boosts

The price for a barrel of Brent crude oil for October delivery lost 5.16% to $83.39 a barrel, while US crude, or WTI, futures for September delivery declined nearly 6% to $79.66 per barrel.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Crude declined after US President Donald Trump said fresh talks with Iran would begin later in the day, easing concerns over potential supply disruptions. Additional downward pressure came after Saudi Arabia, Russia and five other key members of OPEC+ agreed in an online meeting on Sunday to boost oil production by 188,000 barrels a day from September, against a backdrop of disruption caused by the Middle East conflict.

“The seven participating countries decided to implement a production adjustment of 188 thousand barrels per day,” they said in a joint statement.

The increase, decided by the key countries in the enlarged Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, was widely expected by analysts.

“OPEC+ has finished unwinding its voluntary cuts. The next challenge is managing the surplus that could emerge as export flows normalise,” Jorge Leon, analyst at Rystad Energy, said.

He warned, however, that the decision “changes little in the near term because (the Strait of) Hormuz remains constrained. The real market impact will come when normal export flows resume.”

The Gulf countries have struggled to increase exports due to the near-paralysis of the Strait of Hormuz orchestrated by Iran during the war in the Middle East – despite a brief upswing in shipping traffic after a US-Iran memorandum of understanding was signed in June.

Many OPEC+ members cannot produce as much oil as their official targets allow due to a “decline in production capacity”, so increasing targets has become less meaningful, Giovanni Staunovo, an analyst at UBS, said.

Future pause foreseen

The September increase, agreed by OPEC+ countries Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman, completes the unwinding of the second of the three production-cut packages introduced by organisation.

“Having completed the restoration campaign, OPEC+ has little incentive to rush into further supply changes. Our base case is a fourth-quarter pause while the group prepares for the 2027 quota negotiations,” Rystad Energy’s Leon said.

“For now, geopolitics is masking the scale of the supply increase. That will become much clearer once export flows normalise,” he added.

It remains unclear when the group will actually be able to increase its oil volumes. Some member countries, such as Iraq, have expressed a desire to significantly boost production.

Russia, though, is confronted with repeated Ukrainian drone attacks on its oil infrastructure that have crimped production, currently hovering around nine million barrels per day – compared with a target of 9.8 million barrels per day.

OPEC+ “faces potentially difficult talks over new production quotas” starting next year following the September increase, according to analysts at DNB Carnegie.

Between late 2022 and 2023, OPEC+ became concerned that oil prices were falling, and agreed to cut oil production in three separate rounds, reducing total output by nearly six million barrels per day.

But Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Oman and the United Arab Emirates – before the latter’s exit from the group on May 1 – then changed their strategy by gradually upping production starting in 2025.

“I don’t think cohesion is at risk at this very moment,” Leon said, warning, however, that the UAE’s withdrawal from the group in May has highlighted a weakness in this area.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to eliminate a foundational safety principle that has for 50 years minimized the radiation people in the United States are exposed to and that has been adopted around the world.

Currently, facilities such as nuclear plants, hospitals or academic institutions that use radioactive materials must ensure radiation exposures are kept “as low as reasonably achievable” — the ALARA principle. The NRC proposal would abandon that philosophy while keeping a separate standard on maximum radiation exposure.

The two standards have worked together in radiation safety. Dose limits set the maximum amount of radiation the public and radiation workers can be exposed to, while ALARA kept radiation exposure as low as practical under those limits. Research shows radiation exposure increases a person’s chance of getting cancer, a risk that increases as the dose increases.

The dose limits are not changing. But the NRC, which regulates civilian nuclear energy technologies and radioactive materials, now wants to replace ALARA with a “graded approach” that includes several actions facilities must take depending on the potential dose of radiation to workers. More rigorous radiation protection measures would be required when approaching dose limits to ensure they aren’t exceeded.

This comes as President Trump attempts to quadruple domestic nuclear energy production because of surging electricity demand amid a data center and artificial intelligence boom. Reforming the NRC is one way Trump is trying to speed up nuclear reactor development. He instructed the federal agency in an executive order last year to “adopt science-based radiation limits.”

The Energy Department, which oversees national energy policies, has already stopped using ALARA. The NRC expects to finalize its radiation protection regulations in the coming months.

NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said the commission is not lowering the bar on safety.

“We’re just removing the ambiguity,” he said in a call with reporters. “But the standard for exposure to workers and the public, those are not changing. We’re just putting in place greater clarification.”

Nieh doesn’t expect major changes within the nation’s existing fleet of large, traditional reactors. But companies designing and building new, smaller reactors could move faster with a clearer picture of the radiation protection requirements, he said.

Could radiation doses creep higher?

The NRC said radiation exposure limits are set well below levels associated with health effects, and it expects remaining standards and industry practices to keep radiation doses far below the limits. There’s incentive to do so — it’s more expensive and time-consuming to work in areas with higher radiation because access must be restricted and more surveys are required.

The nuclear industry’s trade association agrees with the NRC.

“We will always continue to look at what can we do to reduce the dose to workers, and maintain our doses to the off-site public as low as possible,” said Doug True, chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute. “It’s not like we’re just going to throw open the doors and let everything run up to the limits.”

ALARA created a “moving target” for regulation, said Justin Friedman, a nuclear energy consultant who previously spent three decades at the U.S. Department of State. Getting rid of the rule would allow NRC scientists to make more rational decisions about appropriate levels of manageable risk, he added.

Some experts question cutting ALARA

Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, cautions that some parts of the NRC proposal could raise permissible radiation doses in certain cases, while still staying below the cap. Lyman highlighted a proposed revision to radionuclide emissions standards, in particular.

Radiation exposure to the general public is limited to 100 millirem per year. A typical dose of radiation from a chest X-ray is 10 millirem.

The NRC wants to increase its radionuclide emissions standards from a conservative, 10 millirem per year dose to 25 millirem per year, based on a hypothetical person living in a house at the property line for a nuclear plant.

The NRC says actual doses to the public would remain far lower because, in reality, people live farther from nuclear sites and benefit from dispersion in air and water.

The NRC should improve, rather than eliminate, ALARA, Lyman said, to protect the public and workers. ALARA has become a political target because some people mistakenly believe radiation exposures have to be as low as possible no matter the cost, Lyman said. In reality, it allows trade-offs.

Katy Huff, a former U.S. assistant secretary for nuclear energy, said in some cases, the requirement may be challenging to regulate. Additional clarity would improve the regulatory environment without harming the public, added Huff, a professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

However, Huff said, she thought the NRC was going to clarify what “reasonably” means in ALARA without scrapping it. She said she’s open to being convinced the graded approach will be just as effective.

One expert sees a mixed bag

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, chartered by Congress to provide independent scientific guidance, has not formally weighed in yet. Council President Kathryn Higley said she likes some things in the 180-page document but thinks others are problematic.

The NRC should look at the whole picture for managing risk, she said. For instance, if a worker at a nuclear power plant were to enter an area where airborne radioactive materials are present, in keeping with ALARA, they might wear full personal protective equipment with respirators, said Higley, professor emeritus at Oregon State University. That makes them move slower, potentially subjecting them to heat stress that could hurt them more than a low dose of radioactivity, she said.

A concern with the proposal, Higley said, is that it maintains the current occupational dose limit for adult radiation workers at 5 rem, or 5,000 millirem, per year. With ALARA in place, the average dose to workers has been well below that cap.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends an occupational dose of 2 rem per year on average. The NRC previously found it wasn’t justified to match that, because workers were exposed to less than that and changing regulations is costly.

Higley said the U.S. may need to align with the international community if ALARA is going away.

McDermott writes for the Associated Press.

China has raised its purchases of oil from the Middle East in recent days, with deep discounts offered by its main supplier Saudi Arabia expected to further boost its buying, the Financial Times reported Monday.

China bought at least 26M

After months of tension over the Iran war, markets finally got something to feel good about. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Beijing on May 14 and agreed the Strait of Hormuz “must remain open,” along with a shared stance that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon.” Easing tensions in the Middle East usually means one thing for crypto: risk-on sentiment comes back.

That’s why the search for the best crypto to buy now is heating up again. This article looks at three picks worth a closer look while the mood is shifting: Poly Truth ($PTRUE), Meme Punch ($MEPU), and Bittensor (TAO).

Why the Trump-Xi Meeting Matters for Crypto

Approximately one-fifth of all oil shipments worldwide pass through the Strait of Hormuz. When it’s in danger, markets become anxious, oil prices increase, and inflation pressure increases. The opposite happens when it’s safe. Money often returns to more volatile investments, such as cryptocurrency.

That is the change that is currently beginning to take shape. The direction has shifted, but the war is still ongoing and the ceasefire is still unstable. Generally speaking, markets are more interested in future trends than current conditions.

Therefore, it makes sense that more buyers are considering cryptocurrency once more. Also, smaller picks usually move first when the mood improves.

Best Crypto to Buy Now in 2026

1. Poly Truth ($PTRUE)

Check polytruth.io for live numbers.

2. Meme Punch ($MEPU)

Check memepunch.io for the current presale price and staking APY.

3. Bittensor (TAO)

The price action tells a useful story. TAO spent most of April trading sideways between $240 and $255 while markets digested the Iran war and the fragile ceasefire. Then, in early May, the breakout came. TAO climbed to around $326 on May 10 and now sits near $306, up over 20% in a month.

It’s a clear example of what happens when tensions decrease. Capital flows back into infrastructure plays, and AI is one of the strongest narratives going.

What to Watch Next

• The Israel-Lebanon talks: New peace talks kicked off in Washington this week. A real deal would push sentiment further into risk-on territory.
• The ceasefire holding: The Iran ceasefire has been in place since April 8, but it’s fragile. Any breakdown would pull money back to safety fast.
• US-China follow-through: The Trump-Xi meeting was a positive signal, but the real test is what gets done in the weeks after.
• ETF flows: Spot ETFs for AI tokens like TAO are pending. Approvals or strong inflows would add fuel to the AI narrative.

Conclusion

If you’re looking at the best crypto to buy now, the three picks above cover different angles. Poly Truth ($PTRUE) for the AI tool with a real use case. Meme Punch ($MEPU) for the meme coin you can actually play. Bittensor (TAO) for the established AI infrastructure pick is already moving on the news.

Take a look, read up on each, and only put in what you’re okay risking.

FAQ’s

Which cryptocurrency is best to invest now?

What is the best buy in crypto right now?

What crypto under $1 will explode?

Which crypto has 1000x potential?