You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


The eastern Mediterranean basin could replace depleting North Sea reserves on international markets, Israel’s energy minister tells Petroleum Economist. But it may struggle to find markets for its gas

You have 1 free article remaining

After years of closing its waters to foreign exploration Israel is sending a clear message that its offshore is open for business. It wants to position itself as a key gas supplier to the eastern Mediterranean and continental Europe.

In August the country launched its first offshore licensing round in the hope of luring investors into its waters.

There are 24 blocks on offer in the Levant Basin, in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The blocks vary in size, up to 400 sq km and sit in water depths of between 1,500-1,800 metres. The bidding round closes at the end of March 2017.

"Over the next few months we’re going to offer our economic water for new exploration and discoveries,” Dr Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s energy minister, told Petroleum Economist. “In a few years the North Sea will be replaced by the eastern seas.”

Israel wants to export gas from the Leviathan field in the Levant Basin to Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Palestine and Europe.

Steinitz said that the delay in developing the 22 trillion cubic feet Leviathan field, discovered in 2010, has cost Israel tens of billions of shekels in lost revenues.

Attractive terms

Royalties are set at 12.5%, companies can bid for any number of blocks but awards are capped at eight and licenses will be for an initial three-year term with the option to extend every year up to a total of seven years.

Jim Thomas, an analyst at IHS Markit, said the terms on offer are ‘better than or equivalent’ to their neighbours’.

“The sense of urgency here is very much apparent,” Thomas told an Israeli gas investment forum in London.

But investors may be put off by previous political squabbles within Israel.

In 2013 the government proposed capping gas exports at 40% of reserves, or around 34 trillion cf. Critics said that the limit would curb international oil companies' appetite for exploration in Israel's offshore.

The country introduced new regulations in 2015 for the development of offshore reserves in a bid to end years of upstream uncertainty.

In September last year the Israeli parliament finally gave the green light to a framework regulation designed to encourage the development of offshore reserves, with a US-Israeli consortium given the go-ahead to develop the Leviathan gas field.

"A year ago when I became energy minister I said enough is enough and this is high time to conclude the debate and offer a clear, unified policy,” Steinitz said. “Israel is back in business after a few years off. It’s not enough to have a lot of potential. It’s my job to make Israel very attractive for investors.”

Steinitz said the government will reserve around 540bn cubic metres (19 trillion cf) of domestically produced gas for the domestic market over the next 30 or 35 years. That's more than enough to meet domestic demand and means that output from existing discoveries alone will allow for about 300-350bn cm exports, perhaps even more.

If Israel does manage to lure foreign investors to bid for blocks in the upcoming licensing round, the country will face much bigger challenges finding markets for its gas.

New projects are not likely to be sanctioned in the midst of a global gas glut, low prices and sluggish demand. The country is relying on gas demand in its target export markets skyrocketing over the next two decades to boost prices and justify new projects being sanctioned.

"We’re thinking about the next step in 20 or 30 years. The current low gas prices are not necessarily relevant in terms of longer-term investments,” Steinitz said. "Over the next three decades the world will need more and more natural gas."

Steinitz said gas demand in both Turkey and Egypt is expected to double over the next decade, to around 100bn cm per year.

But consumption in Europe – one of Israel’s key target export markets – has fallen over the past two years and prices remain depressed.

Europe's financial woes during the global financial crisis, a resurgence of coal and confusing government energy policies have all helped to depress its demand for natural gas over the past decade.

Last year the continent consumed 903.1m tonnes of oil equivalent of natural gas, according to Cedigaz. That’s down from the 984.2m toe the continent consumed in 2005.

Israel will face stiff competition for a share of Europe’s supply market from Russia, Qatar and now the US.Steinitz said that over the longer term demand and prices will pick up and Europe in particular will welcome an alternative supply source to Russia.

"In around ten years there will be very serious the depletion of the North Sea and I can tell you that the European Energy commissioner, who I have already met, sees the eastern Mediterranean basin as some kind of replacement to it,” Steinitz said. “Of course you’ll have gas from Russia, from Qatar or the US but our region and Europe will need to consume more, and would like to diversify reliable sources of natural gas supplied with pipes through the eastern Mediterranean."