for global energy markets – including a higher geopolitical risk premium, altered supply lines and greater energy nationalism – are likely to linger long after the fighting ends.
That changes the calculus for an industry that makes multibillion-dollar investment decisions with time horizons measured in decades.
Read full article: https://www.oedigital.com/news/543284-big-oil-faces-strategy-rethink-as-iran-war-reshapes-energy-markets
The Trump administration on Monday finalized new lower vehicle fuel economy standards, in the latest effort to make it easier for automakers to sell gas-powered vehicles and to reverse a push by the Biden administration to force automakers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles.
The new standards will cut the cost of new vehicles but increase fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions for decades, according to the department's own estimates.
US drivers have been grappling with sharply higher fuel prices since the start of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran at the end of February.
The Transportation Department said it was finalizing a fleetwide average of 34.9 miles per gallon (14.7 km per liter) by 2031, down from 50.4 miles per gallon (21.4 km per liter) under Democratic former President Joe Biden.
In 2024, the Biden administration finalized rules to push automakers to build more electric vehicles to meet rising fuel-efficiency standards. Biden increased required fuel efficiency for cars by 8% annually for model years 2024 and 2025, 10% for 2026 and 2% annually from 2027 to 2031.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the trade group representing General Motors , Toyota , Volkswagen , Hyundai , Ford and other major automakers, said the government "made the right call to better align fuel economy standards with the law and current market conditions."
The group added that the Biden rules "effectively required a switchover to electric vehicles that was out of step with market realities and customer demand."
The Sierra Club, an environmental group, said it will fight President Donald Trump's rollback of fuel economy standards. "Americans need relief from high costs, but instead Trump is giving automakers a free pass on pollution and handing families the bill — at the pump and with their health," it said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/28/us-finalizes-new-lower-fuel-economy-standards.html
Chancellor John Healey
By Faisal Islam, Economics editor and Dearbail Jordan, Business reporter
Published 28 September 2026. Updated 3 hours ago
The UK is in talks with US authorities over a potential stoppage of diesel exports and has started preparing for a ban, Chancellor John Healey has told BBC News.
Diesel prices in the UK reached a new high on Monday due to supply pressures springing from the US-Israel conflict with Iran and Russia's war with Ukraine.
Fuel prices are rising globally and US President Donald Trump has threatened to ban diesel exports, stating at the weekend: "We're thinking about it very seriously."
Healey, who admitted that UK diesel prices are "extreme", said the government was in discussions with the US, adding: "We're also making the provision that we may need to and we have our own stocks in the UK."
Speaking on the sidelines of the annual Labour Party Conference in Liverpool, Healey said: "We work very closely with the Americans.
"In the end, we're also working with the Americans where we can try and put in place what will solve this, or at least significantly ease it, which would be a diplomatic settlement [and] an end to the fighting with Iran."
The UK depends on the US for around a third of its diesel imports and a ban would send prices even higher.
US sources suggest that Trump is considering a ban to attempt to bring down prices for domestic consumers ahead of the critical midterm elections.
The White House said no official policy announcements have been made, adding that Trump wants to see prices at the pump fall and "is evaluating all the options on the table".
In the UK, the average price for a litre of diesel reached 199.33p on Monday, according to the RAC motoring organisation, surpassing a previous high of 199.09p in June 2022 after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Petrol prices are also still rising, with a litre currently costing 174.23p.
Over the past seven months, the Iran war has severely disrupted the production and transportation of wholesale oil across the region, causing the price of fuels made from oil to surge.
The RAC said diesel prices had entered "uncharted territory" and served as a reminder of "just how exposed the UK is to events occurring far away".
Healey said he was "very aware" of these cost of living pressures as he prepared what he called a "breathing space" Budget on 28 October.
A freeze on fuel duty, first implemented by the Conservative government in 2022, is due to expire at the end of the year. Duty is scheduled to increase by 3p in January and a further 2p in March.
Healey said: "Fundamentally, what we need is a settlement in the Middle East. We need an easing of the pressure of costs on business, the costs on households and on ordinary families that we see at the pumps in the most extreme level today for diesel."
By Leon Stille - Sep 28, 2026, 2:00 PM CDT
Energy models have an unusual talent. However chaotic the present may be, the future almost always becomes remarkably calm. Wars end. Shipping lanes reopen. LNG terminals work as planned. Winters remain manageable. Producers deliver. Markets rebalance. And natural gas prices gradually return to a smooth, comfortable line.
Perhaps they will. But Europe has now spent five years discovering how little it actually knows about future gas prices.
The latest Dutch Climate and Energy Outlook illustrates the problem. The KEV 2026 uses a central wholesale gas-price path that settles at roughly €0.20–€0.25 per cubic metre through much of the 2030s. In late September 2026, Dutch TTF gas was trading at approximately €72 per megawatt-hour, equivalent to around €0.70 per cubic metre—roughly three times the model’s long-term central assumption.
That does not prove the model will be wrong in 2030. Prices could fall sharply if LNG supply expands, demand weakens and geopolitical tensions ease. It proves something more important: nobody knows.
A Model Assumption Is Not a Price Prediction
Energy models need a gas price. Without one, they cannot calculate household bills, industrial competitiveness, power prices or the apparent cost of decarbonisation. Analysts therefore select a central pathway and add a range around it.
That is legitimate modelling. The mistake begins when policymakers treat that pathway as the most likely future and compare investments against it as though the uncertainty were minor.
Gas is not merely another input with a predictable inflation curve. Its European price depends on weather, storage levels, Asian demand, LNG export capacity, pipeline failures, sanctions, wars, shipping routes, currency movements and the behaviour of a relatively small number of suppliers.
In 2022, Russian supply cuts pushed TTF prices above €300/MWh. By early 2026, expanding global LNG supply appeared likely to ease the market. The International Energy Agencyexpected strong LNG growth to improve security and affordability, while still warning that weather and geopolitics could cause renewed volatility.
Then the Middle East crisis disrupted LNG flows through the Strait of Hormuz. By September, benchmark European gas was again trading above €70/MWh and more than double its level a year earlier.
None of this means forecasters are incompetent. It means they are being asked to predict variables that are fundamentally political, meteorological and strategic. The honest output is therefore not one line. It is a wide fan of possible outcomes.
Cheap-Gas Assumptions Quietly Decide Policy
The gas-price assumption matters because it changes which investment appears sensible.
Assume gas returns permanently to €20–€25/MWh and a gas boiler, gas turbine or industrial furnace can look reassuringly cheap. A heat pump, battery, thermal store or renewable-power contract must then justify its capital cost against an abundant low-cost fuel.
Assume gas remains at €60–€80/MWh—or periodically spikes far above it—and the same investment decision reverses. Efficiency becomes more valuable. Electrification pays back faster. Renewable generation avoids more imported fuel. Storage earns more from shifting low-cost electricity into expensive hours.
The problem is not that official models contain a low-price scenario. They should. The problem is allowing that scenario to become the invisible default behind infrastructure expected to operate for 20 or 30 years.
Gas volatility does not remain confined to the gas market. It enters household heating bills, industrial costs, inflation and public budgets. It also reaches electricity consumers because gas-fired power plants frequently set the marginal wholesale price.
The European Environment Agency calculated that gas-price volatility added approximately €13 billion to the EU’s wholesale electricity bill during the first 16 weeks of 2026 alone. Renewable capacity installed since 2010 saved an estimated €29 billion over the same period compared with a system in which renewable deployment had stalled. That is the real cost of forecast error.
Renewables Are a Hedge, Not a Forecast
Renewable energy does not require governments to know what gas will cost in 2035. Solar and wind have uncertainties of their own: capital costs, interest rates, permitting, grid connections, weather variation and curtailment. Batteries degrade, grid expansion is expensive and periods of low wind and solar still require flexible capacity. A power system cannot be built from generation costs alone.
But the risk is structurally different. Most of the cost of a wind farm, solar park, grid cable or battery is known when the investment is made. Once built, wind and solar do not need to purchase fuel every morning at a price determined by a war, a cold spell or competition with Asian importers.
Storage and demand response then reduce the number of hours in which gas plants set the electricity price. Grids and interconnectors spread weather and demand risks across larger regions. Heat pumps turn one unit of electricity into several units of heat, reducing the amount of primary energy households must buy. Efficiency simply removes part of the exposure altogether.
These technologies do not make energy costs perfectly predictable. They convert an open-ended commodity risk into a portfolio of assets with more visible capital and operating costs.
That is valuable even if gas becomes cheap. And it becomes extremely valuable if it does not.
Policy Should Be Built for Being Wrong
Governments should stop asking which single gas-price forecast is correct. They should ask which investments remain sensible across the widest range of gas-price outcomes.
Every major energy-policy calculation should show at least a sustained low-gas case, a central case, a prolonged high-gas case and a shock case. The analysis should include not only average fuel costs but also volatility, inflation, emergency subsidies, security-of-supply spending and the effect of gas on electricity prices.
Projects that depend on permanently cheap gas should then be recognised for what they are: bets on a benign geopolitical future.
Gas will still have a role during the transition, particularly for industrial heat, seasonal balancing and backup during prolonged periods of low renewable output. The point is not to pretend Europe can remove every molecule immediately. It is to avoid building more long-lived demand on the assumption that imported gas will reliably remain cheap.
The Dutch KEV 2026 itself concludes that the Netherlands’ continuing fossil-import dependence leaves it exposed to global market shocks. That warning should carry more weight than the apparent precision of any central price curve.
Europe does not know whether gas will cost €25, €75 or €150/MWh during the next crisis. It does know what sunlight and wind cost. It increasingly knows the capital cost of batteries, grids, insulation and heat pumps. And it knows that none of them can be withheld at a border or rerouted to the highest bidder.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Europes-Gas-Forecasts-Are-Not-an-Energy-Strategy.html
Honourable Members,
Europe cannot remain an industrial powerhouse if its energy prices are structurally too high.
When Russia cut off the gas we fought back. Our supplies are now more diversified. And we have invested in our homegrown clean energies – renewables and nuclear.
But then came the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And again we bitterly felt the cost of our general dependence on imported fossil fuels. Since the start of the conflict, imported fossil fuels have cost us an additional €90 billion, without a single molecule of energy added.
So, we need to double down on our affordable, homegrown, clean energy. Be it renewables and nuclear, or biomethane and others. Technologically neutral. But they must give us independence and drive down energy prices.
For this independence, we need to electrify Europe. Our goal is to double the share of electricity by 2040. With this, Europe could cut its fossil-fuel import bill by €260 billion a year. But we also need to ensure that the electricity we generate is available.
Last year, we installed more than 80 gigawatts renewable capacity. But six times more capacity is still waiting to be connected. This is why we need the grids package so urgently.
We must invest faster. Speed up grid connections. Develop storage. In short, let's make Europe's future electric. This is a must.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/ov/speech_26_1868
Silvercorp Metals (AMEX:SVM) shares fell 5.4% to $10.73 in pre-open trading as silver prices declined during Monday’s session.
Spot silver fell nearly 5% as investors monitored higher crude oil prices, expectations for US interest rates, a stronger US dollar and rising Treasury yields.
The source material did not identify a company-specific announcement, earnings report or analyst downgrade associated with Monday’s decline in Silvercorp shares.
Silver Prices Fall as Markets Monitor Interest Rates
The decline in silver came as rising crude oil prices contributed to concerns about inflation and expectations that the Federal Reserve could raise interest rates again.
The US dollar also strengthened and Treasury yields moved higher during the session.
Investors are awaiting US economic data scheduled for release this week, including an inflation measure monitored by the Federal Reserve, for further information on the inflation and interest-rate outlook.
BMO Raises Silvercorp Price Target
Separately, BMO Capital recently increased its price target on Silvercorp Metals to C$21.00 from C$20.00 while maintaining an Outperform rating on the stock.
Silvercorp shares traded lower on Monday despite the earlier price-target increase.
Other silver-mining companies, including Pan American Silver and Endeavour Silver, were also exposed to the decline in spot silver prices.
Broader US Markets Trade Lower
The broader US equity market was also lower, with the S&P 500 down 0.4%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average declining 0.6% and the Nasdaq falling 0.6%.
Silvercorp shares were trading below their 52-week high of $15.77 but remained above their 52-week low of $5.95.
Monday’s premarket decline coincided with the nearly 5% fall in spot silver and broader moves in the dollar and US Treasury yields.
https://elite.finviz.com/news/396056/silvercorp-metals-shares-fall-54-as-silver-prices-decline
Gold was at $4,171.85 by 06:27 GMT, while U.S. gold futures fell 2.7% to $4,204.30 . The decline pushed bullion to its weakest level since early August.
The move is a sharp reversal from just over a week ago, when as falling oil prices temporarily eased inflation concerns.
Oil Has Turned Back Into A Problem For Gold
The unusual part of the current selloff is that higher oil prices are hurting an asset traditionally viewed as protection against inflation.
The mechanism runs through interest rates.
Expensive energy can push transportation, manufacturing and consumer costs higher. If that keeps inflation elevated, the Fed has more reason to raise rates again. Higher interest rates generally increase Treasury yields and the opportunity cost of holding gold, which produces no income.
Markets were pricing roughly a 66% probability of another Fed rate increase in October early Monday, after the central bank already raised its target range to 3.75%-4.00% earlier this month.
That relationship has repeatedly driven bullion this year. Gold previously struggled when , as investors weighed whether expensive energy would prolong the Fed's tightening cycle.
Higher Yields Are Overpowering Safe-Haven Demand
The decline is notable because geopolitical uncertainty would normally support bullion.
Instead, the combination of high bond yields, expensive energy and a firm dollar is currently proving stronger than safe-haven demand.
A similar conflict appeared earlier this month when hot U.S. inflation pushed both despite record institutional demand for bullion.
https://coinpaper.com/36428/gold-falls-below-4200-as-oil-pushes-fed-rate-hike-bets-higher
September 28, 2026
By The Oregon Group
The US has secured its first US$1 billion of procurement commitments for Project Vault, moving the planned strategic critical-minerals reserve from government financing approval towards physical stockpiling.
Mercuria describes its contribution as a commitment to Project Vault, while Glencore says the EXIM financing will allow it to source, procure and deliver minerals to the reserve. The combined US$1 billion is therefore not US$1 billion of new government spending, or necessarily US$1 billion of private capital — but it moves the project from concept to execution.
Glencore and Mercuria will use their trading, logistics and risk-management networks to purchase minerals globally and deliver them to VaultCo, the private company responsible for implementing the critical minerals reserve.
Neither company disclosed which minerals it will purchase, the volumes involved, the supplying countries or when deliveries will begin.
Project Vault moves from approval to procurement
President Donald Trump announced Project Vault in February 2026 after Chinese export restrictions exposed the vulnerability of US manufacturers to interruptions in rare earths and other critical materials.
The EXIM board approved a direct loan of up to US$10 billion to finance the reserve, while the wider plan combines that lending capacity with approximately US$2 billion of private capital.
Unlike the Pentagon’s National Defense Stockpile, Project Vault is a US $12 billion public-private partnership, backed by a $10 billion loan from the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), designed principally for civilian manufacturers. Participating companies will specify the materials and grades they need, while traders purchase, transport and manage inventories stored at facilities across the US.
Boeing, GE Vernova, battery manufacturer Clarios and data-storage group Western Digital were among the companies initially identified as potential industrial users. Mercuria, Hartree Partners and Traxys were named as the original suppliers.
Seven months after the launch, the Mercuria and Glencore agreements provide the first clear evidence that the financing framework is being converted into purchasing capacity. The two traders can aggregate demand from manufacturers that lack the scale or expertise to contract directly with overseas mines and processors.
But important details remain undisclosed. VaultCo has not published its target mineral list, inventory volumes, acquisition prices, storage locations or drawdown rules. Its independent, industry-led structure has also raised questions about transparency and oversight, given the size of the federal loan supporting it.
Critical mineral stockpiles could absorb 10% of key metals supply
A recent report by the London School of Economics warns that simultaneous buying by Australia, China, the EU, India, Japan, South Korea and the US could consume up to 34% of global cobalt supply under a modelled 180-day net-import scenario.
Lithium, graphite and copper would each face stockpile demand exceeding 10% of annual supply.
The latest commitments do not yet prove that the US has a functioning minerals reserve. They do show that Project Vault has moved beyond a US$12 billion financing plan and begun assembling the commercial network needed to buy and store material.
Global miner Rio Tinto announced on September 28 that it has commissioned an industrial-scale carbon capture trial facility with Chinese steelmaker Shougang Group, advancing their cooperation on reducing steelmaking emissions.
Annual carbon capture capacity reaches 10,000 mt
Integrated into Shougang's ironmaking operations, the facility can process up to 3,000 cubic meters of blast furnace gas per hour from its Jingtang base and capture up to 10,000 mt of carbon annually, operating on a long-term basis for research and trials.
Waste heat could lower capture costs
The project follows a smaller facility commissioned in 2024 under the companies' 2022 decarbonization agreement, which covers low-carbon sintering, furnace optimization and carbon capture technologies. Utilizing waste heat from existing operations could reduce capture costs and support wider adoption across steel mills.
Captured carbon reuse under evaluation
The partners are also exploring the conversion of captured carbon into syngas for recycling into steelmaking, potentially reducing fresh carbon requirements, while Rio Tinto has provided technical support for the development and scaling of Shougang's technology.
