As Iran Israel war escalates, India changes its policy on oil, Modi govt plans to import more oil from...
India is the third-largest importer of crude oil. (File)
India crude oil import: Amid the raging Israel-Iran war, which witnessed a major escalation after the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday, India has changing its oil import strategy, purchasing more crude oil from Russia in the month of June, compared to West Asian suppliers like Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Data shows that India is ramping up oil imports in wake of the ongoing situation in the Middle East, which is expected to skyrocket global crude oil prices.
According to data released by global trade analyst Kpler, Indian refineries have purchased about 20 to 22 lakh barrels of crude oil per day from Russia in June, the highest in two years. In May, India's daily oil import from Russia stood at 19.6 lakh barrels, while 4,39,000 bpd (barrels per day), were purchased from the US, which is significantly higher than 2,80,000 bpd in May.
Meanwhile, India's oil imports from West Asia, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait, dropped significantly in June, declining to around 2 million bpd, significantly lower than last month's figures. Why India imports more crude oil from Russia?
India is the world's third largest oil importer and consumer, purchasing about 51 lakh bpd of crude oil from other countries, which account for around 80 percent of the country's domestic oil needs. Traditionally, India imported crude oil from West Asian countries, but in recent years Russia has become the country top crude oil supplier, especially after the Russia-Ukraine war broke out in February 2022.
After the war broke out, Russia's oil imports fell drastically, primarily due to sanctions imposed by the US and allis, due to which Moscow sold its oil at a much cheaper price than other countries, one of the key reasons why India started importing more crude from Russia. US attacks Iran
On Sunday morning, US B-2 Stealth bombers dropped GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, purportedly destroying the sites. The bunker busters, each weighing about 13,600 kilos, are capable of penetrating up to an estimated 200 feet of reinforced concrete.
The attack came just two days US President after Donald Trump sought two weeks time to decide whether the US would join Israel in its war against Iran. But analysts believe that US action may have been prompted because Iran was preparing to shift its nuclear assets, including enriched Uranium, to secret locations from its nuclear facilities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
23 minutes ago
- India.com
Iran-Israel War: ‘Chernobyl in the Making?' Explosions Rock Iran's Nuclear Plant After US Strikes
Iran-Israel War: Tensions in the Middle East soared further on June 22 as explosions echoed through Iran's southern port city of Bushehr, home to the country's only operational nuclear power plant. The Israeli military claimed responsibility for the strike, saying it also targeted missile launchers in Isfahan and Ahvaz. The timing of the attack – barely hours after the United States struck three Iranian nuclear sites – has raised serious fears of a looming nuclear crisis. While Iranian officials have yet to confirm any damage to the nuclear plant itself, concerns are mounting. Built with Russian assistance, the facility operates using nuclear fuel supplied by Moscow. The same fuel is shipped back to Russia after use to mitigate proliferation risks. As of now, Iranian authorities report no radiation leaks. But the attack is being viewed in international circles as a dangerously provocative move. Rafael Grossi, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had previously warned that a direct strike on the Bushehr plant could trigger catastrophic consequences. 'A hit on the facility could lead to a massive release of radioactivity, affecting not just Iran but its neighbours as well,' he had said while addressing the UN Security Council. Experts agree that if a direct strike compromises the reactor, the fallout could mirror nuclear disasters of the past. The comparison many are drawing is to Chernobyl. In that 1986 tragedy, a botched test led to an explosion and fire at a reactor in Ukraine, spreading radioactive contamination across Europe and causing long-term health damage to thousands. According to international nuclear safety protocols, any such incident at Bushehr would demand swift protective actions. These would likely include mass evacuations, iodine distribution, food and water restrictions and large-scale radiation monitoring across several hundred kilometres. Russia has issued its own warnings. With more than 600 personnel, including 250 permanent staff, stationed at the Bushehr facility, Moscow had reportedly sought assurances from Israel for their safety. Rosatom chief Alexey Likhachev said any damage to the site could unleash a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl. The Israeli military had previously claimed its mention of Bushehr as a target was a mistake. But the latest strikes tell a different story. As images of smoke rising over Bushehr surface on social media and satellite data, the world is left to reckon with the possibility that a new chapter in warfare – one where nuclear power plants become battlefronts – may be closer than ever imagined. For now, the region holds its breath. Radiation levels remain normal. But questions remain – how close did the world come to a nuclear nightmare? And what happens if the next missile does not miss?
Deccan Herald
24 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Shah's anti-English position harms India
Union Home Minister Amit Shah's denunciation of the English language is ill-conceived and uninformed, and will only work against the country's unity and development. Speaking at the launch of a book by a former civil servant in Delhi on Thursday, Shah said, ''The time is not far away for people speaking in English in the country to feel ashamed'. The prejudice against English is part of the ideology and politics of his party, and Shah has only given expression to it. He is right in saying that the languages of our country are the jewels of our culture, but wrong in dismissing the role of English as a linking and unifying language. He is also right in saying that we should take pride in our languages, but pride in one's own language need not translate into shame about another language. Languages are not zero sum games, and the knowledge of another language does not mean degradation or devaluation of the mother tongue. Languages gain by interaction. All Indian languages have enriched themselves from their interaction with English. .English not a shame but power: Rahul Gandhi hits back at Amit Shah's remarks, says discouraging it to deny opportunities .English is spoken by over 100 million people in the country, and the number exceeds the number of speakers of most other languages. It is the official language in many states. India is also said to have the second largest English-speaking population in the world. English has served as the official and link language for centuries in our country, which speaks richly diverse languages. It is difficult to imagine English losing its status in the near future, going by the people's attitude towards it. The usefulness and popularity of a language don't always depend on government policies. People's relationship with language is a sensitive matter and governments should handle it with care and caution. .Shah's tirade against English should also be seen in context of the efforts of the central government and the BJP to promote Hindi aggressively. This has resulted in apprehensions about domination of Hindi in non-Hindi states. English was the language of power in India during colonial times but after the British left, it serves as a link language, with an equal relationship with all languages of the country. The replacement of English would lead to its place being taken up by Hindi, which comes with political baggage. English is also India's window to the world in every respect, and closing that window would hurt and set the country back. Shah says India cannot be imagined with a foreign language. But the idea of India is not static--it has room for English, which is no longer considered a foreign language.
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Oil soars as Trump's attack on Iran ramps up risks to supplies
Oil surged after the US struck Iran's three main nuclear sites and threatened further attacks, exacerbating a crisis in the Middle East and stoking concerns that energy supplies from the region could be disrupted. A map showing the Strait of Hormuz and Iran is seen behind a 3D printed oil pipeline in this illustration taken June 22, 2025.(Reuters) Global benchmark Brent rallied as much as 5.7% to $81.40 a barrel, extending three weeks of gains. Timespreads widened. In a weekend address, US President Donald Trump said air attacks had 'obliterated' the trio of targets, and threatened more military action if Iran didn't make peace. In its initial reply, Tehran warned the strikes would trigger 'everlasting consequences.' The US assault — which targeted sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — dramatically raises the stakes in the confrontation and increases the premium that traders are pricing into the global energy market. Still, the extent of the gains will hinge on how Tehran opts to respond to the US moves. The global oil market has been gripped by the crisis since Israel attacked Iran more than a week ago, with futures pushing higher, options volumes spiking along with freight rates, and the futures curve shifting to reflect tensions about tighter near-term supplies. The Middle East accounts for about a third of global crude output, and higher, sustained prices would boost inflationary pressures worldwide. 'This could set us on a path toward $100 oil, if Iran responds as they have previously threatened to,' said Saul Kavonic, an energy analyst at MST Marquee. 'This US attack could see a conflagration of the conflict.' There are multiple, overlapping risks for physical crude flows. The biggest centers on the Strait of Hormuz, should Tehran seek to retaliate by attempting to close the chokepoint. About a fifth of the world's crude output passes through the narrow waterway at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. Iran's parliament has called for the closure of the strait, according to state-run TV. Such a move, however, could not proceed though without the explicit approval of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Rival Suppliers In addition, Tehran could opt to target crude infrastructure in rival suppliers in the Middle East, such as fellow OPEC producers including Saudi Arabia, Iraq or the United Arab Emirates. After the US attack, both Riyadh and Baghdad expressed concern about the targeting of the nuclear facilities. Elsewhere, Tehran could orchestrate attacks on ships on the other side of the Arabian peninsula in the Red Sea, encouraging Yemen-based Houthi rebels to harass vessels. After the US attacks, the group threatened retaliation. If the hostilities escalate, Tehran's own oil-producing capabilities could be targeted, including the key export hub at Kharg Island. Such a move, however, could send crude prices soaring, an outcome that America might want to avoid. So far, Kharg Island has been spared, with satellite imagery pointing to a drive by Iran to expedite its exports of oil. The crisis will also throw a spotlight onto the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and its allies including Russia. In recent months, OPEC has been relaxing supply curbs at a rapid clip seeking to regain market share, and yet members still have substantial idled capacity that could be reactivated.
