United States President Donald Trump urged Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey to "immediately ask for Federal help" to solve the crisis in Minnesota, "and leave the rest to us!"
In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed that "Minnesota is being taken over by Somali Immigrants. There is Violence, Murder, and Mayhem all over the State," urging the people of Minnesota to "fight back." He called Walz an "incompetent thief who doesn't want to get involved. He just wants to get out of town with as much as he can steal, and then, lead a quiet life."
"The Somalians should not be allowed to get away with what they are doing. They view you as weak and stupid people. Fight back Minnesota, fight back! If you need, the Federal Government will come to your rescue," Trump concluded.
Venezuela's Interim President Delcy Rodriguez said on Thursday that oil production in the country increased 8% over the last year, reaching 1.25 million barrels per day.
Rodriguez noted that 61 hydrocarbon deals have been signed with foreign companies, with another 40 pending for the exploitation of mineral resources. The country's economy is expected to expand 6.5% in the third quarter, with domestic consumption up 21.3% so far this year, she stated during the address at the 82nd Annual Assembly of Fedecamaras.
The acting president of Venezuela also ruled out dollarization, saying it would not resolve the country's economic problems. "Monetary sovereignty is essential for economic growth," Rodriguez underlined.
Long before the federal government instituted its list of required "Essential Health Benefits" in 2014 as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), state governments had their required benefits, too. The first such coverage mandate is usually considered to be the 1956 law in Massachusetts that required dependent coverage for handicapped children.1 State coverage mandates gradually expanded in the 1960s and 1970s, with states adding mandates for various conditions, treatments, and provider types (e.g., diabetes, treatment for alcoholism, and chiropractic care). In the 1960s and 1970s, most states had just a few coverage mandates each. Today, the average state has more than 40 coverage mandates on its books, and some states have many more than that.
The "winners" in this situation are the people who obtain and use that benefit essentially at a discount, because with a mandate in place, the cost of that benefit is spread across many more people. The "losers" are all the people who wouldn't have voluntarily purchased a policy that included that coverage benefit had it been up to them to decide. Additionally, coverage mandates tilt the culture of insurance toward comprehensive coverage and away from becoming more personalized by encroaching on the ability of consumers who would prefer to buy slimmer policies from being able to get just the amount of coverage they want.
Coverage mandates also increase the cost of insurance. Proponents of coverage mandates sometimes push back against this claim, arguing that coverage mandates can in theory save money for "the healthcare system as a whole" if having the coverage enables some people to intervene in their own health problems earlier. Some proponents even argue that coverage mandates are good for paternalistic reasons, namely that consumers are either incapable of knowing how much coverage they should buy, or that if they know it, they are unlikely to be responsible enough to follow through and purchase it.2
Measuring exactly how much each coverage mandate contributes to the average premium is complex. Without very granular data, only rough estimates are possible. Still, it is worthwhile to develop some approximate numbers to help policymakers understand roughly how much consumers could save on their insurance premiums if coverage mandates were repealed.
Estimating the Costs of Coverage Mandates
Using an empirical estimate from a 2016 peer-reviewed analysis of state insurance mandates and employer-sponsored health insurance premiums, we have generated a crude estimate of the costs that state coverage mandates contribute to health insurance for nine northeastern states.3 The reference paper, titled "The Effect of Health Insurance Benefit Mandates on Premiums," written by economist James Bailey and published in the Eastern Economic Journal, uses a dataset containing 693 state-year observations between 1996 and 2011 to come up with an estimate of how much the average state insurance mandate increased premiums by. His analysis arrived at an estimate that the average state insurance mandate increased premiums by approximately 0.44 to 1.11 percent, per coverage mandate.
Taking this estimated range and multiplying by the counts of coverage mandates published in the Center for Modern Health's 2026 Health Freedom Index and by the state-specific 2025 employer-sponsored premiums from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component (MEPS-IC), we have come up with a simple potential savings calculation for each state.
We calculate the range using the lower estimate of 0.44 percent and the upper estimate of 1.11 percent per mandate, and for simplicity we present two different scenarios: one in which the state repeals five of its coverage mandates, and another in which the state repeals 10 of its coverage mandates. We do this for a contiguous cluster of nine states in the northeastern United States: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Results for Nine States in a Northeast Cluster
The tables below show the calculations for the individual policy market (Table 1) and the family policy market (Table 2). In the individual policy market, for many states, repealing 5 to 10 coverage mandates could correspond to annual premium reductions of between several hundred dollars and in some cases more than a thousand dollars. In the family policy market, repealing 5 to 10 coverage mandates in some cases could save families several thousand dollars. (Note that the premium figures in both tables are total premiums rather than the employee's contribution alone. This is because, regardless of what one calls them, "employer contributions" toward health insurance are ultimately paid by employees. I.e., we subscribe to what might be called the total compensation perspective.)
Table 1. The resulting estimates are shown below for the individual policy market.
Table 2. The resulting estimates are shown below for the family policy market.
Note: The current annual premium figures are from the MEPS spreadsheets published by AHRQ. On each state's spreadsheet, these are the lines on Table VIII labeled VIII.C.1 and VIII.D.1.
Policy Discussion
No U.S. state has abolished or repealed all of its health insurance coverage mandates, but the number of coverage mandates varies widely. If rising health insurance premiums is a concern, policymakers should question whether maintaining their existing coverage mandates is a wise move. Policymakers need to be reminded that insurance regulation is cumulative. Each new proposed mandate may appear modest when put up for a vote individually. But over time, the accumulation of dozens of mandates can substantially increase the cost of coverage.
Proponents of keeping coverage mandates will ask, "What about the people who use these services; won't their premiums go up under repeal?" That question should be answered with the question: "What about the people who don't use these services; why are they forced to buy more expensive coverage than they want?" The existence of a medical service that someone needs does not by itself establish a case for requiring every insurance policy to cover that service.
Complete repeal of coverage mandates is likely to be politically infeasible, but states can still consider narrower reforms. Creating exemptions and mandate waivers for certain people is an option, but the flattest, fairest approach may be to select some set of the existing mandates and repeal those. That is why in the calculations above we give two scenarios for each state and for each plan type (individual and family): repealing 5 mandates and repealing 10 mandates. Even a modest repeal effort could save citizens a non-trivial amount of money each year.
A final point is that, whether states engage in repeal or not, they should adopt a higher evidentiary standard before enacting new mandates. Any proposed mandate should be evaluated not only in terms of the people who would "benefit" from the change, but also from the perspectives of the people who would prefer a less expensive insurance product but are prevented from purchasing one. Patient advocacy groups can mount emotional campaigns to call for more coverage, but there is no naturally-occurring constituency for the people who do not need a given benefit yet will be asked to share in its cost. Legislators must think about those constituents too.
Limitations
The calculations above should be interpreted as rough guides to aid in the policymaking process, not as econometric forecasts. The purpose of this exercise is to provide policymakers with an order-of-magnitude estimate of the gains that could come from paring back these coverage mandates, given the absence of such estimates in the academic literature.
There are many limitations. For example, Bailey's estimates are based on historical data from 1996 through 2011. If redone with newer data, the coefficients could be lower, or they could be higher. Also, mandates differ substantially in cost. A mandate requiring a relatively inexpensive benefit that was already commonly covered could have little effect, whereas a costly benefit that few consumers would voluntarily purchase could have a much larger effect.
Finally, state mandates do not apply to self-insured employer plans subject to ERISA, so it would not be accurate to say that every single person in a state would save on his or her health insurance. People with self-insured employer plans would not necessarily see any change. Mainstream estimates put the share of private-sector enrollees who are enrolled in self-insured plans at somewhere between 65%-70%, so the coverage mandate repeals that we discuss in this article would only affect about 30%-35% of people with coverage.4
Conclusion
State-mandated health insurance benefits represent a longstanding and consequential form of healthcare regulation. They spread risk out over more people, but they impose costs on those who otherwise would not voluntarily choose to buy certain types of coverage, and they reinforce the notion that insurance should be as comprehensive as possible rather than as parsimonious as possible. State policymakers who are looking for ways to reduce health insurance premiums for their constituents should review their state's existing coverage mandates and consider repeal.
Appendix I. Examples of Coverage Mandates
This appendix provides examples of health insurance coverage mandates currently in effect in the nine states examined in this article. It is not an exhaustive inventory of each state's mandates, but rather a sample to illustrate the range of benefits, services, and treatments that states require health insurance plans to cover. To look up the actual list of coverage mandates for each state, refer to: Information on Essential Health Benefits Benchmark Plans, a resource maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Sample coverage mandates include:
Obesity & Morbid Obesity/Bariatric Surgery
Pregnancy, Delivery and Postpartum Coverage
Accidental ingestion of a controlled drug
Treatment of medical complications of alcoholism
Early intervention services (Birth-To-Three Program)
Infertility treatment
Coverage For Certain Biologically Based Mental Illnesses
Coverage For Treatment Of Pervasive Developmental Disorder Or Autism
Artificial Limb Coverage
Wound care for individuals with epidermolysis bullosa
Scalp Hair Prostheses
Cleft palate
Coverage for contraceptives
Hypodermic syringes or needles
Coverage for Hearing Aids
Mammography & for Testing for Occult Breast Cancer
Reconstruction Surgery as a Result of Mastectomy
Diabetes - Diabetes Services and Supplies
Bone marrow testing
Access to clinical trials
Medical food coverage for inborn error of metabolism
Coverage for general anesthesia for dentistry
Orthotic and prosthetic appliances
Treatment of Wilm's Tumor
Medical foods mandate
Smoking Cessation Programs
Lead poisoning
Wigs
Tobacco cessation medications
Chiropractic care
Jared Rhoads is Executive Director of the Center for Modern Health.
References: 1. Jensen, G. A., and M. A. Morrisey. 1999. ‘‘Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance and Mandated Benefit Laws.'' Milbank Quarterly 77 (4): 425–59. 2. "Demystifying the Role of Mandates in Health Care." The Commonwealth Fund. May 23, 2011. 3. Bailey, J. (2014). "The Effect of Health Insurance Benefit Mandates on Premiums." Eastern Economic Journal, 40(1), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2013.16 4. Kaiser Family Foundation. "Share of Private-Sector Enrollees Enrolled in Self-Insured Plans." 2025. Based on data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends.
The calculations in this piece rely on the estimates published in Bailey (2014). Professor Bailey was not involved in the preparation, analysis, or review of this article. Any errors or omissions in this article are our own and should not be attributed to him.
The Lancet’s latest review of mRNA vaccines, by Blakney and colleagues, presents itself as an authoritative synthesis of the evidence.
Titled “Safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines: a mechanistic and public health perspective,” it promises to examine the mRNA platform from mechanistic, preclinical, clinical, and public health perspectives.
Instead, it delivers a remarkably confident account that gives little attention to many of the scientific and regulatory questions that have shaped debate over the past five years.
What makes the review effective as messaging is not that it ignores controversy, but that it appears to engage with it.
It names difficult issues — residual DNA, biodistribution, frameshifting, and IgG4 class switching — only to swiftly minimise them with reassuring language.
The effect is to create the appearance of critical scrutiny while reassuring readers that these concerns are either resolved or insignificant.
The review describes mRNA vaccines as a “transformative advance” characterised by “rapid clearance,” “lack of genomic integration,” and a “favourable safety profile.” It concludes that the accumulated evidence “affirms” the platform as safe, effective, and adaptable.
Ironically, the review sits behind a paywall. Most journalists will never read it, many doctors will see only the abstract, and policymakers are likely to rely on its conclusions without examining the evidence in detail.
Having spent more than five years examining regulatory decisions, FOI documents, advisory committee meetings, and independent laboratory findings on mRNA vaccines, I expected the review to grapple with the questions that repeatedly emerged during those investigations. But it didn’t.
The authors note that after injection, mRNA lipid nanoparticles “remain largely localised to the injection site” with “limited distribution” to secondary organs. The review also notes that vaccine mRNA has been detected in human plasma for up to 14 days in some recipients, and that mRNA and spike antigen have been found in draining lymph nodes for up to 60 days.
But these findings are quickly reframed as evidence of “rapid clearance” and “short-lived antigen expression” — a conclusion presented with far greater confidence than the underlying evidence appears to warrant.
Only last year, members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee questioned the manufacturers after discovering that biodistribution studies had never been conducted using the commercial vaccine administered to millions of people.
When asked directly whether those studies had been performed, company representatives struggled to answer, exposing important gaps in the evidence base. Yet those gaps receive little attention in the review.
Residual DNA is treated similarly.
The authors state that residual DNA is “routinely quantified,” that regulatory standards require less than 10 nanograms per dose, and that independent analyses have confirmed commercial vaccines comply with those limits.
This creates the impression that the matter has been properly examined when, in reality, the review bypasses the central scientific questions.
Were the analytical methods capable of measuring DNA encapsulated within lipid nanoparticles? Were all relevant plasmid sequences — including SV40 regulatory elements — fully characterised? Was genomic integration ever adequately investigated?
I have previously reported that regulators relied on a qPCR assay targeting only a small section of the plasmid — an approach independent scientists argue was never designed to detect the contamination now under debate.
Rather than examining those methodological criticisms, the review proceeds as though the matter has already been settled.
The review briefly acknowledges another emerging issue — that N1-methylpseudouridine can produce ribosomal frameshifting and off-target proteins — but quickly reassures readers that no adverse outcomes have yet been linked to the phenomenon.
This is technically correct — there are no large-scale studies that have specifically investigated whether these off-target proteins contribute to vaccine-related injuries. But the absence of evidence is interpreted as evidence of absence.
The same pattern appears in the discussion of vaccine safety.
The authors state that adverse events have been “rigorously monitored” through passive and active surveillance systems.
But those same surveillance systems have frequently been dismissed by many of the same academics whenever independent researchers identified potential safety signals.
The review also ignores the regulatory controversies that unfolded last year after internal FDA investigations identified child deaths caused by Covid-19 vaccination.
Former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary publicly acknowledged those deaths, and internal disagreements over the agency’s handling became the subject of Congressional scrutiny.
The authors recognise myocarditis as a vaccine-associated adverse event and acknowledge that some patients continue to experience symptoms or imaging abnormalities more than twelve months later. But the discussion ends almost as soon as it begins.
There is no consideration of what persistent myocardial injury might mean over decades of follow-up, particularly in younger people, nor any serious examination of whether repeated boosting altered the overall risk-benefit balance in low-risk populations.
Instead, the review quickly returns to the familiar conclusion that the risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection outweighs the risk from vaccination.
On the topic of transmission, the review acknowledges that mRNA vaccines do not induce sterilising immunity and that household studies show only modest reductions in transmission.
But there is no meaningful reflection on the extraordinary public messaging that vaccination would protect others and stop transmission — the claim that became one of the principal justifications for vaccine mandates.
The authors also briefly discuss the shift towards IgG4 antibodies following repeated mRNA vaccination before concluding that the clinical significance remains “uncertain.” That is true, but only because the issue remains under-investigated.
Researchers continue to examine whether repeated exposure to the same antigen influences immune responses through mechanisms such as immune imprinting and antibody subclass switching. These are not settled questions.
The authors’ conflict-of-interest disclosures are also difficult to ignore.
Collectively, they disclose advisory roles, consultancy work, research funding, and other professional relationships with Pfizer, Moderna, GSK, Sanofi, Novavax, CEPI, the Gates Foundation, and other organisations that have played central roles in developing, funding, and promoting the mRNA platform.
When authors maintain ties to organisations with a stake in that field, readers are entitled to ask whether the evidence has been weighed impartially.
That question becomes even more important in the authors’ discussion of public trust. They attribute declining confidence primarily to misinformation, politicisation, and the amplification of perceived risk.
But there is little acknowledgement of the damage caused by overconfident public messaging, coercive mandates, delayed acknowledgement of genuine adverse events, resistance to sharing underlying data, or the repeated dismissal of legitimate scientific questions.
Trust is not rebuilt by telling the public they misunderstood the science. It is rebuilt by acknowledging where the evidence was uncertain, where regulators got things wrong, and where important questions remain unanswered.
In my view, one of the world’s most influential medical journals has published a review that is largely performative. It raises controversial questions only long enough to defuse them with reassuring conclusions.
At best, it reads like marketing. At worst, it’s propaganda.
And because it carries the imprimatur of the Lancet, many readers will mistake it for scientific consensus.
Maryanne Demasi, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, is an investigative medical reporter with a PhD in rheumatology, who writes for online media and top tiered medical journals. For over a decade, she produced TV documentaries for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and has worked as a speechwriter and political advisor for the South Australian Science Minister.
I have heard these stories a thousand times. I am a board‑certified pediatrician with 46 years of clinical experience. I’ve practiced in group and solo settings, served as Director of Pediatric Education for a residency program, and received numerous awards for child‑health initiatives. My solo practice had 3,500 general pediatric patients. I spent five years as Medical Director of the Autism Research Institute.
By caring for and consulting on more than 600 children with autism from 5 countries and 20 states, and hundreds of children with complex chronic illnesses, I have a unique clinical perspective to share, which mirrors what these families shared today.
My concerns about vaccine safety began in 1999 after my patient experienced a severe and irreversible reaction following a vaccine I gave. Despite exhaustive efforts to identify another cause, I could not. The trajectory of my career changed. I left a secure academic position I loved and opened a solo practice dedicated to children whose medical needs were not being met.
During my career I learned an extraordinary amount from parents who are usually perceptive observers of their children’s health. At ARI we partnered with families to identify medical problems that were overlooked. Their insights guided our research and these actions should guide our actions today. Families directed us to treat gastrointestinal dysfunction, immune dysregulation, and impairments in detoxification pathways. Collaborations with international scientists helped identify mitochondrial dysfunction, methylation abnormalities, cerebral folate deficiency, and prolonged cell danger responses.
Most pediatricians do not know about these issues. Addressing these problems often resulted in measurable improvements in autism symptoms. Some children initially diagnosed with moderate to severe autism entered kindergarten no longer meeting criteria for autism because their medical problems were treated. Other severely affected children treated as toddlers have gone on to college without knowing they once carried an autism diagnosis.
My concerns about vaccine safety extend far beyond the narrow question of whether vaccines cause autism. Autism and complex chronic illnesses are profoundly heterogeneous. In my experience, antecedents, mediators, and triggers vary widely among children. Vaccines contribute to oxidative or mitochondrial stress in all children. In some kids; they amplify pre‑existing vulnerabilities. For others, early-life factors—such as C‑section birth, antibiotics, or prematurity — create antecedent conditions that interact with later vaccines and precede neurodevelopmental regression.
In 2005, I gave grand rounds at the university where I had been chief resident. Simply raising the possibility that the accelerated vaccine schedule might contribute to rising autism prevalence resulted in my adjunct faculty appointment not being renewed. At the time, I used a modified schedule that reduced aluminum exposure while remaining fully compliant with Virginia’s school requirements.
In 2006, I met with AAP leadership to discuss vaccine safety concerns – which were dismissed. Despite no research funding from government or pharma, I published a dozen studies in my spare time. One 17‑year project examined whether autism risk could be reduced by applying insights learned from families. After seven years, my autism prevalence was 1 in 297—at a time when the national rate was worse than 1 in 50. I submitted the findings to the AAP in 2013, expecting interest in a six‑fold reduction in such a serious public health problem. I received no response.
My clinical observations—confirmed by independent data mining—was that children who got more vaccines were more likely to develop chronic illnesses. In my practice, under‑vaccinated children had lower rates of chronic diseases.
Other pediatricians in town dismissed patients for not following the CDC schedule. Because 30% of families in my practice sought religious or philosophical exemptions I was able to compare outcomes across groups. Children who received any vaccines in their first year of life showed higher odds of developmental delays, asthma, and ear infections compared with unvaccinated children. Analyses by dose quartile demonstrated increasing odds ratios for several conditions as vaccine exposure increased.
We published our findings, and since then, 12 additional studies have reported similar associations. These associations highlight the need to clarify underlying mechanisms of injury related to early childhood vaccination.
A birth cohort study at Henry Ford followed 18,000 children to compare chronic health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated from birth through long‑term follow‑up. After multivariate adjustment, vaccination exposure showed a higher risk of chronic conditions, including asthma, autoimmune disease, atopic disease, eczema, and neurodevelopmental disorders. By 10 years of follow‑up, 57% of vaccinated children had chronic illness compared with 17% of the unvaccinated. Vaccination was independently associated with a 2.5‑fold increased likelihood of chronic health conditions. Academia chose not to publish the study, citing concerns about career repercussions.
There should be no stigma in revising vaccine schedules. We know more now about the roles of mitochondria and metabolism. Emerging genomic research identifies single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with higher risks of adverse reactions, including CCL2, NLRP3, and CARD 8.
To my knowledge, NIH has not conducted research on children who had documented regression following vaccines. These children represent critical signals—“canaries in the coal mine”—whose genetic, metabolic, and inflammatory profiles could inform individualized risk‑benefit assessments.
My concerns arise from direct clinical observation, gaps in the vaccine safety literature, and plausible mechanistic pathways for adverse reactions. I have three specific collaborative requests for immediate action:Discontinue mRNA vaccination for infants, children, and adolescents. My book details many reasons for this policy. Fund NIH research that leads to actionable treatment strategies for affected children – I will collaborate with you to teach clinicians how to heal these children. Study subsets of children with autism and those who have experienced adverse vaccine reactions to develop risk measurement tools such as newborn testing to identify babies at risk.
The proposed NIH framework includes objectives particularly relevant to this discussion and offers unique opportunities for collaboration with us. We have an obligation to act with integrity and scientific curiosity. I have faced over 25 years of institutional resistance. Today is the day for NIH to take our concerns seriously and develop strategies and policies to help this generation of children. I am at your service.
Dr. Elizabeth Mumper is CEO of Advocates for Families and on the faculty of the Medical Academy of Pediatrics and Special Needs. Physician, educator, and clinical leader with deep experience in pediatrics, neurodevelopmental care, and professional training.
Dr. Mumper has been recognized as a Miracle Maker in Central Virginia, named Woman of the Year in Health and Sciences by the YWCA, and honored with multiple Inspiring Change Awards from the MINDD Foundation in Australia. In 2024, she received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Front-Line COVID Critical Care Alliance. Dr. Mumper has authored and contributed to professional publications, including chapters on allergy, immunology, and behavioral and developmental pediatrics, as well as an eBook on COVID in children.
Hurricane Isaias Landfall Forecasted For Late Friday/early Saturday
Major US Refineries In Hurricane's Projected Path
63% Of US Offshore Gulf Oil Output Shut
25% Of US Offshore Gulf Oil Output Shut As Hurricane Isaias Nears, Threatens Refineries
Hurricane Isaias Shutters 63% of US Gulf Oil Production
Bloomberg cites data from the Marine Minerals Administration showing US Gulf offshore oil producers have halted about 1.28 million barrels per day, equivalent to shutting in 63% of regional output.
Natural gas shut-ins reached 1.127 billion cubic feet a day, equivalent to 57% of the region's production.
By noon Central Time, workers from 121 offshore platforms had evacuated, while four rigs had moved outside Hurricane Isaias' cone of uncertainty.
This is a massive temporary hit to US crude supply. For NatGas, the national production impact is much smaller.
The next big issue is that refineries may see a decline in crude supply as offshore platforms reduce flows. Any refinery outage from storm-related damage would reduce fuel product production as a global refining crisis deepens.
Major Refineries In Crosshairs
Jefferies consumer staples analyst Kaumil Gajrawala warned clients ealrier today: "Hurricane Isaias is a fuel supply event hitting a system already stretched by the Iran war. ~25% of Gulf crude output is shut in (~4% of US production), but fuel inventories are low and diesel is $6.30 vs. $3.68 a year ago. A small disruption now has outsized price consequences. The second-order effect is freight cost, which favors asset-light models like KO (Buy), where bottlers carry the fleet and fuel exposure."
As we noted earlier today, any abrupt westward shift in the hurricane's cone of uncertainty would put major refineries at risk, including Chevron's Pascagoula refinery on Mississippi's Gulf Coast. It refines 369,000 barrels of crude a day into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and premium base oils.
Landfall impacts for portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle are expected late Friday into Saturday morning.
25% Of US Offshore Gulf Oil Output Shut As Hurricane Isaias Nears, Threatens Refineries
Hurricane Isaias forced offshore oil and natural gas producers in the Gulf of America to halt a sizable amount of production as the Atlantic's first hurricane of the season churned toward the coast, with potential landfall impacts across portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle.
Isaias had sustained winds of 75 miles per hour and was about 460 miles south-southwest of the Mississippi River mouth overnight, according to the National Hurricane Center.
Producers with offshore rigs have already shuttered 25% of crude output and 16% of NatGas production and evacuated workers from eight platforms and two rigs.
Models increasingly point to landfall late Friday night or early Saturday morning east of major energy assets onshore and offshore in Mississippi and Louisiana.
An abrupt westward shift in the hurricane's cone of uncertainty would put major refineries at risk, including Chevron's Pascagoula refinery on Mississippi's Gulf Coast. It refines 369,000 barrels of crude a day into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and premium base oils.
The disruption to offshore oil and NatGas rigs comes as a global refining crisis deepens, and there is little room for error in the US, as refineries operate near full capacity.
Enki Research risk modeler Chuck Watson said that oil and NatGas outages would likely last no more than a week if the forecast track holds.
Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov claimed on Thursday that the threats made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky against Russia prove Ukraine's "unwillingness and unpreparedness to embark on any kind of peaceful trajectory."
Peskov assured that Moscow supports a comprehensive and lasting peace in Ukraine. However, the press secretary agreed with United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio that there is no possibility for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict at the moment.
Peskov commented on the Indian three-point peace proposal, claiming that such a resolution is "unlikely for now, although we naturally welcome the efforts of our Indian friends."
