Oil falls on stronger US dollar, possibility of higher OPEC+ output
May 23 (Reuters) - Oil prices slipped on Friday, weighed down by a stronger U.S. dollar and the possibility that OPEC+ will further increase its crude oil output.
Brent futures fell 37 cents to $64.07 a barrel by 0015 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude futures lost 39 cents to $60.81.
Brent was down 2% on the week, and WTI was 2.7% lower.
The U.S. dollar strengthened against a basket of currencies on Thursday, boosted by the passage of President Donald Trump's bill for tax and spending cuts by the House of Representatives.
Oil typically trades inversely with the dollar because a stronger greenback makes the commodity more expensive for non-U.S. buyers.
A Bloomberg News report that OPEC+ was considering another large production increase at a meeting on June 1 also pushed oil prices lower.
Increasing output by 411,000 barrels a day (bpd) for July was among the options discussed, but no final agreement has yet been reached, the report said, citing delegates.
Reuters previously reported that OPEC+ would accelerate oil hikes.
A large crude oil build in the U.S. earlier in the week also weighed on oil prices.
U.S. crude oil storage demand has surged in recent weeks to levels similar to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to data from storage broker The Tank Tiger, as traders brace for a flood of increased supply in coming months from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies.
On Friday, the market will watch for U.S. oil and gas rig count data from Baker Hughes that is used as an indicator for future supply.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Private market push in focus as BlackRock hosts investor day
NEW YORK, June 12 (Reuters) - BlackRock (BLK.N), opens new tab will hold an investor day on Thursday that is expected to provide insight into the asset management firm's strategic priorities and its growing focus on private markets. The world's largest asset manager, overseeing $11.58 trillion as of the end of the first quarter, last year expanded its presence in private markets through a series of acquisitions that BlackRock's boss Larry Fink said were transformational for the New York-based firm. BlackRock spent about $25 billion in 2024 on infrastructure investment fund Global Infrastructure Partners and private credit business HPS Investment Partners. It also struck a $3.2 billion deal to acquire UK data provider Preqin. That acquisition officially closed in March this year. "I think investors are going to want more granular details and more color on BlackRock's strategy to increase exposure to alternative assets," said Cathy Seifert, an analyst at CFRA Research who covers BlackRock. BlackRock declined to comment on the focus of its investor day. Private assets generate significantly higher fees than exchange-traded funds (ETFs), a core part of BlackRock's business through its iShares franchise. In his 2025 annual chairman's letter to shareholders, BlackRock's Chairman and CEO Fink said protectionism had returned with force as a result of a wealth divide that could be countered by offering more investors access to high-return private markets such as infrastructure and private credit. Ben Budish, an analyst at Barclays, said he expected updates from the company on potentially creating indexes based on private markets after the acquisition of private markets data provider Preqin. "Looking at what BlackRock did with iShares and ETFs, is there a way to do that with private markets? … I'm sure there's more details to come on that," he said. Private credit, where non-bank institutions lend to companies, has experienced significant growth in recent years due to stricter regulations that have increased the cost for traditional banks to fund higher-risk loans. But broader market volatility caused by U.S. President Donald Trump's aggressive stance on tariffs has led to slower dealmaking in private markets in general, raising some concerns there may be a mismatch between money available for private lending and not enough places to invest it. Investors may also look for any signs regarding succession at the firm. Fink, 72, has led BlackRock since co-founding it in 1988. A recent wave of senior executive departures has reignited speculation about his eventual successor, even as Fink has signaled no immediate plan to step down. "The firm would do itself a favor by highlighting the depth and breadth of their management bench, particularly since the company's business model is expanding and potentially becoming more complex," said Seifert.
Reuters
28 minutes ago
- Reuters
China-US trade deal kicks the rare earths can down the road
LAUNCESTON, Australia, June 12 (Reuters) - The tentative deal between the United States and China may represent a retreat from the worst-case scenario of a total collapse of trade between the world's two biggest economies, but it creates more problems than it solves. President Donald Trump touted the agreement, which is still subject to final approvals on both sides, as a "great deal" that will be good for both countries. "We have everything we need, and we're going to do very well with it. And hopefully they are too," Trump told reporters prior to attending a performance on Wednesday evening at Washington's Kennedy Center. While not all the details are known, what has been revealed shows a deal that will probably hurt both economies, and not solve some of the pressing issues, such as China's dominance of the rare earths supply chain. The United States will impose tariffs of 55% on imports from China, while China can levy 10% on its purchases from the United States. This still represents a sharp increase in tariffs from the 25% on imports from China that was in place when Trump returned to the White House in late January. Tariffs at such a level are likely high enough to cause trade to shrink while boosting inflation in the United States, and lowering economic growth in both countries. If Beijing does keep 10% tariffs on imports of U.S. energy commodities, these will be high enough to ensure that virtually no U.S. crude oil, coal or liquefied natural gas enters China, eliminating one of the few products that China is able to buy in large quantities from the United States. It's also questionable whether the tariffs will be enough to prompt more manufacturing in the United States, or whether they will simply cause some production to shift from China to countries with lower import duties. Trump did single out rare earths when talking up the trade deal, saying China will provide the metals that are found in a wide range of electronics and vehicles "up front". But the deal does little to solve the underlying problem with rare earths, magnets and other refined metals such as lithium and cobalt, which are dominated by Chinese supply chains. At best, the agreement this week is a kick the can down the road type of deal, insofar as it prevents an immediate crisis in manufacturing in the United States, but leaves open the possibility that Beijing will once again threaten supplies if there are problems between the two sides in the future. China controls 85% of global rare earths refining, a situation that has hitherto largely benefited Western companies as they have been able to source the metals at prices far lower than what they would have had to pay had they tried to mine and process the elements by themselves. Rare earths are an example of the wider problem with so-called critical minerals. It's all very well to designate a mineral as critical, but if you don't actually do anything to secure a supply chain, then you really have to question just how critical the mineral is. Rare earths aren't really that rare, although finding economic deposits is challenging. It's the same for lithium, copper, cobalt, tungsten and a range of other metals that many governments designate as critical. But developing supply chains for these minerals and refined metals outside of China is costly, and so far Western countries and companies have been unwilling to commit funds. Companies won't develop new mines and processing plants if they have to compete with China at market prices, as very few projects would be economic. Governments have been sluggish in developing policies that would support new supply chains, such as guaranteeing offtake at prices high enough to justify investment, or by providing loans or other incentives. This means that the world remains beholden to China for these metals, and is likely to remain so until governments start to act rather than just talk. It's also worth noting that China will have learned from its latest talks with the Trump administration. As Trump himself may have put it, the United States doesn't hold all the cards, with Beijing having a few aces up its sleeve as well. The danger is always in overplaying one's hand. If Beijing keeps using rare earths as a trump card, it runs the risk that the West will cough up the cash to build its own supply chain. 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.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
It would be catastrophic for America if Trump doesn't forgive Musk
It would have been hard to miss the news this month of the spat between President Trump and Elon Musk. It 'escalated quickly', as the kids say, with Elon accusing Trump of hiding his associations with Jeffrey Epstein and Trump floating the possibility of cutting off Musk's federal contracts. The dust-up ended with Musk returning, tail between his legs, to say that he was sorry. This is the second time that Musk has been reminded that the forces of Maga have more political heft than the Silicon Valley tech bros. The last time the Maga-hammer came down on Elon, it was to remind him that Trump supporters voted against increased immigration after the Tesla boss pushed for the issuance of more H1B visas to foreign workers in the technology sector. This new conflict has reignited the debates between Maga populism and Silicon Valley libertarianism. While the dispute around H1B visas may have been clear-cut – the Trump ticket does not support policies like this – the issues that led to the recent clash are far less so. Musk was raising concerns around government spending that are becoming more relevant by the day. At the centre of the dispute was the so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill', a large piece of tax and spending legislation making its way through Congress. Musk, who has spent the last few months hacking away at government spending through the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), called the bill a 'disgusting abomination'. Unlike the printing of more H1B visas, Musk and his Doge programme were certainly on the ballot when Americans voted for Trump as president. In a speech to the Economic Club of New York in September 2024, then-candidate Trump announced that he would create a government efficiency commission that would undertake a 'complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government' and propose 'drastic reforms.' Beyond this, however, the issue of government borrowing is now an acute one. Just last month chief executive of JP Morgan Chase Jamie Dimon warned that mounting debts might 'crack' the US Treasury market, which prompted US treasury secretary Scott Bessent to insist that the United States is 'never going to default'. In April, The New York Times ran a shocking headline: 'Sell-off in US Bonds and Dollar Raises Questions About 'Safe Haven' Status'. In times past, major American newspapers would be cautious about playing politics with the American financial markets. But the pressures are becoming too obvious to ignore. To get a sense of how severe this is becoming, consider the fact that the interest rate on a 10-year Treasury bond is currently 4.47 per cent. Meanwhile, the yield on a German 10-year bund is 2.53 per cent. One of the reasons that US dollar assets are so popular with investors is that they are typically confident that borrowing rates in the United States will remain low and the dollar will remain strong. This is no longer the case. Interest rates are so high in the United States that American firms are now starting to borrow in Europe. These arrangements, which have become known in financial markets as 'reverse Yankee deals', are up 34 per cent in 2025 versus 2024 to a total of €83 billion. Corporate giants, like Pfizer and Alphabet, are dumping dollar loans and borrowing in euro instead. No wonder senior bankers at the European Central Bank are seeing this as an opportunity to boost the role of the euro. What we are witnessing are some of the most dangerous developments for the dollar-based financial system since Nixon ended the convertibility of the US dollar to gold in 1971. There are multiple trends feeding into this fragility – from the weaponisation of the currency when Russian reserves were seized in 2022 to the chaos unleashed by the Trump tariffs – but it seems unlikely that any of these factors would lead to a sharp increase in interest rates unless there was already such a large debt pile. Musk and Trump need each other. Elon needs his friend in the White House to ensure that his business model, which relies heavily on federal contracts, does not collapse. And Donald needs Elon to keep his administration's eye on the ball when it comes to economic reform. It seems unlikely that Musk will be able to reverse the Big Beautiful Bill. But he should continue to be a voice in the administration because he is performing a key role: highlighting what a dangerous place the country is in financially – before it is too late.
