Oil dips ahead of expected OPEC+ output increase
Brent crude futures were down 62 cents, or 0.9%, at $68.18 a barrel by 1118 GMT while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude fell 62 cents, or 0.93%, to $66.38. Trade was thinned by the U.S. Independence Day holiday.
Both contracts on track for a small weekly gain, with Brent trading about 0.6% higher than last Friday's close and WTI around 1.3% higher.
Eight OPEC+ countries are likely to make another oil output increase for August at a meeting on Saturday in their push to boost market share. The meeting had been moved forward a day to Saturday.
"If the group decides to increase its output by another 411,000 barrels per day (bpd) in August, as expected, for the fourth successive month, oil balance estimates for the second half of the year will be reassessed and will suggest accelerated swelling in global oil reserves," said PVM analyst Tamas Varga.
Crude prices also came under pressure from a report on U.S. news website Axios, saying that the United States was planning to resume nuclear talks with Iran next week, while Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araqchi said Tehran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he would meet representatives of Iran "if necessary" even as the U.S. imposed fresh sanctions targeting Iran's oil trade. Meanwhile, uncertainty over U.S. tariff policy was back in the spotlight as the end of a 90-day pause on higher levies approaches.
Washington will start sending letters to countries on Friday, specifying what tariff rates they will face on goods sent to the United States, a clear shift from earlier pledges to strike scores of individual trade deals.
"The oil market might take on more of a direction next week once we have had the results of the OPEC+ meeting at the weekend and because Trump's tariff deadlines are due next week," said Investec's head of commodities, Callum Macpherson.
Separately, Barclays said it had raised its Brent oil price forecast by $6 to $72 a barrel for 2025 and by $10 to $70 a barrel for 2026 on an improved demand outlook.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
43 minutes ago
- The National
From sanctuary to scrutiny: Afghans in America face the weight of Trump's immigration clampdown
Sayed Naser was due to attend a family wedding in September 2023 when the Taliban killed his brother, he says, forcing him into hiding and eventually prompting him to flee Afghanistan. Mr Naser says he worked with US forces during the country's two-decade war, as a translator and logistics contractor at several military bases. This made him and his family a target for reprisal attacks after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and fall of Kabul. Fearing for his life, Mr Naser escaped to Iran before obtaining a humanitarian visa for Brazil. He travelled to the country in 2024 and, from there, made the treacherous overland journey through the Darien Gap to Mexico, covering thousands of kilometres. Advocates for Mr Naser say he was paroled into the US legally at San Ysidro using the CBP One app, a mobile tool developed by the US Customs and Border Protection to schedule appointments for non-citizens seeking to enter the US at designated spots along the country's southern border. The app has since been made defunct by the US administration of President Donald Trump as part of the government's clampdown on immigration. Mr Naser applied for asylum when he arrived and also has a continuing case for a Special Immigrant Visa, which gives a way to permanent residency for foreign nationals who have worked with the US government and face serious threats because of their service. When Mr Naser attended a court hearing for his asylum case in San Diego on June 12, he was detained by two masked agents with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Footage of the arrest shows Mr Naser being handcuffed while he explains his situation to the officers. 'For more than three years I worked with the US military back in my home country," he tells them. 'I worked in a very dangerous part of Afghanistan … I have all the evidence.' Advocacy groups backing Mr Naser say an immigration judge dismissed his asylum case, granting a motion by the Department of Homeland Security that it was 'improvidently issued'. Shawn VanDiver, who was in the US Navy and is president of AfghanEvac, an organisation helping to relocate and resettle Afghan allies of the US, told The National that Mr Naser is now at serious risk of being deported to a country where he faces an uncertain future. 'With one stroke of a pen, Sayed was thrust into a secretive, fast-track deportation pipeline that offers no courtroom and no lawyer," Mr VanDiver said. 'That could see him flown out of the country within days – possibly not even to Afghanistan, but to any third nation President Trump picks.' The US Supreme Court in a recent ruling allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show harm they could face, handing the President another win in his pursuit of mass deportations. That case was filed after the administration tried to send a group of primarily South-East Asian migrants to politically unstable South Sudan. Reports suggest officials are also considering sending migrants to Libya, despite previous US condemnation of that country's treatment of those detained. Brian McGoldrick, a lawyer working for Mr Naser, told The National his client was 'very dejected' on learning that his asylum case had been dismissed. If he is not immediately deported, he could spend the foreseeable future in detention while authorities come to a ruling. 'It's already been a long process for him," Mr McGoldrick said. The department did not respond to a request for comment on Mr Naser's case. Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the DHS, told PBS: 'We were working with the Pentagon and we found there was no verifiable information that Mr Naser worked with the US government while he was in Afghanistan.' His advocates say her comments are untrue, and that he was vetted through the CBP One app and his application for work authorisation in the US. 'Broadly, the Department of Defence didn't keep records,' Mr VanDiver said. 'The record-keeping was on the Afghan wartime allies themselves.' Democratic senator Chris Coons of Delaware called Mr Naser's detention 'one of the most heartbreaking betrayals of the Trump administration.' 'He should not be facing imminent deportation," Mr Coons said. Mr VanDiver added: 'Masked ICE agents, like the Gestapo, are snatching people up and throwing them in jail. They stood with us in war. This is the thanks they get. People are absolutely terrified … they don't know what to do.' 'No other option' On a hot and humid day in the outskirts of Richmond, Virginia, Abdullah Zarify is rolling out handmade rugs in the city's Watan Market, a business he built himself after escaping to the US as the Taliban seized Kabul. Mr Zarify worked with an American defence contractor during the US war and, along with several members of his family, was among the tens of thousands of Afghans who were evacuated on military planes as the militants entered Kabul in 2021. 'We didn't have any other option', he told The National. Mr Zarify, 29, secured an SIV through his employment and has since obtained permanent residency in the US, where he now lives with his wife, three children, two brothers and mother. His two sisters remain in Afghanistan and his father has died. 'I want a peaceful life', Mr Zarify said. 'We had to leave our country to save ourselves and save our children … nothing is guaranteed there.' As part of the continuing clampdown on immigration, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced in May that the US government would suspend Temporary Protected Status – an immigration classification granted to people from certain countries facing unsafe conditions – for Afghans. 'Afghanistan has had an improved security situation," Ms Noem said in a statement, which noted that allowing Afghans to stay in the US was against the national interest. 'Its stabilising economy no longer prevents them from returning to their home country.' TPS is set to end for Afghans on July 14. It comes as the State Department continues to advise against all travel to Afghanistan with its highest warning of 'Level 4: Do not travel', because of civil unrest, terrorism and kidnapping across the country. 'US citizens are advised not to go to Afghanistan," Mr Zarify says. 'If [Ms Noem] says it is safe … why do you give an advisory to US citizens? I know my country's situation and I know my people don't deserve to be deported.' While Mr Zarify's status in the US is considerably safer than those on TPS, he sympathises with fellow evacuees under threat of deportation, saying he has heard of cases in which Afghans have been tortured by the Taliban for speaking out about their rights. He is also a vocal critic of the group's stance on women. The Taliban has barred women from travelling without a male guardian and stopped girls from attending high school. 'Who wants their children to be uneducated?' Mr Zarify asks. 'I have a daughter and I want her to go to school. Uneducated means blind … do you want to raise your children blind?' 'Amnesty for all' The Taliban has urged Afghans hoping to live in the US to return to Afghanistan, with Prime Minister Hasan Akhund promising to protect those who worked alongside US forces. 'For those who are worried that America has closed its doors to Afghans … return to your country … you will not face trouble,' he said in a speech that was broadcast on state media to mark Eid Al Adha. In June, Afghanistan was included in a US travel ban on citizens from 12 countries, in what Mr Trump says is a move to protect America from 'foreign terrorists'. That came as an Afghan national who was evacuated amid the fall of Kabul and moved to Oklahoma, Nasir Ahmed Tawhedi, 27, pleaded guilty to plotting an election day terrorist attack in the US on behalf of ISIS. Taliban supreme leader Hibatullah Akhundzada has, according to Mr Akhund, 'granted amnesty for all". Mr VanDiver has rejected the idea that it is safe for Afghans to return to their country. 'The folks that served alongside us are marked for death by the Taliban … we get pictures all the time of Afghans who are killed," he says. 'Sure, the Taliban has all this propaganda out there … we know what's really happening and we know it's not safe. I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you if you believe the Taliban has an amnesty.' Mr Naser, who is being held at the Otay Mesa detention centre in southern California, has indirectly addressed Mr Trump since being detained. 'Please don't turn your back on us', he said in a message delivered by Mr VanDiver during a press conference. 'Keep your promises, let me live in peace with my family in this country that I love.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
What happens if Iran were to acquire the bomb?
The recent attacks on Iran and its nuclear facilities shocked the global community. While the world watches closely for further developments and hopes for a diplomatic resolution to this crisis, the attacks on Iran and its next steps will have a profound impact on the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The existing nuclear non-proliferation regime, established to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, is based on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), negotiated in 1968. It enjoys nearly universal membership and was instrumental in preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by another two dozen states, as was predicted before the treaty was put in place. Iran, a party to the NPT, threatened to withdraw even before the attacks. If Iran were to leave the NPT and focus on resurrecting its nuclear programme to build nuclear weapons, it would deal a major blow to the non-proliferation regime and its credibility. Moreover, regardless of Iran's decision about its membership in the NPT or pursuit of nuclear weapons, the damage to the efforts to curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons has already been done. The 21st century has witnessed several attacks by nuclear-armed states against non-nuclear-weapon states, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with the rationale of preventing the alleged acquisition of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. Some countries, like Libya, agreed to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons and were nonetheless attacked later. Ukraine, which inherited a nuclear weapons arsenal from the Soviet Union, gave them back to Russia and joined the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state. Many in Ukraine today ask themselves whether the decision to forgo nuclear weapons was the right one, and whether Ukraine would have been attacked if it had chosen to keep them. Countries also look at North Korea, which left the NPT and rushed to build nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US as a deterrent against military attacks. So far, this strategy has worked, and North Korea continues to expand and enhance its nuclear arsenal, proudly exhibiting it to ensure the US and others get the message. With the waning reliability of US commitments to its allies, some states may decide that they can only protect themselves with the ultimate deterrent – nuclear weapons. In South Korea, for example, public opinion already favours the nuclear weapons option. Iran's nuclear programme has made countries in the Middle East and beyond nervous for decades. We've heard disconcerting statements from Turkey and Saudi Arabia regarding a potential pursuit of nuclear weapons if Iran were to acquire the bomb. Would attacks on Iran and its nuclear programme shift the calculus of some of these countries regarding their own nuclear ambitions, serving as a catalyst for further nuclear proliferation? Iran insists on the peaceful nature of its programme. However, several elements of it were developed without a particular need for an existing or even planned nuclear energy programme and have been a source of proliferation concern. Iran was on the verge of having everything, including significant stocks of highly enriched uranium, but the bomb itself. It played the nuclear hedging game for over two decades but vastly expanded and accelerated it in the last couple of years. Future proliferators will take note of the risks posed by the ambiguity of their intentions while acquiring nuclear technologies and capabilities that could lead to weaponisation. It remains to be seen whether Iran will leave the NPT and focus on resurrecting its nuclear programme. Iran has already moved forward with the suspension of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, a key component of the non-proliferation regime that inspects nuclear activities and facilities and is a legal obligation under the NPT. It would be in its own interest to return to full co-operation with the IAEA and offer full transparency of its nuclear programme. Ultimately, further proliferation in the region, ignited by Iran's withdrawal from the NPT and pursuit of nuclear weapons, would be against Iran's own interests. Beyond a diplomatic solution to the existing crisis, there are several steps that NPT states could pursue to prevent further proliferation in the Middle East and beyond. One of these is an explicit legal obligation or regional agreement not to pursue national programmes for uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent fuel – two critical elements of the nuclear fuel cycle capable of producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. In this regard, the UAE stands as an example of steering clear of any ambiguity in its nuclear power programme. In its agreement on nuclear co-operation with the US (the so-called 123 agreement), it took on an obligation not to pursue these sensitive technologies. Another option is for any new facility involving enrichment and reprocessing to be established as an international or multilateral facility subject to international safeguards. One could argue that robust regional and international co-operation on nuclear energy and its peaceful applications could eventually pave the way for co-operation, transparency and trust-building among countries in the region. Another way to alleviate proliferation concerns in the Middle East is the establishment of a regional verification arrangement to supplement IAEA safeguards, modelled on the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC). Such an arrangement could build confidence in the peaceful nature of nuclear activities. In recent years, interest in nuclear power as a carbon-neutral energy source has significantly increased, including in the Middle East. It holds the promise of reliable and clean energy, with uses in various other applications beyond electricity generation, including desalination of water and many other benefits. For this promise to be realised, the NPT must hold firm, and the system of checks on proliferation must remain in place.
UAE Moments
an hour ago
- UAE Moments
BBC Staff Accuse the Broadcaster of Forcing Israeli PR
More than 400 media figures, including 111 current BBC journalists, have signed an open letter condemning the corporation for acting as 'PR for the Israeli government and military,' following a series of editorial decisions perceived to downplay Palestinian suffering and prioritize Israel's narrative. Core Allegations The letter claims the BBC's coverage 'falls short' of its own impartiality standards, failing to analyze UK government arms sales or airlifting narratives critical of Israel's actions . BBC's decision to shelf 'Gaza: Doctors Under Attack' and 'Gaza: Medics Under Fire'—films with harrowing footage of attacks on Palestinian medics—was seen as political censorship, driven by fear of appearing anti‑Israel. Staff condemned Sir Robbie Gibb—a BBC board member with close ties to the Jewish Chronicle and Conservative circles—accusing him of ideological interference in editorial affairs. Employee Testimonies An anonymous BBC insider said the following about the broadcaster: 'All too often it has felt that the BBC has been performing PR for the Israeli government and military.' Another insider also said, 'Opaque editorial decisions and censorship … we believe the role of Robbie Gibb … is untenable.' They also warn that staff are being 'gaslit' and that editorial standards are being suspended to accommodate political agendas. BBC's Response and Repercussions The BBC leadership has defended its editorial integrity, citing guidelines and internal checks for content decisions. However, these reassurances have done little to quell criticism. Critics, including prominent public figures like Miriam Margolyes and Mike Leigh, have called for Robbie Gibb's removal, arguing his presence undermines credibility. This revolt compounds other recent controversies: live-streaming anti‑IDF chants at Glastonbury, delayed removal of footage, and earlier suspensions of Gaza-related documentaries—all prompting over 400 current staff to demand an internal reckoning and renewed commitment to impartial reporting. This article was previously published on qatarmoments. To see the original article, click here
