Media appearances

My discussion on Monday, June 15, with Andrei Bratucu from "Follow the Money", about what is happening in the crude oil market and how much hope we can have in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the Americans and Iranians. The prevailing feeling is that of caution / cautious optimism, given the lack of seriousness we have seen from the leader of the free world in the almost 4 months since the beginning of this conflict. The markets are reacting positively (the price went down, now being around $80/bbl of Brent). On the international market, the situation is greatly helped by China, which bought less crude oil in May. Compared to the first 3 months of 2026, when China's imports were at 11.8 Mb/day, in May the imports fell below 8 Mb/day, which took the pressure off the price at international quotations. In the Romanian market, the element of novelty in the last 2 months is given by the competition between Petrom and Rompetrol to offer the best (low) price. The position of the most advantageous price was occupied by Petrom for a long time, but in the last period it is increasingly contested by Rompetrol, which owns the largest refinery in Romania.

"Gasoline more expensive than diesel" was a temporary anomaly at the pump. My comment on Monday, June 8, for Digi24, about the causes of this anomaly. The assessment regarding the temporary nature of this price reversal was confirmed in the following days when the correction came: standard diesel became more expensive than standard gasoline again (which is true, only by 1 ban): June 9… – gasoline: 9.33 lei/liter – diesel: 9.34 lei/l June 10 – gasoline: 9.08 lei/l – diesel: 9.09 lei/l The cheaper gasoline and standard diesel can be found in Rompetrol stations, which on this occasion becomes a 'price maker' on the Romanian fuel market.

The discussion on Sunday, May 31, at B1.ro about the #VerticalCorridor and regional interconnection. With Isac Mihai, Cătălin Gabriel Done, Alice Marius Craciun. Dialogue moderated by Razvan Munteanu.

This morning, at Digi24, about the situation at the pump (gasoline more expensive than diesel). Normally, in Romania where we have a high consumption of diesel and low consumption of petrol, the price of diesel is higher than that of petrol as we import diesel and export petrol respectively. It is related to the structure of the car park, which is dominated by diesel vehicles. What we see now in the market (the price reversal) reflects the lower quotes for diesel in the Mediterranean area – a result of a micro-relaxation of the diesel market (part of the car consumption switched to electric, China reduced its crude oil imports) plus the price of the barrel which reflects a lot of optimism (the prospect of a peace agreement this summer).

Sunday, May 24, together with Christian Năsulea, in the show moderated by Paula Rusu, from Euronews Romania, answering some questions about Doicesti, Hormuz and the Iernut power plant. Too little time to go into depth, but enough to point out a few ideas.

An intervention on the subject of the SMR from Doicesti, today on B1.ro in Gabriela Mihai's show. In short: yes – the project is not cheap, yes – we can live without it, yes – many other things can be done with this money. The question is different: do we want Romania to be part of a new industry? Do we want to have the research-development-innovation (CDI) infrastructure and to focus on the themes of the future? Do we want to be integrated into the value chains of new industries (or at least… have a tangent with them) and participate in or host cutting edge projects? Or, as a state, we only focus on solving the basic problems, specific rather to the last century (water-sewer, asphalting, so bare necessities). So, backward-looking or forward-looking? There is a lot to say, but I think that if we follow the logic of "what we can afford", we would not even end up in NATO/EU. Therefore, if the project can be rethought in such a way as not to put too much pressure on the public money (eg: to attract international partners and external funding), it should not be thrown into the trash. Even if it went to the left in Romania, the project has its merits (technology is not in discussion) and should not be politicized. On the contrary, it could really be a good opportunity for Romania to position itself strategically in a new branch of the nuclear industry, of course if Romania wants something like that. See more

This morning's dialogue on Digi24 about electricity prices in Romania and the shortage of aviation fuel in Europe. Through demande response you can pay part of the demand, but you cannot solve the problem of investments not realized on time, whether we are talking about new production capacities, or whether we are talking about storage capacities (yes, this is when the management of the most profitable Romanian state company is more concerned with management bonuses than investments. See today's article from ZF, in which Hidroelectrica is criticized for "the modest investment activity of the company, but the generous remuneration of managers"). Europe suffers from structural vulnerability, that is, European refineries do not produce enough aviation fuel: 1.6 million barrels/day consumption (OECD Europe) vs 1.1 Mb/day production. The difference of 500,000 bbl/day is imported, mainly from the Middle East (2/3). Higher US imports of Type A jet fuel help during this period, but do not fully offset the shortfall. Therefore, part of the application will have to be destroyed. Both companies and travelers participate in this process. Companies – by optimizing flights, consolidating, giving up shorter routes (Lufthansa is the leader with 20,000 canceled flights), travelers – as a precaution, by not buying plane tickets this summer to avoid the unpleasant situation in which their flights are canceled and their vacation is compromised.

Yesterday, May 5, the day the Bolojan government fell, I participated in the "Energy Forward 2026" event organized by Adevărul, where we talked about the sensitive things that are bothering us related to the current energy crisis:
– the implications of the crisis in the Persian Gulf for the global oil and liquefied gas market. An aspect perhaps too little emphasized is that in this crisis, we have an OPEC founding state (Iran) that bombed the energy infrastructure of another OPEC founding state (…Saudi Arabia) as well as another OPEC colleague (the United Arab Emirates).
– if there are alternative export pipelines for crude oil, there is no alternative route for liquefied natural gas (LNG).
– why prices look the way they do,
– what measures have been taken so far (and why they are only tactical, not structural),
– how prepared is Europe for what is to come,
– the real exposure of European states, especially those that produce electricity from natural gas that may also experience electricity price increases,
– Black Sea gas and the direction in which it should go,
– electric cars and the future of mobility. All our discussion in the link below.

My intervention from May 1, about the gathering clouds. At this moment, for Romania, the greater danger comes from political instability, that is, the weakened front is the domestic one – we are not in optimal shape to deal with external crises.

Answering the questions of Radu Osipov, on TV Moldova1, yesterday, April 30, about:
– the exit of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from OPEC and whether we have reasons for joy or concern. The decision will not help the markets very much because what is missing from the market is a much too large amount (13Mb/day), even if the Emirates would produce at the maximum now (4.8 Mb/day) instead of the quota that falls to them through OPEC (3.5 Mb/day).
– the exit from OPEC comes as a result of the accumulated tensions, especially with Saudi Arabia, the leader of the cartel. Establishing and respecting the quotas within the OPEC+ alliance is done at the expense of the sister states (Arab, Muslim). When you have to coordinate with non-OPEC countries (the OPEC+ alliance established in 2016) on the production side, practically OPEC makes room for barrels from Russia or Kazakhstan by restricting production in OPEC countries which thus sacrifice part of the production (not realizing income) in the name of "market stability".
– yes, by leaving the UAE, OPEC loses its flexibility, because only Saudi Arabia and the UAE have excess production capacity ("swing supply") – that is, the ability to increase production when needed. Russia does not have this capacity, having a rigid oil production profile.
– Why don't we feel the shock so strongly yet? Because the shock was amortized in March, when the US allowed India to buy Russian oil (from which India had just moved away, also under American pressure). Because the IEA decided to release 400 million barrels from the strategic stocks. Both measures work as an anesthetic and shock absorber. The exit of the Emirates from OPEC weakens the organization, but this is not necessarily a bad thing for consumers, because cartels have NEVER been good for consumers.