Oil steady as US economic news offset Russia sanctions
In the U.S, single-family homebuilding dropped to an 11-month low in June as high mortgage rates and economic uncertainty hampered home purchases, suggesting residential investment contracted again in the second quarter. In another report, however, U.S. consumer sentiment improved in July, while inflation expectations continued to decline. Lower inflation should make it easier for the U.S. Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates, which could cut consumers' borrowing costs and boost economic growth and oil demand.
Separately, U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing for a minimum tariff of 15% to 20% in any deal with the European Union, the Financial Times reported on Friday, adding that the administration is now looking at a reciprocal tariff rate that exceeds 10%, even if a deal is reached. In Europe, the EU reached an agreement on an 18th sanctions package against Russia over its war in Ukraine, which includes measures aimed at dealing further blows to Russia's oil and energy industries.
Asian spot LNG prices decline on muted demand, high inventories
Asian spot liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices declined last week due to weaker demand and strong inventories and as buyers in south Asia found current prices too high.
The average LNG price for September delivery into north-east Asia was at $12.30 per million British thermal units (mmBtu), down from $12.90 per mmBtu last week, industry sources estimated.
However, analysts expect Asian utilities to start stepping in to procure for cooling demand as temperatures rise in Asia.
Cooling demand from a heatwave in Japan and South Korea has mostly been met by coal. Some production outages have cropped up, including at Australia's Gorgon's third LNG train, the U.S.' Elba Island terminal and United Arab Emirates' Das Island undergoing maintenance.
However, the outages have not pushed Asia to compete for Atlantic basin cargoes and current prices were too high for many price sensitive buyers in south Asia and China to compete for spot supply. In Europe, gas prices rose slightly during the week on Norwegian unplanned maintenance but dipped on Friday as supply from Norway rose.
The European Union on Friday agreed an 18th package of sanctions against Russia over its war in Ukraine, including measures aimed at dealing further blows to the Russian oil and energy industry.
The package also includes banning transactions related to Russia's Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea, and with Russia's financial sector.
— By The Al-Attiyah Foundation
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
20 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump agrees to keep US tariffs on Mexico steady for 90-day period
The United States has announced it will not increase the tariffs it imposes on its southern neighbour, Mexico, after a call with the country's president, Claudia Sheinbaum. Her counterpart, US President Donald Trump, broke the news on his Truth Social platform on Thursday, touting the decision as a diplomatic breakthrough. 'I have just concluded a telephone conversation with the President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, which was very successful in that, more and more, we are getting to know and understand each other,' Trump wrote. 'The complexities of a Deal with Mexico are somewhat different than other Nations because of both the problems, and assets, of the Border.' He explained that he and Sheinbaum had agreed to keep US tariffs at their current rates for a 90-day period. Mexico had been one day away from seeing a tariff increase on August 1. Earlier this month, on July 11, Trump had threatened on Truth Social to hike tariffs on Mexican imports to 30 percent. That threat was part of a series of individualised tariff announcements, published online in the form of letters to US trading partners. One country, Brazil, was slapped with tariffs of 50 percent. In his letter to Mexico, Trump blamed the country for allowing the synthetic opioid fentanyl to cross into the US and for failing to tamp down on criminal cartels that he accused of 'pouring these drugs into our country'. 'Mexico has been helping me secure the border, BUT, what Mexico has done, is not enough,' Trump wrote. 'Mexico still has not stopped the Cartels who are trying to turn all of North America into a Narco-Trafficking Playground. Obviously, I cannot let that happen!' The 30-percent tariff was the same rate given to the European Union, which likewise negotiated a deal with Trump this week. As a result of Thursday's announcement, the US will continue to impose a 25-percent tariff on cars made in Mexico and 50 percent on its steel, aluminium and copper products. There is also a 25-percent tax — which Trump has dubbed a 'fentanyl tariff' — on any Mexican imports not covered by an existing free trade accord, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). 'Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its Non Tariff Trade Barriers, of which there were many,' Trump wrote on Thursday. 'We will be talking to Mexico over the next 90 Days with the goal of signing a Trade Deal somewhere within the 90 Day period of time, or longer.' Sheinbaum herself posted a message summarising their call, emphasising continued talks between their two governments. 'We had a very good call with US President Donald Trump,' Sheinbaum wrote. 'We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow and secured 90 days to build a long-term agreement through dialogue.' Trump had put in place an August 1 deadline for the tariff hike, but he has announced a series of deals in the lead-up with countries including South Korea, Japan and the United Kingdom. Those deals have largely not avoided tariffs altogether but rather have resulted in lower import taxes than the initially announced rates. Trump has sought to leverage tariffs to encourage domestic manufacturing and reduce what he considers undesirable deficits with US trading partners. He has also used them to advance domestic policy priorities, including by pressuring neighbouring countries like Mexico to beef up border enforcement. Experts have warned, however, that tariffs on goods imported in to the US could result in higher prices for consumers. Trump's start-and-stop approach to tariffs — announcing them, only to delay them — has also spurred fears of instability in the economic markets. Initially, Trump had unveiled individual 'reciprocal' tariffs on foreign trading partners in April. Those tariffs were delayed, and their latest iterations unveiled this month. Trump, however, has brushed aside concerns, saying his tariff campaign will bring the US billions in taxes. 'I always say 'tariffs' is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,' Trump said in January, ranking as one of his favourites, behind terms like 'love' and 'religion'. 'Tariffs are going to make us rich as hell,' he added.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What legal tests are Donald Trump's tariffs facing?
Companies, consumers and countries have been paying close attention to United States President Donald Trump's aggressive policy of imposing tariffs. Soon, the courts will weigh in on whether Trump has the power to levy those tariffs in the first place – a high-stakes legal battle that will either affirm a key pillar of Trump's economic policy or cut it off at the knees. The US Constitution says Congress holds the power to impose tariffs, not the president. However, over the years, Congress has passed multiple laws ceding some of that power to the president. Trump has justified his most far-reaching assertions of tariff power by citing the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows tariffs on all imports during an 'unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States'. Small businesses challenging that position in the case VOS Selections v Trump make two key arguments. They contend that the law doesn't explicitly allow the president to impose tariffs. And they argue that neither of two Trump tariffs – the levies against Mexico, Canada and China to counter a declared fentanyl crisis and those against a broad swath of trading partners to address US trade deficits – rise to the level of an 'unusual and extraordinary' emergency. On Thursday, one day before Trump's deadline for a batch of new tariffs to take effect, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case. The Trump administration lost the first round in May at the Court of International Trade. (That decision did not affect other Trump tariffs, such as those on steel, aluminium and cars or proposed tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. Trump imposed these using other legal authorities.) The appeals court will be the last stop before expected consideration by the Supreme Court. Here's a primer on how this case could affect Trump's tariff policies: Does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allow tariffs? Whether the law permits the imposition of tariffs may be hard for the administration to prove. The law 'authorises the president to take various actions but with no mention of 'tariffs', 'duties', 'levies', 'taxes', 'imposts' or any similar wording', said Meredith Kolsky Lewis, a University at Buffalo law professor. 'No president has sought to impose tariffs pursuant to the law' before Trump The administration's strongest argument may be that although the law 'doesn't specifically authorise tariff measures, it doesn't bar them either', said David A Gantz, a Rice University fellow in trade and international economics. 'Some have questioned whether Congress intended to cede basic Commerce Clause powers so completely to the president, but the statute does not appear to ever have been seriously challenged in Congress with repeal.' Does the present situation constitute an emergency? The second issue might be more challenging for Trump: Are trade deficits a security threat? In asserting the authority to impose tariffs, Trump said 'large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.' Babson College economist Kent Jones was sceptical. 'Those with knowledge of trade economics scoff at the notion that a trade deficit is a national emergency,' he said. 'The US has run trade deficits consistently for the last four decades without signs of an economic emergency that can be systematically linked to the deficits.' The tariffs are being applied to dozens of countries that ship more goods to the US than they import, which 'suggests a lack of an 'unusual' threat', Lewis said. 'In other words, this is commonplace.' Using fentanyl trafficking and trade deficits as examples of emergencies breaks new ground, said Ross Burkhart, a Boise State University political scientist who specialises in trade. Although the law 'does not delineate what a national emergency is, the precedent from previous administrations is not to invoke a national emergency based on day-to-day trade flows', Burkhart said. An even more aggressive argument in the case of Brazil Trump's threat of 50 percent levies on Brazil may be on thinner legal ground, legal experts said. On July 9, Trump wrote a letter to Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, explaining that the new tariffs would be 'due in part' to Brazil's prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally, as well as its treatment of US social media companies. The letter also cited a 'very unfair trade relationship' with Brazil. [Screengrab from Truth Social] On Wednesday, Trump declared an emergency based in part on the Bolsonaro prosecution, triggering a 40 percent tariff, effective after a week. Experts said Trump's justifications ring hollow legally under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Brazil policy isn't at issue in the case being argued on Thursday, but it has already resulted in at least one lawsuit. Experts said they doubted that citing the Bolsonaro case as an emergency would survive judicial scrutiny. Bolsonaro sought unsuccessfully to hang on to power after Lula defeated him in the 2022 election, which prompted years of investigations and charges that could land him in prison. 'I and many others would agree that the Bolsonaro trial – even if [it were] questionable, and it isn't – would not come close to meeting' the standard under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Gantz said. Trump's letter undercuts another key fact in the US-Brazil trade relationship: The US had a $6.8bn trade surplus with Brazil in 2024 and surpluses in earlier years as well. Certain US sectors, such as social media and electronic payment networks, may have plausible gripes with Brazil over trade policy. Even so, Gantz said, 'all of these grievances together seem to me insufficient for action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.' What happens next? Most legal experts we talked to said the appeals court would have ample reason to follow the Court of International Trade's lead in striking down Trump's authority. 'I am quite confident that the law doesn't give a limitless grant of authority to the president simply by saying some magic words,' said Julian Arato, a University of Michigan law professor. But that result is no certainty – and ultimately, the US Supreme Court will have the final say. The conservative-majority court should be a friendlier venue for the administration. If the appeals court doesn't reverse the Court of International Trade's ruling, 'the Supreme Court will, in my opinion, likely do so,' Gantz said. And even if the Supreme Court were to rule against Trump, he could still impose tariffs under other laws. He could use Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows tariffs when the president determines that a foreign country 'burdens or restricts United States commerce' through violations of trade agreements. This authority has been invoked dozens of times by various presidents. Or he could use Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which lets the president impose tariffs if national security is threatened. Trump and former President Joe Biden used this as the basis for steel and aluminium tariffs imposed since 2018. These more traditional mechanisms have been more battle-tested in court than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Gantz said, providing 'a more persuasive legal basis for the tariffs'.
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Who has a deal, who doesn't? The state of play on eve of Trump's tariffs
Global trade markets remained on edge Thursday as the United States prepared to implement reciprocal tariffs, with the deadline for negotiating a trade deal with Washington fast approaching. US President Donald Trump has already announced steep trade tariffs for many of the country's largest trading partners, even as dozens of countries scramble to secure last-minute deals or extensions for negotiations beyond the Friday, August 1 deadline. Friday's deadline comes more than 120 days after President Trump's administration first announced a barrage of tariffs on the world, on the so-called 'Liberation Day'. Despite several delays in imposing tariffs since Trump took office in January this year, his administration looks set to roll out new tariff rates for those countries that fail to clinch a trade deal by the end of today. So, what will happen tomorrow? Which countries already have deals in the bag? And who is hoping to rescue a last-minute deal? What will happen on August 1? As the clock ticks down to August 1, the US's imposition of a significant round of reciprocal tariffs on imports from various countries marks a pivotal moment in global trade dynamics, experts say. Trump is adamant he will not be extending this deadline. 'THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE IS THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE – IT STANDS STRONG, AND WILL NOT BE EXTENDED. A BIG DAY FOR AMERICA!!!' Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Wednesday. At midnight Eastern Time tonight, therefore, US Customs and Border Protection will begin enforcing these new duties, which will range from 15 percent to 50 percent – or even higher in some cases – depending on the trading partner, the nature of the goods being traded and whether the trading partner and the US have specific agreements in place. Additional sectoral tariffs will be applied to certain industries. For example, a 50 percent tariff will be applied to copper, steel and aluminium for most countries, while a 20 percent levy will be applied to pharmaceutical products. The White House confirmed that Trump will sign new executive orders on Thursday, formally imposing all these higher tariffs. Recipients are likely to include some of the US's biggest trading partners, like Mexico, Taiwan and Canada. Many nations facing sweeping new tariffs on all exports to the US are likely to incur immediate economic repercussions along with potential shifts in diplomatic relations. Tariffs may also cost the US economy. The Yale Budget Lab, a non-partisan policy research centre, noted in its most recent analysis that overseas trade tariffs could cost US households on average an extra $2,400 in 2025, because of higher prices of imported goods. Meanwhile, industries reliant on imports, such as electronics, pharmaceuticals and clothing, may have to contend with new supply chain disruptions as companies scramble to absorb costs or pass them on to consumers. Why is Trump launching all these new tariffs? In April, Trump declared a 'national emergency' when he announced his 'Liberation Day' tariff strategy and imposed an across-the-board 10 percent baseline tariff on all imports, followed by higher, country-specific 'reciprocal' tariffs. The US has large trading deficits with many countries, which Trump believes are deeply unfair. The Trump administration, therefore, has justified these new rates as being necessary to redress these trade imbalances in order to boost US manufacturing and jobs, even though economists point out that deficits are not direct evidence of unfair trade practices. Beyond trade, experts note that the Trump administration is leveraging these tariff threats to broader agendas of curbing immigration, combating the opioid and fentanyl crisis, and pressing allies and partners on geopolitical issues, including India's energy ties with Russia or Brazil's legal action against Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro. In the last-minute run-up to the August 1 deadline, Trump's administration has strong-armed trading partners, including Japan, the European Union, Indonesia and the Philippines, into new deals under which they accept higher US tariffs in exchange for continued market access and investment commitments – and in most cases, a promise not to levy counter-tariffs of their own. Who already has deals in the bag with the US? The EU has agreed to a 15 percent tariff on most of its exports to the US, including cars and pharmaceuticals, in exchange for zero tariffs on select US exports and commitments to buy US gas and increase investments. Initially, Trump had threatened a 30 percent rate. Japan has secured a 15 percent reciprocal tariff on its goods exported to the US, reduced from a threatened 25 percent, with Japan promising to invest $550bn in the US economy. The UK agreed to a 10 percent tariff rate on its exports to the US. It also received a 25 percent sectoral tariff on steel and aluminium – half the 50 percent being imposed on other countries. A lower 15 percent tariff will apply to South Korean imports to the US, in return for a $350bn investment pledge and zero tariffs on US exports like cars and agricultural products. Indonesia has negotiated a 19 percent tariff on its exports to the US, down from a threatened 32 percent, by making a commitment to buy US Boeing aircraft and to remove or reduce trade barriers. Vietnam has agreed to a 20 percent tariff on most exports to the US, with an additional 40 percent levy to be applied to 'transshipped' goods – those entering the US via another location – while also agreeing to zero tariffs on US imports like large-engine automobiles. This Philippines has agreed to a 19 percent tariff on its exports to the US, with zero tariffs on US exports to the Philippines, alongside commitments for enhanced military cooperation. Struck a deal to jointly develop oil reserves with the US, but specific tariff rates on goods remain unclear. Which big US partners have no deal yet? None of the US's top three trading partners – Mexico, Canada, and China – have trade deals in place as of Thursday. Tops the list of trade partners of the US, with nearly $840bn in total trade, driven by sectors including vehicles, electronics and agriculture. With no new deal for August 1, existing tariffs of 25 percent on most imports will persist under earlier 2025 trade war measures, with some exemptions under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Ranks second in terms of size with about $700bn, primarily in energy, vehicles, and aerospace products, passing between the two countries. With no deal finalised by the August 1 deadline, Trump has threatened to impose a 35 percent tariff on goods that don't comply with the USMCA. Third among the top US trade partners, Beijing trades about $532bn with the US, focused on electronics, machinery and consumer goods. With no permanent deal in place, a 30 percent combined tariff will be applied, following an agreed pause until August 12. That followed an earlier escalation to a 145 percent tariff on imports. Who is hoping for a last-minute deal? Even a 'very good friendship' with Washington could not save India, the world's most populous nation and fourth-largest global economy, from Trump's reciprocal tariffs. On Wednesday, Trump announced a sweeping 25 percent tariff on all Indian goods exported to the US, plus an unspecified penalty for buying energy from Russia, as trade deal negotiations remain unresolved. Total trade between the US and India was valued at about $130bn in 2024, with US exports to India worth $41.8bn and imports from India at $87.4bn – a trade deficit which Trump will not ignore. 'While India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. Later, in another post, Trump said he did not 'care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care. 'We have done very little business with India, their Tariffs are too high, among the highest in the World. Likewise, Russia and the USA do almost no business together,' he wrote. 'Let's keep it that way.' In a statement, the Indian government said it was studying the implications of these new tariffs and added: 'India and the US have been engaged in negotiations on concluding a fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement over the last few months.' The statement further noted that 'we remain committed to that objective.' New Delhi signalled what it believes to be potential barriers to the deal by noting that the government 'attaches the utmost importance to protecting and promoting the welfare of our farmers, entrepreneurs, and MSMEs'. India's neighbouring rival, Pakistan, has seen its stock rise with the Trump administration before and after the military conflict with New Delhi earlier this year. Trump revealed that the US had concluded a deal with Pakistan, where they will work together on developing oil reserves, but did not announce tariffs. 'Who knows, maybe they'll be selling Oil to India some day!' Taiwan is also facing a high-stakes deadline, with proposed tariffs set at 32 percent, excluding semiconductors, if no deal is struck by August 1. Taiwanese officials have engaged in intense negotiations in Washington, spanning four high-level rounds led by Vice Premier Cheng Li‑chun and US counterparts, addressing not only tariff technicalities but also non‑tariff trade barriers, investments and market access. These talks are reportedly pending US approval. Who has little hope of reaching a deal with the US? The country faces the most punishing tariffs among major US trading partners, with President Trump formally issuing a 50 percent reciprocal tariff on Brazilian imports. The US actually runs a trade surplus with Brazil of nearly $7.4bn; however, Trump has been unhappy about the prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for allegedly attempting a coup to overturn his 2022 election loss. Trump has publicly called the trial a 'witch-hunt' and an 'international disgrace', tying his imposition of a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian imports, announced on July 10, directly to this issue. Brazil's government responded with alarm. President Lula decried Trump's measures as 'economic blackmail' and negotiations have stalled. Speaking at a news conference in Washington this week, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF's chief economist, called for an end to the trade war. 'Restoring stability in trade policy is essential to reduce policy uncertainty. We urge all parties to settle trade disputes and agree on clear and predictable frameworks. Collective efforts should be made to restore and improve the global trading system,' Gourinchas said, indirectly referring to the Trump administration.
