Oil Updates — crude set for 2nd weekly decline as market eyes another OPEC+ output hike
BEIJING/SINGAPORE: Oil prices were on track for a second consecutive weekly decline on Friday, weighed down by expectations of another OPEC+ output hike in July and fresh uncertainty after the latest legal twist kept US President Donald Trump's tariffs in place.
Brent crude futures slipped 31 cents, or 0.48 percent, to $63.84 a barrel by 7:24 a.m. Saudi time. US West Texas Intermediate crude fell 31 cents, or 0.51 percent, to $60.63 a barrel.
The Brent July futures contract is due to expire on Friday.
Both contracts have fallen 1.5 percent so far this week.
The downward trajectory largely stemmed from the prospect of rising supplies as investors priced in another hike by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, a group known as OPEC+, when eight of its members meet on Saturday.
'The stage is set for another bumper production increase,' Westpac's head of commodity and carbon research Robert Rennie said in a note, potentially higher than the 411,000 barrels per day hike decided on at the previous two meetings.
The potential hike comes as the global surplus has widened to 2.2 million barrels per day, likely necessitating a price adjustment to prompt a supply-side response and restore balance, said JPMorgan analysts in a note.
They expect prices to remain within current ranges before easing into the high $50s by year-end.
In the US, Trump's tariffs were to remain in effect after a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated them on Thursday, reversing a trade court's decision on Wednesday to put an immediate block on the most sweeping of the duties.
The block had sent oil prices falling more than 1 percent on Thursday as traders weighed its effects. Analysts said uncertainty would remain as the tariff battles worked their way.
Oil prices have lost more than 10 percent since Trump announced his 'Liberation Day' tariffs on April 2.
On the demand front, recession worries fueled by the tariff war have clouded the outlook. Adding to US-China trade tension, Washington ordered a broad swathe of companies to stop shipping goods, including ethane and butane, to China without a license and revoked licenses already granted to certain suppliers.
Global oil demand improved from the previous week, driven by a rebound in US oil consumption with robust travel over the Memorial Day long weekend, JPMorgan analysts noted.
That said, the monthly expansion in global oil demand is tracking at approximately 400,000 bpd as of May 28, 250,000 bpd below expectations, they said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some difficulties
The US Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation - again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the US Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern US history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,' the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The US government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on US soil,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States.' A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' Mukherjee said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called 'Dreamers' - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on US soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' Johnson said.
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump's Advice to Macron: ‘Make Sure the Door Remains Closed'
US President Donald Trump said his advice for French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been shown on a video through an open plane door being pushed in the face by his wife, was "make sure the door remains closed." Asked about the incident by reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said he had spoken to Macron in the wake of the video that showed his wife, Brigitte, giving him a shove on their plane. Macron has shrugged off the incident as a moment of playfulness. "He's fine," Trump said of Macron.
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
India lost fighter jets in recent conflict with Pakistan, Indian defense chief confirms
SINGAPORE: India switched tactics after suffering losses in the air on the first day of conflict with Pakistan earlier this month and established a decisive advantage before the neighbors announced a ceasefire three days later, India's highest ranking general said on Saturday. The heaviest fighting in decades between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan was sparked by an April 22 attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 people, most of them tourists. New Delhi blamed the incident on 'terrorists' backed by Pakistan, a charge denied by Islamabad. On May 7, Indian jets bombed what New Delhi called 'terrorist infrastructure' sites across the border. Pakistan has said it downed six Indian planes, including at least three Rafale fighters, in the initial clashes. The ceasefire was announced on May 10 after bitter fighting in which both sides used fighter jets, missiles, drones and artillery. General Anil Chauhan, India's chief of defense staff, said in an interview that India suffered initial losses in the air, but declined to give details. 'What was important is, why did these losses occur, and what we'll do after that,' he told Reuters on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue security forum in Singapore, referring to the Pakistani claim of downing jets. 'So we rectified tactics and then went back on the 7th, 8th and 10th in large numbers to hit air bases deep inside Pakistan, penetrated all their air defenses with impunity, carried out precision strikes.' The Indian air force 'flew all types of aircraft with all types of ordinances on the 10th,' he said. India has previously said its missiles and drones struck at least eight Pakistani air bases across the country that day, including one near the capital Islamabad. The Pakistan military says that India did not fly its fighter jets again in the conflict after suffering losses on May 7. India's director general of air operations, Air Marshal A.K. Bharti, had told a press conference earlier in the month that 'losses are a part of combat' and that India had downed some Pakistani jets. Islamabad has denied it suffered any losses of planes but has acknowledged its air bases suffered some hits although losses were minimal. NO NUCLEAR WORRIES Some of the attacks were on bases near Pakistan's nuclear facilities, but they themselves were not targeted, media reports have said. 'Most of the strikes were delivered with pinpoint accuracy, some even to a meter, to whatever was our selected mean point of impact,' Chauhan said. Chauhan, and Pakistan's chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen. Sahir Shamshad Mirza, have both said there was no danger at any time during the conflict that nuclear weapons were considered. 'I think there's a lot of space before that nuclear threshold is crossed, a lot of signalling before that, I think nothing like that happened,' Chauhan said. 'There's a lot of space for conventional operations which has been created, and this will be the new norm. 'It's my personal view that the most rational people are people in uniform when conflict takes place,' he added. 'During this operation, I found both sides displaying a lot of rationality in their thoughts as well as actions. So why should we assume that in the nuclear domain there will be irrationality on someone else's part?' Chauhan also said that although Pakistan is closely allied with China, which borders India in the north and east, there was no sign of any actual help from Beijing during the conflict. 'While this was unfolding from (April) 22nd onwards, we didn't find any unusual activity in the operational or tactical depth of our northern borders, and things were generally all right.' Asked whether China may have provided any satellite imagery or other real-time intelligence to Pakistan during the conflict, Chauhan said such imagery was commercially available and could have been procured from China as well as other sources. He added that while hostilities had ceased, the Indian government had made it clear it would 'respond precisely and decisively should there be any further terror attacks emanating from Pakistan.' 'So that has its own dynamics as far the armed forces are concerned. It will require us to be prepared 24/7.'
