China's Oil Demand Will Peak Earlier Than Expected, IEA Says
China's oil demand will stop growing earlier than expected, reinforcing the outlook for a global peak and prolonged supply surplus this decade, the International Energy Agency said.
The IEA slashed forecasts for Chinese consumption until 2030 by about 1 million barrels a day amid 'extraordinary' domestic sales of electric vehicles. It predicts the nation's demand — which has dominated world growth this century — will top out in 2027, and worldwide oil use two years after that.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
12 minutes ago
- Axios
Key agency sticks to its guns on peak oil demand
The International Energy Agency is sticking by its controversial view that global oil demand growth will end this decade, even dipping slightly in 2030. Why it matters: The timing of a peak — and more importantly, the slope of any decline — affects everything from emissions to investment strategies. The latest: IEA sees growth of roughly 700,000 barrels per day this year and next, and then increases slow to "a trickle" for the rest of the decade. "This is driven by below-trend economic growth, weighed down by global trade tensions and fiscal imbalances, and the accelerating substitution away from oil in the transport and power generation sectors." The annual look-aheads are based on today's policies and market trends and needless to say are stuffed with uncertainties. Zoom in: While IEA is sticking with its overall demand outlook, specific markets are shifting. Chinese oil consumption in 2030 will only be "marginally higher" than in 2024, IEA now projects, citing rapid EV growth and other forces. But in the U.S., IEA revised its 2030 demand forecast upward by 1.1 million barrels per day, citing lower gasoline prices and "loss of momentum in EV adoption." The intrigue: The agency just lowered its U.S. shale outlook as low prices prompt companies to scale back and the sector consolidates. It now sees shale largely plateauing for the rest of the 2020s. The new report projects U.S. production of "light tight oil" (basically shale) at 9.8 mbd in 2030, compared to 10.6 mbd in 2030 in last year's version. The bottom line: IEA predicts global production capacity rising faster than demand, with a "comfortably supplied oil market through 2030."
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's Cosco Eyes Stake in MSC-BlackRock Panama Ports Deal
Cosco Shipping could potentially be a new partner in the deal that would transfer two ports on the sides of the Panama Canal to Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) and BlackRock. China's largest container shipping company is one of multiple Chinese state-backed companies that is in discussion to invest in the consortium to buy more than 40 ports from port operator CK Hutchison Holdings, according to a report from Bloomberg. More from Sourcing Journal Apparel Tariffs Climbed to Historic Highs in April China-to-US Freight Rates 'No Longer Surging'-Is it All Downhill from Here? Trump Touts Higher Duty Rate for Chinese Imports Under New Trade Deal The addition of Chinese investors emerged as a potential option as the current iteration of the deal has hit regulatory roadblocks in the country amid a power struggle with the U.S. over influence on the trade artery. The Panama Canal Authority acknowledged the sale could put the waterway's neutrality at risk. China's antitrust body is currently probing the deal after reports that President Xi Jinping was unhappy with the port sale by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison. It is unclear what stake Cosco would have if a port deal took place, or what ports it would gain control over. The deal itself followed President Donald Trump's rhetoric that the U.S. should 'take back' the canal, partly due to Washington's worries that Hutchison's ownership of the adjacent ports poses national security concerns for U.S. trade interests. But according to the Bloomberg report, the idea to include Chinese investors in the MSC/BlackRock consortium came to be after high-stakes tariff negotiations in Switzerland concluded last month between Chinese and U.S. officials. Cosco's—or any other Chinese company's—involvement could still sound off some bells due to their state-owned status, according to analysis by Drewry provided after a webinar on the deal held Thursday. 'This will be problematic in many jurisdictions, for example Cosco was limited to taking only a 24.99 percent stake in Container Terminal Tollerort in Hamburg' in 2021, Drewry said. A previous Financial Times report from early June indicates that Hutchison is also considering exploring a sale of some or all of its remaining 10 ports in greater China in a separate deal as a way to appease the U.S. and China. 'We would expect that if sold that both Cosco Shipping Ports and China Merchants Ports would be likely candidates, but there may be competition concerns here given existing strength of these companies in the Chinese port sector,' according to Drewry. A 145-day period for exclusive talks between Hutchison and the consortium ends in late July. The parties have already missed an initial goal of signing an agreement on the Panama part of the deal by early April. If a deal goes through as initially planned, it would cost $22.8 billion for the ports to switch hands, with CK Hutchison netting more than $19 billion in cash from the transaction. MSC would be the lead investor in this acquisition through its Terminal Investment Limited (TIL) terminal operator subsidiary, various reports have said. The ocean freight giant is setting itself up as the dominant figure across container shipping and port terminals if a tentative deal to acquire the Panama ports clears approval. But that remains a big if—and a resolution isn't going to come quick. 'We're going to be talking about this deal for at least a year, if not longer, while it makes its way through regulatory approvals,' said Eleanor Hadland, senior associate of ports and terminals at Drewry, during the webinar. An approved deal would thrust MSC into the position of largest global terminal operator worldwide, up from its rank of seventh in 2023, Drewry said. When including the 43 ports from Hutchison, which comprise 199 berths in 23 countries, MSC would have a terminal capacity of 196 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs), giving the firm equity interest in more than 15 percent of global capacity. 'While it's unlikely that MSC/TIL will be allowed to take over all of Hutchison's assets due to market concentration concerns from the relevant competition authorities, it's also unlikely that this would make a large enough dent in the combined portfolio to affect this final outcome of going up to first place in the rankings,' said Eirik Hooper, senior associate of ports and terminals at Drewry. The MSC shakeup would spark an uptrend of 'hybrid' global terminal operators (GTOs), Hooper pointed out. For the first time, three hybrid operators would be represented among the top five GTOs, including MSC, Cosco (fourth) and Maersk (fifth) through its APM Terminals division. Hooper acknowledged the risks of consolidation within the industry, namely for liners without terminal-operating capacity, noting that the larger ports will typically see greater alignment between ownership of the terminal and the customer base of the terminal. However, these carriers can still reap benefits in a hybrid-dominated environment, he said. 'In small-medium ports, even where terminals are operated by a hybrid GTO, they are catering to all liners calling at the port. While this may sound less than ideal, terminal service agreements specify the berth windows, productivity and price therefore minimizing the risk of 'preferential treatment' for aligned carriers,' Hooper said. 'In some markets, the investment by a hybrid operator may be motivated to improve service levels for their own shipping services, but equipment upgrades and service level improvements will benefit all users.' Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Apparel Tariffs Climbed to Historic Highs in April
Tariff rates on apparel imported from across the globe spiked in April, and that upward trend seems poised to continue amid protracted negotiations between the United States and its preeminent trading partners, according to Dr. Sheng Lu. The University of Delaware professor of fashion and apparel studies assessed the U.S. International Trade Commission's (USITC) recently released data from April, which showed that as a result of President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs, announced on 'Liberation Day' on April 2, the average tariff rate for U.S. apparel imports reached 20.1 percent. More from Sourcing Journal Vietnam's Ready For High Stakes US Trade Talks To Avoid Steep Tariffs RH Continues to Mitigate Tariff Pressure; Says Revenues Will Take Short-term Hit China-to-US Freight Rates 'No Longer Surging'-Is it All Downhill from Here? That's a 13.8-percent increase from the same period a year prior and a 14.7-percent jump from January of this year, and the highest average duty rate on clothing imports seen in decades. The tax hikes were predictably particularly acute for apparel imported from China, which has seen numerous duty rate hikes since February, including an executive order setting tariffs at a whopping 145 percent for products across the board—a figure that' has fluctuated throughout a series of trade negotiations. In April, the average tariff rate for clothing imported from the sourcing superpower reached an unprecedented 55 percent, up from 37 percent in March and 22 percent in January. The data was skewed by the fact that many importers frontloaded orders to hit open waters before the steepest tariffs took effect, Lu said. China was far from the only sourcing locale that faced higher duties, though it is the most prolific producer of apparel. Removing China from the equation revealed an average tariff rate for apparel imports from other countries totaling 15.2 percent in April, Lu found. Though the rate was higher than the 12 percent to 13 percent seen in early 2025 before Trump took office, it was significantly more modest than the theoretical 10-percent universal baseline tariff increase announced by the administration. He told Sourcing Journal that average tariff rates for U.S. apparel imports from leading Asian suppliers like Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Cambodia followed similar patterns—higher tariffs, but well below a 10-percent increase. 'Similar to China's case, it appears that U.S. apparel imports from other countries in April 2025 included a significant proportion of products that were exempt from reciprocal tariffs because they were loaded onto a vesselearly enough,' Lu said. April's data illuminates some notable trends, chief among them, the quick-thinking actions taken by importers to frontload orders. But within the context of day-to-day evolutions in trade policy perpetuated by the Trump administration, April feels like lightyears, not months, in the past. And dealmaking with more than a dozen of the nation's prominent trading partners is still underway ahead of the expiration of the pause on reciprocal duties on July 9—a deadline the administration now says could be extended. This week, the president took to Truth Social to announce a new 55-percent tariff rate for China-made goods—the result of two days of trade negotiations between U.S. and China officials in London. While the president was quick to take a digital victory lap, hailing the deal as 'GREAT' on Thursday, neither head of state has officially ratified the terms. The trade truce won't 'help much in reducing market uncertainty,' Lu believes. 'Not only are the details of the agreement yet to be announced, but the nature of the deal, the pending legal case against Trump administration's imposition of [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] tariffs, and the pending tariff rates affecting U.S. apparel imports from other sources also contribute to this uncertainty,' he said. In other words, U.S. brands and retailers are still in a holding pattern, unwilling to make major decisions that could upend their global supply chains. But should the 55-percent rate on China imports stick, Lu believes American firms 'will further increase their sourcing volume from other leading Asian suppliers, particularly other leading apparel suppliers in Asia that are still subject to a relatively lower tariff rate, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and India.' This is a pattern that's already emerged over the past few months as China has been 'singled out' by the president, facing a much higher tariff burden than other Asian nations. Apparel imports from China fell in April by 13.3 percent as a result of the heavy duties, while imports from Vietnam (up 23.4 percent), Bangladesh (up 37.8 percent), Cambodia (up 38.6 percent), Pakistan (up 25.7 percent) and Sri Lanka (up 26.4 percent) positively 'surged,' Lu said. That doesn't necessarily mean Trump's plan to rebalance the trade deficit with China is working, though.'It should be noted that many apparel exports from these Asian countries may come from factories owned by Chinese investors,' Lu explained. 'It will also become increasingly common for Chinese garment factories to become 'super-vendors' with production capabilities in multiple countries.' In other words, China's reach and influence may grow as it adapts to increasingly prohibitive trade constraints levied by the U.S. It remains 'highly uncertain' which countries will be among the first to reach trade deals with the Trump administration, Lu said. 'From the apparel industry's perspective, a deal with leading Asian suppliers, including Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, and Cambodia, as well as CAFTA-DR members, would be the priority,' he added. The administration has indicated that talks with some of these nations, including India and Vietnam, have been ongoing. U.S. fashion firms are understandably itching for a fuller picture of what tariff rates they'll face in the next few months, never mind the coming years. In Lu's estimation, given the only two trade deals that have been worked out thus far, 'the chances that U.S. fashion companies would pay a lower tariff rate than they currently do are quite low.' China's 55-percent rate represents a massive burden for those importing from the country, and the recently announced trade deal with the United Kingdom leaves importers to face a 10-percent duty rate. According to Lu, 'it is more likely than not that the final 'reciprocal tariff' rate reached between the U.S. and a trading partner will be 10 percent or even higher.' Because the president is laser-focused on rebalancing trade, medium-sized major economies that could potentially import more American made products could be well-positioned to make more favorable deals with Washington—and sooner. Lu's assessment of the April USITC data uncovered a surprising downside—namely, for America's nearshore neighbors. 'It is interesting to note that the reciprocal tariff resulted in the most significant increase in tariff rates on U.S. apparel imports from CAFTA-DR members,' he said, referring to the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, which encompasses countries including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. While imports from these nations are presumably duty-free under the trade agreement, the average tariff rate paid on apparel imports hit 6.7 percent in April. Lu said that's because the short shipping distance between Central America and the U.S. actually worked to their disadvantage. 'Due to the short distance between the U.S. and CAFTA-DR members, there [was] limited flexibility for U.S. fashion companies to utilize the timing of shipping to avoid paying tariffs,' he said. Lu broke it down this way: 'Except for Mexico and China, U.S. apparel imports from all sources in April 2025 should face an additional 10-percent reciprocal tariff on top of the existing MFN tariff rate. However, the increase in tariff rates was actually much more modest (i.e., only about a 2-3 percentage point increase instead of 10 percent) for U.S. apparel imports from most Asian countries, as many imports were loaded onto vessels early enough to qualify for tariff exemption.' Only apparel imports from CAFTA-DR saw an increase in tariff rate as high as 6.7 percent in April, 'partially because, with transit times of days, not weeks, orders had to be placed after tariff announcements, forcing U.S. fashion companies to absorb the increased tariff rate,' Lu said. These countries also have a more limited ability to fulfill new orders on short notice, unlike their Asian counterparts. There's no evidence that Trump's tariff regime has benefited nearshore countries in the Western Hemisphere at all, Lu said. In fact, CAFTA-DR nations accounted for just 8.8 percent of clothing imports from January through April, down from 10.3 percent during the same period last year. Of course, all this could change with the release of May's data—and with the continual shakeups in sourcing that will most certainly result as the administration solidifies trade deals in the coming weeks. 'Overall, it remains uncertain how the U.S. apparel tariff rates will continue to evolve in response to Trump's shifting tariff policy,' Lu said. 'It appears that the trade volume and timing of shipment will be highly sensitive to short-term tariff rate changes, whereas adjusting sourcing bases and product structures will be a consideration for U.S. fashion companies in the medium- to long-term.'
