U.S.-E.U. Trade Deal Lifts Oil By Over 2.5%, But Will The Rally Last?
Oil futures rose by over 2.5% on Monday following an easing of trade tensions between the U.S. and the European Union, but doubts remain over the strength of the rally.
At 14:50pm EDT, global proxy benchmark Brent's front-month futures contract was up $1.79 or 2.65% to $69.45 per barrel in U.S. trading, while the West Texas Intermediate front-month contract traded at $66.86 per barrel, up $1.70 or 2.61%.
That's after U.S. president Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen agreed to a trade deal at a meeting in Scotland on Sunday, following months of tension between both sides.
Under the terms of the agreement, the U.S. will levy a 15% baseline tariff for most E.U. exports to the states, increasing the current tariff rates nearly three times over, but limiting a higher tariff threat of 30% that Trump threatened on August 1 if talks between both parties had collapsed.
Higher U.S. Energy Exports, Lower Trade Tension
In exchange, the Europeans have also promised to import U.S. energy - primarily oil and liquefied natural gas - worth $250 billion for three years. If reflected in the data, that would mark a massive increase in U.S. energy exports to Europe.
For context, in 2024, total E.U. purchases of U.S. energy products, including coal, was less than $100 billion, according to the Energy Information Administration, the statistics arm of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Wherever the energy trade volume goes, the easing of tensions will likely provide stability to nearly $2 trillion worth of trade between the U.S. and the E.U. It triggered a relief rally in the oil and equity markets, as trading resumed after the weekend on Monday.
The deal will require the approval of all 27 E.U. members. While each of these nations has differing interests and exposure to goods exports to the U.S., so far, no member state has indicated that it intended to block the deal from coming into force, despite little celebration among European leaders.
The uptick also strengthened prices further from last week, after Trump reached a trade deal with Japan just as the U.S. summer driving season, marked by higher demand, offers an additional upside.
The latest price move brings Brent futures closer to $70 per barrel, a level it is tipped to cap at the height of the summer in the Northern Hemisphere. However, fears of a oil surplus refuse to go away, and for good reason, because the crude market remains adequately supplied.
Will The Oil Rally Last?
Earlier this month, OPEC+, a select group of Russia-led oil producers and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) spearheaded by Saudi Arabia, opted to raise production levels for August by another 548,000 barrels per day.
Producers Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman said 'healthy oil market fundamentals and steady global economic outlook' were behind the move.
But the real story continues to be the rise of non-OPEC, especially U.S., production. According to the EIA, the nation's crude production hit an all-time high of 13.47 million bpd in April, breaking a previous record of 13.45 million bpd set in October 2024.
On Monday, it also confirmed that U.S. onshore production on Federal lands also rose to a record high of 1.7 million bpd in 2024, a sign of continued strength over the near- to medium-term.
The ranks of non-OPEC producers are also being boosted by higher output from Brazil, Canada, Guyana and Norway. Collectively, non-OPEC production growth is likely to rise by 1.4 million bpd, according to the International Energy Agency.
It means that non-OPEC production growth alone is more than sufficient to account for global demand growth projections for this year that have been put forward by various forecasters. These range from 0.72 million bpd to 1.3 million bpd, with IEA and OPEC being at the opposite ends of that range.
With additional barrels flowing in from all corners, there are fears the oil market may end up with a surplus of as much as 500,000 bpd or more. Given that OPEC+ now wants to take the fight to non-OPEC producers in a bid for market share, oil prices will likely head lower.
For instance, back in May, prior to the escalation of tensions in the Middle East the following month, analysts at Goldman Sachs were predicting sub-$60 average oil prices - $56 for Brent and $52 for West Texas Intermediate as the year-end approaches.
They were among a rising number of their peers lining up to trim oil price predictions for 2025-26 down to the $60s or below. Barring a major geopolitical escalation or macroeconomic event, that possibility may not be far away.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
How the E.U. Wooed Trump With Flashy but Flimsy Numbers
When Donald Trump unveiled his trade deal with the European Union on Sunday night, he fixated on its size. And when the White House later released a fact sheet on the agreement, it trumpeted pledges by the Europeans for big investments in the United States. 'The E.U. will purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and make new investments of $600 billion in the United States, all by 2028,' the document declared. But when the European Union released its own fact sheet on Tuesday, its description of that pledge was more muted — and far more noncommittal on spending outside of energy. 'E.U. companies have expressed interest in investing at least $600 billion' in 'various sectors in the U.S.,' the document explained. There's a reason for the equivocation: The European commitments are more like vague estimates than specific promises. The spending would come from private companies across the 27-nation bloc and would not be directed or enforced by European Union officials. The European Commission, the European Union's executive branch that is responsible for negotiating trade, can play a role in convening, organizing and encouraging big spending, but it cannot compel such outlays. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Associated Press
5 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump administration wants Harvard to pay far more than Columbia as part of settlement
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is pressing for a deal with Harvard University that would require the Ivy League school to pay far more than the $200 million fine agreed to by Columbia University to resolve multiple federal investigations, according to two people familiar with the matter. Harvard would be expected to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as part of any settlement to end investigations into antisemitism at its campus, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Harvard leaders have been negotiating with the White House even as they battle in court to regain access to billions in federal research funding terminated by the Trump administration. The White House's desire to get Harvard to pay far more than Columbia was first reported by The New York Times, which said the school has signaled a willingness to pay as much as $500 million. Harvard did not immediately comment. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as a staple for future agreements. Last week, Columbia leaders agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into alleged violations of federal antidiscrimination laws and restore more than $400 million in research grants. Columbia had been in talks for months after the Trump administration accused the university of allowing the harassment of Jewish students and employees amid a wave of campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war. Harvard faces similar accusations but, unlike Columbia, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, school challenged the administration's funding cuts and subsequent sanctions in court. Last week, President Donald Trump said Harvard 'wants to settle' but he said Columbia 'handled it better.' The Trump administration's emphasis on financial penalties adds a new dimension for colleges facing federal scrutiny. In the past, civil rights investigations by the Education Department almost always ended with voluntary agreements and rarely included fines. Even when the government has levied fines, they've been a small fraction of the scale Trump is seeking. Last year, the Education Department fined Liberty University $14 million after finding the Christian school failed to disclose crimes on its campus. It was the most the government had ever fined a university under the Clery Act, following a $4.5 million fine dealt to Michigan State University in 2019 for its handling of sexual assault complaints against disgraced sports doctor Larry Nassar. The University of Pennsylvania agreed this month to modify school records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, but that school's deal with the Trump administration included no fine. The Trump administration has opened investigations at dozens of universities over allegations of antisemitism or racial discrimination in the form of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Several face funding freezes akin to those at Harvard, including more than $1 billion at Cornell University and $790 million at Northwestern University. Last week, Education Secretary Linda McMahon called the Columbia deal a 'roadmap' for other colleges, saying it would 'ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.' ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Bloomberg
5 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Floats Skipping G-20 Summit, Citing Rift With South Africa
President Donald Trump said he may skip the G-20 summit in South Africa later this year, saying he's open to sending someone else to the gathering of the leaders of the world's biggest economies. 'I think maybe I'll send somebody else, because I've had a lot of problems with South Africa,' Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, faulting the country for what he said were some 'very bad policies.'
