Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 13, 2024

OPEC+ Faces Double Trouble: China Demand Weakness And Trump's Policies

 by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

  • China’s weak oil demand has already thrown OPEC+ off track in its supply-management policies.

  • Trump's energy policies could create a new challenge for OPEC in 2025.

  • Amidst further uncertainties about global oil supply and demand with President Trump, OPEC+ may have to tweak their production policy more often than they have intended.

The OPEC+ group has struggled to manage oil supply and prices this year.

First, there was overproduction from several members, undermining the cuts from the other producers in the pact.

Then came the summer and the first actual consumption data for the first and second quarters of the year, showing that China’s oil demand growth is nowhere near OPEC’s expectations.     

Toward the end of the year, just as the cartel and its allies announced they would postpone the start of the easing of the production cuts to January 2025, they now have the wildest card on the market of all—President-elect Donald Trump.

China’s weak oil demand has already thrown OPEC+ off track in its supply-management policies and continues to defy OPEC forecasts with underwhelming crude consumption and imports.

The group now has to contend with some policies President-elect Trump has promised to introduce, including easier permitting for fossil fuel projects, import tariffs, and a more rigid stance toward Iran.

China Weakness

China has already undermined the OPEC+ alliance’s policy. The group is cutting production, but demand has been weaker than expected amid slower Chinese economic growth, the property crisis undermining construction activities and diesel consumption, and the surge in electric vehicle (EV) sales and registrations of LNG-fueled trucks.

OPEC has been wrong-footed by the surge in electric mobility in China, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its World Energy Outlook 2024 report last month.

In October, OPEC cut its 2024 global oil demand forecast in the third consecutive monthly report, citing actual consumption data so far this year and expectations of slightly lower demand in some regions, including China.

In each report since August, OPEC has signaled that its estimates of Chinese oil demand growth were too optimistic when it published the first outlook for 2024 in July 2023.

Despite the optimistic long-term view, OPEC’s short-term demand outlook on China has been revised down, again.

Weaker-than-expected oil consumption in China and rising electric vehicle sales will continue to weigh on the world’s oil demand growth going forward, according to the IEA’s Executive Director, Fatih Birol.

“This year, global oil demand is very weak, much weaker than previous years, and we expect this will continue because of one word — China,” Birol told Bloomberg in an interview last month.

China’s official crude oil import data hasn’t been encouraging for OPEC, either. Although imports are not all the crude China consumes, the import trends in the world’s top crude importer have weighed on oil prices.

The latest Chinese data showed another month of lower crude oil imports compared to the same month of 2023.

In October, China imported 10.53 million bpd of crude oil, per data from the General Administration of Customs. This was the sixth consecutive month in which crude cargo arrivals have lagged behind the imports in the same months of 2023. And imports were 9% lower compared to October 2023 and 2% below the import level of 11.07 million bpd in September 2024.

Trump Uncertainties

Apart from China, OPEC+ will now have to navigate uncertainties and risks to oil demand and supply with the incoming American president.

President-elect Trump is expected to step up sanctions on Iran, an OPEC member exempted from the production cuts, which earlier this year saw its exports hitting a six-year high.

Lower Iranian supply could be bullish for oil prices if demand holds.

But other policies Trump has floated, such as 10% tariffs on all U.S. imports and a 60% tariff on imports from China, could undermine global economic growth, leading to lower global oil demand overall.

OPEC+ can ill-afford weak global oil demand growth if it wants to return 2.2 million bpd of supply to the market next year.

Tariffs could slow U.S. and global economic growth, reducing oil demand by as much as 500,000 bpd in 2025 – one-third of Wood Mackenzie’s current projection for global oil demand growth next year.

“This has the potential to soften oil prices by US$5 to US$7/bbl from current levels, assuming no other risks such as an escalation in Israel-Iran hostilities,” Simon Flowers, chairman and chief analyst at WoodMac wrote last week.

Despite the fact that the U.S. oil and gas industry got what it had wanted for four years – a president supportive of the sector – American production is unlikely to grow by much more than the current growth trajectory, analysts say.

That’s because the big public companies that dominate shale supply will continue to prefer returns to shareholders and capital discipline to “drill, baby, drill,” according to Wood Mackenzie and Rystad Energy.

Moreover, WoodMac's Flowers said tariffs would likely expose U.S. producers and services companies to cost inflation.

“While the incoming administration will hold a more favourable view towards the oil and gas industry, ultimately the potential for production growth is going to be largely dictated by price,” Warren Patterson, head of commodities strategy at ING, says.

Amidst further uncertainties about global oil supply and demand with President Trump, OPEC+ may have to tweak their production policy more often than they have intended.

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/opec-faces-double-trouble-china-demand-weakness-and-trumps-policies

Galantamine for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment

 

Amanda Wei Yin Lim
Lon Schneider
Clement Loy




https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001747.pub4


Abstract


Background

Dementia leads to progressive cognitive decline, and represents a significant health and societal burden. Its prevalence is growing, with Alzheimer's disease as the leading cause. There is no cure for Alzheimer's disease, but there are regulatory‐approved pharmacological interventions, such as galantamine, for symptomatic relief. This review updates the 2006 version.
Objectives

To assess the clinical effects, including adverse effects, of 

galantamine in people with probable or possible Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment, and to investigate potential moderators of effect.
Search methods

We systematically searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 14 December 2022 using the term 'galantamine'. The Register contains records of clinical trials identified from major electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase), trial registries, grey literature sources, and conference proceedings. We manually searched reference lists and collected information from US Food and Drug Administration documents and unpublished trial reports. We imposed no language restrictions.
Selection criteria

We included double‐blind, parallel‐group, randomised controlled trials comparing oral galantamine with placebo for a treatment duration exceeding four weeks in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease or with mild cognitive impairment.
Data collection and analysis

Working independently, two review authors selected studies for inclusion, assessed their quality, and extracted data. Outcomes of interest included cognitive function, change in global function, activities of daily living, functional disability, behavioural function, and adverse events. We used a fixed‐effect model for meta‐analytic synthesis, and presented results as Peto odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. We used Cochrane's original risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
Main results

We included 21 studies with a total of 10,990 participants. The average age of participants was 74 years, and 37% were male. The studies' durations ranged from eight weeks to two years, with 24 weeks being the most common duration. One newly included study assessed the effects of galantamine at two years, and another newly included study involved participants with severe Alzheimer's disease.

Nineteen studies with 10,497 participants contributed data to the meta‐analysis. All studies had low to unclear risk of bias for randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding. We judged four studies to be at high risk of bias due to attrition and two due to selective outcome reporting.

Galantamine for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease

We summarise only the results for galantamine given at 8 to 12 mg twice daily (total galantamine 16 mg to 24 mg/day), assessed at six months. See the full review for results of other dosing regimens and assessment time points.

There is high‐certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, galantamine improves: cognitive function, as assessed with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive Subscale (ADAS‐cog) (MD‐2.86, 95% CI ‐3.29 to ‐2.43; 6 studies, 3049 participants; minimum clinically important effect (MCID) = 2.6‐ to 4‐point change); functional disability, as assessed with the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD) scale (MD 2.12, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.49; 3 studies, 1275 participants); and behavioural function, as assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (MD ‐1.63, 95% CI ‐3.07 to ‐0.20; 2 studies, 1043 participants) at six months. Galantamine may improve global function at six months, as assessed with the Clinician's Interview‐Based Impression of Change plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC‐plus) (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.84; 6 studies, 3002 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Participants who received galantamine were more likely than placebo‐treated participants to discontinue prematurely (22.7% versus 17.2%) (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.68; 6 studies, 3336 participants; high‐certainty evidence), and experience nausea (20.9% versus 8.4%) (OR 2.89, 95% CI 2.40 to 3.49; 7 studies, 3616 participants; high‐certainty evidence) during the studies. Galantamine reduced death rates at six months: 1.3% of participants in the galantamine groups had died compared to 2.3% in the placebo groups (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.96; 6 studies, 3493 participants; high‐certainty evidence).

Galantamine for mild cognitive impairment

We summarise results, assessed at two years, from two studies that gave participants galantamine at 8 to 12 mg twice daily (total galantamine 16 mg to 24 mg/day). Compared to placebo, galantamine may not improve cognitive function, as assessed with the expanded ADAS‐cog for mild cognitive impairment (MD ‐0.21, 95% CI ‐0.78 to 0.37; 2 studies, 1901 participants; low‐certainty evidence) or activities of daily living, assessed with the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study – Activities of Daily Living scale for mild cognitive impairment (MD 0.30, 95% CI ‐0.26 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1901 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Participants who received galantamine were probably more likely to discontinue prematurely than placebo‐treated participants (40.7% versus 28.6%) (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.05; 2 studies, 2057 participants) and to experience nausea (29.4% versus 10.7%) (OR 3.49, 95% CI 2.75 to 4.44; 2 studies, 2057 participants), both with moderate‐certainty evidence. Galantamine may not reduce death rates at 24 months compared to placebo (0.5% versus 0.1%) (OR 5.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 29.10; 2 studies, 2057 participants; low‐certainty evidence).

Results from subgroup analysis and meta‐regression suggest that an imbalance in discontinuation rates between galantamine and placebo groups, together with the use of the 'last observation carried forward' approach to outcome assessment, may potentially bias cognitive outcomes in favour of galantamine.
Authors' conclusions

Compared to placebo, galantamine (when given at a total dose of 16 mg to 24 mg/day) slows the decline in cognitive function, functional ability, and behaviour at six months in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. Galantamine probably also slows declines in global function at six months. The changes observed in cognition, assessed with the ADAS‐cog scale, were clinically meaningful. Gastrointestinal‐related adverse events are the primary concerns associated with galantamine use in people with dementia, which may limit its tolerability. Although death rates were generally low, participants in the galantamine groups had a reduced risk of death compared to those in the placebo groups. There is no evidence to support the use of galantamine in people with mild cognitive impairment.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001747.pub4/full

Drugs like LSD and ecstasy can increase your risk of schizophrenia--study

 People who land in the ER for psychedelic use are at significantly higher risk of schizophrenia, according to an eye-opening new study.

Canadian researchers tracked more than 9.2 million people in Ontario over 13 years, finding that those with a hallucinogen-related emergency had a 3.5-fold increase in schizophrenia risk when taking into account their substance use and mental health.

About 1% of Americans are affected by schizophrenia. The chronic and severe brain disorder, which impacts how a person thinks, feels and behaves, is often diagnosed from the late teen years to the early 30s.

People who land in the ER for psychedelic use are at significantly higher risk of schizophrenia. Pictured here are some psilocybin mushrooms.Cannabis_Pic – stock.adobe.com

Within three years of an ER visit involving a hallucinogen such as psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca and ecstasy, 4% were diagnosed with schizophrenia compared to 0.15% of the general population, the new research found.

00:00
04:37

People who visit the ER for a hallucinogen problem are at much higher risk for a schizophrenia diagnosis than people who go to the ER for alcohol or marijuana use.

The study authors emphasize that their results — published Wednesday in the journal JAMA Psychiatry — do not establish a causal link between hallucinogen use and schizophrenia.ICES Ontario

The researchers noted that psychedelics have been growing in popularity across North America for recreational and therapeutic use, with celebrities like Kristen Bell and Aaron Rodgers publicly sharing their experiences.

Nine percent of US adults 19 to 30 reported taking a hallucinogen in 2023, up from 5% in 2017 and 3% in 2012.

Four percent of adults 35 to 50 admitted taking a hallucinogen in 2023, an increase from 2% in 2021 and less than 1% in 2017 and 2012.

Amid this upswing, annual rates of Ontario ER visits involving hallucinogens rose by 86% between 2013 and 2021 after being stable between 2008 and 2012.

The researchers say that people with an underlying susceptibility to psychosis or schizophrenia may need to avoid psychedelics.

“Clinical trials of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy have safeguards, such as excluding individuals with a personal or family history of schizophrenia and close monitoring while participants use hallucinogens,” said Dr. Daniel Myran, a Canada research chair in social accountability at the University of Ottawa. “Our findings provide a timely caution about potential risks of hallucinogen use outside of trial settings.”

Ayahuasca brew is shown here. American adults are increasingly reporting hallucinogen usage.Eskymaks – stock.adobe.com

The study authors emphasize that their results — published Wednesday in the journal JAMA Psychiatry — do not establish a causal link between hallucinogen use and schizophrenia.

More information is needed about the risks associated with different types of hallucinogens and their use patterns.

“While there is enormous enthusiasm for psychedelic-assisted therapy as a new mental health treatment, we need to remember how early and limited the data remains for both the benefits and the risks,” Myran said. 

https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/lifestyle/psychedelic-use-can-increase-schizophrenia-risk-study/