"Words Can’t Reshape Physical Reality" – A Blunt Conversation with Energy Writer Irina Slav

Irina Slav

I can't recall when I first discovered the Bulgarian freelance energy journalist Irina Slav, but from the start I was captured, not simply by her years of experience writing about oil, gas, mining and geopolitics, but also by her wit and her courage to put it all out there regarding the realities of our current energy issues. Her writing is never dry, and routinely downright fun; a contrarian grounded in facts that force you to confront what is really going on. 

In short, she seems to enjoy telling truths many seem unable to see because they've been swept away in a fifty year flood of media mischief and misinformation. 

 

So without further adieu, I am pleased to introduce you to Irina Slav.

 

EN: I admire your courage and the "let the chips fall where they may" attitude you write with. How long have you been writing and how did you "find your voice" as a writer?

IS: If we’re talking professional writing, that started about 15 years ago, but I’d been writing fiction since my teens. I think that helped train my writing “muscles” for any topic, fictional or factual.

As for finding my voice, that happened gradually, as I gained experience and realized there was no point in being polite and worrying about what people would think. I honestly no longer care about offending anyone with hard facts. They are there, whether anyone likes them or not.

EN: Have you always written about energy issues? What was your background and what drew you to write about this important topic?

IS: My academic background is in English literature and linguistics. My professional life began with translations, while I was still at university. After graduating, I spent a couple of years at a daily newspaper where I mostly translated articles but once got so excited about the topic of peak oil (yes, I believed it was coming) that I volunteered to produce my very own feature article. I think we still have the paper edition with that article.

After I left the paper (because the owner, who was a politician, asked me if I wanted to run for the European Parliament as a party candidate and I said “Hell, no”) I started work at a news agency where I was assigned coverage of Russia’s and Central Asia’s energy and mining industries. I discovered oil and gas are a fascinating topic and started reading up on it, on extraction, pipelines, refineries, the lot.

Following my decision to go freelance I had a major stroke of luck when an editor for Oilprice contacted me and offered me a daily engagement. The rest, excuse the cliché, is history. I still find oil and gas production fascinating and hugely underappreciated as the most essential industry for modern civilization. This doesn’t mean I love Big Oil or some such nonsense but I do have a deep appreciation for the people who extract hydrocarbons from the ground.

EN: You’ve spent nearly two decades covering Russian and Central Asian oil and gas before broadening out to global energy markets. Looking back, what’s the biggest misconception you’ve seen policymakers or investors hold about energy security—and how has the last few years of conflict and market chaos either validated or upended that view?

IS: The most destructive, delayed-action, misconception was the belief that globalizing supply chains would work swimmingly and it’s perfectly okay to outsource all the heavy industries to Asia to focus on the “post-industrial” economy. We’ve all seen how well that’s worked.

More generally, the assumption that words can shape physical reality has wrought havoc in the West, whether it’s about energy or geopolitics. We are now reaping what the reality shapers sowed.

EN: In your writing, you’ve highlighted “stranded transition assets” and grid integration failures for renewables, even as banks like Barclays now acknowledge the risks. Do you see the current energy crunch—driven by geopolitics, AI demand, and defense needs—as the moment when the renewables-heavy transition narrative finally cracks, or is the political momentum still too strong to reverse course?

Click to Enlarge

IS: The narrative has been cracking for a while now but the net-zero fan lobby is still very strong and loud, especially in political circles. I think the momentum is too strong for politicians to admit they were wrong about it. The current energy crisis is not helping – it just made wind and solar make sense because they are – and how I hate the word – “homegrown”. They aren’t really but nobody cares about that. I fear we’ll have to witness an actual collapse before we come to our collective senses.

EN: You’ve been blunt about EU policies like the ETS, the 2035 ICE car ban (and its green steel workaround), and methane rule “flexibilities.” From your perspective in Bulgaria, what’s the single biggest disconnect between Brussels’ decarbonization targets and the day-to-day reality of energy supply and industrial competitiveness in Europe?

IS: The biggest disconnect is in priorities. Brussels keeps harping on about “clean” energy while everyone else wants mostly cheap and reliable energy.

EN: Your recent posts have touched on blackouts, demand destruction, negative electricity prices, and the quiet return of gas-fired power in places like Spain. What practical lessons from these real-world failures do you think the energy industry and governments still refuse to learn—especially when it comes to baseload power versus intermittent sources?

IS: What governments appear incapable of comprehending is the fact that it is not okay to have a grid dominated by intermittents. Having some is fine, no problem with rooftop solar and some bigger installations in factory yards but having solar and wind make up a substantial, let alone, larger than half, portion of the energy mix is a bit risky.

EN: You’ve written about parallel realities in energy—one physical and one fabricated by analysts and financiers. With oil prices swinging on tweets, record U.S. exports, and surging Chinese “clean energy component” shipments to Europe,  do you see the biggest risks (or opportunities) in the next 12–24 months for both traditional hydrocarbons and the so-called transition technologies?

IS: I think it’s pretty clear by now that hydrocarbons will be in short supply in the coming months. Just how long these shortages will last depends on when the war in the Middle East ends and the outlook doesn’t seem very good right now. So, the risk is shortage, which, I guess, would be an opportunity for those who can source oil and gas and sell them to energy-thirsty countries.

As for transition technologies, the fans will double and triple down, claiming they are safer than oil and gas imports. The problem is those technologies are also largely imported and they will become more expensive, too – energy inflation touches everything. So I think there will be some more rude awakening in the “clean energy” space. 

EN: After covering this beat for 15–20 years and living through events like the recent Bulgarian blackout, what’s one piece of advice you’d give to younger journalists, investors, or even ordinary citizens trying to cut through the noise on energy and geopolitics—especially when official narratives keep colliding with physics and economics?

IS: The one advice I would give is “Check if two plus two makes four. If the news says it doesn’t, then the news is false.” It’s a simple thing to do but not easy. A lot of people would rather stick with the false news for comfort, even if they end up paying dearly for that comfort down the line. Those who are not satisfied with “the noise” ask questions. They also buy generators for backup.

Check out her Substack, Irina Slav on energy