OPEC+ agrees big output hike as focus shifts to its next move
Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak made a rare visit to Riyadh on Thursday to discuss 'cooperation between the countries' with Saudi Arabian Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman. The two countries have jointly led OPEC+ since its creation almost a decade ago.
Article content
The meeting was intended for Saudi Arabia to show unity with Russia and bridge any gaps in their points of view ahead of the meeting, one of the delegates said.
Article content
Price Crash
Article content
OPEC+ sent oil prices crashing to a four-year low in early April when it announced a sudden acceleration in its plan to unwind the current tranche of cuts, with markets still reeling in the wake of Trump's dramatic 'Liberation Day' tariff announcements.
Article content
The alliance has followed with a series of bumper monthly increases, and sped up even further in July as it sought to capitalize on strong summer demand. Bloomberg reported at the time that the group had a provisional plan to complete the current supply revival with the September hike.
Article content
Article content
The latest decision was taken 'in view of a steady global economic outlook and current healthy market fundamentals, as reflected in the low oil inventories,' OPEC said in a statement on Sunday.
Article content
Crude prices have clawed back losses in recent months, with Brent futures in London trading just below $70 a barrel on Friday — down 6.7% this year.
Article content
The market's resilience was partly driven by the fact that OPEC+ supply increases — at least in their initial stages — fell short of the amounts promised, as the Saudis pushed countries that had previously over-produced to forgo their allotted hikes in compensation.
Article content
However, analysts have warned the market faces a mounting surplus later this year, when seasonal consumption weakens and as supplies increase and slowing global growth weighs on demand.
Article content
World oil markets face a surplus of 2 million barrels a day in the fourth quarter as Chinese consumption cools and new supplies swell in the US, Canada, Brazil and Guyana, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris. Forecasters on Wall Street, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., expect prices will sink towards $60 a barrel by the end of the year.
Article content
Article content
OPEC+ officials have offered a range of explanations for the accelerated supply revival, from punishing the group's over-producing members to placating Trump.
Article content
People familiar with the matter have said Saudi Arabia's main objective is to recoup the market share OPEC+ has ceded to rivals like US shale drillers during years of output cutbacks. Riyadh's OPEC+ quota for August, at 9.756 million barrels a day, would roughly put its production at the highest level in two years.
Article content
The pivot in oil strategy by Saudi Arabia and its partners, which had spent much of the past decade laboring to shore up crude prices, has also come at a cost for the cartel. Downward pressure on prices stands to widen an already-soaring budget deficit in the kingdom, which needs oil above $90 a barrel to cover government spending, the International Monetary Fund estimates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Alaska Sen. Murkowski toys with bid for governor, defends vote supporting Trump's tax breaks package
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, speaking with Alaska reporters Monday, toyed with the idea of running for governor and defended her recent high-profile decision to vote in support of President Donald Trump's tax breaks and spending cuts bill. Murkowski, speaking from Anchorage, said 'sure' when asked if she has considered or is considering a run for governor. She later said her response was 'a little bit flippant' because she gets asked that question so often. 'Would I love to come home? I have to tell you, of course I would love to come home,' she said. 'I am not making any decisions about anything, because my responsibility to Alaskans is my job in the Senate right now.' Several Republicans already have announced plans to run in next year's governor's race, including Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom. Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy is not eligible to seek a third consecutive term. Alaska has an open primary system and ranked choice voting in general elections. Murkowski is not up for reelection until 2028. A centrist, Murkowski has become a closely watched figure in a sharply divided Congress. She has at times been at odds with her party in her criticism of Trump and blasted by some GOP voters as a 'Republican in name only.' But her decision to support Trump's signature bill last month also frustrated others in a state where independents comprise the largest number of registered voters. She previously described her decision-making process around the bill as 'agonizing.' On Monday, she said it was clear to her the bill was not only a priority of Trump's but also that it was going to pass, so it became important to her to help make it as advantageous to the state as she could. 'So I did everything within my power — as one lawmaker from Alaska — to try to make sure that the most vulnerable in our state would not be negatively impacted,' she said. 'And I had a hard choice to make, and I think I made the right choice for Alaskans.'
Japan Forward
an hour ago
- Japan Forward
Two Atomic Bombs by America Ended the Asia-Pacific War ー Was There a Third Option?
Every August 6, on the anniversary of the atomic bomb attack against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an argument is remade. It reasons that Harry Truman, president of the United States of America, had two choices to end the Asia-Pacific War. He could force a surrender through the use of nuclear weapons or proceed with an invasion of the Japanese home islands. According to the contention, the option of the atomic bomb attack was the better of the two. It was touted as quicker, with an ultimately lower death toll. This assertion is nonsense, and always has been. There were never two options ー there were three. The third was to do what 99.9% of generals, commanders and statesmen have done throughout the history of warfare: Drop the insistence of unconditional surrender and negotiate. In this year of 2025, the two-option argument is even more nonsensical than usual. There are ongoing wars for which the option of negotiation will inevitably prevail. They include the Israel-Iran War and the war between Russia and Ukraine. Satellite image showing the entrance to a tunnel destroyed in a US airstrike, at a nuclear facility in Isfahan, central Iran, on June 22. (provided by Maxar Technologies, Reuters via Kyodo) Inappropriate Comparisons Curiously, when it comes to Israel-Iran, US President Donald Trump has been doing his best to draw parallels with the Asia-Pacific War and its dual option narrative. On June 17 he announced that he sought the "unconditional surrender" of Iran. In the wake of the US bombing of the Iranian Fordo nuclear facility, he evoked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the 1945 atomic bombs and his strike on Iran "ended the war," he proclaimed. It is possible that President Trump is trying to pull the rug out from underneath Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by insisting that the problem of the Iranian nuclear program has been resolved and further military action is not required. A more likely scenario, however, is that he is attempting to magnify the scope of his achievement. In any event, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki parallel is ridiculous. Iran has not been militarily defeated (let alone forced to surrender unconditionally). Moreover, the failure of the US strike against the Iranian nuclear program makes negotiations even more certain. Inevitability of Negotiations Between Russia and Ukraine When it comes to the Russia-Ukraine War, differences between it and the Asia-Pacific War are undeniably stark. There will be no unconditional surrender from either of the combatants. That war has reached a stalemate and will end with a ceasefire, followed by a negotiated agreement. President Trump has famously attempted to effectuate such a deal. Some reports say he suggests allowing the Russians to keep most of what they occupy. Meanwhile, Ukraine gains a measure of security assuredness through the increased presence of American business interests. In particular, that would come within the mining sector. President Trump has portrayed Russian President Vladimir Putin as both reasonable and conciliatory. The initial aim of Putin was to wipe Ukraine off the map but he presently seems content to settle for the eastern regions that he presently holds. It is quite a compromise on the part of Putin, Trump has suggested. Trump has also focused on the loss of life extracted by the war, implying that loss of territory is preferable to continued Ukrainian casualties. The Japan of 1945 was asking for considerably less than President Trump is prepared to concede to the Russians. And far more lives were in the balance. On the eve of the Hiroshima attack, the Japanese were merely seeking to preserve the integrity of the imperial system via assurances that the Emperor would not be put on trial. The Allies were also fully aware of this reality as they had broken the Japanese codes. Yet, the demand for unconditional surrender was maintained. Atomic bombing of Hiroshima (©US Army via Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, HO) The Belligerent Mindset of Unconditional Surrender Unconditional surrender is a rarely exercised option, not a default setting. Having demanded unconditional surrender, a belligerent power does not acquire justification in resorting to war crimes when the price of total victory becomes too steep. Moreover, perceived or real, the war crimes of one's adversary do not legitimize one's own. Many nonetheless claim that the Japanese militarist regime was so abhorrent that the ends justify the means. Even when those means constitute an unconditional surrender obtained via nuclear attack. This is an argument that could perhaps be made by an Asian whose country had been subjected to colonization. When forwarded by a member of the West, as it generally is, a measure of ignorance or hypocrisy is more than often present. There are two ways of interpreting the Asia-Pacific War. The first is as a war between Asia in tandem with the West, against the Japanese aggressor. The second is as an imperial war for control over imperial possessions, conducted by combatants universally devoid of clean hands. Unsurprisingly, the West prefers the first of these scenarios. The second scenario is accurate. In earlier articles for JAPAN Forward, I have suggested that those prepared to justify the nuclear attacks on the basis of their success in comprehensively destroying the culture of Japanese imperialism should also recognize the impact of Japan in bringing down the ethos that buttressed the Western imperial presence in Asia. The Western empires, the British Empire in particular, were sustained by the myth of white supremacy. The ritualized humiliation that the Japanese wrought upon the white imperialists captured in Asia destroyed this myth, and brought forward the timetable for Asian self-determination by a generation at least. A Clean Break with the Past A case could further be made that it was precipitous for Japan to lose its empire at a stroke. Under that perception, it was bad both for the colonized people of Asia and for Japan itself. Asia was not freed by the fall of Japan. Subhas Chandra Bosesits in the distinguished visitor's box of the Japanese parliament listening to Japanese Prime Minister Tojo declare support for Indian Independence, 16th June 1943. (©Netaji Museum and Centre for Studies in Himalayan Languages Society & Culture, Giddha Pahar, Darjeeling district, West Bengal) Following surrender, the Western colonial powers attempted reassert control, often with the assistance of Japanese troops kept at arms. These efforts, however, were ultimately for nought. The carefully crafted myth of white superiority that had allowed so few to control so many was a casualty of the war. Colonial presence within high density Asia could not be reclaimed. The slow and painful colony disbursement that the Western powers endured over the next 30 years was an ordeal that the Japanese might be glad to have avoided. Complimentary Aims Arguments against the demand for unconditional surrender are just as strong. The most compelling can be found in the manner in which the US and Japan coordinated their aims after the Japanese surrender. One of the principal concerns of the Japanese throughout the 1920s and 30s was the direction in which China would ultimately go. Nineteenth-century exploitation by the imperial West had left the Chinese government impotent, leading to its fall in 1912. From 1912 until 1949, China was fractured. Two regimes emerged as potential unifying forces: the right wing Kuomintang (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek, and the Communist Party under Mao Zedong. A scene from a painting of Chiang Kai-Shek in the Kinmen museum (©Robert D Eldridge) The Japanese were no less adamant than the United States of America that the Communists should not prevail. As with America, they sought to be the voice that a governing rightwing Chinese administration could not ignore. In short, America and Japan had the same fundamental aim when it came to China. They both sought to be the dominant influence over a ruling rightwing regime. Unsurprisingly, after Japan's surrender, the Japanese forces based within China eagerly cooperated with America by acting in the interests of the KMT. In occupied Japan itself, after a brief period, the US concluded that its fundamental aims and those of Japan within Asia were largely complementary. Many lives would have been saved if this reality had been acted upon prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Showa Emperor and General Douglas MacArthur. Japan's postwar constitution was drafted on General MacArthur's orders. Three Options, Not Two Arguments for and against the morality and merit of the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki exist in abundance and will continue to be advanced for generations to come. However, the US had more than a duality of options. It could have ended the war through negotiation - the manner in which the vast majority of wars are concluded. This is the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima attack. With negotiations inevitable in the Russia-Ukraine War, one hopes that the nonsense of the two-option argument has finally become clear. Moving forward, that debate should be directed towards the legitimate arguments that exist — both for and against those attacks. RELATED: Author: Paul de Vries Find other reviews and articles by the author on Asia Pacific history on JAPAN Forward.
Vancouver Sun
2 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Mark Carney takes a dig at B.C. Ferries for buying from a Chinese shipyard
NANOOSE BAY — Prime Minister Mark Carney continued his visit to B.C. on Monday as he toured the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges facility on Vancouver Island. Wearing a navy blue suit, Carney visited the facility near Nanoose Bay, about 30 kilometres north of Nanaimo, for about 2 1/2 hours, during which he toured the Royal Canadian Navy vessel Sikanni. He was accompanied by Navy Commander Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee and Commanding Officer Craig Piccolo from the testing facility. They also joined Carney on a tour of the facility's Range Operation Centre. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'Fire one,' he mused as he peered through binoculars and pretended to fire a torpedo, drawing laughter from those present. Carney marvelled at the strength of binoculars and joked at what he could see. 'I see a ferry,' he said, quickly adding, 'Not Chinese-made.' Carney's comment is in reference to B.C. Ferries, the private company owned by the provincial government that recently bought four ferries from a Chinese shipyard. While the company has said the shipyard offered the best deal, it has drawn criticism from Premier David Eby and federal Internal Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland. Carney left the facility by car, driving past a group of demonstrators with the Freedom From War Coalition. They held up Palestinian flags and signs calling on Canada to impose an arms embargo on Israel. Carney did not take questions from media and did not meet with people like Brenton Thompson and Bill MacArthur, who were hoping to catch a glimpse of him. 'That was underwhelming,' Thompson said. The tour marked a continuation of his visit to B.C. On Sunday, Carney met with Eby as well as officials from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. Carney and Eby discussed U.S. tariffs and a renewed animosity in the long-running softwood lumber dispute. After the meetings, Carney made a surprise appearance at Vancouver's Pride Parade, marching for about a kilometre along the route beginning outside B.C. Place Stadium.
