Brent futures down nearly $2 after US delays decision on direct Iran involvement
Brent crude prices
pared gains from the previous session and fell nearly $2 on Friday after the White House delayed a decision on US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, but they were still poised for a third straight week in the black.
Brent crude futures fell $1.89, or 2.4 per cent, to $76.96 a barrel by 0255 GMT. On a weekly basis, it was up 3.8 per cent.
The US
West Texas Intermediate crude
for July - which did not settle on Thursday as it was a US holiday and expires on Friday - was up 53 cents, or 0.7 per cent, to $75.67. The more liquid WTI for August rose 0.2 per cent, or 17 cents to $73.67.
Prices jumped almost 3 per cent on Thursday as Israel bombed nuclear targets in Iran, and Iran fired missiles and drones at Israel after hitting an Israeli hospital overnight. The week-old war between Israel and Iran showed no signs of either side backing down.
Brent futures trimmed previous session gains following the White House's comments that President Donald Trump will decide whether the US will get involved in the Israel-Iran conflict in the next two weeks.
"
Oil prices
surged amid fears of increased US involvement in Israel's conflict with Iran. However, the White House press secretary later suggested there was still time for de-escalation," said Phil Flynn, analyst at The Price Futures Group.
Iran is the third-largest producer among members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, extracting about 3.3 million barrels per day of crude oil.
About 18 million to 21 million bpd of oil and oil products move through the Strait of Hormuz along Iran's southern coast, and there is widespread concern the fighting could disrupt trade flows in a blow to supplies.
"The "two-week deadline" is a tactic Trump has used in other key decisions. Often these deadlines expire without concrete action,.. which would see the crude oil price remain elevated and potentially build on recent gains," said Tony Sycamore, analyst at IG.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Banks are financing their own multitrillion-dollar nightmare
If you come home early from vacation and find robbers ransacking your house, you could call the police and try to stop the crime. But the true alpha move would be to help the robbers load your valuables onto the truck and then tell them which of your neighbors are also on vacation in exchange for a cut of the profits. Banks are choosing the alpha option, basically abetting theft from themselves by backing new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels, thus stoking the planetary heating that stunts economic growth and their own insurance and mortgage businesses. Of course, these financial companies do get a cut of the short-term profits from this environmental sabotage. And by abandoning the pretense of siding with the climate, they avoid political blowback from a US government that has declared war on it. But the long-term result will be a global economy trillions of dollars poorer and far less stable, impoverishing just about everyone, including the banks. The world's 65 biggest banks delivered $869.4 billion in financing to fossil-fuel companies last year, up $162.5 billion from 2023, according to a new report by the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofit groups. Banks have funneled $7.9 trillion in loans and underwriting to these polluting industries since the Paris climate accords took effect in 2016, by the report's measure. This doesn't include any investments by banks' asset-management units, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars more. Bloomberg Last year's financing surge reversed two years of declines and coincided with a turn of political sentiment against 'woke' environmental, social and governance considerations in business. Climate actions drew some of the harshest attacks, with President Donald Trump and other conservatives blaming them for rising energy prices. Such claims helped Trump win a second term. On his first day in office, he declared that his predecessor's foolish concern for the climate had created a 'national energy emergency' that hurt Americans' finances. His prescription has been to attack any public or private activity meant to slow the burning of fossil fuels. Live Events Banks saw the direction that the wind was blowing and quickly changed tack. The biggest immediately quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a group that vows to help eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They claim to still have their own goals for curbing emissions, but they've apparently given up trying to make their actions match their words. To meet the Paris Agreement 's rapidly fading stretch goal of holding global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, energy financing should favor green projects over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 ratio, according to BloombergNEF. In 2023, the latest data available, the ratio was just 0.89-to-1. Boosting fossil-fuel financing last year probably didn't move that ratio in the right direction. Bloomberg Meanwhile, the economic damage caused by a heating planet keeps mounting. Global climate-related costs — including insured and uninsured losses, government relief spending and higher insurance premiums — have topped $18.5 trillion since January 2000, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated recently. The US alone accounted for $7.7 trillion of the damage, or 36% of its growth in gross domestic product over that stretch. In just the 12 months through April, US climate-related costs totaled nearly $1 trillion, BI said, roughly matching bank financing for fossil fuels during that time. You might argue economic activity is economic activity, that building a house is basically the same as rebuilding a house, that government disaster relief is no different from any other flavor of government spending. But simply responding to disasters again and again is no way to grow an economy. Money spent to rebuild houses, bridges and roads is money not spent on college educations, better infrastructure or other productivity-boosting measures. It steals growth from the future. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper last fall estimated that a planet hotter by 3C — its current trajectory — would have a GDP that was smaller by more than a third. A study last week from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found that a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate measures, something Trump and congressional Republicans have been working hard to do, would shave $1.1 trillion from US GDP alone over the next decade. It would also kill 22,800 Americans, take $160 billion from American incomes and cause the average home's energy bill to be $206 higher. Talk about an emergency. But if you need a more immediate climate threat to finance profits to be convinced, you can already see one in the growing crisis in home insurance. Every new wildfire, flood, tornado and hurricane exposes just how underinsured and underprepared Americans are for such disasters, putting possibly $2 trillion in home valuations at risk. Given the political reality, it's understandable for banks to speak softly about protecting the planet and their own future profits. Helping fossil fuels build an even bigger stick with which to beat them makes much less sense.
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Middle-East trade: India Inc faces limited impact from Iran-Israel conflict so far, says CRISIL
AI Image The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has so far had a limited impact on Indian companies' global trade exposure, but any escalation could pose risks to key sectors, CRISIL Ratings said in a report. While global crude prices have remained volatile amid the tensions between Israel and Iran, India's direct trade with both countries is under 1% of total foreign trade, the report noted. Brent crude prices have risen from around $65 per barrel in April–May to between $73 and $76 in the past week. 'The immediate fallout on India Inc's trade remains modest, given the small scale of direct commercial links,' the report said as quoted PTI. It also warned that if geopolitical risks intensify, the effect could spill over into energy markets and industry supply chains. According to CRISIL, upstream oil producers may benefit from higher prices, but refiners could see their margins squeezed. Sectors like aviation, speciality chemicals, paints and tyres may also feel the pinch if crude prices climb further or logistics are disrupted. India's exports to Iran are dominated by basmati rice, while trade with Israel spans more categories, the report added. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Economic Times
31 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Banks are financing their own multitrillion-dollar nightmare
Bloomberg Live Events Bloomberg (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel If you come home early from vacation and find robbers ransacking your house, you could call the police and try to stop the crime. But the true alpha move would be to help the robbers load your valuables onto the truck and then tell them which of your neighbors are also on vacation in exchange for a cut of the are choosing the alpha option, basically abetting theft from themselves by backing new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels, thus stoking the planetary heating that stunts economic growth and their own insurance and mortgage businesses. Of course, these financial companies do get a cut of the short-term profits from this environmental sabotage. And by abandoning the pretense of siding with the climate, they avoid political blowback from a US government that has declared war on it. But the long-term result will be a global economy trillions of dollars poorer and far less stable, impoverishing just about everyone, including the world's 65 biggest banks delivered $869.4 billion in financing to fossil-fuel companies last year, up $162.5 billion from 2023, according to a new report by the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofit groups. Banks have funneled $7.9 trillion in loans and underwriting to these polluting industries since the Paris climate accords took effect in 2016, by the report's measure. This doesn't include any investments by banks' asset-management units, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars year's financing surge reversed two years of declines and coincided with a turn of political sentiment against 'woke' environmental, social and governance considerations in business. Climate actions drew some of the harshest attacks, with President Donald Trump and other conservatives blaming them for rising energy prices. Such claims helped Trump win a second term. On his first day in office, he declared that his predecessor's foolish concern for the climate had created a 'national energy emergency' that hurt Americans' finances. His prescription has been to attack any public or private activity meant to slow the burning of fossil saw the direction that the wind was blowing and quickly changed tack. The biggest immediately quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a group that vows to help eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They claim to still have their own goals for curbing emissions, but they've apparently given up trying to make their actions match their meet the Paris Agreement 's rapidly fading stretch goal of holding global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, energy financing should favor green projects over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 ratio, according to BloombergNEF. In 2023, the latest data available, the ratio was just 0.89-to-1. Boosting fossil-fuel financing last year probably didn't move that ratio in the right the economic damage caused by a heating planet keeps mounting. Global climate-related costs — including insured and uninsured losses, government relief spending and higher insurance premiums — have topped $18.5 trillion since January 2000, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated recently. The US alone accounted for $7.7 trillion of the damage, or 36% of its growth in gross domestic product over that stretch. In just the 12 months through April, US climate-related costs totaled nearly $1 trillion, BI said, roughly matching bank financing for fossil fuels during that might argue economic activity is economic activity, that building a house is basically the same as rebuilding a house, that government disaster relief is no different from any other flavor of government spending. But simply responding to disasters again and again is no way to grow an economy. Money spent to rebuild houses, bridges and roads is money not spent on college educations, better infrastructure or other productivity-boosting measures. It steals growth from the future.A National Bureau of Economic Research paper last fall estimated that a planet hotter by 3C — its current trajectory — would have a GDP that was smaller by more than a third. A study last week from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found that a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate measures, something Trump and congressional Republicans have been working hard to do, would shave $1.1 trillion from US GDP alone over the next decade. It would also kill 22,800 Americans, take $160 billion from American incomes and cause the average home's energy bill to be $206 higher. Talk about an if you need a more immediate climate threat to finance profits to be convinced, you can already see one in the growing crisis in home insurance. Every new wildfire, flood, tornado and hurricane exposes just how underinsured and underprepared Americans are for such disasters, putting possibly $2 trillion in home valuations at the political reality, it's understandable for banks to speak softly about protecting the planet and their own future profits. Helping fossil fuels build an even bigger stick with which to beat them makes much less sense.
