Oil set for steepest weekly decline in two years as risk subsides
Oil prices rose on Friday though were set for their steepest weekly decline since March 2023, as the absence of significant supply disruption from the Iran-Israel conflict saw any risk premium evaporate.
Brent crude futures rose 50 cents, or 0.7%, to $68.23 a barrel by 1036 GMT while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude gained 49 cents, or nearly 0.8%, to $65.73.
During the 12-day war that started after Israel targeted Iran's nuclear facilities on June 13, Brent prices rose briefly to above $80 a barrel before slumping to $67 a barrel after U.S. President Donald Trump announced an Iran-Israel ceasefire.
That put both contracts on course for a weekly fall of about 12%.
"The market has almost entirely shrugged off the geopolitical risk premiums from almost a week ago as we return to a fundamentals-driven market," said Rystad analyst Janiv Shah.
"The market also has to keep eyes on the OPEC+ meeting – we do expect room for one more month of an accelerated unwinding basis balances and structure, but the key question is how strong the summer demand indicators are showing up to be."
The OPEC+ members will meet on July 6 to decide on August production levels.
Prices were also being supported by multiple oil inventory reports that showed strong draws in the middle distillates, said Tamas Varga, a PVM Oil Associates analyst.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Wednesday showed crude oil and fuel inventories fell a week earlier, with refining activity and demand rising.
Meanwhile, data on Thursday showed that the independently held gasoil stocks at the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) refining and storage hub fell to their lowest in over a year, while Singapore's middle distillates inventories declined as net exports climbed week on week.
Additionally, China's Iranian oil imports surged in June as shipments accelerated before the conflict and demand from independent refineries improved, analysts said.
China is the world's top oil importer and biggest buyer of Iranian crude. It bought more than 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian crude from June 1-20, according to ship-tracker Vortexa, a record high based on the firm's data.
(Reporting by Siyi Liu in Singapore and Nicole Jao in New York; Editing by Jamie Freed, Elaine Hardcastle and David Evans)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
27 minutes ago
- Gulf Today
In win for Trump, Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked his policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually taking effect in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship cases found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump welcomed the ruling and criticised judges who have issued nationwide orders thwarting his policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump told reporters at the White House, describing these judges as "radical left." On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." Friday's ruling did not rule out all forms of broad relief. A key part of the ruling said judges may provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them. It did not foreclose the possibility that states might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to obtain complete relief. "We decline to take up those arguments in the first instance," Barrett wrote. The ruling left untouched the potential for plaintiffs to also did not a separate path for wider relief through class action lawsuits, but that legal mechanism is often harder to successfully mount. Sotomayor advised parents of children who would be affected by Trump's order "to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class." Just two hours after the Supreme Court ruled, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Maryland case filed a motion seeking to have a judge who previously blocked Trump's order to grant class action status to all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "The Supreme Court has now instructed that, in such circumstances, class-wide relief may be appropriate," the lawyers wrote in their motion. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." Reuters
The National
an hour ago
- The National
US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers
The Republican-led US Senate rejected a Democratic-led bid on Friday to block Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the President said he would consider more bombing. The Senate vote was 53 to 47, along party lines, against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a member of the Senate armed services and foreign relations committees, on introduced the bill last week. The legislation expressed concern about the escalating violence in the Middle East and its potential to pull the US into conflict - which it–ultimately did when Mr Trump ordered strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure days later. 'It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States,' the Democratic senator said. 'I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict." Asked o' Friday if he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites again if he deemed necessary, Mr Trump said: 'Sure, without question.' Passage of the resolution was seen as a long shot. Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and have overwhelmingly stood with the President in support of his decision to strike Iran. There were some fractures in the Make America Great Again movement that seem largely to have healed now that it seems the strikes will not provoke a longer conflict. Most Republicans hold that Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Mr Trump. Democrats, meanwhile, have cast doubt on that justification, arguing the President should have come to Congress first. They also said the President did not update them adequately, with Congress's first briefings taking place on Thursday.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Trump says ceasefire in Gaza possible within 'next week'
President Donald Trump on Friday said he expects a ceasefire in the war in Gaza to be reached within a week. Speaking from the Oval Office during the signing of a peace accord between Congo and Rwanda, Mr Trump said he had earlier been speaking with people involved in reaching a truce in the 20-month-old war. 'We think within the next week, we're going to get a ceasefire,' he said. He added that the US was supplying money and food to the war ravaged coastal enclave. 'We're involved because people are dying and I look at those crowds of people that have no food, no anything, and we're the ones that are getting it there,' he said. Mr Trump's comments follow months of stalled efforts to bring an end to the war in Gaza that ignited on October 7, 2023, after the Iranian-backed group Hamas attacked Israel. It also comes days after the Trump administration conducted strikes on Iran's three nuclear sites. At least 54,084 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes since the war's start, and much of the enclave has been reduced to rubble. A brief ceasefire that was reached in January – a day before Mr Trump took office – collapsed in March. Israel moved to block the entry of food aid and assistance, compounding the suffering of the approximately two million Gaza residents who are facing dire food shortages. The Trump administration advanced the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private aid group, to address the concerns over famine in the Strip. But the group has drawn intense scrutiny after scenes of chaos and bloodshed unfolded at aid distribution sites. Since late May, nearly 550 people have been killed near GHF its four aid centres while seeking food, according to local health authorities. The GHF, backed by Israel and the US, has denied that deadly incidents have occurred in the immediate vicinity of its aid points. They say they've handed out more than 46 million meals. The UN and other aid groups have refused to work with the GHF, calling them a 'death trap.' 'The new aid distribution system has become a killing field,' said Philippe Lazzarini, head of the UN agency for Palestinian affairs (UNWRA). 'This abomination must end through a return to humanitarian deliveries from the UN including UNRWA,' he wrote on X. The US State Department on Thursday said that it is providing $30 million in direct funding to the group. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Thursday published a report quoting unnamed soldiers saying they were ordered to deliberately fire live bullets at crowds near distribution centres to disperse them, even when they posed no threat.
