Most G7 members ready to lower Russian oil price cap without US
By Julia Payne and John Irish
BRUSSELS/PARIS (Reuters) -Most countries in the Group of Seven nations are prepared to go it alone and lower the G7 price cap on Russian oil even if U.S. President Donald Trump decides to opt out, four sources familiar with the matter said.
G7 country leaders are due to meet on June 15-17 in Canada where they will discuss the price cap first agreed in late 2022. The cap was designed to allow Russian oil to be sold to third countries using Western insurance services provided the price was no more than $60 a barrel.
The European Union and Britain have been pushing to lower the price for weeks after a fall in global oil prices made the current $60 cap nearly irrelevant.
The sources, who declined to be named, said the EU and Britain are ready to lead the charge and go it alone, backed by the other European G7 countries and Canada.
They said it is still unclear what the U.S. will decide, though the Europeans are pushing for a united decision at the meeting. Japan's position also remains uncertain, they said.
"There is a push among European countries to reduce the oil price cap to $45 from $60. There are positive signals from Canada, Britain and possibly the Japanese. We will use the G7 to try to get the U.S. on board," one of the sources said.
The White House had no immediate comment. During the G7 finance ministers meeting in the Canadian Rockies last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent remained unconvinced there was a need to lower the cap, according to sources.
However some U.S. Senators may endorse the idea, including Lindsay Graham, who in recent weeks told reporters he supports lowering the cap. Graham is pushing a hard-hitting new set of Russia sanctions that could impose steep tariffs on buyers of Russian oil.
The Canadian foreign ministry was not immediately available for comment.
The EU has proposed lowering the price to $45 a barrel in its latest 18th package of sanctions. The package must have unanimity from member states in order for it to be adopted, which could take several weeks.
Russia's largest export grade, Urals, trades at around a $10 a barrel discount to the Dated Brent benchmark out of Baltic ports. Brent futures have been trading below $70 a barrel since early April.
Sources said Washington's buy-in was not essential to lower the cap owing to Britain's dominance in global shipping insurance, and the EU's influence on the Western rules-abiding tanker fleet.
The U.S., however, does matter when it comes to dollar-denominated payments for oil and its banking system.
The EU and its Western allies have been progressively cracking down on Russia's shadow fleet of tankers and related actors, which work to circumvent the cap.
The pressure has started to hurt Moscow's revenues and Western allies hope this will push more of the oil trade back under the cap. Russia's state-owned oil producer Rosneft reported a 14.4% slump in profits last year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Only one thing matters now for Israel
The storm was predicted for so long that many believed it would never break. Now, at last, Israel has launched an all-out attack on Iran – designed, above all, to destroy the Islamic Republic's ability to build a nuclear weapon. So do not be distracted by the killing of generals or the bombing of missile factories. In normal times, Israel decapitating Iran's entire high command in one night, which appears to have happened, would be an astonishing development. But these are not normal times. Now all that matters is how much damage Israel can inflict on three vital plants at the core of Iran's nuclear industry – Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan. Credit: Reuters The first two are where Iran enriches uranium, potentially to weapons grade. In Isfahan, raw uranium is converted into gas prior to being fed into centrifuges for enrichment. If Israel can wreck all three of these installations, it will tear out the 'heart of Iran's nuclear programme', to use Benjamin Netanyahu's phrase, and block its enemy's path to the ultimate weapon. So far, Israel appears to have struck Natanz but not Isfahan or Fordow. The latter is by far the toughest target – an enrichment facility dug into a mountain, beneath hundreds of feet of rock and earth, where centrifuges are already producing uranium at 60 per cent purity, barely a hair's breadth from weapons grade. Conventional wisdom holds that only the heaviest bunker-busting bombs of the US Air Force could destroy Fordow, while Israel's weapons would only cause superficial damage. The great risk for Mr Netanyahu is that when the smoke clears and Operation Rising Lion, the codename of this campaign, is over, Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan will be reparable in a matter of months or even weeks. If so, he will have achieved nothing but a short delay in Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. And you can be sure that Iran's leaders – if they are still in power when this ends – will immediately dash for a bomb. But Israel has been preparing for this operation for 20 years, and it does not lack military ingenuity. Few believed that Mossad and the Israeli air force could cripple Hezbollah by wiping out the Lebanese terror group's entire leadership and thousands of rank and file personnel in the space of a few weeks – yet exactly that happened last year. It never pays to underestimate Israel's capabilities or assume that its air force, which specialises in destroying underground targets, could only knock dents in Fordow. The enrichment halls of the much larger facility at Natanz are also found in subterranean bunkers, but at least they do not sit beneath a mountain. Meanwhile, the uranium conversion facility outside Isfahan is partially below ground level, though not as deeply buried as Fordow. Whether Israel can utterly destroy – or merely damage – all three of these plants will determine whether Mr Netanyahu achieves anything more than briefly delaying Iran's nuclear ambitions. Do not underestimate the stakes of his monumental gamble. He is doing something that no previous Israeli prime minister, including himself at earlier stages of his career, would have seriously considered. He is launching an all-out strike on Iran without American backing and against the open opposition of Israel's new friends in the Gulf and its old ones in Europe. The cautious Mr Netanyahu of earlier years – a master of delivering incendiary rhetoric and of pulling back from the brink – would never have dared take such a colossal risk. The new, bolder Mr Netanyahu of today is clearly contemptuous of his allies, even of the US under Donald Trump. He is supremely confident of Israel's military prowess, and believes the destruction of Hezbollah and of much of Iran's missile arsenal last year gravely weakened his enemy's ability to retaliate. Now he is determined to go for broke, as if acting on the verse of the first Duke of Montrose: 'Like Alexander I will reign, and I will reign alone. My thoughts shall evermore disdain a rival on my throne. He either fears his fate too much, or his deserts are small, that puts it not unto the touch, to win or lose it all.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israelis calm as Iranian retaliatory attacks loom
By Alexander Cornwell TEL AVIV (Reuters) -The streets of Tel Aviv were calm on Friday morning, even as the country's leaders warned the public to brace for Iranian retaliation after Israel launched a widescale attack on Iran. The military closed schools nationwide and banned public gatherings, cancelling the annual Tel Aviv Pride parade, which normally attracts tens of thousands of revellers to the city. "We've already been in this scenario twice," said 31-year-old Uri, sitting on a bench outside a supermarket, questioning whether to open his restaurant or have to throw out the day's food. "I don't really care, honestly. I'll just go to a shelter and I'll be okay," he said, when asked whether he had any concerns about his own safety. Iran fired hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel in two attacks last year in response to Israeli strikes, rattling the Israeli public but causing only modest damage. Tehran has vowed retaliation for Israel's early morning attack on Friday on Iranian military and nuclear facilities that killed several top commanders. Israel said it was working to intercept 100 drones that were launched by Iran, but had not reached Israel. The Israeli public has been told to be prepared to spend long hours in bomb shelters, with the government warning that it would be carrying out a prolonged attack against its arch foe. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, invoked the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust during World War Two to justify his decision to attack Iran, framing the strikes as a decisive step to protect Israel from a future existential threat. Over the past year, Israel has openly clashed with Tehran, firing rocket salvos deep into Iran. After militant group Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israeli communities in October 2023, Israel dismantled many of Iran's allies, including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. "Iran? That's the first place we need to attack if you ask me," said Aviv, 38, adding he hoped the strikes would lead to the release of 53 mostly Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. In Gaza, which has been reduced to a wasteland by Israel's devastating campaign, some hoped that the strike on Iran might pave the way for an end to the war in the coastal enclave. "We hope that this time the Iranians will push for a comprehensive solution," said Abu Abdallah, a Palestinian businessman displaced to the south of Gaza. STOCKING UP Across Israel, supermarkets and some cafes remained open, although some businesses chose to keep their doors shuttered. Shoppers stocked up on food and bottled water, prompting long queues at checkouts. "My fridge is empty," said 41-year-old Noha as she made her way to a supermarket. The mother of two said she was due to celebrate their wedding anniversary with her husband at a hotel. Noha said she was worried about the severity of any potential retaliatory strike, adding that people were asking whether the bomb shelters in their apartment buildings would be strong enough to withstand it, or if it might be safer to seek refuge underground. The strike on Iran comes as Netanyahu's right-wing coalition has faced growing domestic and international pressure over the Gaza war, now in its 21st month. "The way the government is handling things is horrible," Noha said, adding that she condemned the decision to strike Iran, fearing that it will put the country in further danger. "Because I feel like we have reached the top end of the scale, like this is serious this time. It feels like okay, they have nothing to lose," she said. In Jerusalem, others expressed support for the decision. "I am very happy for this. We were waiting for this," said 66-year-old Oral Liral. "Am Yisrael Chai. We are strong. We will be here. It's our country," she said, using a Hebrew expression of perseverance that means "the people of Israel live".
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -Since President Donald Trump returned to office in January, his administration has bombarded the U.S. Supreme Court with emergency requests seeking immediate intervention to free up his initiatives stymied by lower courts. The strategy is paying off. Once a rarely used pathway to the nation's top judicial body, its emergency docket now bulges with an unprecedented volume of requests for rapid attention by the justices in clashes over Trump's far-reaching executive actions. As the Republican president tests the limits of executive power under the U.S. Constitution, Trump's administration has made 19 emergency applications to the court in less than five months, with one other such application filed by lawyers for migrants held in Texas who were on the verge of deportation. The court already has acted in 13 of these cases. It has ruled in Trump's favor nine times, partially in his favor once, against him twice and postponed action in one case that ultimately was declared moot. Trump's wins have given him the green light to implement contentious policies while litigation challenging their legality continues in lower courts. The court, for instance, let Trump revoke the temporary legal status granted for humanitarian reasons to hundreds of thousands of migrants, implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military and take actions to downsize the federal workforce, among other policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justice who Trump appointed during his 2017-2021 first presidential term. Six more emergency requests by the administration remain pending at the court and one other emergency request was withdrawn. Among the requests still to be acted upon are Trump's bid to broadly enforce his order to restrict birthright citizenship, to deport migrants to countries other than their own including politically unstable South Sudan and to proceed with mass federal layoffs called "reductions in force." Emergency applications to the court involving Trump policies have averaged about one per week since he began his second term. His administration's applications this year match the total brought during Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden's four years as president. "The Trump administration uses every legal basis at its disposal to implement the agenda the American people voted for," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told Reuters. "The Supreme Court will continue to have to step in to correct erroneous legal rulings that district court judges enter solely to block the president's policies." 'STRONG CASES' The administration has "not sought Supreme Court review in all the cases it could, and part of the story may be that the government is appealing what it thinks are strong cases for it," said Sarah Konsky, director of the University of Chicago Law School's Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic. Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck, who wrote a book about the court's emergency docket, said in a blog post on Thursday that the results favoring Trump should not be attributed only to the court's ideological makeup. At a time when Trump and his allies have verbally attacked judges who have impeded aspects of his sweeping agenda, there is a "very real possibility that at least some of the justices ... are worried about how much capital they have to expend in confrontations with President Trump," Vladeck wrote. The onslaught of emergency applications has diverted the attention of the justices as they near the end of the court's current term. June is usually their busiest month as they rush to finish writing opinions in major cases. For instance, they have yet to decide the fate of Tennessee's Republican-backed ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. Among the emergency-docket cases, the court most recently on June 6 allowed Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in his drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal data on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration systems and blocked a watchdog group from receiving records on DOGE operations. The court also has allowed Trump to cut millions of dollars in teacher training grants and to fire thousands of probationary federal employees. On the other side of the ledger, the court has expressed reservations about whether the administration is treating migrants fairly, as required under the Constitution's guarantee of due process. On May 16, it said procedures used by the administration to deport migrants from a Texas detention center under Trump's invocation of a 1798 law historically used only in wartime failed basic constitutional requirements. The justices also declined to let the administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work already performed for the government. QUESTIONS OF TRANSPARENCY Trump turned to the emergency docket during his first term as well. His prior administration filed 41 such applications to the court. During the 16 years prior, the presidential administrations of Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama filed just eight combined, according to Vladeck. The court has quickly decided weighty matters using the emergency docket in a way often at odds with its traditional practice of considering full case records from lower courts, receiving at least two rounds of written briefings and then holding oral arguments before rendering a detailed written ruling. It is sometimes called the "shadow docket" because cases often are acted upon without the usual level of transparency or consideration. Some recent decisions on the emergency docket have come with brief opinions explaining the court's reasoning. But typically they are issued as bare and unsigned orders offering no rationale. Konsky noted that the justices sometimes designate emergency cases for regular review with arguments and full briefing. "But in any event, the emergency docket raises complicated questions that are likely to continue to play out in the coming years," Konsky said. Among Trump's emergency applications this year, oral arguments were held only in the birthright citizenship dispute. The liberal justices, often findings themselves on the losing side, have expressed dismay. Once again "this court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent in the Social Security data case. "The risk of error increases when this court decides cases -as here - with barebones briefing, no argument and scarce time for reflection," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the teacher grants case. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito defended the emergency docket in 2021, saying there is "nothing new or shadowy" about the process and that it has wrongly been portrayed as sinister.
