logo
Ceasefire or Not, The World Is Swimming in Oil

Ceasefire or Not, The World Is Swimming in Oil

Bloomberg5 hours ago

After the war, the hangover. While hysteria about the closure of the Strait of Hormuz gripped the oil market for the last few days, the reality couldn't be more different: a wave of Persian Gulf crude was forming. Now, the swell is heading into a global oil market that's already oversupplied — hence Brent crude trading below $70 a barrel on Tuesday.
The Northern hemisphere summer, which provides a seasonal lift to demand, is the last obstacle before the glut becomes plainly obvious. Oil prices are heading down – quite a lot.
If anything, the Israel-Iran '12-Day War' has worsened the supply/demand imbalance even further – not just for the rest of 2025, but into 2026 too. On the demand side, geopolitical chaos is bad for business — let alone tourism. Petroleum consumption growth, already quite anemic, is set to slow further, particularly in the Middle East. But the biggest change comes from the supply side: The market finds itself swimming in oil.
Ironically, one of the countries pumping more than a month ago is Iran. Hard data is difficult to come by, as Iran does its best to obfuscate its petroleum exports. Still, available satellite photos and other shipping data suggest that Iranian production will reach a fresh seven-year high above 3.5 million barrels a day this month, slightly up from May. That bears repeating: Iranian oil production is up, not down, despite nearly two weeks of Israeli and American bombing.
Reading between the lines, President Donald Trump has made two things clear: He doesn't want oil prices above $70 a barrel, and he still thinks Washington and Tehran can sit down to talk. So it's very unlikely that the White House will tighten oil sanctions on Iran, an issue where Trump is very similar to former President Joe Biden: Lots of talk, very little action.
Across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates are all pumping more than a month ago. True, a large chunk of the increase was expected after the OPEC+ cartel agree to hike production quotas. Still, early shipping data suggests that exports are rising a touch more than expected, particularly from Saudi Arabia.
Petro-Logistics SA, an oil tanker-tracking firm used by many commodity trading houses and hedge funds, estimates that Saudi Arabia will supply the market with 9.6 million barrels a day of crude in June, the highest level in two years. The firm measures the flow of barrels into the market, offsetting stockpiling moves, rather than wellhead output (the latter is OPEC's preferred measure).
'Looking at the first half of the month, there has been a large rush of oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf region,' Daniel Gerber, the head of Petro-Logistics, tells me. Data covering the first couple of weeks of June show strong exports from Iraq and the United Arab Emirates, two countries that typically cheat on their OPEC+ production levels. The risk here is more, not less.
And then there's US shale output. In May, the American oil industry was on the ropes, with crude approaching $55 a barrel. At those prices, US oil production was set to start a gentle decline in the second half of the year and fall further in 2026. The recent conflict that drove crude to a peak of $78.40 a barrel handed US shale producers an unexpected opportunity to lock-in forward prices, helping them to keep drilling higher than otherwise. Anecdotally, I hear from Wall Street oil bankers that their trading desks saw some of the largest shale hedging in years.
With shale, small price shifts matter a lot: The difference between booming production and declining output is measured in a fistful of dollars, perhaps as little as $10 to $20 a barrel. At $50, many companies are staring at financial calamity and production is in free-fall; $55 is survivable; $60 isn't great, but money still flows and output holds; at $65, everyone is back to more drilling; and at $70 and above, the industry is printing money and output is soaring.
In the oil market, history is a very good guide. Look at what happened after the first Gulf War in 1990-1991, or the second one in 2003. Amid the carnage, oil keeps flowing – often in greater quantities. When the conflict ends, the flow increases further. The Iran-Israel conflict isn't over yet. The ceasefire is, at best, tentative. And other supply disruptions may change the outlook. But, right now the world has more oil than it needs.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act
Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act

Washington Post

time23 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump isn't the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad. Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances.

Americans' view of the economy slides in June, wiping out gains from previous month
Americans' view of the economy slides in June, wiping out gains from previous month

Washington Post

time23 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Americans' view of the economy slides in June, wiping out gains from previous month

WASHINGTON — Americans' view of the U.S. economy worsened in June, resuming a downward slide that had dragged consumer confidence to its lowest level since the COVID-19 pandemic five years ago. The Conference Board said Tuesday that its consumer confidence index slid to 93 in June, down 5.4 points from 98.4 last month, which represented a brief uptick. In April, American consumers' confidence in the economy sank to its lowest reading since May 2020, largely due to anxiety over the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs .

Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act
Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act

San Francisco Chronicle​

time24 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump isn't the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad. Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances. His move has reignited a decades-old debate over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s meant to divide authority over military action between Congress and the president. Critics say Trump violated the act by striking with little input from Congress, while supporters argue he responded to an imminent threat and is looking to avoid prolonged conflict. Even after Trump announced late Monday that a 'complete and total ceasefire' between Israel and Iran would take effect over the next 24 hours, tensions remained high in Congress over Trump's action. A vote is expected in the Senate later this week on a Democratic Iran war powers resolution that is meant to place a check on Trump when it comes to further entanglement with Iran. Here's a closer look at what the act does and doesn't do, how past presidents have tested it and how Congress plans to respond: Dividing war powers between Congress and the president Passed in the wake of American involvement in Vietnam, the War Powers Resolution prescribes how the president should work with lawmakers to deploy troops if Congress hasn't already issued a declaration of war. It states that the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress and the President to use its 'collective judgement' to send troops into 'hostilities.' The War Powers Resolution calls for the president 'in every possible instance' to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.' But when Congress enacted the law, 'it didn't install any hard requirements, and it provided a lot of outs,' said Scott Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. 'Habitual practice for presidents in the last few decades has been to minimally — almost not at all — consult with Congress on a lot of military action,' Anderson said. And 'the language of the statute is so vague and open-ended that it's hard to say it's in clear contradiction' to the War Powers Resolution. Unless a Declaration of War has already been passed or Congress has authorized deploying forces, the president has 48 hours after deploying troops to send a written report to congressional leadership explaining the decision. Trump did so on Monday, sending Congress a letter that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were 'limited in scope and purpose' and 'designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.' In March, when Trump ordered airstrikes in Houthi-held areas in Yemen, he wrote a letter to congressional leadership explaining his rationale and reviewing his orders to the Department of Defense. President Joe Biden wrote nearly 20 letters citing the War Powers Resolution during his term. If Congress doesn't authorize further action within 60 to 90 days, the resolution requires that the president 'terminate any use' of the armed forces. 'That's the hard requirement of the War Powers Resolution,' Anderson said. How past presidents have used it Congress hasn't declared war on another country since World War II, but U.S. presidents have filed scores of reports pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since it was enacted in 1973, over President Richard Nixon's veto. Presidents have seized upon some of the vague wording in the War Powers Resolution to justify their actions abroad. In 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter argued that attempting to rescue hostages from Iran didn't require a consultation with Congress, since it wasn't an act of war, according to the Congressional Research Service. President George W. Bush invoked war powers in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and persuaded Congress to approve an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002. Throughout his presidency, President Barack Obama faced pressure to cease operations in Libya after 90 days. But his administration argued that the U.S. use of airpower in Libya didn't rise to the level of 'hostilities' set forth in the War Powers Resolution. What Congress is doing now Trump's actions in Iran have drawn the loudest praise from the right and the sharpest rebukes from the left. But the response hasn't broken cleanly along party lines. Daily developments have also complicated matters. Trump on Sunday raised the possibility of a change in leadership in Iran, before on Monday announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a 'complete and total' ceasefire to be phased in over the next 24 hours. Nevertheless, the Senate could vote as soon as this week on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the bill's sponsor, told reporters Monday — prior to the ceasefire announcement — that the vote could come 'as early as Wednesday, as late as Friday.' He expects bipartisan backing, though support is still coming together ahead of a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday. 'There will be Republicans who will support it,' Kaine said. 'Exactly how many, I don't know.' He added that, 'this is as fluid a vote as I've been involved with during my time here, because the facts are changing every day.' Passing the resolution could prove difficult, especially with Republicans praising Trump after news of the ceasefire broke. Even prior to that, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., defended Trump's actions on Monday and said he's operating within his authority. 'There's always a tension between Congress' power to declare war and the president's power as commander in chief,' said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. 'But I think the White House contacted its people, as many people as they could.' A similar bipartisan resolution in the House — led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — could follow soon, although Massie signaled Monday that he may no longer pursue it if peace has been reached. Khanna was undeterred.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store