OPEC, IEA crude oil demand forecasts may be too cautious
While the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the wider OPEC+ group publicly maintain that strong demand and a tight market justify increasing oil output, the numbers in their monthly report are more circumspect.
It is largely the same for the IEA, which forecast in its July monthly report that global crude demand will grow by 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2025, the slowest pace since 2009.
OPEC's July report is slightly more bullish, forecasting oil demand will increase by 1.29 million bpd in 2025, with 1.16 million bpd coming from countries outside the developed economies of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The forecasts from both the IEA and OPEC are now so cautious that they actually run the risk of being too pessimistic, especially in the top-importing region of Asia.
This is in stark contrast to last year, when OPEC in particular was massively bullish in its demand forecasts even as Asia's crude oil imports were declining.
There is, of course, a difference between demand forecasts and imports, but the level of seaborne imports is the key driver of crude prices, given it is this market, which accounts for about 40% of global daily oil demand, that sets the global prices.
In its July 2024 monthly report OPEC forecast that Asia's non-OECD oil demand would rise by 1.34 million bpd in 2024, with China accounting for 760,000 bpd of this.
However, Asia's crude imports actually declined in 2024, dropping by 370,000 bpd to 26.51 million bpd, according to data compiled by LSEG Oil Research.
It was the first decline in Asia's oil imports since 2021, at a time when demand was hit by the lockdowns prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The gap between OPEC's bullish forecasts for much of 2024 and the reality of weak crude imports by Asia may have tempered the exporter group's forecasts for 2025.
The question is whether they are now actually being too cautious.
OPEC's July monthly report forecast that non-OECD Asia's oil demand will rise by 610,000 bpd in 2025, with China the main contributor at 210,000 and India, Asia's second-biggest crude importer, seeing an increase of 160,000 bpd.
The IEA said in its July report that it expects China's total oil product demand to rise by 81,000 bpd in 2025, while India is expected to see a gain of 92,000 bpd. Total non-OECD Asia is forecast to see demand rise by 352,000 bpd.
Both the OPEC and the IEA numbers seem modest, especially since Asia's crude imports actually saw relatively strong growth in the first half of 2025.
Asia's imports in the first six months of the year were 27.25 million bpd, an increase of 510,000 bpd from the same period last year, according to calculations based on LSEG data.
Imports increased in the second quarter, especially in China, as refiners took advantage of the weakening trend in oil prices that prevailed at the time cargoes were being arranged.
It is likely that some of the increase in oil imports was used to build inventories, a process that may extend into the second half if oil prices remain soft as OPEC+ increases output amid the economic uncertainty created by U.S. President Donald Trump's ongoing global trade war.
If there is one lesson to be learnt from the difference between this year's circumspect oil demand forecasts and last year's buoyant estimates, it is that price plays a far bigger role in demand, especially in Asia.
Part of the reason Asia's crude imports fell short of forecasts in 2024 was because prices remained elevated for much of the year, reaching above $92 a barrel in April and only briefly dropping below $70 in September.
This year, prices have been softer, with benchmark Brent futures peaking at just over $82 a barrel in January, and trading as low as $58.50 in May.
Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab.
The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Australia won't receive Aukus nuclear submarines unless US doubles shipbuilding, admiral warns
The US cannot sell any Virginia-class nuclear submarines to Australia without doubling its production rate, because it is making too few for its own defence, the navy's nominee for chief of operations has told Congress. There are 'no magic beans' to boosting the US's sclerotic shipbuilding capacity, Admiral Daryl Caudle said in frank evidence before a Senate committee. The US's submarine fleet numbers are a quarter below their target, US government figures show, and the country is producing boats at just over half the rate it needs to service its own defence requirements. Testifying before the Senate Committee on Armed Services as part of his confirmation process to serve as the next chief of naval operations, Caudle lauded Royal Australian Navy sailors as 'incredible submariners', but said the US would not be able to sell them any boats – as committed under the Aukus pact – without a '100% improvement' on shipbuilding rates. The US Navy estimates it needs to be building Virginia-class submarines at a rate of 2.00 a year to meet its own defence requirements, and about 2.33 to have enough boats to sell any to Australia. It is currently building Virginia-class submarines at a rate of about 1.13 a year, senior admirals say. 'Australia's ability to conduct undersea warfare is not in question,' Caudle said, 'but as you know the delivery pace is not what it needs to be to make good on the pillar one of the Aukus agreement which is currently under review by our defence department'. Caudle said efficiency gains or marginal improvements would not be sufficient to 'make good on the actual pact that we made with the UK and Australia, which is … around 2.2 to 2.3 Virginia-class submarines per year'. 'That is going to require a transformational improvement; not a 10% improvement, not a 20% improvement but a 100% improvement,' he said. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Under pillar one of the Aukus agreement, Australia is scheduled to buy between three and five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US, starting in 2032. The UK will build the first Aukus-class submarine for its navy by 'the late 2030s'. The first Australian-built Aukus boat will be in the water 'in the early 2040s'. Aukus is forecast to cost Australia up to $368bn over 30 years. US goodwill towards Australia, or the import of the US-alliance, would be irrelevant to any decision to sell submarines: Aukus legislation prohibits the US selling Australia any submarine if that would weaken US naval strength. Australia has already paid $1.6bn out of an expected total of $4.7bn (US$3bn) to help the US boost its flagging shipbuilding industry. But the US itself has been pouring money into its shipbuilding yards, without noticeable effect. A joint statement on 'the state of nuclear shipbuilding' issued by three rear admirals in April noted that while Congress had committed an additional US$5.7bn to lift wages and shipyard productivity, 'we have not observed the needed and expected ramp-up in Columbia-class and Virginia-class submarine production rates necessary'. Caudle, himself a career submariner, said the US would need 'creativity, ingenuity, and some outsourcing improvements' if it were to meet its shipbuilding demands and produce 2.3 Virginia-class vessels a year. 'There are no magic beans to that,' he told the Senate hearing. 'There's nothing that's just going to make that happen. So the solution space has got to open up.' The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who first reported on Caudle's testimony to the Senate, told the Guardian that there was 'no shortage of goodwill towards Australia' from the US in relation to Aukus, but the realities of a shortfall of submarines meant there was a 'very, very high' probability that Virginia-class submarines would never arrive under Australian control. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Turnbull said the language coming from US naval experts was 'framing expectations realistically', essentially saying that, without dramatic reform, the US could not sell any of its Virginia-class boats. With the Collins class nearing the end of their service lives, and the Aukus submarine design and build facing delays in the UK, Australia could be left without any submarine capability for a decade, potentially two, Turnbull argued. 'The risk of us not getting any Virginia-class submarines is – objectively – very, very high. The real question is why is the government not acknowledging that … and why is there no plan B? What are they doing to acquire alternative capabilities in the event of the Virginias not arriving?' Turnbull – who, as prime minister, had signed the diesel-electric submarine deal with French giant Naval that was unilaterally abandoned in favour of the Aukus agreement in 2021 – argued the Australian government, parliament and media had failed to properly interrogate the Aukus deal. 'When you compare the candour and the detail of the disclosure that the US Congress gets from the Department of the Navy, and the fluff we get here, it's a disgrace. Our parliament has the most at stake, but is the least curious, and the least informed. On Friday, the defence minister, Richard Marles, told reporters in Sydney 'work on Aukus continues apace'. 'We continue to work very closely … with the United States in progressing the optimal pathway to Australia acquiring a nuclear-powered submarine capability,' he said. 'In respect of the production and maintenance schedule in the United States, we continue to make our financial contributions to that industrial base.' Marles cited the $1.6bn paid to the US to boost its shipbuilding industry already this year, with further payments to come, and said that 120 Australian tradespeople were currently working on sustaining Virginia-class submarines in Pearl Harbor. 'All of that work continues and we are really confident that the production rates will be raised in America, which is very much part of the ambition of Aukus.' The Guardian put a series of questions to Marles's office about Caudle's Senate testimony.
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Steven quit Virgin Australia for a better paid job - then asked for it back. He wasn't expecting boss's answer - as legal fight erupts
A former Virgin Australia worker who quit for a higher-paying job, but was refused his old role back when he changed his mind, has lost a legal bid against the airline. Brisbane worker Steven Curr resigned as operations leader of a Virgin industry sales support team on April 22, as he had received an offer for a better paying job. However, two days later, he learned he would be unable to undertake the new role and asked his employer to keep him on. When they refused - on the basis they had begun a restructure following his resignation - he applied to the Fair Work Commission to settle the dispute. At issue was whether the airline's decision to refuse his request to withdraw his resignation amounted to a dismissal, as Mr Curr claimed. In a decision handed down last week, Commissioner Chris Simpson sided with the airline in finding Mr Curr had not been dismissed. Mr Curr had worked at the airline since October last year and stayed on in the role until his notice period expired on May 19, about a month after his resignation. He sought to rely on the principle that a dismissal could occur after an employee resigned when employer conduct was the 'decisive termination factor'. He argued Virgin engaged in a series of behaviours following his resignation that transformed his resignation into an employer-initiated dismissal. These included considering Mr Curr's suitability for the role by application of performance criteria and formal meetings. By undertaking a review process following his resignation, he claimed the airline moved beyond 'resignation acceptance' to 'active employment determination'. In response, Virgin submitted there was no dismissal and the resignation had been entered voluntarily and with clear intent. It relied on a previous case that found a resignation cannot be withdrawn unilaterally unless it was given in the 'heat of the moment' and withdrawn immediately after. Mr Curr's resignation was not given in the 'heat of the moment' and was withdrawn only two days later, it said. Virgin said Mr Curr 'did not appear to be committed to the role that he had resigned from' and so it exercised its discretion to refuse the request. In making its case, the airline pointed to Mr Curr's decision to resign in search of higher pay. Mr Curr also claimed he decided to leave because of a 'difficult workplace environment'. Virgin disagreed, arguing the wording in his resignation letter indicated the relationship was 'good' and was submitted for different reasons. Commissioner Simpson ruled the airline was under 'no obligation' to accept Mr Curr's request to rescind his resignation. 'A valid resignation will end the employment relationship at the end of the relevant notice period in the absence of some other event ending the employment relationship before the end of the notice period. 'There is no such circumstance here.'
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Bombshell as Webjet is hit by a HUGE fine for misleading customers in landmark court ruling
Webjet has been ordered by the Federal Court to pay $9million in penalties for making false or misleading statements about the price of flights and booking confirmations. The case run by the ACCC, saw the online travel agency admit between 2018 and 2023 it made false or misleading statements when it advertised airfares that excluded compulsory fees. The statements were made on its website, and in promotional emails and social media posts. Webjet also admitted that between 2019 and 2024 it provided false or misleading booking confirmations to 118 consumers for flight bookings which had not actually been confirmed. Webjet later asked for additional payments, of up to $2,120 from consumers to complete the booking. Webjet has refunded these consumers. The ACCC started its investigation after a consumer complained about an airfare advertised as 'from $18', which cost almost three times that price after Webjet added its compulsory fees. 'We took this case because we considered that Webjet used misleading pricing by excluding or not adequately disclosing compulsory fees in its ads,' ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said. 'Seeking to lure in customers with prices that don't tell the whole story is a serious breach of the Australian Consumer Law.' The Webjet fees comprised the 'Webjet servicing fee' and 'booking price guarantee' fee which ranged from $34.90 to $54.90 per booking, depending on whether the flights were domestic, to New Zealand and the Pacific, or other international destinations. While Webjet's website, app and most emails contained information about the additional fees, some users had to scroll to the fine print near the bottom of the screen to see them. In its social media posts, Webjet didn't disclose the additional fees at all. 'Retailers must ensure their advertised prices are accurate. They should clearly disclose additional fees and charges,' Ms Cass-Gottlieb said. The Webjet fees represented 36 per cent of Webjet's total revenue in the period from 1 November 2018 to 13 November 2023. Webjet co-operated with the ACCC, admitted liability and agreed to make joint submissions to the Court about orders, including the penalty. The Court also made declarations and other orders proposed, including that Webjet review its compliance program and pay a contribution to the ACCC's costs.
