Energy

Archive for Energy

How natural hydrogen, hiding deep in the Earth, could serve as a new energy source

By Promise Longe, University of Kansas

In the search for more, new and cleaner sources of energy, a largely untapped resource is emerging: natural hydrogen.

Unlike hydrogen produced from industrial processes, natural hydrogen forms through geological reactions that occur normally within the Earth’s crust, meaning it costs nothing to make – though it costs some amount to extract – and does not emit any carbon dioxide or other human‑caused pollutants.

Today, hydrogen is used mainly in oil refining, production of ammonia for fertilizer and to make methanol, which can be a fuel and an ingredient in plastics. Emerging technologies are making hydrogen a viable fuel for cars, planes, ships and factories. Hydrogen demand around the world is projected to grow from around 90 million metric tons in 2022 to more than 500 million metric tons by 2050. Some of that supply could come from nature itself, as well.

To describe each source of hydrogen, energy researchers like me, and the energy industry as a whole, use a range of colors. In general, “gray” and “blue” hydrogen are made by burning fossil fuels, with blue hydrogen incorporating technology that captures the carbon dioxide produced in the process to reduce emissions. “Green” hydrogen comes from renewable‑energy‑powered electrolysis, using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. “White” or “gold” hydrogen occurs naturally underground and can be extracted directly with minimal processing.

How natural hydrogen forms

Natural hydrogen originates from several geological processes. The most well‑studied mechanism is serpentinization, a reaction where water interacts with iron‑rich rocks known as ultramafics, releasing hydrogen gas.

Serpentinization occurs in diverse settings around the world, including ocean ridges and continental formations such as the Midcontinent Rift in North America, a band of mostly igneous rocks with some sedimentary rocks mixed in, which extends from Minnesota through the Lake Superior region and southward toward Kansas.

Another process, thermogenic hydrogen formation, occurs in deep sedimentary basins when organic material decomposes under high temperatures, roughly 480 to 930 degrees Fahrenheit (250 to 500 degrees Celsius). These reactions can also produce hydrogen alongside other gases, such as methane or nitrogen.

Because these processes happen over millions of years, using natural hydrogen generally requires far less energy than human‑made methods such as electrolysis, which consumes roughly 50 kilowatt-hours of electricity per kilogram of hydrogen produced – enough to power an average home for a day or two, and more than the energy that kilogram of hydrogen can provide. Natural hydrogen is already made – it just has to be collected.

The science and the search

Researchers and exploration companies are developing methods similar to those used in oil and gas exploration to locate potential hydrogen accumulations. They are looking at three types of geological formations:

Focused seepage, where hydrogen seeps naturally through cracks and faults. It tends to reach the surface and disperse quickly, making large-scale capture difficult.
Coal beds, where hydrogen binds to coal layers, offer higher potential density but pose difficulties for extraction. The hydrogen must first be separated from the coal and then flow through tight rock layers to the extraction point.
Reservoir‑trap‑seal systems, comparable to the rock formations that trap natural gas underground, are considered the most promising for commercial production because they can concentrate large volumes of hydrogen in well‑defined, drillable structures. However, they remain largely unproven in practice: The basic idea is well established, and geologists have a good sense of where those formations might occur, but they still lack detailed data on how much hydrogen these formations actually contain and how easy it would be to extract.

Massive reserves – somewhere

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there could be more than 5 trillion metric tons of geological hydrogen underground around the world. But only a small fraction of that is estimated to be recoverable, both technically and in terms of reasonable costs.

However, even 2% of that total would be more than all proven natural gas reserves on the planetand enough to meet projected demand for the next 200 years, even accounting for increased consumption.

All of that reserve has built up over billions of years. The Earth naturally produces between 15 million and 31 million metric tons of natural hydrogen each year – less than 1% of the amount expected to be needed each year by 2050. But only a fraction of that is likely to be efficiently captured.

So geologic hydrogen is likely best viewed as a very large but ultimately finite source of low‑carbon energy that can substantially complement, but not replace, other energy sources, including various methods of producing hydrogen.

Global hot spots

Currently, only one hydrogen field, at Mali’s Bourakébougou village, produces natural hydrogen commercially, supplying tens of tons of hydrogen per year to power the village.

However, the number of companies exploring for natural hydrogen has increased rapidly, from roughly 10 in 2020 to about 40 by the end of 2023, according to Rystad Energy and related government and research‑lab reports.

Apart from that one field in Mali, exploration is concentrated in the United States, Australia, Canada and several European countries.

In the U.S., HyTerra’s Nemaha Project in Kansas has confirmed subsurface hydrogen concentrations reaching more than 90% hydrogen and 3% helium. The higher the concentration of hydrogen, the more efficient and cost‑effective it is to recover. HyTerra is also exploring elsewhere in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions.

A close-up image of a rock that is mottled in shades of green and gray. — The geologic process of forming serpentinite can produce hydrogen.
James St. John via Flickr, CC BY

Technical barriers

Transforming geological hydrogen into a commercial energy source presents tough scientific and technical challenges. Detecting and measuring hydrogen underground is difficult because of its small molecular size and reactivity with other elements in the rocks.

And if what’s found is low concentrations of hydrogen mixed with large amounts of other gases, it can be costly, even prohibitively so, to separate and purify the hydrogen before it can be used.

Economics and efficiency

The economic promise of natural hydrogen lies in its simplicity.

Because geological processes already performed the production work, early estimates suggest that extraction costs could be one‑tenth the production costs for other traditional hydrogen generation techniques – or possibly even less than that.

But those figures are based on the small amounts of hydrogen found so far and may not represent future large‑scale performance. Producing enough to serve commercial demand will require discovering large, high-quality accumulations.

As one leading research group noted, “This is not a gold rush.” It’s a careful exploration for scientific evidence that could lead, in time, to an abundant, carbon‑free and continuous energy source that complements other renewable energy sources.

About the Author:

Promise Longe, Ph.D. Candidate in Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Kansas

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Energy Opinions

25 Feb

Uranium Is Now a Critical Mineral, and This Co. Is On a Fast Track to US Production

Source: Streetwise Reports (2/9/26)

The U.S. introduces new initiatives aimed at forming a preferential trade bloc for critical minerals like uranium. This company is on a literal fast-track for its projects in the Southwest.

Last week, the U.S. introduced new initiatives aimed at forming a preferential trade bloc for critical minerals like uranium, including coordinated price floors, as part of efforts to counter China’s dominance in this essential market for technology and defense, according to a CNBC report on February 5 by Dylan Butts.

These plans were discussed at a “Critical Minerals Ministerial” in Washington, which included representatives from 54 countries, the European Union, and senior Trump administration officials. Following the event, Washington announced that it had signed bilateral critical minerals agreements with 11 countries, building on 10 similar agreements made over the past five months. Negotiations were also completed with an additional 17 nations.

The Trump administration’s new minerals stockpile initiative, known as “Project Vault,” can encompass any materials identified as “critical” by the U.S. Geological Survey, a White House official told CNBC, according to another February 3 report by Pippa Stevens and Spencer Kimball for the website. The agency, which is part of the Interior Department, lists over 50 minerals as critical, including rare earths, lithium, uranium, and copper. These minerals are considered essential for national security, economic stability, and supply chain resilience. According to the USGS, these minerals are crucial because they “underpin key industries, drive technological innovation, and support critical infrastructure vital for a modern American economy.”

The objectives of these agreements are to tackle pricing challenges, encourage development, create fairer markets, and expand access to financing in the critical minerals sector. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who hosted the Ministerial, also announced the creation of the “Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement (FORGE)” on Wednesday. This partnership aims to coordinate critical mineral policy and projects.

“We have a number of countries that have signed on to that, and many more that we hope will do so… the purpose of FORGE is to foster collaboration and to build a network of partners across the world,” Rubio said.

FORGE will complement an earlier initiative between the U.S. and nine partners, known as “Pax Silica.” While Pax Silica focuses on safeguarding AI-related supply chains, FORGE is designed as a broader platform to coordinate critical mineral policy, pricing, and project development. Rubio highlighted the risks associated with the concentration of critical minerals in “one country,” implicitly referring to China, including geopolitical leverage and potential disruptions from pandemics or instability.

AI, Data Centers Begin Impacting Power Grids

Uranium is becoming one of the most important of these minerals. Predictions of increased electricity consumption from data centers are beginning to materialize, raising concerns about the impact on the power grid and the environment, according to a report by Benjamin Storrow for E&E News/Politico on December 24, 2025.

Commercial electricity demand, which serves as a proxy for data center power usage, rose by 2% in the first nine months of 2025 compared to the same period last year, following a 3% increase in 2024. This marks a significant shift for the U.S. power sector, which had experienced flat electricity demand for much of the past two decades.

Demand is expected to climb even higher as the Trump administration and tech companies aim to outpace China in artificial intelligence development. The consulting firm Grid Strategies forecasts that peak electricity demand nationwide could rise by 166 gigawatts by 2030, equivalent to adding 15 New York Cities over the next five years.

“We’re now seeing in the data what we’ve all been talking about the last couple years,” said Rob Gramlich, CEO of Grid Strategies. He estimated that data centers would contribute to 55% of the growth in U.S. electricity demand over the next five years. The increasing power needs of data centers have become a political issue as electricity costs rise for consumers.

AI data centers and the electrification of various industries are driving a surge in power demand that exceeds global supply, prompting companies, policymakers, and investors to reconsider nuclear power, according to a research report by Morgan Stanley on August 28, 2025. Morgan Stanley Research projects 586 gigawatts (GW) of new global nuclear capacity by 2050, which is 53% higher than their previous forecast last year when analysts noted a “renaissance” in the industry. They now estimate that potential investments in the nuclear value chain could reach US$2.2 trillion by 2050, up from the initial US$1.5 trillion forecast. This increased momentum is expected to benefit several sectors, including uranium mining, nuclear power generation, and the construction of equipment and plants. “The nuclear renaissance has been building for some time already—with 22 nations pledging to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 at the COP28 summit in December 2023, plant life extensions in Europe, a strong pipeline in China, and Japan continuing to restart capacity,” says Tim Chan, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Asia Sustainability Research. “The dual imperatives of decarbonization and energy security are making the nuclear renaissance a truly global investment theme.”

While natural gas is currently the primary alternative to meet AI’s energy needs, technology companies are willing to pay a premium to transition to nuclear energy. “We believe natural gas will be the primary near-term solution for powering AI data centers due to its speed to market, reliability, and flexibility, while nuclear power represents a longer-term clean energy alternative that is likely to gradually increase in importance,” said Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Sustainability Research. “Gas and nuclear are likely to play complementary roles.”

Uranium Is Now a Critical Mineral

Last fall, the USGS released the final 2025 list of critical minerals deemed essential to mitigate potential risks from disrupted supply chains, reported Nick Mordowanec for Military.com on December 1, 2025. Ten new minerals were added, including uranium, bringing the total to 60.

“This is the most comprehensive, science-based assessment yet of the minerals our nation relies on,” said USGS Director Ned Mamula. “Critical minerals underpin industries worth trillions of dollars, and import dependence puts key sectors at risk. This work helps secure the materials needed for U.S. economic growth and technological leadership.”

Trump has called for a quadrupling of nuclear power by 2050, the article reported.

Christo Liebenberg, co-founder and president of the U.S.-based uranium enrichment company LIS Technologies, told Military.com that there is “huge market demand” for uranium to bolster a domestic electricity grid facing challenges from expanding AI data centers across the country.

He noted the significance of the critical list now including 60 minerals — more than half of the 118 elements on the periodic table.

“Being on that list, it’s clear that it triggers a whole set of advantages,” Liebenberg said. “That makes mining uranium in the U.S. a lot easier, faster, and more attractive to investors. It’s like flipping a switch that says, ‘OK, everybody, uranium is now important. Let’s make mining in the US easier, cheaper, faster, and more predictable.’ Of course, this is exactly what would stimulate production. But the thing is, it doesn’t stop just with mining. Being on that list actually has a ripple effect through the entire nuclear fuel supply chain.”

Key actions and impacts for uranium under the U.S. critical minerals framework include fast-tracked permitting, reduced foreign reliance, strategic stockpiling, improved support for the mining industry, and energy security.

Companies With Tangible Operational Progress in the Spotlight

The uranium sector enters 2026 at a pivotal moment where operational execution increasingly distinguishes credible investment opportunities from speculative ventures, according to Henry Mann writing for Crux Investor on January 27. Spot uranium prices reached US$100 per pound in January 2026, marking 17-month highs. However, equity valuations across the sector reflect ongoing institutional caution about timing mismatches between nuclear buildouts and the upstream uranium supply response.

In this context of structural demand growth and supply fragility, companies demonstrating tangible operational progress — such as permitting momentum — are positioning themselves to attract capital as the gap between operational reality and equity pricing narrows, Mann wrote.

Chris Frostad, CEO of Purepoint Uranium, explains the demand fundamentals, according to Mann: “When a reactor begins operation, it creates a customer relationship lasting 40 years or more. Reactors operate under strict refueling schedules, and utilities know precisely how much fuel they will require annually for years into the future.” The growth in artificial intelligence infrastructure and data centers adds incremental demand considerations, though existing reactor fleets provide the foundation of predictable consumption.

In 2025, utilities contracted for approximately 82-85 million pounds of uranium, while replacement requirements approached 150-180 million pounds. However, utility contracting does not follow smooth patterns, as buyers may contract for 250 million pounds in a single year when conditions align with their strategies.

Laramide Resources Ltd.

One company uniquely positioned to take advantage of these events is Laramide Resources Ltd. (LAM:TSX; LMRXF:OTCQX: LAM:ASX), a uranium developer with both in-situ and hard-rock deposits located in the southwestern United States and Australia.

In June 2025, Laramide announced that its advanced-stage uranium projects, Crownpoint-Churchrock and La Jara Mesa in New Mexico, were designated as FAST-41 covered projects by the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council. This designation is part of the federal infrastructure permitting program established under Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act. It underscores the strategic importance of Laramide’s projects and streamlines the evaluation process.

The FAST-41 designation places these uranium projects among a select group of federally prioritized energy initiatives, receiving enhanced permitting coordination and transparency to support the Department of Energy’s domestic uranium reserve and the U.S. government’s broader energy-security goals.

“The project comprises two geographically distinct deposits: one at Crownpoint and the other at Churchrock,” the company said in a recent recap sent to Streetwise Reports. “They are unified under a single U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Source Material License. This regulatory status differentiates the project from many U.S. peers that remain at earlier permitting stages.”

Churchrock’s current NI 43-101 Inferred Mineral Resource is 50.8 million pounds U₃O₈ based on historic drilling consolidated into a modern database. Crownpoint adds an NI 43-101 Inferred Mineral Resource of 5.1 million pounds U₃O₈, also derived from historic datasets and interpreted for ISR-style mineralization geometry, the company said.

Laramide’s U.S. portfolio is “increasingly relevant against the backdrop of declining domestic uranium production and growing demand tied to nuclear energy, including life-extensions of existing reactors and new investments linked to data centers and advanced nuclear technologies,” Laramide said in the document. “With the majority of U.S. uranium supply currently imported, projects that are licensed, permitted, or moving visibly through federal processes have taken on heightened strategic importance.”

Analyst: Co. ‘Scans Very Well on Value’

Laramide is a uranium exploration and development company with projects in the western United States and Australia, according to Beacon Securities Analyst Michael Curran in an updated research note on November 3, 2025.

Crownpoint-Churchrock’s designation as a FAST-41 project is expected to streamline the permitting process as part of the U.S. government’s initiative to advance domestic critical mineral and metal projects toward production. This followed a similar designation for LAM’s La Jara Mesa project in early May, also in New Mexico.

“In mid-July, LAM’s Westmoreland project in Queensland, Australia, received a Mineral Development License (MDL), which allows Laramide to proceed with studies to advance the project towards a Mining Lease (ML) application,” the analyst wrote. “This work is likely to include metallurgical testing, environmental, engineering and design studies, as well as feasibility-related work.”

In July, Laramide raised gross proceeds of CA$12 million by issuing 20 million common shares at CA$0.60 each.

Beacon’s 12-month fair value increased from CA$1.45 to CA$1.50 per LAM share. As this still represents significant upside from current price levels, the firm maintained its BUY rating for Laramide Resources.

“In our view, Laramide represents an attractive investment for exposure to uranium developments in the top-tier mining jurisdictions,” Curran wrote. “Laramide’s assets are in areas of historical uranium mining, thus should have lower barriers to development than other jurisdictions.”

Curran said the firm’s preferred valuation for mining equities uses cash flow-based metrics such as P/CF and P/NAV, utilizing life-of-mine production forecasts and commodity price assumptions.

“However, for earlier-staged explorers where it is arguably too early to create a DCF model with much accuracy, we employ a more basic valuation metric of Adjusted Market Capitalization per total resource (AMC/lb) or Enterprise Value per resource pound (EV/lb),” the analyst wrote. For Laramide, he employed a hybrid model using DCF-based valuation for Churchrock and EV/lb valuation methods for the company’s other U.S. and Australian assets. Curran noted that Beacon currently did not attribute any value to the Kazakhstan assets.

Streetwise Ownership Overview*

Laramide Resources Ltd. (LAM:TSX; LMRXF:OTCQX: LAM:ASX)

Retail: 70%
Strategic Investors: 19%
Insiders and Management: 11%
^*Share Structure as of 2/9/2026
Source: Laramide Resources Ltd.

Churchrock is recognized as a development-ready asset, as noted by SCP Equity Research analysts J. Chan, E. Magdzinski, and K. Kormpis in a June 3 research note. The company’s January 2024 PEA forecasts a 31-year operational lifespan, producing 31.2 million pounds at an all-in sustaining cost of US$34.83 per pound using ISR extraction methods.

With uranium valued at US$75 per pound, this results in a US$239 million after-tax NPV, strongly supporting Laramide’s evaluation. The plan involves accelerating wellfield development to increase output to 2-3 million pounds, thereby shortening the operational timeline while improving financial outcomes.

“We think Laramide scans very well on value, with two projects of reasonable size/scale in the U.S. and Australia (arguably two of the top three jurisdictions in today’s geopolitically bifurcating market),” the analysts remarked, giving the stock a Buy rating with a CA$1.35 per share target price.

Ownership and Share Structure¹

Laramide reports that insiders and management hold about 11% of the company, with strategic corporate entity Boss Energy Ltd. owning 19%. The remainder is held by retail investors.

Other major shareholders include Alps Advisors with 9.4%, Henderson with 6.82%, Mirae Asset Global Investments LLC with 4.78%, and Vident Investment Advisory LLC with 1.1%. As of February 9, its market capitalization is CA$215.06 million, with 283.62 million shares outstanding. It trades within a 52-week range of CA$0.46 to CA$0.91.

Important Disclosures:

Laramide Resources Ltd. is a billboard sponsor of Streetwise Reports and pays SWR a monthly sponsorship fee between US$3,000 and US$6,000.
Steve Sobek wrote this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an employee.
This article does not constitute investment advice and is not a solicitation for any investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her personal financial adviser and perform their own comprehensive investment research. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company.

For additional disclosures, please click here.

1. Ownership and Share Structure Information

The information listed above was updated on the date this article was published and was compiled from information from the company and various other data providers.

Energy Opinions

24 Feb

Final Approval Clears the Way for Full-Scale Uranium Push in Paraguay

Source: Streetwise Reports (2/23/26)

Vanguard Mining Corp. (UUU:CSE; UUUFF:OTC; SL51:FWB) received its final environmental licences for the Yuty PrometeoSan Jose Uranium Project in southeastern Paraguay. Read how the approvals complete the permitting process and coincide with Vanguards application for a Prospection Permit to advance uranium exploration.

Fraser Institute Jurisdiction Rating
Vanguard Mining Corp.

British Columbia (last modified 11/26/25)
Friendly Policies	67.42%
Best Practices Mineral Potential Index	85.45%
Socioeconomic Agreements/Community Development Conditions, aka Safety	40%
Political Stability	50%

Data from the
Fraser Institute’s Mining Survey

Vanguard Mining Corp. (UUU:CSE; UUUFF:OTC; SL51:FWB) announced that it has secured its final set of Environmental Licences from Paraguay’s Ministerio del Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (MADES), completing the licensing process for its 90,000-hectare Yuty Prometeo–San Jose Uranium Project in southeastern Paraguay.

The company reported that the Environmental Licences now cover the entire land position at Yuty Prometeo–San Jose, with no additional environmental approvals required. Concurrently, Vanguard has submitted an application for a Prospection Permit with Paraguay’s Vice Ministry of Mining and Energy (VMME), which is described as a critical step toward full-scale uranium exploration authorization.

This development coincides with Paraguay’s growing profile in the global critical minerals sector, highlighted by its participation alongside the United States in a high-level ministerial summit in Washington, D.C., hosted by the U.S. Department of State. The meeting on February 4 addressed cooperation on uranium, lithium, and rare earth element supply chains. Paraguay’s Deputy Minister of Mines and Energy, Mauricio Bejarano, cited rising global demand as a factor drawing international attention to the country.

David Greenway, Chief Executive Officer of Vanguard Mining, stated in a company news release, “The receipt of our final MADES Environmental Licences marks a significant permitting milestone and further advances the Yuty Prometeo–San Jose Uranium Project toward prospection authorization.”

According to the company, the project area spans four concessions — three San Jose and one Prometeo — within the Paraná Basin. The Prometeo Concession covers approximately 27,666 hectares and is adjacent to Uranium Energy Corp.’s (UEC) Yuty Project. Historical data referenced in the news release described uranium-bearing mineralization identified in seven of 27 drill holes completed on the Prometeo property, including one hole reporting values between 0.05% and 0.10% U₃O₈ across 107 meters. The San Jose concessions cover an additional 62,210 hectares. A radiometric car survey conducted over this area identified significant uranium anomalies.

Vanguard noted that all drill results are historical in nature and have not been independently verified. The company intends to complete confirmatory drilling to validate this information in accordance with NI 43-101.

Uranium Market Sees Rising Production and Tightening Supply

According to a February 2 report from Mining.com, uranium production forecasts increased as Kazatomprom projected 71.5 to 75.4 million pounds of U₃O₈ output, marking a 9% rise over the previous year. The company attributed the increase to ramp-up activities at its Budenovskoye joint venture in southern Kazakhstan. Analyst Alexander Pearce of BMO Capital Markets noted the projection was 6% higher than BMO’s internal estimates and commented that “the update could see some modest pressure on uranium prices via a slightly reduced supply deficit near-term.”

In a February 4 article published by Mining.com, Blair McBride reported that the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust purchased 250,000 pounds of uranium oxide, bringing its first-quarter total to 3.65 million pounds. That purchase contributed to a total inventory of 78.4 million pounds and marked Sprott’s second-highest quarterly acquisition in four years. The report noted that the uranium spot price fell from US$101.55 per pound to US$91.80 per pound during the same week.

Materials from Sprott.com released in February outlined broader sector dynamics. The firm stated there were 436 operational nuclear reactors globally, with 190 additional units either planned or under construction, based on data from the World Nuclear Association as of January 13. Sprott wrote that “global uranium production in 2024 covered less than 80% of reactor demand,” with the shortfall offset by inventory drawdowns and spot market activity. It also noted that uranium inventories at nuclear power plants had reached “strategic lows,” creating what the firm described as significant pent-up demand from utilities.

Sprott further explained that even if all existing and planned uranium mines operated at peak levels, they were not expected to meet projected reactor demand through 2045. The firm stated that this shortfall could reach 1.4 billion pounds under current scenarios and up to 3 billion pounds if global nuclear capacity were to triple. The report also highlighted that uranium and uranium miners had outperformed other major asset classes over the prior five-year period, based on internal performance tracking.

“Key Property of Interest”: Analyst Flags Vanguard’s Uranium Project as Standout Asset

¹In a December 23 technical commentary, John Newell of John Newell & Associates referred to Vanguard Mining Corp. as a situation where “the fundamentals, the asset base, and the technical picture are beginning to align.” He noted that the company held a diversified portfolio of uranium, copper, and gold assets across the Americas, with core uranium concessions in Paraguay’s Paraná Basin and base metals projects in British Columbia. He described the Yuty Prometeo Uranium Project as the company’s “key property of interest” and stated it had “the greatest potential to move Vanguard’s shares.”

Newell highlighted that the Prometeo Uno concession had returned uranium grades ranging from 0.05% to 0.10% U₃O₈ from 28 historical drill holes. He added that geophysical surveys and sampling suggested the property “aligns with the same regional trend” as known mineralization in the area. He called the setting “compelling” and pointed to upcoming confirmatory drilling as a “clear near-term catalyst that could materially de-risk the project.”

Regarding the company’s British Columbia assets, Newell stated that the Redonda Copper-Molybdenum Project and Brussels Creek Gold-Copper-Palladium Project were “prospective for porphyry-style systems.” He also noted that Vanguard held “an early-stage lithium brine project in Argentina” for exposure to the battery metals sector.

Newell acknowledged the company’s oversubscribed August 2025 financing and stated that Vanguard appeared “funded for upcoming exploration programs and reducing near-term financing risk.” He described the capital structure as “reasonable for a company at this stage and offers leverage to exploration success.”

From a technical perspective, he wrote that the stock’s chart showed “a long base forming after the sharp decline seen through late 2023 and early 2024,” along with a “progressive series of higher lows, accompanied by improving volume, suggesting accumulation rather than distribution.” He identified several upside targets, including CA$0.32 (met), CA$0.50, CA$0.90, and a broader long-term target of CA$1.50.

Newell concluded, “With a tight share structure, experienced management, exposure to uranium and copper in proven jurisdictions, and a constructive technical setup, Vanguard Mining checks several boxes for speculative investors.” He assigned the company a “Speculative Buy rating.”

Upcoming Work and Regulatory Milestones

Vanguard Mining outlined several near-term programs and policy developments related to its uranium and copper-gold exploration assets in its investor presentation. In Paraguay, the company plans to conduct a confirmatory drill program. The objective of this program is to validate historical results and potentially align the concession with the adjacent uranium trend associated with UEC’s Yuty project. Vanguard noted that successful assays would support a maiden resource estimate pathway.

In British Columbia, the company has scheduled trenching and drilling at its Brussels Creek Project. These efforts are aimed at testing priority gold-copper targets identified through historical exploration. The company highlighted that the project’s proximity to infrastructure such as highways, power, and services may reduce exploration and development risk.

Additionally, the company’s August 2025 financing, which raised CA$2.32 million, was described in the investor presentation as providing funding for uranium exploration in Paraguay and gold-copper work in British Columbia.

Streetwise Ownership Overview*

Vanguard Mining Corp. (UUU:CSE; UUUFF:OTC; SL51:FWB)

Retail: 96.05%
Management & Insiders: 3.95%
Share Structure as of 2/18/2026

Market and policy catalysts identified in the company’s investor materials included increasing uranium spot prices, an expanding global fleet of nuclear reactors, and support from U.S. initiatives such as Section 232 tariffs on critical minerals. The company also pointed to rising electricity demand from artificial intelligence and data centers as a relevant factor supporting interest in nuclear energy.

Ownership and Share Structure²

3.95% of Vanguard Mining is owned by management and insiders.

The rest is retail.

Vanguard Mining Corp. has 76,306,621 shares outstanding and an estimated market capitalization of approximately US$12.36 million, based on recent trading prices. Shares trade in a 52-week range between US$0.06 and US$0.49.

Important Disclosures:

Vanguard Mining is a billboard sponsor of Streetwise Reports and pays SWR a monthly sponsorship fee between US$3,000 and US$6,000. In addition, Vanguard Mining has a consulting relationship with Street Smart an affiliate of Streetwise Reports. Street Smart Clients pay a monthly consulting fee between US$8,000 and US$20,000.
As of the date of this article, officers, contractors, shareholders, and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of Vanguard Mining.
James Guttman wrote this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an employee.
This article does not constitute investment advice and is not a solicitation for any investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her personal financial adviser and perform their own comprehensive investment research. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company.

For additional disclosures, please click here.

1. Disclosure for the quote from the John Newell article published on December 23, 2025

For the quoted article (published on December 23, 2025), the Company has paid Street Smart, an affiliate of Streetwise Reports, US$3,000.
Author Certification and Compensation: [John Newell of John Newell and Associates] was retained and compensated as an independent contractor by Street Smart for writing this article. Mr. Newell holds a Chartered Investment Management (CIM) designation (2015) and a U.S. Portfolio Manager designation (2015). The recommendations and opinions expressed in this content reflect the personal, independent, and objective views of the author regarding any and all of the companies discussed. No part of the compensation received by the author was, is, or will be directly or indirectly tied to the specific recommendations or views expressed.

John Newell Disclaimer

As always it is important to note that investing in precious metals like silver carries risks, and market conditions can change violently with shock and awe tactics, that we have seen over the past 20 years. Before making any investment decisions, it’s advisable consult with a financial advisor if needed. Also the practice of conducting thorough research and to consider your investment goals and risk tolerance.

2. Ownership and Share Structure Information

The information listed above was updated on the date this article was published and was compiled from information from the company and various other data providers.

Energy Financial News

21 Feb

COT Energy Charts: WTI Crude Speculator Bets rise to highest level since August

By InvestMacro

Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday February 17th and shows a quick view of how large traders (for-profit speculators and commercial entities) were positioned in the futures markets.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by WTI Crude Oil

The COT energy market speculator bets were overall lower this week as just two out of the six energy markets we cover had higher positioning while the other four markets had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the energy markets was WTI Crude (23,529 contracts) with the Bloomberg Commodity Index (80 contracts) also having a small positive week.

The markets with declines in speculator bets for the week were Natural Gas (-13,947 contracts), Heating Oil (-4,050 contracts), Gasoline (-1,214 contracts) and with Brent Oil (-185 contracts) also seeing lower bets on the week.

WTI Crude Speculator Bets rise to highest level since August

Leading the energy markets for speculative bets this week was WTI Crude Oil, which rose by over +23,000 contracts on the week. This was the fifth week out of the past six that the WTI net large speculative positions improved.

This recent positive sentiment has pushed the overall net speculative standing above the +100,000 contract level for the first time since September. This week’s speculative position (+141,343 net contracts) is now at the highest standing since August 5th of 2025, a span of 28 weeks.

Heating Oil and Brent Oil lead the Energy Market Price Performances on the Week

Leading the energy markets over the past week was Heating Oil with a 7.55% gain. Brent Crude Oil was not far behind with a 6.27% increase, while WTI Crude Oil also advanced by 5.85%. Gasoline was higher by 4.70% and the Bloomberg Commodity Index rounded out the gainers with a 3.03% uptick on the week.

Natural Gas was the only market over the last five trading periods that was lower with a -3.38% decrease.

Energy Data:

Legend: Weekly Speculators Change | Speculators Current Net Position | Speculators Strength Score compared to last 3-Years (0-100 range)

Strength Scores led by Gasoline & Heating Oil

COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that Gasoline (85.1 percent) and Heating Oil (63.7 percent) lead the energy markets this week.

On the downside, Natural Gas (5.4 percent) comes in at the lowest strength level currently and is in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength score was Brent Oil (29.4 percent) and then WTI Crude (32.7 percent).

Strength Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (32.7 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (25.1 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (29.4 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (29.7 percent)
Natural Gas (5.4 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (15.1 percent)
Gasoline (85.1 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (86.4 percent)
Heating Oil (63.7 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (69.1 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (55.4 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (55.0 percent)

WTI Crude & Gasoline top the 6-Week Strength Trends

COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that WTI Crude (27.1 percent) and Gasoline (20.7 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for the energy markets.

Natural Gas (-14.2 percent) and Brent Oil (-12.0 percent) lead the downside trend scores currently with Heating Oil (-4.6 percent) as the next market with lower trend scores.

Move Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (27.1 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (17.2 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (-12.0 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (-12.1 percent)
Natural Gas (-14.2 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (-11.9 percent)
Gasoline (20.7 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (18.7 percent)
Heating Oil (-4.6 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (2.4 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (13.4 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (25.0 percent)

Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures:

The WTI Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 141,343 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly advance of 23,529 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 117,814 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 32.7 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 61.3 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 84.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

WTI Crude Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	15.4	41.0	3.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	8.6	49.7	2.0
– Net Position:	141,343	-181,629	40,286
– Gross Longs:	321,645	855,378	81,123
– Gross Shorts:	180,302	1,037,007	40,837
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.8 to 1	0.8 to 1	2.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	32.7	61.3	84.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	27.1	-33.9	55.5

Brent Crude Oil Futures:

The Brent Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -36,267 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decrease of -185 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -36,082 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 29.4 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 73.8 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 41.9 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Brent Crude Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	21.6	41.8	2.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	34.9	28.7	2.3
– Net Position:	-36,267	35,690	577
– Gross Longs:	59,005	113,992	6,755
– Gross Shorts:	95,272	78,302	6,178
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.6 to 1	1.5 to 1	1.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	29.4	73.8	41.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-12.0	15.9	-22.6

Natural Gas Futures:

The Natural Gas Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -185,812 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly reduction of -13,947 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -171,865 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 5.4 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 95.1 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 30.9 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Downtrend.

Natural Gas Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	12.8	38.2	3.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	24.3	27.3	2.6
– Net Position:	-185,812	174,798	11,014
– Gross Longs:	205,853	615,910	53,277
– Gross Shorts:	391,665	441,112	42,263
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.5 to 1	1.4 to 1	1.3 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	5.4	95.1	30.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-14.2	14.1	-1.6

Gasoline Blendstock Futures:

The Gasoline Blendstock Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 88,742 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decline of -1,214 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 89,956 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish-Extreme with a score of 85.1 percent. The commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 9.8 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 97.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Nasdaq Mini Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	25.2	46.2	6.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	6.1	68.2	3.2
– Net Position:	88,742	-101,984	13,242
– Gross Longs:	117,261	214,865	28,300
– Gross Shorts:	28,519	316,849	15,058
– Long to Short Ratio:	4.1 to 1	0.7 to 1	1.9 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	85.1	9.8	97.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	20.7	-27.7	50.6

#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures:

The #2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 15,402 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly fall of -4,050 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 19,452 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 63.7 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 32.6 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 73.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Heating Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	16.7	48.6	12.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	12.6	58.0	7.5
– Net Position:	15,402	-35,615	20,213
– Gross Longs:	63,052	183,343	48,508
– Gross Shorts:	47,650	218,958	28,295
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.3 to 1	0.8 to 1	1.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	63.7	32.6	73.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-4.6	-7.6	31.3

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures:

The Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -10,939 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly advance of 80 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -11,019 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 55.4 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 42.9 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 53.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Bloomberg Index Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	27.8	69.3	0.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	33.4	64.2	0.0
– Net Position:	-10,939	10,174	765
– Gross Longs:	54,901	136,855	790
– Gross Shorts:	65,840	126,681	25
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.8 to 1	1.1 to 1	31.6 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	55.4	42.9	53.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	13.4	-19.1	53.3

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Newsletter

*COT Report: The COT data, released weekly to the public each Friday, is updated through the most recent Tuesday (data is 3 days old) and shows a quick view of how large speculators or non-commercials (for-profit traders) were positioned in the futures markets.

The CFTC categorizes trader positions according to commercial hedgers (traders who use futures contracts for hedging as part of the business), non-commercials (large traders who speculate to realize trading profits) and nonreportable traders (usually small traders/speculators) as well as their open interest (contracts open in the market at time of reporting). See CFTC criteria here.

COT Updates Energy Financial News

08 Feb

COT Energy Charts: Weekly Speculator Bets led by WTI Crude & Brent Oil

By InvestMacro

Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday February 3rd and shows a quick view of how large traders (for-profit speculators and commercial entities) were positioned in the futures markets.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by WTI Crude & Brent Oil

The COT energy market speculator bets were mixed this week as three out of the six energy markets we cover had higher positioning while the other three markets had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the energy markets was WTI Crude (27,583 contracts) with Brent Oil (7,638 contracts) and Heating Oil (1,444 contracts) also having a positive week.

The markets with declines in speculator bets for the week were Natural Gas (-8,704 contracts), Gasoline (-2,782 contracts) and with the Bloomberg Index (-1,171 contracts) also seeing lower bets on the week.

The Energy Markets Prices were mostly lower on the week.

Gasoline was the only energy market that rose over the past five days with a small 0.09% uptick.

On the downside, Brent Oil fell by -2.82%, followed by WTI Crude Oil which fell by -3.18% and the Bloomberg Commodity Index which dipped by -3.28%. Heating oil saw a shortfall of -5.05% while Natural Gas saw a sharpest decline at -21.48%.

Over the past 30 days, all the energy markets have seen higher levels with Heating Oil up by 12.8% followed by Brent Oil which is higher by 11.2% in that time-frame. Also, over the past 90 days, all the energy markets have seen higher levels with the Bloomberg Commodity Index showing the largest gain of 15.69%.

Energy Data:

Legend: Weekly Speculators Change | Speculators Current Net Position | Speculators Strength Score compared to last 3-Years (0-100 range)

Strength Scores led by Heating Oil & Bloomberg Index

COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that Heating Oil (76.8 percent) and the Bloomberg Index (72.8 percent) lead the energy markets this week.

On the downside, Natural Gas (14.8 percent) comes in at the lowest strength level currently and is in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength score was the WTI Crude (27.3 percent).

Strength Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (27.3 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (18.4 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (32.5 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (21.6 percent)
Natural Gas (14.8 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (20.9 percent)
Gasoline (71.5 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (74.6 percent)
Heating Oil (76.8 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (74.9 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (72.8 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (78.3 percent)

Bloomberg Index & WTI Crude top the 6-Week Strength Trends

COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that the Bloomberg Index (45.2 percent) and WTI Crude (19.2 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for the energy markets.

Natural Gas (-11.2 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with Brent Oil (-5.4 percent) as the next market with lower trend scores.

Move Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (19.2 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (13.6 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (-5.4 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (-14.9 percent)
Natural Gas (-11.2 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (-24.9 percent)
Gasoline (6.2 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (3.1 percent)
Heating Oil (15.8 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (11.2 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (45.2 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (72.1 percent)

Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures:

The WTI Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 124,565 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly increase of 27,583 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 96,982 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 27.3 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 70.2 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 58.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

WTI Crude Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	15.1	42.1	3.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	9.1	49.4	2.0
– Net Position:	124,565	-152,499	27,934
– Gross Longs:	315,529	879,932	70,726
– Gross Shorts:	190,964	1,032,431	42,792
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.7 to 1	0.9 to 1	1.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	27.3	70.2	58.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	19.2	-25.8	50.9

Brent Crude Oil Futures:

The Brent Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -34,110 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly boost of 7,638 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -41,748 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 32.5 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 70.4 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 42.8 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Brent Crude Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	24.1	37.7	2.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	38.3	23.8	2.0
– Net Position:	-34,110	33,458	652
– Gross Longs:	57,804	90,456	5,467
– Gross Shorts:	91,914	56,998	4,815
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.6 to 1	1.6 to 1	1.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	32.5	70.4	42.8
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-5.4	8.7	-22.1

Natural Gas Futures:

The Natural Gas Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -172,310 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lowering of -8,704 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -163,606 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 14.8 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 87.5 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 25.5 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Natural Gas Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	13.0	37.5	2.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	23.4	27.6	2.4
– Net Position:	-172,310	163,456	8,854
– Gross Longs:	215,099	620,513	48,080
– Gross Shorts:	387,409	457,057	39,226
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.6 to 1	1.4 to 1	1.2 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	14.8	87.5	25.5
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-11.2	10.7	0.3

Gasoline Blendstock Futures:

The Gasoline Blendstock Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 76,431 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decline of -2,782 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 79,213 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 71.5 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 23.0 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 93.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Nasdaq Mini Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	24.8	46.2	5.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	8.5	65.1	3.2
– Net Position:	76,431	-88,857	12,426
– Gross Longs:	116,257	216,553	27,515
– Gross Shorts:	39,826	305,410	15,089
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.9 to 1	0.7 to 1	1.8 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	71.5	23.0	93.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	6.2	-12.5	39.4

#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures:

The #2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 25,279 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly boost of 1,444 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 23,835 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 76.8 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 24.6 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 69.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Heating Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	17.1	46.5	12.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	10.2	58.6	7.8
– Net Position:	25,279	-44,051	18,772
– Gross Longs:	62,759	170,829	47,433
– Gross Shorts:	37,480	214,880	28,661
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.7 to 1	0.8 to 1	1.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	76.8	24.6	69.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	15.8	-13.1	4.9

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures:

The Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -7,246 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly reduction of -1,171 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -6,075 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 72.8 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 25.5 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 50.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Bloomberg Index Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	24.4	72.6	0.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	28.3	69.1	0.0
– Net Position:	-7,246	6,537	709
– Gross Longs:	44,675	133,218	732
– Gross Shorts:	51,921	126,681	23
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.9 to 1	1.1 to 1	31.8 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	72.8	25.5	50.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	45.2	-46.3	4.5

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Newsletter

COT Updates Energy Financial News

01 Feb

COT Energy Charts: Speculator Weekly Changes led by Natural Gas & WTI Crude Oil

By InvestMacro

Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday January 27th and shows a quick view of how large traders (for-profit speculators and commercial entities) were positioned in the futures markets.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by Natural Gas & WTI Crude Oil

The COT energy market speculator bets were overall higher this week as five out of the six energy markets we cover had higher positioning while only one market had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the energy markets was Natural Gas (29,884 contracts) with WTI Crude (18,190 contracts), Gasoline (8,433 contracts), Heating Oil (7,791 contracts) and Brent Oil (402 contracts) also recording positive weeks.

The market with a decline in speculator bets was the Bloomberg Commodity Index with a drop by -294 contracts on the week.

Energy Markets Price Performance led by Natural Gas

The energy markets this week were all higher in price performance and led by Natural Gas, which rose by approximately 21%. Heating Oil was next up with a 9.14% gain in the past five days, followed by WTI Crude Oil which rose by 7.53%, and then Brent Oil which rose by 7.36%. Gasoline was higher by 4.61% on the week and the Bloomberg Commodity Index rounded out the gainers with a 1.83% rise on the week.

All these markets are higher over the past 30 days, with Natural Gas up by approximately 40%, followed by Heating Oil, WTI Crude Oil, and Brent Oil all seeing gains by more than 20% in the past 30 days.

Energy Data:

Legend: Weekly Speculators Change | Speculators Current Net Position | Speculators Strength Score compared to last 3-Years (0-100 range)

Strength Scores led by Bloomberg Index & Heating Oil

COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that the Bloomberg Index (78.3 percent) and Heating Oil (74.9 percent) lead the energy markets this week.

On the downside, WTI Crude (18.4 percent) comes in at the lowest strength level currently and is in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength scores were Natural Gas (20.9 percent) and Brent Oil (21.6 percent).

Strength Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (18.4 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (12.6 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (21.6 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (21.1 percent)
Natural Gas (20.9 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (0.0 percent)
Gasoline (74.6 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (65.3 percent)
Heating Oil (74.9 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (64.6 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (78.3 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (79.7 percent)

Bloomberg Index & WTI Crude top the 6-Week Strength Trends

COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that the Bloomberg Index (72.1 percent) and WTI Crude (13.6 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for the energy markets.

Natural Gas (-24.9 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with Brent Oil (-14.9 percent) as the next market with lower trend scores.

Move Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (13.6 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (6.6 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (-14.9 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (-13.1 percent)
Natural Gas (-24.9 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (-60.9 percent)
Gasoline (3.1 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (-24.1 percent)
Heating Oil (11.2 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (-5.5 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (72.1 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (74.3 percent)

Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures:

The WTI Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 96,982 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly boost of 18,190 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 78,792 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 18.4 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 81.6 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 38.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

WTI Crude Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	14.5	41.3	3.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	9.7	47.0	2.5
– Net Position:	96,982	-115,048	18,066
– Gross Longs:	295,247	840,875	68,113
– Gross Shorts:	198,265	955,923	50,047
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.5 to 1	0.9 to 1	1.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	18.4	81.6	38.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	13.6	-13.0	0.8

Brent Crude Oil Futures:

The Brent Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -41,748 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lift of 402 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -42,150 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 21.6 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 80.5 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 55.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

Brent Crude Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	21.4	37.6	3.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	37.0	22.7	2.3
– Net Position:	-41,748	40,026	1,722
– Gross Longs:	57,294	100,693	7,911
– Gross Shorts:	99,042	60,667	6,189
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.6 to 1	1.7 to 1	1.3 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	21.6	80.5	55.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish-Extreme	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-14.9	16.7	-4.7

Natural Gas Futures:

The Natural Gas Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -163,606 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lift of 29,884 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -193,490 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 20.9 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 80.3 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 30.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Natural Gas Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	13.3	37.0	3.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	23.4	27.6	2.5
– Net Position:	-163,606	152,767	10,839
– Gross Longs:	216,112	601,095	51,823
– Gross Shorts:	379,718	448,328	40,984
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.6 to 1	1.3 to 1	1.3 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	20.9	80.3	30.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-24.9	24.8	-3.2

Gasoline Blendstock Futures:

The Gasoline Blendstock Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 79,213 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly gain of 8,433 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 70,780 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 74.6 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 25.0 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 65.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Nasdaq Mini Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	25.5	47.0	5.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	8.5	65.7	3.8
– Net Position:	79,213	-86,834	7,621
– Gross Longs:	118,536	218,244	25,419
– Gross Shorts:	39,323	305,078	17,798
– Long to Short Ratio:	3.0 to 1	0.7 to 1	1.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	74.6	25.0	65.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	3.1	-3.2	1.7

#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures:

The #2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 23,835 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly rise of 7,791 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 16,044 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 74.9 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 26.9 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 66.9 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Heating Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	17.8	46.0	11.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	11.5	57.0	7.3
– Net Position:	23,835	-41,663	17,828
– Gross Longs:	67,848	175,380	45,533
– Gross Shorts:	44,013	217,043	27,705
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.5 to 1	0.8 to 1	1.6 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	74.9	26.9	66.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	11.2	-5.1	-8.6

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures:

The Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -6,075 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lowering of -294 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -5,781 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 78.3 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 20.1 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 48.9 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Bloomberg Index Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	27.0	70.2	0.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	30.2	67.3	0.0
– Net Position:	-6,075	5,405	670
– Gross Longs:	50,840	132,086	705
– Gross Shorts:	56,915	126,681	35
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.9 to 1	1.0 to 1	20.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	78.3	20.1	48.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	72.1	-73.5	3.2

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Newsletter

COT Updates Energy Financial News

30 Jan

Americans want heat pumps – but high electricity prices may get in the way

By Roxana Shafiee, Harvard University; Harvard Kennedy School

Heat pumps can reduce carbon emissions associated with heating buildings, and many states have set aggressive targets to increase their use in the coming decades. But while heat pumps are often cheaper choices for new buildings, getting homeowners to install them in existing homes isn’t so easy.

Current energy prices, including the rising cost of electricity, mean that homeowners may experience higher heating bills by replacing their current heating systems with heat pumps – at least in some regions of the country.

Heat pumps, which use electricity to move heat from the outside in, are used in only 14% of U.S. households. They are common primarily in warm southern states such as Florida where winter heating needs are relatively low. In the Northeast, where winters are colder and longer, only about 5% of households use a heat pump.

In our new study, my co-author Dan Schrag and I examined how heat pump adoption would change annual heating bills for the average-size household in each county across the U.S. We wanted to understand where heat pumps may already be cost-effective and where other factors may be preventing households from making the switch.

Wide variation in home heating

Across the U.S., people heat their homes with a range of fuels, mainly because of differences in climate, pricing and infrastructure. In colder regions – northern states and states across the Rocky Mountains – most people use natural gas or propane to provide reliable winter heating. In California, most households also use natural gas for heating.

In warmer, southern states, including Florida and Texas, where electricity prices are cheaper, most households use electricity for heating – either in electric furnaces, baseboard resistance heating or to run heat pumps. In the Pacific northwest, where electricity prices are low due to abundant hydropower, electricity is also a dominant heating fuel.

The type of community also affects homes’ fuel choices. Homes in cities are more likely to use natural gas relative to rural areas, where natural gas distribution networks are not as well developed. In rural areas, homes are more likely to use heating oil and propane, which can be stored on property in tanks. Oil is also more commonly used in the Northeast, where properties are older – particularly in New England, where a third of households still rely on oil for heating.

Why heat pumps?

Instead of generating heat by burning fuels such as natural gas that directly emit carbon, heat pumps use electricity to move heat from one place to another. Air-source heat pumps extract the heat of outside air, and ground-source heat pumps, sometimes called geothermal heat pumps, extract heat stored in the ground.

Heat pump efficiency depends on the local climate: A heat pump operated in Florida will provide more heat per unit of electricity used than one in colder northern states such as Minnesota or Massachusetts.

But they are highly efficient: An air-source heat pump can reduce household heating energy use by roughly 30% to 50% relative to existing fossil-based systems and up to 75% relative to inefficient electric systems such as baseboard heaters.

Heat pumps can also reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, although that depends on how their electricity is generated – whether from fossil fuels or cleaner energy, such as wind and solar.

Heat pumps can lower heating bills

We found that for households currently using oil, propane or non-heat pump forms of electric heating – such as electric furnaces or baseboard resistive heaters – installing a heat pump would reduce heating bills across all parts of the country.

The amount a household can save on energy costs with a heat pump depends on region and heating type, averaging between $200 and $500 a year for the average-size household currently using propane or oil.

However, savings can be significantly greater: We found the greatest opportunity for savings in households using inefficient forms of electric heating in northern regions. High electricity prices in the Northeast, for example, mean that heat pumps can save consumers up to $3,000 a year over what they would pay to heat with an electric furnace or to use baseboard heating.

A challenge in converting homes using natural gas

Unfortunately for the households that use natural gas in colder, northern regions – making up around half of the country’s annual heating needs – installing a heat pump could raise their annual heating bills. Our analysis shows that bills could increase by as much as $1,200 per year in northern regions, where electricity costs are as much as five times greater than natural gas per kilowatt-hour.

Even households that install ground-source heat pumps, the most efficient type of heat pump, would still see bill increases in regions with the highest electricity prices relative to natural gas.

Installation costs

In parts of the country where households would see their energy costs drop after installing a heat pump, the savings would eventually offset the upfront costs. But those costs can be significant and discourage people from buying.

On average, it costs $17,000 to install an air-source heat pump and typically at least $30,000 to install a ground-source heat pump.

Some homes may also need upgrades to their electrical systems, which can increase the total installation price even more, by tens of thousands of dollars in some cases, if costly service upgrades are required.

In places where air conditioning is typical, homes may be able to offset some costs by using heat pumps to replace their air conditioning units as well as their heating systems. For instance, a new program in California aims to encourage homeowners who are installing central air conditioning or replacing broken AC systems to get energy-efficient heat pumps that provide both heating and cooling.

Rising costs of electricity

A main finding of our analysis was that the cost of electricity is key to encouraging people to install heat pumps.

Electricity prices have risen sharply across the U.S. in recent years, driven by factors such as extreme weather, aging infrastructure and increasing demand for electric power. New data center demand has added further pressure and raised questions about who bears these costs.

Heat pump installations will also increase electricity demand on the grid: The full electrification of home heating across the country would increase peak electricity demand by about 70%. But heat pumps – when used in concert with other technologies such as hot-water storage – can provide opportunities for grid balancing and be paired with discounted or time-of-use rate structures to reduce overall operating costs. In some states, regulators have ordered utilities to discount electricity costs for homes that use heat pumps.

But ultimately, encouraging households to embrace heat pumps and broader economy-wide electrification, including electric vehicles, will require more than just technological fixes and a lot more electricity – it will require lower power prices.

About the Author:

Roxana Shafiee, Environmental Fellow, Center for the Environment, Harvard University; Harvard Kennedy School

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Energy Opinions

29 Jan

America is falling behind in the global EV race – that’s going to cost the US auto industry

By Hengrui Liu, Tufts University and Kelly Sims Gallagher, Tufts University

At the 2026 Detroit Auto Show, the spotlight quietly shifted. Electric vehicles, once framed as the inevitable future of the industry, were no longer the centerpiece. Instead, automakers emphasized hybrids, updated gasoline models and incremental efficiency improvements.

The show, held in January, reflected an industry recalibration happening in real time: Ford and General Motors had recently announced US$19.5 billion and $6 billion in EV-related write-downs, respectively, reflecting the losses they expect as they unwind or delay parts of their electric vehicle plans.

The message from Detroit was unmistakable: The United States is pulling back from a transition that much of the world is accelerating.

Highlights from the Detroit Auto Show, starting with V-8 trucks, by the Detroit Free Press’ auto writer.

That retreat carries consequences far beyond showroom floors.

In China, Europe and a growing number of emerging markets, including Vietnam and Indonesia, electric vehicles now make up a higher share of new passenger vehicle sales than in the United States.

That means the U.S. pullback on EV production is not simply a climate problem – gasoline-powered vehicles are a major contributor to climate change – it is also an industrial competitiveness problem, with direct implications for the future of U.S. automakers, suppliers and autoworkers. Slower EV production and slower adoption in the U.S. can keep prices higher, delay improvements in batteries and software, and increase the risk that the next generation of automotive value creation will happen elsewhere.

Where EVs are taking over

In 2025, global EV registrations rose 20% to 20.7 million. Analysts with Benchmark Mineral Intelligence reported that China reached 12.9 million EV registrations, up 17% from the previous year; Europe recorded 4.3 million, up 33%; and the rest of the world added 1.7 million, up 48%.

By contrast, U.S. EV sales growth was essentially flat in 2025, at about 1%. U.S. automaker Tesla experienced declines in both scale and profitability – its vehicle deliveries fell 9% compared to 2024, the company’s net profit was down 46%, and CEO Elon Musk said it would put more of its focus on artificial intelligence and robotics.

Market share tells a similar story and also challenges the assumption that vehicle electrification would take time to expand from wealthy countries to emerging markets.

In 39 countries, EVs now exceed 10% of new car sales, including in Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia, which reached 38%, 21% and 15%, respectively, in 2025, energy analysts at Ember report.

In the U.S., EVs accounted for less than 10% of new vehicle sales, by Ember’s estimates.

U.S. President Donald Trump came back into office in 2025 promising to end policies that supported EV production and sales and boost fossil fuels. But while the U.S. was curtailing federal consumer incentives, governments elsewhere largely continued a transition to electric vehicles.

Europe softened its goal for all vehicles to have zero emissions by 2035 at the urging of automakers, but its new target is still a 90% cut in automobiles’ carbon dioxide emissions by 2035.

Germany launched a program offering subsidies worth 1,500 to 6,000 euros per electric vehicle, aimed at small- and medium-income households.

In developing economies, EV policy has largely been sustained through industrial policies. In Brazil, the MOVER program offers tax credits explicitly linked to domestic EV production, research and development, and efficiency targets. South Africa is introducing a 150% investment allowance for EV and battery manufacturing, giving them a tax break starting in March 2026. Thailand has implemented subsidies and reduced excise tax tied to mandatory local production and export commitments.

In China, the EV industry has entered a phase of regulatory maturity. After a decade of subsidies and state-led investment that helped domestic firms undercut global competitors, the government’s focus is no longer on explosive growth at home.

With their domestic market saturated and competition fierce, Chinese automakers are pushing aggressively into global markets. Beijing has reinforced this shift by ending its full tax exemption for EV purchases and replacing it with a tapered 5% tax on EV buyers.

Consequences for US automakers

EV manufacturing is governed by steep learning curves and scale economies, meaning the more vehicles a company builds, the better it gets at making them faster and cheaper. Low domestic production and sales can mean higher costs for parts and weaker bargaining power for automakers in global supply chains.

The competitive landscape is already changing. In 2025, China exported 2.65 million EVs, doubling its 2024 exports, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers. And BYD surpassed Tesla as the world’s largest EV maker in 2025.

The U.S. risks becoming a follower in the industry it once defined.

Some people argue that American consumers simply prefer trucks and hybrids. Others point to Chinese subsidies and overcapacity as distortions that justify U.S. industry caution. These concerns deserve consideration, but they do not outweigh the fundamental fact that, globally, the EV share of auto sales continues to rise.

What can the US do?

For U.S. automakers and workers to compete in this market, the government, in our view, will have to stop treating EVs as an ideological matter and start governing it like an industrial transition.

That starts with restoring regulatory credibility, something that seems unlikely right now as the Trump administration moves to roll back vehicle emissions standards. Performance standards are the quiet engine of industrial investment. When standards are predictable and enforced, manufacturers can plan, suppliers can invest in new businesses, and workers can train for reliable demand.

Governments at state and local levels and industry can also take important steps.

Focus on affordability and equity: The federal clean-vehicle tax credit that effectively gave EV buyers a discount expired in September 2025. An alternative is targeted, point-of-sale support for lower- and middle-income buyers. By moving away from blanket credits in favor of targeted incentives – a model already used in California and Pennsylvania – governments can ensure public funds are directed toward people who are currently priced out of the EV market. Additionally, interest-rate buydowns that allow buyers to reduce their loan payments and “green loan” programs can help, typically funded through state and local governments, utility companies or federal grants.

Keep building out the charging network: A federal judge ruled on Jan. 23, 2026, that the Trump administration violated the law when it suspended a $5 billion program for expanding the nation’s EV charger network. That expansion effort can be improved by shifting the focus from the number of ports installed to the number of working chargers, as California did in 2025. Enforcing reliability and clearing bottlenecks, such as electricity connections and payment systems, could help boost the number of functioning sites.

Use fleet procurement as a stabilizer for U.S. sales: When states, cities and companies provide a predictable volume of vehicle purchases, that helps manufacturers plan future investments. For example, Amazon’s 2019 order of 100,000 Rivian electric delivery vehicles to be delivered over the following decade gave the startup automaker the boost it needed.

Treat workforce transition as core infrastructure: This means giving workers skills they can carry from job to job, helping suppliers retool instead of shutting down, and coordinating training with employers’ needs. Done right, these investments turn economic change into a source of stable jobs and broad public support. Done poorly, they risk a political backlash.

The scene at the Detroit Auto Show should be a warning, not a verdict. The global auto industry is accelerating its EV transition. The question for the United States is whether it will shape that future – and ensure the technologies and jobs of the next automotive era are in the U.S. – or import it.

About the Author:

Hengrui Liu, Postdoctoral Scholar in Economics and Public Policy, The Fletcher School, Tufts University and Kelly Sims Gallagher, Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy, Director of the Climate Policy Lab and Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Energy Opinions

25 Jan

COT Energy Charts: Speculator Bets led by WTI Crude & Heating Oil

By InvestMacro

Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday January 20th and shows a quick view of how large traders (for-profit speculators and commercial entities) were positioned in the futures markets.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by WTI Crude & Heating Oil

The COT energy market speculator bets were mixed this week as three out of the six energy markets we cover had higher positioning while the other three markets had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the energy markets was WTI Crude (20,664 contracts) with Heating Oil (1,533 contracts) and the Bloomberg Commodity Index (17 contracts) also having a small positive week.

The markets with declines in speculator bets for the week were Brent Oil (-8,263 contracts), Natural Gas (-7,889 contracts) and with Gasoline (-1,747 contracts) also seeing lower bets on the week.

Natural Gas leads Weekly Energy Price Performances

The energy market price performance was led by the surging Natural Gas price. Natural Gas jumped higher in the past five days by over 35% while the Bloomberg Commodity Index was the next highest, with a 5.96% gain on the week. Heating Oil was up by over 5% while WTI Crude Oil rose by 3.96%, followed by Brent Oil with a 3.75% rise, and then Gasoline which rose by 3.25%.

The Bloomberg Commodity Index has been on a strong uptrend and is the price leader for the past 30 days with an 11% gain. The Bloomberg Commodity Index is the leader over the past 90 days as well with the Index being higher by approximately 18% in that time-frame.

Energy Data:

Legend: Weekly Speculators Change | Speculators Current Net Position | Speculators Strength Score compared to last 3-Years (0-100 range)

Strength Scores led by Bloomberg Index, Gasoline, & Heating Oil

COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that the Bloomberg Index (80.6 percent), Gasoline (65.3 percent) and Heating Oil (64.6 percent) lead the energy markets this week.

On the downside, Natural Gas (0.0 percent) and WTI Crude (12.6 percent) come in at the lowest strength level currently and are in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength score was Brent Oil (21.1 percent).

Strength Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (12.6 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (5.9 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (21.1 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (32.8 percent)
Natural Gas (0.0 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (5.5 percent)
Gasoline (65.3 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (67.2 percent)
Heating Oil (64.6 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (62.6 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (80.6 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (80.5 percent)

Bloomberg Index & WTI Crude top the 6-Week Strength Trends

COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that the Bloomberg Index (70.8 percent) leads the past six weeks trends for the energy markets. WTI Crude (6.6 percent) is the next highest positive mover with a much more modest gain in the latest trends data.

Natural Gas (-60.9 percent), Gasoline (-24.1 percent) and Brent Oil (-13.1 percent) lead the downside trend scores currently.

Move Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (6.6 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (2.3 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (-13.1 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (-13.6 percent)
Natural Gas (-60.9 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (-41.4 percent)
Gasoline (-24.1 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (-32.8 percent)
Heating Oil (-5.5 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (-11.9 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (70.8 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (61.5 percent)

Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures:

The WTI Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 78,792 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly rise of 20,664 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 58,128 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 12.6 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 87.2 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 38.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

WTI Crude Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	14.5	41.8	3.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	10.5	46.8	2.5
– Net Position:	78,792	-97,047	18,255
– Gross Longs:	284,809	821,803	67,044
– Gross Shorts:	206,017	918,850	48,789
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.4 to 1	0.9 to 1	1.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	12.6	87.2	38.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	6.6	-5.7	-3.7

Brent Crude Oil Futures:

The Brent Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -42,150 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly fall of -8,263 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -33,887 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 21.1 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 78.7 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 73.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

Brent Crude Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	20.1	37.0	3.7
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	37.7	20.8	2.3
– Net Position:	-42,150	38,875	3,275
– Gross Longs:	48,278	88,910	8,766
– Gross Shorts:	90,428	50,035	5,491
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.5 to 1	1.8 to 1	1.6 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	21.1	78.7	73.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-13.1	11.8	17.2

Natural Gas Futures:

The Natural Gas Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -193,490 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decrease of -7,889 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -185,601 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 0.0 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 31.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

Natural Gas Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	14.9	37.5	3.7
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	26.9	26.2	3.0
– Net Position:	-193,490	182,060	11,430
– Gross Longs:	241,131	604,854	59,623
– Gross Shorts:	434,621	422,794	48,193
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.6 to 1	1.4 to 1	1.2 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	0.0	100.0	31.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-60.9	65.5	-25.8

Gasoline Blendstock Futures:

The Gasoline Blendstock Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 70,780 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lowering of -1,747 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 72,527 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 65.3 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 32.6 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 70.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

Nasdaq Mini Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	24.0	48.4	5.8
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	8.5	65.8	3.9
– Net Position:	70,780	-79,205	8,425
– Gross Longs:	109,470	220,697	26,230
– Gross Shorts:	38,690	299,902	17,805
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.8 to 1	0.7 to 1	1.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	65.3	32.6	70.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-24.1	23.9	-11.4

#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures:

The #2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 16,044 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lift of 1,533 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 14,511 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 64.6 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 35.2 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 64.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

Heating Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	15.8	48.9	12.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	11.8	57.3	7.8
– Net Position:	16,044	-32,938	16,894
– Gross Longs:	62,563	193,349	47,815
– Gross Shorts:	46,519	226,287	30,921
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.3 to 1	0.9 to 1	1.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	64.6	35.2	64.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-5.5	10.2	-17.8

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures:

The Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -5,781 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lift of 17 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -5,798 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish-Extreme with a score of 80.6 percent. The commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 17.7 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 47.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Bloomberg Index Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	27.6	69.6	0.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	30.6	66.9	0.0
– Net Position:	-5,781	5,143	638
– Gross Longs:	52,210	131,824	676
– Gross Shorts:	57,991	126,681	38
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.9 to 1	1.0 to 1	17.8 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	80.6	17.7	47.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	70.8	-70.7	0.7

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Newsletter

COT Updates Energy Financial News

18 Jan

COT Energy Charts: Speculator Bets led by Bloomberg Commodity Index & WTI Crude Oil

By InvestMacro

Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday January 13th and shows a quick view of how large traders (for-profit speculators and commercial entities) were positioned in the futures markets.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by the Bloomberg Commodity Index & WTI Crude Oil

The COT energy market speculator bets were mixed this week as three out of the six energy markets we cover had higher positioning while the other three markets had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the energy markets was the Bloomberg Commodity Index (7,989 contracts) with Gasoline (2,569 contracts) and WTI Crude (776 contracts) also having positive weeks.

The markets with declines in speculator bets for the week were Natural Gas (-20,042 contracts), Brent Oil (-6,035 contracts) and with Heating Oil (-4,359 contracts) also seeing lower bets on the week.

Energy Market Price Performance led by Heating Oil

The energy markets saw Heating Oil lead the price performance over the last five days with a gain by 3.7%. Brent Crude Oil was up by 1.79%, while the Bloomberg Commodity Index rose by 1.53% on the week. WTI Crude Oil was also higher by 1.22%, and Gasoline rose by approximately 0.50%.

The only energy market with a down week was Natural Gas, which fell by -0.62%. Natural Gas has been on a strong downtrend and has fallen by 33% in the past 30 days, and by 22% over the past 90 days.

Energy Data:

Legend: Weekly Speculators Change | Speculators Current Net Position | Speculators Strength Score compared to last 3-Years (0-100 range)

Strength Scores led by Bloomberg Index & Gasoline

COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that Bloomberg Index (80.5 percent) and Gasoline (67.2 percent) lead the energy markets this week.

On the downside, Natural Gas (0.0 percent) and WTI Crude (5.9 percent) come in at the lowest strength level currently and is in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent).

Strength Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (5.9 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (5.7 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (32.8 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (41.4 percent)
Natural Gas (0.0 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (14.9 percent)
Gasoline (67.2 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (64.4 percent)
Heating Oil (62.6 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (68.3 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (80.5 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (44.7 percent)

Bloomberg Index & WTI Crude top the 6-Week Strength Trends

COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that Bloomberg Index (61.5 percent) and WTI Crude (2.3 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for the energy markets.

Natural Gas (-43.8 percent), Gasoline (-32.8 percent) and Brent Oil (-13.6 percent) lead the downside trend scores currently.

Move Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (2.3 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (0.8 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (-13.6 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (-1.2 percent)
Natural Gas (-43.8 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (-20.1 percent)
Gasoline (-32.8 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (-23.2 percent)
Heating Oil (-11.9 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (-0.5 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (61.5 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (23.5 percent)

Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures:

The WTI Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 58,128 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lift of 776 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 57,352 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 5.9 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 96.8 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 16.1 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

WTI Crude Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	14.2	42.4	3.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	11.3	45.6	2.9
– Net Position:	58,128	-65,450	7,322
– Gross Longs:	286,136	855,313	65,125
– Gross Shorts:	228,008	920,763	57,803
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.3 to 1	0.9 to 1	1.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	5.9	96.8	16.1
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	2.3	-1.3	-6.0

Brent Crude Oil Futures:

The Brent Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -33,887 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly fall of -6,035 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -27,852 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 32.8 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 66.3 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 71.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

Brent Crude Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	22.6	34.5	3.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	37.2	21.2	2.2
– Net Position:	-33,887	30,758	3,129
– Gross Longs:	52,273	79,946	8,124
– Gross Shorts:	86,160	49,188	4,995
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.6 to 1	1.6 to 1	1.6 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	32.8	66.3	71.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-13.6	10.8	29.4

Natural Gas Futures:

The Natural Gas Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -185,601 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lowering of -20,042 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -165,559 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 0.0 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 35.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Downtrend.

Natural Gas Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	16.5	36.8	3.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	27.9	26.3	2.6
– Net Position:	-185,601	172,844	12,757
– Gross Longs:	270,263	602,296	54,985
– Gross Shorts:	455,864	429,452	42,228
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.6 to 1	1.4 to 1	1.3 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	0.0	100.0	35.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-43.8	42.9	-1.6

Gasoline Blendstock Futures:

The Gasoline Blendstock Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 72,527 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly gain of 2,569 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 69,958 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 67.2 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 32.8 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 59.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

Nasdaq Mini Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	24.2	48.5	5.8
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	8.1	66.0	4.3
– Net Position:	72,527	-79,062	6,535
– Gross Longs:	109,165	218,251	26,081
– Gross Shorts:	36,638	297,313	19,546
– Long to Short Ratio:	3.0 to 1	0.7 to 1	1.3 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	67.2	32.8	59.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-32.8	32.8	-17.0

#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures:

The #2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 14,511 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decline of -4,359 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 18,870 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 62.6 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 40.5 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 53.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

Heating Oil Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	17.1	47.6	12.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	13.2	55.0	8.9
– Net Position:	14,511	-27,335	12,824
– Gross Longs:	62,981	174,862	45,706
– Gross Shorts:	48,470	202,197	32,882
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.3 to 1	0.9 to 1	1.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	62.6	40.5	53.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-11.9	23.6	-43.0

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures:

The Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -5,798 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly advance of 7,989 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -13,787 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish-Extreme with a score of 80.5 percent. The commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 16.3 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 61.9 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

Bloomberg Index Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	27.5	69.6	0.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	30.5	67.0	0.0
– Net Position:	-5,798	4,845	953
– Gross Longs:	51,952	131,526	974
– Gross Shorts:	57,750	126,681	21
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.9 to 1	1.0 to 1	46.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	80.5	16.3	61.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	61.5	-63.4	20.5

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Newsletter

COT Updates Energy Financial News

Risk Disclosure: Foreign Currency trading and trading on margin carries a high level of risk and can result in loss of part or all of your investment. Due to the level of risk and market volatility, Foreign Currency trading may not be suitable for all investors and you should not invest money you cannot afford to lose. Before deciding to invest in the foreign currency exchange market you should carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite. You should be aware of all the risks associated with foreign currency exchange trading, and seek advice from an independent financial advisor should you have any doubts.

All information and opinions on this website are for general informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice.

Archive for Energy

How natural hydrogen forms

The science and the search

Massive reserves – somewhere

Global hot spots

Technical barriers

Economics and efficiency

AI, Data Centers Begin Impacting Power Grids

Uranium Is Now a Critical Mineral

Companies With Tangible Operational Progress in the Spotlight

Laramide Resources Ltd.

Analyst: Co. ‘Scans Very Well on Value’

Streetwise Ownership Overview*

Ownership and Share Structure1

Fraser Institute Jurisdiction Rating Vanguard Mining Corp.

Data from the Fraser Institute’s Mining Survey

Uranium Market Sees Rising Production and Tightening Supply

“Key Property of Interest”: Analyst Flags Vanguard’s Uranium Project as Standout Asset

Upcoming Work and Regulatory Milestones

Streetwise Ownership Overview*

Ownership and Share Structure2

Weekly Speculator Changes led by WTI Crude Oil

WTI Crude Speculator Bets rise to highest level since August

Heating Oil and Brent Oil lead the Energy Market Price Performances on the Week

Energy Data:

Strength Scores led by Gasoline & Heating Oil

WTI Crude & Gasoline top the 6-Week Strength Trends

Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Brent Crude Oil Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Natural Gas Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

Gasoline Blendstock Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Weekly Speculator Changes led by WTI Crude & Brent Oil

The Energy Markets Prices were mostly lower on the week.

Energy Data:

Strength Scores led by Heating Oil & Bloomberg Index

Bloomberg Index & WTI Crude top the 6-Week Strength Trends

Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Brent Crude Oil Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Natural Gas Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Gasoline Blendstock Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Weekly Speculator Changes led by Natural Gas & WTI Crude Oil

Energy Markets Price Performance led by Natural Gas

Energy Data:

Strength Scores led by Bloomberg Index & Heating Oil

Bloomberg Index & WTI Crude top the 6-Week Strength Trends

Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Brent Crude Oil Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Natural Gas Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Gasoline Blendstock Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Wide variation in home heating

Why heat pumps?

Heat pumps can lower heating bills

A challenge in converting homes using natural gas

Ownership and Share Structure¹

Fraser Institute Jurisdiction Rating
Vanguard Mining Corp.

Data from the
Fraser Institute’s Mining Survey

Ownership and Share Structure²