OPEC+ announces sharp increase in July oil production
Representative image
VIENNA: Saudi Arabia, Russia and six other key OPEC+ members announced on Saturday a huge increase in crude production for July.
They will produce an additional 411,000 barrels a day -- the same target set for May and then June -- according to a statement, which is more than three times greater than the group had previously planned.
In recent years, the group within OPEC+ that is known as the "Voluntary Eight", or V8, had agreed to daily reductions of 2.2 million barrels with the aim of boosting prices.
But in early 2025, OPEC+ members decided on the gradual output increase and subsequently began to accelerate the pace.
The moves have resulted in oil prices plummeting to around $60 per barrel, the lowest level in four years.
OPEC+ "struck three times: (the output target for) May was a warning, June a confirmation and July a warning shot", Rystad Energy analyst Jorge Leon told AFP.
"The scale of the production increase reflects more than just internal supply dynamics," he said. "This is a strategic adjustment with geopolitical aims: Saudi Arabia seems to be bowing to Donald Trump's requests."
Shortly after taking office, the US president called on Riyadh to ramp up production in order to bring down oil prices, meaning cheaper prices at the pump for American consumers.
Stay informed with the latest
business
news, updates on
bank holidays
and
public holidays
.
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Asian stocks drop, gold rises in risk-off start to week
Asian shares dropped along with US stock-index futures as trade tensions dialed up, prompting investors to hold back on taking risky bets. Gold rose in demand for safe haven assets. Indexes in Japan and Australia opened lower. US equity-index futures slipped 0.3% after President Donald Trump ratcheted up trade tensions saying he would double tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and accusing China of violating an agreement with the US to ease tariffs. Treasuries dropped, with the yield on the 10-year rising 1 basis point. Gold advanced 0.7% after retreating last week. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo A gauge of the dollar edged lower after China urged the US to safeguard the consensus reached in the talks with the US in Geneva. The yen strengthened. Crude oil climbed even after OPEC+ agreed to lift output by less than some investors had expected. Tariff headlines are once again dominating markets after a legal back-and-forth last week on the status of Trump's century-high levies, which investors say will push the US into an economic recession. Amid all the uncertainty about the US trade policy and negotiations with countries including China, market participants are also monitoring with a sweeping tax bill that threatens to burgeon US deficit. 'The end of May is a precursor to the larger risks for June and the end of the second quarter,' Bob Savage, head of markets macro strategy at BNY, wrote in a note. 'The shift in mood this month highlights how markets have gone from unpredictable to merely uncertain, as concerns about trade, fiscal spending and monetary policy continue to drive prices.' Live Events Trump said China 'violated a big part of the agreement we made' in Geneva. The dust-up threatened to again upend trade relations between the world's two largest economies, which have been held together by a fragile, weeks-old tariff truce. China responded in a statement urging the US to promote stable trade relations. China will take resolute and forceful measures to safeguard its legitimate rights if the US continues to undermine China's interests, it said. Asian steel and aluminum shares mostly declined after Trump said he would hike tariffs on steel and aluminum to 50% from 25%. Traders in Asia will soon shift focus to Hong Kong shares after Chinese factory activity data contracted at a slower pace in May than the month prior. Mainland markets are closed for a holiday. US Treasuries delivered their first monthly loss this year in May, buffeted by renewed tariff uncertainty and growing anxiety over mounting levels of government debt. The 30-year yield rose for a third consecutive month, its longest losing streak since 2023, as Trump wrestles with Congress over a bill that promises to cut taxes. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent at the weekend said the US 'is never going to default' as the deadline for increasing the federal debt ceiling gets closer. 'Shares are at high risk of renewed falls given the ongoing tariff uncertainties, concerns about US debt, likely weaker growth and profits and the risk of a US/Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear capability if diplomacy doesn't work,' Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy and chief economist at AMP Ltd., wrote in a note.
Mint
42 minutes ago
- Mint
Where the trade court's tariff decision went wrong
President Donald Trump announces tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, April 2. During a national crisis, an advocate of tariffs testified before Congress that 'reciprocal trade agreements" push foreign nations to stop erecting 'excessive economic barriers to trade." Who said this? President Trump? Sen. Reed Smoot or Rep. Willis Hawley? It was President Franklin D. Roosevelt's secretary of state, Cordell Hull, explaining in 1940 how reciprocal tariffs could reverse unfair trade practices targeting the U.S. Mr. Trump's policy of using reciprocal tariffs to advance U.S. interests isn't a new or radical idea, and it's a necessary one. The U.S. Court of International Trade was wrong to rule on Wednesday that the administration had exceeded its authority in imposing these tariffs. The ruling overlooked history, statute, precedent and national interest. It was a misreading of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, and a misinterpretation of America's bipartisan tradition of using trade policy to defend national economic resilience. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed the trade court's ruling while it considers an appeal. In a separate case, a district judge in Washington issued an injunction against the tariffs, although he stayed his own order. The issue requires resolution only the Supreme Court can deliver. Americans should hope the justices side with Mr. Trump. In its May 28 decision, V.O.S. Selections v. U.S., the trade court held that IEEPA doesn't authorize the president to impose 'unbounded" tariffs. The opinion misses the mark on legal and historical fronts. It substitutes policy skepticism for statutory interpretation, undermining legitimate executive authority during declared national emergencies. The trade court's reading of IEEPA contradicts the statute's text and history. IEEPA's independent emergency authority allows the president to regulate, prevent or prohibit the importation of property in which foreign countries or nationals have an interest. The language mirrors that of the earlier Trading with the Enemy Act, which President Richard Nixon used to impose a universal 10% tariff in 1971. The courts upheld Nixon's use of that power in U.S. v. Yoshida International (1975), concluding that tariffs were a sensible approach to regulating imports during a declared emergency. Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977 with language directly drawn from the Trading with the Enemy Act. The trade court's description of the tariffs as 'unbounded" also contradicts Mr. Trump's painstakingly specific April 2 executive order, which imposes precise duties, product exemptions and country-specific rates. I should know: I helped coordinate their implementation. Further, the court errs in implicitly inviting itself to review the sufficiency of the president's emergency declaration. IEEPA requires only that the president declare a national emergency 'to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat" arising outside the U.S., which is exactly what the executive order does. Trade deficits can qualify as emergencies. In the Trade Act of 1974, Congress recognized that 'large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits could justify swift presidential action, including tariffs and quotas. This act's unique procedures didn't preclude similar IEEPA authorities addressing identical threats. Second-guessing presidential responses to emergencies defies precedent. In Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), the Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of President Jimmy Carter's hostage crisis response, intact to this day, which froze Iranian property in the U.S. Courts have long held that the political branches—not judges—determine how to deal with foreign economic threats that rise to emergency levels. Further, in Field v. Clark (1892), the justices held that 'it is often desirable, if not essential . . . to invest the President with large discretion in matters arising out of the execution of statutes relating to trade and commerce with other nations." While IEEPA gives the president significant latitude, Congress can terminate a national emergency by joint resolution. That Congress hasn't thwarted Mr. Trump's tariffs counsels restraint in questioning his decision. The trade court evidently yearns to restore misguided economic orthodoxy. But frictionless global trade remains a mirage. Even John Maynard Keynes, hardly an economic nationalist, cautioned against the utopian allure of borderless commerce: 'Let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national." The pursuit of a perfectly undistorted global market ignores American history and legal tradition. Hull's reciprocal-tariff program of the 1930s—the foundation of U.S. multilateral trade—was premised on the imposition of duties on imports from countries that refused to lower theirs. Hull understood that economic resets require leverage. The test of judicial reasoning is whether it honors the text, structure and history of the law it interprets. The Court of International Trade fell short of that test. Mr. Bogden is a fellow at the Steamboat Institute and a former clerk for the U.S. Court of International Trade.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Best of BS Opinion: India must heed the warning signs from without
Hello and welcome to BS Views, our daily wrap of the newspaper's opinion page. India's economy and technological prowess are on a steady path, but it faces external challenges in the form of both policies and nations, something that needs serious consideration. The final quarter of the financial year ended March 2025 saw a burst of economic activity, pushing GDP growth to 7.4 per cent for the quarter, and 6.5 per cent for the full fiscal. Private consumption also saw an uptick, and the central bank is expected to cut rates this cycle by 50-100 basis points, given a good monsoon and already-benign inflation. However, our lead editorial cautions, the main risk to the India story lies in the external environment, given global trade and economic uncertainties unleashed by US President Donald Trump. How the country navigates this and implements reforms to improve the business climate will shape its medium-term growth arc. India's indigenous Bharat Forecast System is a step forward in modernizing its capabilities, notes our second editorial. Given the country's diverse geography, such a system will help governments handle multiple challenges in the face of changing weather patterns and the rise of extreme weather events. More than that, accurate forecasts can radically improve the country's disaster preparedness and agricultural planning, helping farmers to make better planting and harvesting decisions. But first, the government must ensure timely dissemination of forecasts, community awareness, and last-mile connectivity, besides strengthening local institutions to act on them. Our lead columnist Ajit Balakrishnan looks back at the evolution of revolutions, and wonders if this is the time to think about a new model of technological or industrial change, one that puts the human condition front and centre, instead of pushing humans into poverty and starvation for the sake or profit. He invokes Mahatma Gandhi's exhortation at the time of the second industrial revolution, and recalls that the technological part of it was minor compared to the dehumanization of vast swathes of people, both in India, and the black slaves in north America. In short, he calls for revisiting history so that the next industrial revolution is more humane and equitable. Our columnist Debashis Basu writes on the rise and rise of China as a global power in its own right. In fact, it is no longer a prediction but a reality, thanks to sustained state ambition, disciplined execution, and a vast mobilisation of resources. In many sectors, in fact, it is already a global leader, but its technological and economic might poses challenges for India. Online, too, China is winning a propaganda war, projecting itself as a beacon of social order and techno-competence. India has the ingredients to grow like China, but lacks serious intent and goal-orientation. Perhaps India could take a page out of Xi's book, and start with a crackdown on corruption. Sanjeev Ahluwalia reviews David C. Engerman's book 'Apostles of Development: Six Economists and the World They Made', a close look at six eminent South Asian economists, all of whom graduated from Cambridge University, and shaped the region as per their own academic and political proclivities. The term 'apostles' is a riff on a 19th century secret society - the Cambridge Apostles. Lal Jayawardene of Sri Lanka, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, Jagdish Bhagwati and Manmohan Singh from India, Mahbub Ul Haq of Pakistan, and Sobhan Rehman of Bangladesh all find a place in the book, and how they helped shape outlooks towards economics and finance in their home countries.
