· 112 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 16, 2026 at 1:47 PM

Europe has 'maybe 6 weeks of jet fuel left,' energy agency head says

Posted by Tuna_Sushi


Europe has 'maybe 6 weeks of jet fuel left,' energy agency head says
NBC News
Europe has 'maybe 6 weeks of jet fuel left,' energy agency head says
The head of the International Energy Agency warned that major economic disruptions aren't far off for parts of Asia and Europe if ships aren't allowed through the Strait of Hormuz.

🚩 Report this post

112 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
edotb 3 days ago +94
its gonna be like covid all over again
94
itsatumbleweed 3 days ago +49
Probably worse, inflation-wise.
49
StunningGold8030 3 days ago +18
Trump's master, Putin is pleased
18
Viperlite 3 days ago +3
“I bet that knee is starting to hurt, eh.”
3
Equivalent-Rate-6218 2 days ago +3
If only 50% of the people who didn't need to fly just didn't
3
h4v3anic3d4y 3 days ago +19
Oh its a lot worse. Last estimate i saw was that Heathrow will be dry in less than 4 weeks if nothing changes. So some aiports surely have way less than that? So airports run dry....then what?
19
Anxious_cactus 3 days ago +18
I saw projections for my EU country that say if this continues after August we're facing at least a 50% price spike in electricity prices, essential groceries, and petrol. Up to 100% if it continues through the winter. If those predictions are correct we're fucked completely, there's gonna be civil unrests everywhere, rise in famine and homelessness.
18
wpbfriendone 3 days ago +15
But look on the bright side, people won't be talking about the Epstein files /s
15
peazley 2 days ago +2
And it’s going to hit billionaires pockets the most! Right?! /s
2
JamesTheJerk 2 days ago +4
And to think, this whole thing could have been avoided by not doing anything at all.
4
The-Jesus_Christ 2 days ago +2
And can be mitigated now if Trump just withdraws the military but instead he wants to spend $1bn a day so that Iran can’t make a few mil. It would be cheaper to just pay Iran and leave it be.
2
Hellogiraffe 2 days ago +1
Have you tried saying thank you?
1
cedarpark 2 days ago +4
Ok. Thanks, Obama!.... How was that?
4
Equivalent-Rate-6218 2 days ago -3
But why don't you have solar panels on your roof in 2026 for independence of the grid?
-3
sky_concept 17 hr ago +1
Good luck. Energy prices get high enough people just going to rip those fuckers from your roof while you sleep.
1
themcsame 3 days ago
Ehhh, it depends. Heathrow would theoretically have a lot stored because it's a busy airport (\~4th globally and busiest in Europe I think? On the flipside, that also means A LOT of planes using up that fuel as well. I'd imagine it comes down to some sort of ratio between stores vs traffic. Some will have a larger number of stores per plane, some will have fewer, or so I'd imagine at least. I mean, if we're generally looking at 6, whilst Heathrow seems to be looking at <4 weeks, I'd be inclined to just say Heathrow, as a busy AF place, simply stores less fuel per plane served (or whatever we want to call that ratio) than other airports. I can't imagine building new storage is a simple task, and lord knows how difficult planning permission can be in the UK, so it theoretically checks out.
0
Revolutionary-Bag-52 2 days ago
Then theyll just pay more for their fuel and direct that to clients. Were talking about the wealthiest countries in the world, they will have their supply if there is local demand. Just comes at a big increase in costs
0
waltz_with_potatoes 1 day ago
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/aviation-fuel-crisis-trump-uk-iran-b2958417.html UK airlines saying otherwise
0
h4v3anic3d4y 1 day ago +2
"We have fuel to the middle of may, looks fine. Dont panic." Middle of may is 4 weeks, so no, UK airlines are not saying otherwise. Did you read it even?!
2
Immthaill 3 days ago -3
Trains!
-3
h4v3anic3d4y 3 days ago +2
Bikes
2
Nervous_Recover_6152 3 days ago +6
The 2nd time someone steals from you is much much worse than the first 
6
takesthebiscuit 3 days ago +3
Jet fuel can’t ~~melt steel~~ cure Covid
3
Golemfrost 2 days ago +1
You mean less traffic, less planes and boats. Awesome
1
OctoMatter 3 days ago +18
My flight is in 5 weeks. Wish me luck
18
aresev6 3 days ago +26
I hope you enjoy your ~~destination~~ new home.
26
MustardClementine 2 days ago +3
I fear I am dooming us all (because I told a lady having a pedicure beside me on March 12th, 2020 that she probably shouldn't take the trip she had planned to Florida with her elderly mother, as they may get stuck there)... but you probably shouldn't go on that trip. Unless you wouldn't mind getting stuck wherever you are going, indefinitely?
3
JessieColt 3 days ago +17
How much do they normally have?
17
EagleForty 2 days ago +8
At least 7 weeks worth.
8
Sad-Introduction9173 3 days ago +11
It is so funny and stupid at the same time, in the vast majority of cases all that jet fuel is already hedged in the market by airlines and airports months / even years ahead. But yeah if it is physically not there... The whole paper card house falls
11
_Soup_R_Man_ 20 hr ago +1
Same with a lot of commodities. Gold/Silver.
1
Desnowshaite 3 days ago +42
Well at least the steel beam industry will not be affected.
42
LongLongMan_TM 3 days ago +26
Not gonna lie, I can't read jet fuel without thinking of steel beams lol.
26
not_old_redditor 2 days ago +1
Everybody loves a good 9/11 joke
1
MalaysianinPerth 3 days ago +13
Remind me! 6 weeks
13
Nonhinged 3 days ago +6
If there's a reserve of 6 weeks, it's 6 weeks continuously.
6
Quantum_Croissant 3 days ago +13
unless something were to happen that would prevent the reserve being replenished. A blockade, perhaps
13
Equivalent-Rate-6218 2 days ago +3
If only you understood exactly how that blockade affected jet oil while investigating all other avenues...
3
Nonhinged 3 days ago +4
Most oil comes from other places, and most oil is refined on the import side.
4
jagnew78 2 days ago
Europe and Asia get a massive amount of oil via Strait of Hormuz shipping 
0
Nonhinged 2 days ago +3
That's a meaningless statement. Grouping Europe and Asia. All oil is also in massive amounts. Europe gets massive amounts from Norway.(Norway is in Europe)
3
Virtual_Medium_6721 3 days ago +8
Can't wait for prices to rise by another 50% in the next 5 years
8
AvailableSubstance53 2 days ago +1
Sincerely,  neither can I. Time we all adopted the Cuban Bicycle Diet.
1
Carpenterdon 1 day ago +1
Years? Aren't you an optimist...
1
CaptainCanuck93 3 days ago +28
Time for Canada and Europe to create a stable energy corridor together that bypasses Russia, the USA, and the Middle East If we can't get Quebec on board, build pipelines to Hudson's Bay and employ icebreakers during the winter Europe can contribute to construction in exchange for supply guarantees
28
Oerthling 3 days ago +35
No, time to accelerate and finish the transition to renewables. Should have done that a decade or 2 ago (preferably 3+ actually). But better late than never. Electrify, electrify, electrify and then electrify some more and end the use of fossil fuels. Keep fossil fuels expensive, reallocate the resulting money (including windfall tax on fossil fuel companies) to incentivize electrification and grid upgrades. We already have to do that urgently anyway. But even for all those (dumb dumb dumb) climate change deniers these repeated supply shocks should finally be the final nail in the fossil fuel business. The more we get away from fossil fuel the less these shitty fuels coming from shitty governments will matter and the less money we gift to assholes. As a bonus we also stop cooking the planet. As a further bonus, all those shitty governments that rely on fossil fuel money will topple and their citizens can finally get better governments in place.
35
CaptainCanuck93 3 days ago +14
I agree, however unless you're taking nuclear/geothermal/hydro you have to understand that renewables *reduce but entrench* fossil use Any grid built on wind and solar has intermittency problems, which means you need to be able to rapidly deploy alternative sources of electricity Not all forms of electricity can be rapidly deployed. Until we have space age batteries or all live in mountain ranges that can support tons of massive pumped storage facilities, that means having massive coal or natural gas burning capacity that can be turned on and off when it's cloudy or not windy  Look at Germany. Lots of renewables, yet their electricity production creates around 10x more CO2 than France despite having much more renewable capacity, because they have to constantly turn on and off fossil fuel plants when the windmills aren't turning  Personally I think we should all be following the Ontario model -> massive nuclear baseload with a layer of renewable contributing, with deployable sources (mostly hydro and a single small natural gas plant) to even out the peaks and intermittency. But a country like Germany that has completely rejected nuclear and doesn't have the geography for hydro/geothermal, they are stuck with a dirtier option - fossil fuels+renewables
14
pm_me_your_smth 3 days ago +5
Doesn't Germany use coal a lot (the dirtiest fossil fuel) and that's the primary reason for more CO2 emissions? If yes, that's not really a good example in current context
5
CaptainCanuck93 3 days ago
The majority of Germany electricity needs are met by renewables, yet they remain dirty because of the fossil fuel component  France's renewable capacity is far smaller yet has a much cleaner grid You're right that Germany uses the dirtiest fossil fuel source (coal), but the cleanest (natural gas) only cuts the emissions in half. Germany would still produce ~500% more emissions per GWh than France if it had the cleanest fossil fuels IMO I consider this the "renewables trap" though it's fairer to call it an wind/solar trap. You can invest in huge amounts of renewables and still be stuck using fossil fuels a significant portion of the time It's way better than just sticking with a primarily fossil fuel grid, it just will never reach the low-carbon state that a nation with nuclear baseload can achieve
0
MaxGoldFilms 3 days ago +2
Does Germany have plans to build new nuclear reactors, or are they sticking with the phase-out? > As of early 2026, France operates 57 nuclear reactors, providing the largest nuclear fleet in Europe and roughly 65–67% of the country's electricity. Germany has 0 operating nuclear reactors, having completed a phase-out of its nuclear program.
2
CaptainCanuck93 2 days ago +2
So far they are sticking with the phase out
2
Frodojj 2 days ago +1
Wouldn’t cutting it in half be really significant savings?
1
CaptainCanuck93 2 days ago +1
Yes it would, but the objection was that Germany vs France was an unfair comparison because of coal Germany's strategy being 10x worse or 5x worse than France doesn't change the fact that it's *worse* to try to run renewables+fossil fuels rather than have nuclear baseload
1
Frodojj 2 days ago +1
I don’t think having a nuclear base and having lots of renewable is contradictory. A good distribution world includes lots of both and gas plants that can supplant the two.
1
CaptainCanuck93 2 days ago +2
Oh it's not contradictory at all, I didn't mean it to sounds like that That said, there isn't a lot of advantages to wind/solar other than it being superficially c**** (but expensive if you factors in the necessary energy storage/backup power required) Nuclear has a big problem too - it isn't deployable. You still need deployable power to match demand peaks, which ideally means either stored energy or hydroelectric capacity. Less ideally it means fossil fuels If you have options for storage (ex mountains/mineshaft for pumped storage) wind/solar can be a useful complementary piece to gather the power to store since intermittency matters less for that role That said - wind/solar can be complementary but should never really be used how Germany trying to, it just cannot be the primary power source without massive storage. It just creates necessity of massive deployable capacity, which means massive fossil fuel capacity
2
mktolg 2 days ago +1
Sorry but that's just wrong. Germany has simply been lazy building out infrastructure. Yes, you can't just put solar on every roof and call it a day. But Germany could build the grid to even out demand, and it could easily build - both skills- and funding-wise - GWH-level storage. The political will to do so is just not there, not among politicians, not among the electorate, so they are still burning fossils. But that electrifying stuff entrenches renewables is a Ivermectin-level myth
1
CaptainCanuck93 2 days ago +1
The largest battery storage ever built can output a GW for 3 hours You need orders of magnitude more storage capacity to build your fantasy They haven't been lazy, they've just been convinced by useful idiots who don't realize they're being used by the Russian oil lobby
1
mktolg 2 days ago +1
Did I say battery? Also, just FWIW - Batteries scale fine. If the largest single installation has 3GWH, you spend twice, get 6GWH. Furthermore, you don't need a single mega-battery. Grid fluctuations are in the 50-100MW range. Yes, it'll cost money. But not terribly much. But as long as Söder manages to block overland lines (and as long as Germany's electricity market produces a single price for the whole fecking country, complete insanity), nothing will change.
1
CaptainCanuck93 2 days ago +1
Then you want pumped storage? Hope you're not going around telling people wind and solar is c**** if you're needing to pair every wind farm and solar facility with one, in Germanys's famously widely unoccupied mountainous regions >If the largest single installation has 3GWH, you spend twice, get 6GWH. We're not talking about grid fluctuations, we're talking about when wind production falls to near zero for 24 hours You need storage capacity to entirely replace wind/solar until production returns to phase out fossil fuels with a wind/solar grid
1
no_choice99 2 days ago
Germany fucked up by shutting down their nuke plants and preferred to pollute air with coal ones.
0
etrast75 3 days ago +2
If only we can figure out a way to fly airplanes with electricity. If only we can figure out how to make fertilisers without natural gas If only we can figure out how to make plastics without hydrocarbon. You can electrify all you want with renewable sand nuclear power but the need for hydrocarbon ain't going away anytime soon .
2
Oerthling 3 days ago +6
Old tired argument. The fact that we need fossils for pharmaceuticals and fertilizer just one more reason to not waste it on burning it Let's get rid of all the replaceable use of fossils. Then we can worry about the rest.
6
st4nkyFatTirebluntz 3 days ago +6
uhhhhh both of those things are possible. the fertilizer thing is barely even expensive by comparison. anyway, even if if were impossible, the two pieces you're focused on are \~20% of fossil fuel consumption. maybe focus on the other 80.
6
True_Window_9389 2 days ago +1
You can’t electrify without tech and manufacturing from us and Asia. Everyone is trying to go it alone right now and prove they don’t need anyone else, but you can’t dismantle globalization that took half a century to build in a couple years. It’s dumb we’re doing it, but it’s just as dumb and unlikely that Europe and Canada can too.
1
Oerthling 2 days ago +1
I said nothing about doing it alone. I said nothing about dismantling globalization. But Trump is quite busy working on that. Whether on purpose or not. What I said is electrify and that we need to double down on renewables. And for now that means buying PVs that are mostly produced China. And when I talked about shitty governments, I spoke about all those theocracies and fascist governments that sell oil. Governments that get away with being shitty because they get paid for the oil reserves they happened to sit on. But unlike pumping oil from the ground, PVs can basically get produced anywhere. China built up the capacity and sits on a cost advantage, but PV production isn't bound to China like fossil fuel extraction is bound to Saudi Arabia, Iran or Russia.
1
True_Window_9389 2 days ago +1
I’m thinking within the goal of bypassing Russia, America and the Middle East for energy. Electrification works in theory towards that end, but all the bits and pieces to do that can’t happen without American, Chinese and other technology and material from countries with problematic governance. Electrification is itself a potentially worthy goal for environmental reasons, but not necessarily a solution for Europe or Canada to detach themselves from dependence on authoritarians. Maybe more than anything, I don’t think Europe or Canada has the money. They don’t have the domestic capital, the political will, or the national unity to overcome those challenges.
1
Oerthling 2 days ago +1
Yes it is because massively reduced independence is worth having even if 100% is not in the table. And it's not like the US and China isn't also dependent on Europe. EU needs to improve its capital market integration to ease scaling up. But to say that Europe doesn't have the capital is silly. When it comes to political will and unity - time will tell. Trump tries his best to help by being a dumb villain. Having a common enemy is very effective in bringing people or nations together.
1
nogutsnoglory98 2 days ago +1
But how do you electrify airplanes? Is that even possible?
1
Oerthling 2 days ago +3
Not important right now. We have a zillion cars and heaters to replace, grids to upgrade and renewables to install. After that we can worry about planes. People bring up all sorts of problems as if the first 80% of CO2 savings and reduced dependency on crappy oil sources aren't worth having. Plus all sorts of short airplane travel should be replaced by well connected high speed trains anyway.
3
aldur1 3 days ago +5
Let's say such a corridor exists, why would private oil producers sell to Europe exclusively not on the open market where they can fetch the best price?
5
CaptainCanuck93 2 days ago
A couple avenues 1) Re-establish a crown corporation oil/LNG producer on currently untapped oil sands capacity 2) Private firms sell contracts *all the time* rather than sell at spot. If Europe offers a competitive price in exchange for stability of supply private firms will line up for it
0
EstablishmentFull797 2 days ago +1
“employ icebreakers during the winter.” Check your math
1
razordreamz 1 day ago +1
We can export bitumen but we don’t really have the refining capacity as far as I understand.
1
prairie_buyer 3 days ago -6
The problem is that Canada has a Prime Minister that deeply, genuinely believes in “net zero” (yes I’ve read the book he wrote; have you?).  There is nothing in his life history, or his actions since taking office that would lead any reasonable person to believe that he actually intends to ramp up Canadian oil and gas exports in any meaningful way.  In fact, his granting veto power to first nations groups, makes it even more difficult to get any major project done. Canada should be dropping the West Coast tanker ban, adding pipeline capacity, and building a major refinery so that we can add value to our own oil rather than selling it at a d******* to the US. But none of this will happen as long as Carney is Prime Minister, and BC and Quebec have premieres so vehemently opposed to oil and gas expansion
-6
Evil_Eg 3 days ago +5
Remind me! 6 weeks
5
takesthebiscuit 3 days ago +6
Don’t worry the same story will be reposted every day for 6 weeks
6
beshi7 3 days ago +2
Then Russia will invade it's all part of trump's great plan , to have one leader in Europe
2
Hirork 2 days ago +5
How much does Europe usually have on hand? I keep seeing this headline and my critical thinking keeps kicking in to ask, is this just fear mongering by the press? Oh there's an oil crisis how much does everyone have? Oh 6 weeks worth, that doesn't sound like a lot, let's tell everyone to panic that'll get us some clicks. It's not even about us not having enough for critical needs, just some people will get their holidays cancelled and refunded or covered by insurance so that we have enough to cover critical uses.
5
ShameNap 2 days ago +3
Well Trump already won the war so there’s nothing to worry about.
3
vessel_for_the_soul 2 days ago +3
wow, i wonder how this could have been avoided.
3
Ancient-Bat1755 3 days ago +2
Time to buy the dip on rolls royce if it happens to tank below $1 again?
2
SimicAscendancy 2 days ago +3
Honest question, why specifically Rolls Royce?
3
Ancient-Bat1755 2 days ago +4
They make a lot of airplane engines, with amazing testing on future fuels like hydrogen or green saf etc. they also develop other future tech like SMR nuclear, fuel cells etc. When covid hit, their payment model was (maybe is?) based on flight hour serving contracts, which crashed their stock hard to the point Uk bailed them out with a golden share. Its now $16 or so and was $0.60 a few years ago during covid. I got a new roof and a $6k tax bill for selling it, but changed family life for the better.
4
Grizzybaby1985 3 days ago +2
And that’s when America and Russia will strike!
2
Nathan-Stubblefield 2 days ago +2
How many jet flights are essential and how many are recreational?
2
nbx909 2 days ago +2
There goes my trip to Europe for the first time… planned to fly out in 6 weeks :/
2
p3t3y5 2 days ago +6
Let's all remember, this is the fault of 70% of the American public, not just one idiot.
6
MeowMeowImACowww 2 days ago +3
How did you reach to 70%? He got ~77 million votes and the US has ~340 million people.
3
sorrison 2 days ago +6
1/3 of their population didn’t vote and they could have.
6
skarfbeaulonee 2 days ago +2
Only an estimated 240 million are eligible to vote in the U.S.A. and of those 77 million voted for Trump and 75 million for Harris. That leaves about 88 million who didn't vote or register to vote even though they were eligible to. So in total, it's just shy of 70% of eligible voters, or roughly 48% of the total population, who bear responsibility for placing Trump into power for a second term.
2
MillionToOneShotDoc 2 days ago +2
Yeah, well it was also the second highest eligible voter turnout since 1900. Generalized apathy is to be expected in US elections and wasn’t the key reason Trump won. https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_presidential_elections,_1840-2024
2
skarfbeaulonee 1 day ago +1
Great point. We can't blame the triumph of evil on good men doing nothing.
1
iamapizza 2 days ago +1
Tbh I don't care for the distinction. To me it's the American public. Just as the average American wouldn't distinguish the internal politics of our own countries. 
1
veryboredatwork 2 days ago +3
I suggest they cancel all flights to America…. make a big saving in fuel, keep domestic inter Europe flights
3
BassyTobe 3 days ago +1
Train it is then!
1
MikeSteamer 3 days ago +1
Maybe consider throttling flights now, 95% load factors etc
1
gotfcgo 3 days ago +1
So nobody in Europe can fly to the world cup?  Lol
1
JeelyPiece 3 days ago +1
They can work from home
1
iliketea_001 3 days ago +1
I already booked my Interrail tickets for this summer vacation. I traveled by train last summer as well.
1
Fragrant-Ad3040 2 days ago +1
Is anyone else calling absolute bullshit and just insider scaremongering to inflate pricing 🤷‍♂️
1
Ultra_Metal 2 days ago +1
Europe can buy jet fuel from many countries that are not in the Persian Gulf. If they run out, it's due to their leaders' incompetence and mismanagement.
1
Express_Grocery_4707 2 days ago
Flights are already being cut
0
Winter_Criticism_236 3 days ago -9
Yet Europe only gets about 5% of its oil via straits of Hormuz.. Listnook fluff
-9
Balfe 3 days ago +11
Classic Listnook response where some dude assumes he knows more than a European energy expert. You are fundamentally wrong. First, Europe gets about 75% of its jet fuel from the Middle East. And even if that wasn't the case, Europe is now competing with other markets, particularly in Asia, for a reduced and more expensive supply, due primarily to the idiocy of Donald Trump.
11
Winter_Criticism_236 3 days ago
You'r the dude that thinks he knows.. Europe imports crude oil and makes/refines most of its own jet fuel, thus for Europe to run out crude oil from Norway, UK and USA would need to stop flowing. Europe actually makes so much jet fuel they export some of it.
0
Balfe 2 days ago +2
I understand what you mean but it's largely irrelevant. Europe does import crude, it does refine a lot of its own jet fuel and some countries like Spain and others can export at times - but none of this proves your point. Europe is not self sufficient and cannot produce enough to meet demand consistently and therefore imports large volumes every day. These imports keep the entire system functional. It's incorrect to say that Norway, UK and USA would need to stop flowing to cause a shortage, as you just need imports to fall below the required levels to impact the balance. Even a partial disruption would create shortages over a period of weeks, and Europe imports 75% of its shortfall from the Gulf. Even if you factor in a surplus from countries like Spain, others like the UK heavily import and Europe is therefore net short in key products. Local exports does not mean a system-wide surplus.
2
Carbonga 3 days ago -6
Let's hope so. Less flying is a good thing.
-6
Additional_Quiet2600 3 days ago +3
Are you kidding me? Sure it would be great for the environment but it would destroy economies.
3
Carbonga 3 days ago -2
If unnecessary air travel was cut to a minimum, I could only see upsides. Just today, my wife was invited to join a two-half-day meeting in Toronto. We're in Munich. This is insane and has to stop.
-2
Additional_Quiet2600 3 days ago +1
You do realize cargo and mail use jet fuel to transport right?
1
Carbonga 2 days ago +3
Well, focus jet fuel on that use then.
3
Additional_Quiet2600 2 days ago +1
People need to travel for several reasons that aren't business based. Ever had a sick relative? Your solution just doesn't work in the modern world. Too many variables where it is necessary. Also, it would destroy a lot of businesses and lead to massive job loss. We are kinda stuck with it for a while until we make EV aircraft run on renewables or nuclear.
1
← Back to Board