Oil steady as markets focus on US-Russia talks
Brent crude futures were up 5 cents to $66.64 a barrel at 1003 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude futures were down 1 cent to $63.87.
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that he would meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15 in Alaska to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine.
The talks follow increased U.S. pressure on Russia, raising the prospect that penalties on Moscow could be tightened if a peace deal is not reached.
Trump set a deadline of last Friday for Russia, which invaded Ukraine in February 2022, to agree to peace or have its oil buyers face secondary sanctions. At the same time, Washington is pressing India to reduce purchases of Russian oil.
Prices fell in recent days as market participants reduced supply disruption estimates, likely because the U.S. only imposed an extra tariff on India rather than all buyers of Russian oil, said UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo.
UBS has lowered its year-end Brent crude forecast to $62 a barrel from $68, citing higher supply from South America and resilient output from sanctioned countries.
The bank added that Indian demand had fallen short of its expectations of late, and that it expected OPEC+ to pause its production hikes unless larger unexpected supply disruptions emerge.
An Exxon Mobil-led consortium began crude production four months earlier than expected at a fourth floating production, storage and offloading vessel in Guyana, Exxon said on Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
7 minutes ago
- Business Times
The Trump administration's South-East Asia policy: a new era of pressure and diversification
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump's return to the White House in January 2025 has marked a dramatic shift in US relations with South-east Asia. Central to the Trump administration's South-east Asia policy has been its all-encompassing tariff regime, implemented as part of the president's 'reciprocal tariffs'. On 'Liberation Day' (Apr 2), President Trump announced sweeping tariffs targeting every Asean member state , creating significant economic chaos across the region. The tariff structure reflected the administration's mixed approach to different South-east Asian countries. Cambodia faced the highest penalties at 49 per cent, followed by Laos at 48 per cent and Vietnam at 46 per cent. Thailand confronted a 36 per cent tariff, while Indonesia faced 32 per cent duties. Malaysia and Brunei each face 24 per cent tariffs, the Philippines 17 per cent, and Singapore 10 per cent. In August, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia saw their tariff rate reduced to 19 per cent, while Laos' rate was adjusted to 40 per cent. The Philippines saw its rate go from 17 to 20 per cent in July, before being revised to 19 per cent. These measures have impacted key sectors across the region, including Vietnam's electronics and semiconductors, Cambodia's textiles and footwear, and Thailand and Indonesia's agricultural products and forced governments in the region to reassess their trade policies. The tariffs represented a fundamental challenge to decades of economic integration between the US and South-east Asia. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 8.30 am Asean Business Business insights centering on South-east Asia's fast-growing economies. Sign Up Sign Up Trade shocks notwithstanding, the Trump administration appears keen to maintain and even strengthen its military and security relationships in South-east Asia. The approach reflects the administration's broader Indo-Pacific strategy, which views the region as a critical arena for competition with China. Stressing the need to reassert American strength in the region, and reflecting the transactional nature of President Trump's diplomacy, the US administration has promoted military modernisation and more direct negotiations on defence cooperation and burden-sharing arrangements. This focus on bilateral relationships over multilateral engagement represents a departure from previous approaches to regional security building. Rather than working primarily through Asean or other regional forums, the Trump administration has advanced direct bilateral relationships that can deliver more immediate strategic benefits. While the US administration has shown some tactical flexibility – announcing a 90-day pause on high tariffs in April and negotiating rate reductions with various countries – these moves have arguably done little to allay underlying strategic concerns. For many South-east Asian states, such abrupt policy shifts underscore American unpredictability, feeding anxiety about the reliability of Washington's long-term economic and security commitments. In response to this combination of economic pressure and strategic uncertainty from Washington, South-east Asian nations are actively diversifying their partnerships. This strategic realignment has pushed some closer to alternative economic blocs. Indonesia, for instance, formally joined Brics in early 2025, while Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam have become Brics 'partner' countries. As a result, governments across the region find themselves caught in a difficult balancing act. Their economic relationships with China and their security partnerships with the United States could force difficult choices. This strategic diversification is most evident in a wave of new bilateral agreements that extend beyond traditional regional frameworks. The strengthening relationship between Vietnam and South Korea exemplifies this trend. Elevating their 'Comprehensive Strategic Partnership', the two nations have agreed to double their bilateral trade to US$150 billion by 2030. This partnership has also created strategic supply chain diversification for critical materials like urea solution, reducing dependency on single sources. Meanwhile, Indonesia and the European Union appear to be making progress in ongoing negotiations on the Indonesia-EU Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement . Aimed to be finalised by September, the deal is projected to raise bilateral trade by around 8 billion euros (S$12 billion), and open access to new market opportunities. This wave of bilateral negotiations demonstrates how Asean's attractiveness as an economic partner continues to grow. The EU has been particularly active, concluding free trade agreements with Singapore and Vietnam and advancing negotiations with Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Malaysia. Asean's economic dynamism, robust growth and demographic advantages make its member nations attractive partners for global powers seeking to diversify their economic relationships. The Trump administration's South-east Asia policy presents both significant challenges and potential opportunities for the US. The economic disruption caused by tariffs has forced countries to diversify their trade relationships and reduce dependence on the American market. While the administration's transactional approach has produced quick results in bilateral negotiations, it could undermine confidence in the consistency and reliability of American commitments. For the Trump administration, the challenge will be balancing its economic nationalism with the strategic imperative of maintaining influence in a region increasingly important to the Great Power Competition. The success of this approach will likely depend on the administration's ability to demonstrate that its economic pressure produces tangible benefits for American interests while maintaining the security partnerships essential to its Indo-Pacific strategy. From a broader perspective, the Trump administration's policies toward South-east Asia reflect the tensions in American foreign policy between unilateral economic measures and multilateral strategic cooperation. How these tensions are resolved will significantly impact not only US-South-east Asia relations but the broader balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region. The effectiveness of the Trump administration's approach will be measured by its ability to achieve its stated goals of reducing trade deficits and strengthening strategic partnerships without undermining American influence in one of the world's most economically dynamic and strategically important regions.
Straits Times
37 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Britain secretly spent S$4.1m to stop journalists from reporting on data breach
The British government spent US$3.2 million on a secret legal order preventing journalists from reporting a data breach that put almost 19,000 Afghans at risk. LONDON – The British government spent US$3.2 million (S$4.1 million) on a secret legal order preventing journalists from reporting a data breach that put almost 19,000 Afghans and their families at risk, according to records obtained by The New York Times. The breach, which happened in 2022, exposed the personal details of thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces before the Taliban takeover in 2021. The government, led by the Conservative Party at the time, went to England's High Court to obtain an order barring anyone from disclosing the breach, even to the people whose lives were feared to be at risk from the Taliban as a result. Journalists were also prevented from reporting on the existence of the court order itself. The government's legal action began in August 2023, when journalists first asked the Ministry of Defence about the breach, and continued until the order was lifted in July. It cost the British government £2.4 million (S$4.1 million), or more than US$3.2 million, according to information disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information request. Government ministers involved in the decision have since defended the stringent legal order, which is known in Britain as a 'super injunction', arguing that it was necessary to protect the people whose personal details had been disclosed. As a direct result of the data breach, Britain spent at least £400 million on a secret programme to relocate 4,500 Afghans to Britain. But the government's unprecedented use of a super injunction has intensified questions about freedom of the press in the country. The US State Department's annual publication of reports on international human rights criticised Britain's record on Aug 12, describing 'credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression', while Vice-President J.D. Vance has also argued that free speech is under threat. The British government has said it upholds free speech, but that it balances that right with the need to prevent violent disorder, hate crimes and the swaying of trial juries. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Asia India, Singapore ministers discuss deeper tie-ups in digitalisation, skills, industrial parks Singapore 2 dead after fire in Jalan Bukit Merah flat, about 60 evacuated Singapore askST: Public bidding possible if assets seized in $3b money laundering case are sold at auction Singapore TB screenings at two pre-schools after staff member diagnosed in July Singapore HSA seeks Kpod investigators to arrest abusers, conduct anti-trafficking ops Business Haidilao to close Clarke Quay outlet on Aug 31; exit follows 3 earlier outlet closures Opinion How to train a drone warrior, with lessons from Ukraine Opinion The truth about AI: Firms will profit, workers will lose jobs Justice Martin Chamberlain, the judge who lifted the order relating to the Afghan data breach in July, said that it was the first super injunction ever granted 'contra mundum', meaning 'against everyone', and that it interfered with freedom of expression and Britain's democratic processes. When Labour entered government in 2024, it commissioned an independent review into the super injunction and the resettlement program, which led to the lifting of the injunction and the public disclosure of the data breach. Critics argued that the government's legitimate interest in protecting the safety of Afghans was supplanted over time by a desire to avoid an embarrassing headline during an election year. The breach happened in February 2022, when a member of the British military accidentally emailed an external contact a spreadsheet containing the details of 18,700 Afghan service personnel, police officers and others seeking refuge in Britain after the Taliban takeover. The disclosure was not discovered until part of the spreadsheet was posted on Facebook in August 2023. Within days, journalists approached the Ministry of Defence about the breach, prompting the government's application for an injunction. Ms Holly Bancroft, the home affairs correspondent for The Independent newspaper, was among the first journalists to be served with the order. She told The New York Times that she was unaware of the data breach and had asked the Ministry of Defence why many Afghans who had previously been denied permission to travel to Britain were suddenly being approved – decisions she now knows were part of the emergency response. Ms Bancroft said she had been invited into a room inside the ministry's headquarters, handed a paper copy of the super injunction and told not to 'talk to anyone about it' other than a lawyer. Ms Bancroft estimates that over the next 18 months, she attended more than 20 hearings at London's High Court, where The Independent and other news organisations, including The Times of London and Associated Newspapers, were campaigning for the injunction to be lifted. The government fielded a roster of senior lawyers to argue against them. Asked for comment on Aug 13, the Ministry of Defence pointed to the statement made by Mr John Healey, the defence secretary, while disclosing the breach in July. He said he felt 'deeply concerned about the lack of transparency' and had chosen to 'reassess' the basis for the injunction when he entered government. Mr Steve Kuncewicz, a specialist media lawyer from Glaisyers Solicitors, said that no legal power comparable to super injunctions existed in the United States and 'couldn't be considered' because of the First Amendment. 'They are a creature of the UK courts,' he said. The orders had previously been sought to prevent the disclosure of 'embarrassing details of people's private lives,' he noted, such as the order obtained in 2010 by a former England soccer player, John Terry, over allegations of an extramarital affair. The use of super injunctions has long been contentious in Britain but, Kuncewicz said, the Afghan data breach case was 'unique'. 'These orders are only meant to stay in place for the shortest amount of time, and be granted in the narrowest terms possible,' he added. 'They are really chilling to free speech.' NYTIMES
Business Times
37 minutes ago
- Business Times
Oil hits two-month low as US, IEA supply guidance weighs
[NEW YORK] Oil prices fell to over two-month lows on Wednesday after bearish supply guidance from the US government and the International Energy Agency, while investors eyed US President Donald Trump's threat of 'severe consequences' if Russia's Vladimir Putin blocked peace in Ukraine. Brent crude futures settled down 49 cents, or 0.7 per cent, to US$65.63 a barrel. During the session it dropped to US$65.01 a barrel, the lowest since June 6. US West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell 52 cents, or 0.8 per cent, to US$62.65 a barrel. The contract fell to US$61.94 a barrel, the lowest since June 2. US crude stocks rose by 3 million barrels to 426.7 million barrels, the Energy Information Administration said on Wednesday. Analysts in a Reuters poll had expected a 275,000-barrel draw. Net US crude imports rose last week by 699,000 barrels per day, EIA said. 'These crude exports remain subpar from what we got used to, falling due to tariff pushback,' said John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital in New York, adding continued lower exports could weigh on prices. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The International Energy Agency on Wednesday raised its forecast for oil supply growth this year but lowered its demand forecast. Trump is expected to meet with Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss ending Russia's war in Ukraine, which has shaken oil markets since February 2022. When asked whether Russia would face any consequences if Putin does not agree to stop the war after Friday's meeting, Trump responded on Wednesday: 'Yes, they will.' Asked if those consequences would be sanctions or tariffs, Trump told reporters: 'I don't have to say, there will be very severe consequences.' Trump also said a meeting between the pair could swiftly be followed by a second that included the leader of Ukraine. Meanwhile, in its monthly report on Tuesday, Opec+ raised its global oil demand forecast for next year and trimmed estimates of supply growth from the United States and other producers outside the wider group, pointing to a tighter market. 'Were we to take an aggregate of the respective IEA and Opec oil demand growth projections for 2025 at their respective bearish and bullish ends, even a modest middle figure, say just north of 1 million bpd, can easily be serviced by non-Opec supply growth alone at the moment,' said independent energy analyst Gaurav Sharma. 'So, I don't see a bullish case for oil over the near-term horizon.' REUTERS
