The Middle East has been a difficult region to deal with in oil markets. When it comes to energy geographies, the region has proven to be a disproportionately significant part of the world’s energy resources, with export facilities traversing a handful of maritime routes and political situations that have been tense, if not outright volatile, at times. The change in 2025 and into 2026 isn’t the nature of the forces but rather the confluence of overlapping pressures: ongoing sanctions enforcement, multiple theaters of conflict, OPEC+ tensions that are more public than ever in previous years, and disruptions to shipping in the Red Sea, which now seem to have become a semi-permanent part of the shipping route landscape.
There is no background information for commodity traders, market analysts, and energy investors. It’s a real-time, constantly evolving dynamic that can make all the difference in the day-to-day performance of prices, and it’s particularly important when prices are sliding around rapidly, and the stories behind them are changing just as fast.
The area is responsible for about one-third of the world’s crude production. That should make it significant in and of itself. What makes matters worse is that export infrastructure is concentrated in a handful of terminals, pipelines, and maritime corridors where a disproportionately large share of oil is exported. The disruption of any of them (even for a moment) reduces a large supply signal to an extremely short time frame.
Traders who follow crude oil price live data are the first ones to witness this. Real-time feeds are a reflection of more than just the fundamental supply-demand elements, but the market’s real-time assessment of the value of geopolitical risk and how much it “should” be worth at any given moment. A news event, which is a minor detail in a more stable environment, can cause future prices to move $5 or more in less than an hour. The consistent and tough question – and it is a tough one – is, which events actually have physical supply implications and which ones are sentiment-driven moves that die in a session or two?
About 20-21 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products go through the Strait of Hormuz, which is about 20% of the world’s oil consumption. No readily available bypasses can be found that can absorb that flow at a similar cost. There are partial alternatives, including the IPSA pipeline and Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, but they would not even come close to filling the deficit should the Hormuz be closed en masse.
It is a strait between Oman and Iran. Geography makes it so that any serious disruption in U.S.-Iran relations or of security conditions in the Gulf in general puts Hormuz back on the market’s agenda. Traders are all familiar with this: when there is a lot of Iranian tension, the futures positioning will always reflect the chokepoint risk, even if there is no incident per se.
The issue of the supply is something that generally doesn’t get the same kind of attention it should get, but the clearest example of this recurring issue is Libya. In recent years, internal political squabbles about how to divide up oil revenues have led to several production shutdowns that have temporarily increased the tightness of the light sweet crude grades refined by European and Asian plants. The disruptions are likely to persist when there is no political agreement, and the pattern is robust. In recent years, Iraq’s export pipeline to the North through Turkey has also been down for extended periods of time. These relatively inconspicuous disruptions can add up and impact medium-term supply dynamics, though not necessarily have the same impact as a more conspicuous incident.
The Middle East is a geopolitical risk that has many variables. It’s a combination of interwoven pressures that work in various ways and to varying effects on the length of the price impact. The issues that currently have the greatest attention of serious analysts are generally of three types:
Everything is unique, and sometimes they are not in the same direction at the same time. That’s part of what makes the current situation more complicated than any one risk headline implies.
The latest example of large-scale infrastructure targeting is the 2019 attack on Saudi Aramco’s Abqaiq and Khurais facilities in the country, which was carried out using drones and missiles. The loss in output occurred temporarily, amounting to about 5.7 million bpd, the largest sudden supply shock in modern oil market history. The recovery was quicker than many expected, partly because of the operational robustness of Aramco and partly because the situation was swiftly contained diplomatically. But the event has permanently changed the way markets view the vulnerability of infrastructure in the Gulf, and that repricing has not been complete.
Iran’s petroleum sales have also been sustained in the face of sanctions, largely via Asian markets out of reach to Western sanctions. A full-fledged deal between Tehran and Western governments has yet to be hammered out, as of early 2026. That has left volumes of Iranian supply in a limbo of sorts: they could be rapidly reduced by stepped-up enforcement, and they could be dramatically increased by a change in diplomatic circumstances. Both of these results can have significant price consequences, and even the uncertainty can be a factor in the market without a clear decision.
The concentration levels in Saudi Arabia’s export system warrant a more significant focus than is generally found outside of export specialist circles. Abqaiq processes and stabilizes a huge percentage of Saudi crude before it is shipped to export terminals, removing the sulfur from it. That kind of ‘single point of failure’ is not typical in most industrial supply chains. In the case of oil, it’s a structural aspect of the market and one that has been proven, not just thought.
However, OPEC+ compliance has been quite lackluster at times, notably from Iraq and Kazakhstan, which have had a history of overproduction. This gives rise to an everlasting discrepancy between OPEC+ declarations and the actual supply data. For analysts, the bottom line is that it is important not to take production decisions at face value but to also consider the track record of implementation once a deal has been agreed on to see what the real supply impact was.
Since late 2023, the Houthis have started to attack commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea more frequently, and these attacks have persisted through 2025. What those disruptions drove home is that it’s not necessary to blow a wellhead to impact oil market economics. A round-the-Cape voyage will increase the time in transit by about ten to fourteen days, as well as the fuel costs. During periods of increased Houthi activity, insurance costs for tankers traveling in the Gulf area skyrocketed. Both impacts are not a direct factor in the crude benchmarks, but both impact the effective landed cost of Middle East barrels in destination markets.
Knowing the difference is important, as geopolitical events do not affect oil prices in a single manner. Some effects are immediate and visible: a surge in the price of Brent futures within minutes of an incident report. Others come more slowly, via changes in freight rates, changes in the repricing of insurance, and changes in buyer behavior, which may take days or weeks to be reflected in trade flow data. The rate of these impacts varies, and so do their effects.
Then there is the issue of what the market “already” had in place whether there was an event or not. When there is a constant regional tension, there is usually some risk premium in prices. The incremental market move may therefore be less than anticipated when an event then reinforces concerns, the surprise element of the event, which is typically the one that produces the biggest market moves, is already discounted.
Geopolitical risk premiums in times of heightened Middle East tension have varied from around $4 to $10 per barrel, depending on the market participants’ views on the probability of actual physical supply disruptions in the case of Brent crude, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. That’s a fairly broad window for economic trading, and it has a tendency to close up very fast when the tension subsides and without a supply event, which is the more common scenario.
The geopolitical risk premium factors analysts may consider are:
It is not easy to give exact weights to these inputs. Part of the reason for the price action to seemingly be different with comparable geopolitical events can be due to different analysts forming different conclusions from the same events.
The following table shows some of the more significant supply events that took place in the Middle East and the approximate market impact. The trend of most entries was that the first price movement has been greater than the actual physical supply effect, at times much greater, and then it has partially retraced to a more stable situation.
| Event | Year | Estimated Supply Impact | Approximate Brent Price Reaction |
| Abqaiq/Khurais Attacks (Saudi Arabia) | 2019 | ~5.7 mb/d temporary loss | ~15% intraday spike |
| Libyan Civil War Output Collapse | 2011 | ~1.4 mb/d reduction | ~$20/bbl over several weeks |
| U.S. Re-imposition of Iran Sanctions | 2018 | ~1-1.5 mb/d reduction | ~15% sustained over several months |
| Iraq-Northern Field Disruptions | 2014 | Partial northern output loss | ~$10/bbl elevated premium |
| Houthi Red Sea Disruptions | 2023-24 | Rerouting; limited direct supply loss | Moderate – primarily freight cost impact |
| Iran Sanctions + Red Sea Friction | 2025-26 | ~0.8-1.2 mb/d constrained Iranian output | Persistent $4-8/bbl risk premium in Brent |
The 2025-2026 entry is a more diffuse form of market pressure than those acute events listed above. It is not one particular incident, but rather sanctions enforcement and Iranian volumes kept low and shipping activity in the Red Sea continuing to cause friction in the transport system, which has kept transport costs elevated. The World Economic Outlook from the IMF pointed out that this type of persistent supply constraint is likely to have a longer-lasting impact on medium-term price expectations than acute supply shocks, which markets have historically been able to absorb and turn around in relatively short periods of time. Thus, a slow-burning risk premium can be more ‘sticky’ than a dramatic risk premium.
Crude oil benchmarks are not the only place where supply risk from the Middle East exists. It extends out to related markets in ways that are not always apparent when the world’s focus is on the Brent or WTI headline price.
The second-order victim is likely to be refined product markets. In times of crude supply shortages or increased uncertainty, refinery margins and regional product availability may be affected to a greater extent, and the effects on end consumers may be magnified, especially in regions where there is little local refining or a high concentration of import logistics. The energy crisis of 2022 in Europe was a prime example of how the upstream pressure to supply energy flows through the downstream more quickly than most market players would have thought.
Other segments of the market that are impacted by increased supply risks in the Middle East are:
During the IEA’s coordinated strategic reserve release in 2022, it was seen that policy tools are in place to mitigate short-term supply shocks and that they can be implemented on a material scale when political conditions are right. However, there are drawbacks to those processes. During that time, reservoir levels were lowered significantly, and a rebuild takes time. There are also doubts about the effectiveness as a deterrent because, over time, markets will factor in the possibility of a release during the next big disruption event, effectively canceling the effect of a release in advance.
It’s easy to fall into the temptation, because of the amounts of money potentially involved, of viewing geopolitical risk analysis as a predictive tool. It generally lacks it there. It’s actually helpful for comprehending markets and its actions, as well as for charting structural weaknesses that are price-relevant. What it doesn’t do well is tell you when an event will happen, or how big the market’s reaction will be when it does.
Instead of getting lost in qualifications, the specific limitations should be called out:
All this does not negate the analysis. It’s about calibration and about honesty when the power of explanation runs out, and speculation sets in.
Middle East supply risk is not a succession of shocks that will come and go and be completely addressed but rather a structural state in global oil markets. The combination of production weight, geographic concentration of export infrastructure, and political complexity of the region always comes with a certain level of supply uncertainty as a base case. The level of that uncertainty and the extent to which that uncertainty is priced into securities on a given day are what change.
The hard part for traders, analysts, and energy investors is not recognizing that there is risk – that’s obvious. It’s gaining a good enough sense of what matters most at a given moment, what the big picture supply-demand dynamics are, and at what point a careful study of the facts begins to look like well-informed guesswork. The clear understanding of that boundary is, in fact, probably more valuable than any single analytical framework that can be applied to the boundary.
This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial advice, investment advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any financial instrument, commodity, or derivative product. Trading in energy markets, including crude oil futures, CFDs, and related instruments, involves substantial risk of loss, including the possible loss of capital invested. Past market behavior and historical price patterns referenced in this article are not reliable indicators of future performance. Geopolitical developments described may not materialize as anticipated or may evolve in ways that differ materially from historical precedent. Readers should conduct their own independent research and consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment or trading decisions. Nothing in this article should be interpreted as a trading signal, directional market recommendation, or endorsement of any specific trading approach.
European shares edged lower on Tuesday as hopes for an imminent de-escalation in the Middle East conflict faded following fresh U.S. strikes on Iran, triggering renewed geopolitical uncertainty across global financial markets.
The pan-European STOXX Europe 600 Index slipped 0.2% to 630.33 points by 0833 GMT, retreating from gains that had recently pushed it close to record levels.
On Monday, the index had closed at its highest level since late February, briefly coming within 1% of an all-time high on optimism that diplomatic progress could soon ease tensions in the region.
That momentum quickly reversed after renewed military action and comments from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said negotiations with Iran could take “a few days,” tempering expectations of a near-term resolution.
Global energy markets reacted sharply to the escalation, with Brent crude rising more than 3%, reigniting inflation concerns across energy-importing economies, particularly in the euro zone.
The market remains highly sensitive to risks surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route through which a significant share of the world’s oil flows.
Analysts warned that any sustained disruption in the region could deepen inflationary pressures just as central banks weigh their next policy moves.
Travel and transport-related stocks were among the biggest losers in Tuesday’s session.
Airlines including Lufthansa and Ryanair fell 1.4% and 0.7% respectively, reflecting investor concerns that higher fuel costs could squeeze margins.
Luxury and automotive stocks also came under pressure after Ferrari dropped sharply following the unveiling of its first fully electric vehicle.
The decline was compounded by a broader sell-off in the European autos sector, which fell 1.6% as investors reassessed competition risks from Chinese EV manufacturers and weakening global demand trends.
Despite renewed volatility, some investors noted that markets remain partially supported by expectations that diplomacy could still stabilize the situation.
One portfolio manager at Franklin Templeton said markets were reacting cautiously because investors believe a potential agreement could still restore stability in the Strait of Hormuz and normalize energy flows.
However, uncertainty around timing and scope continues to limit upside momentum in equities.
Attention is now shifting toward upcoming inflation data across major euro zone economies and the United States, which will help shape expectations for future monetary policy.
European Central Bank policymaker Yiannis Stournaras signaled that any persistent inflation overshoot would require a cautious shift toward tighter policy.
Market pricing currently suggests at least two further 25-basis-point interest rate moves before year-end, according to LSEG data.
While broader markets weakened, some stocks moved against the trend.
Kingfisher rose 2% after maintaining its full-year profit guidance, easing concerns about demand softness in the home improvement sector.
However, the overall tone remained risk-off as investors continued to weigh geopolitical escalation against macroeconomic uncertainty.
The latest pullback in European equities reflects a familiar pattern: markets oscillating between hopes of geopolitical de-escalation and fears of renewed conflict risk in the Middle East.
The key transmission channel remains energy. With Europe heavily dependent on imported oil and gas, any disruption involving Iran or the Strait of Hormuz immediately feeds into inflation expectations, bond yields, and corporate earnings outlooks.
At the same time, equity markets had recently been pricing in a relatively optimistic scenario in which diplomatic talks would gradually stabilize the region. That positioning left stocks vulnerable to abrupt reversals when military developments resurfaced.
Sectoral divergence also highlights how uneven the impact of geopolitical shocks can be. Energy-sensitive sectors such as airlines and autos are under pressure, while defensive or domestically oriented companies remain relatively insulated.
The broader question for markets is whether this marks a temporary setback in diplomatic momentum or a deeper breakdown in expectations for a negotiated settlement. If tensions persist, volatility in oil markets is likely to remain the dominant driver of global equity sentiment in the near term.
With information from Reuters.
Brent crude edged 2.5% higher on Tuesday and seems to have steadied around $100 per barrel at the time of writing, as US-Iran negotiations stall.
On the other hand, WTI dropped over 4% and is trading around $92.6 per barrel.
Overall, oil prices were declining since last Wednesday as the framework for a peace deal, or at least a longer and more encompassing ceasefire, between the US and Iran was seemingly on the verge of being agreed.
However, Iran accused the US of breaching the current ceasefire after Washington carried out what it described as defensive strikes in the southern part of the country.
Iran’s foreign ministry stated that the US attacks in the Hormozgan province, where Iranian media reported hearing explosions early Tuesday, amounted to a “serious violation” of the fragile ceasefire that has been in effect for almost seven weeks.
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said negotiations aimed at ending the conflict could require “a few days” to reach an agreement.
On Monday, US President Donald Trump also reiterated nuclear demands in a social media post, as tensions continue to surround the fundamental aspects of a possible agreement.
Investors appear to have mixed reactions to the developments with some markets seeming to price in a decrease in the probability that a deal is imminent.
In Europe, the Euro Stoxx 50 has fallen more than 0.7% while the broader pan-European Stoxx 600 is trading around 1% lower as we approach the close of Tuesday’s session.
The UK’s FTSE 100, Germany’s DAX 30, France’s CAC 40, Italy’s FTSE MIB, the Netherlands’ AEX and Switzerland’s CH20 have all dropped between 0.1% and 0.7%.
Over in Asia, Japan’s Nikkei 225 and Taiwan’s TAIEX closed flat, but South Korea’s KOSPI jumped 2.5% primarily driven by a continuous demand for AI-related equities.
However, US markets appear completely decoupled from other indices and the broader situation. Not only have WTI prices continued to fall on Tuesday but the S&P 500 also opened 0.6% higher.
Both the US and Iran had signalled headway toward a memorandum of understanding that could end the conflict and resume maritime traffic through the blocked Strait of Hormuz, while allowing negotiators a 60-day window to tackle more complicated matters such as Iran’s nuclear activities and supplies.
In his latest remarks, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the Strait of Hormuz must remain accessible “one way or the other” as traffic through the chokepoint has dropped sharply, with only a few dozen ships currently using the route each day, compared with the usual 125 to 140 vessels.
Iran has continued to permit limited shipping, prioritising vessels connected to allied or friendly nations and arranging passage through state-to-state agreements.
Continuous reports of attacks in the Strait of Hormuz underscore how far from the normalisation of energy flows and other supplies the global economy still is.
On Tuesday, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) reported that a tanker experienced an external blast near the waterline on its port side.
According to the agency, the vessel was located about 60 nautical miles from Muscat, the capital of Oman.
UKMTO said the tanker and all crew members were unharmed, although a quantity of bunker fuel spilled into the sea.
This is the most recent reported incident near the Strait of Hormuz at the time of writing.
May 25 (UPI) — With the United States and Iran reportedly nearing a peace deal, oil prices fell slightly below $100 per barrel early Monday, suggesting optimism from traders to start the week.
Gas prices also declined slightly in the United States in the last week, but remain above $4.50 per gallon for regular on Memorial Day.
President Donald Trump has indicated that negotiations are “proceeding nicely,” and Iran acknowledged that talks have progressed but that a deal has not been reached, The BBC reported.
In European trading, Brent crude dropped to $95.04 per barrel and WTI futures dropped dropped to $91.02 per barrel — both declines of more than 5% — the Wall Street Journal reported.
Even with gas prices high, The Hill reported that more than 39 million people were projected to travel the roads during Memorial Day weekend, even as gas prices have remained consistently high since the start of the war in Iran.
Regular gas on Monday averaged $4.50 per gallon, which is down $0.01 from one week ago, but still $0.40 higher than one month ago, AAA reported.
Similar, diesel averaged $5.59 per gallon on Monday, which is down $0.03 from one week ago, and $0.40 more than one month ago.
“Memorial Day travel is still reaching record levels, but with the smallest year-over-year increase in more than a decade,” said Tiffany Wright, spokesperson for AAA’s The Auto Club.
“Although travel demand remains strong, higher fuel prices and persistent inflation may cause some travelers to shorten trips, delay plans or stay closer to home.”
The longer that the United States and Iran take to agree on a peace plan and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, gas prices are unlikely to decrease significantly and energy markets will take a while to get back to normal, Axios reported.
“Gas prices are currently falling, but until we see an agreement signed and a significant amount of ships transit the Strait, the national average prices of gasoline will likely remain well above $4.00 per gallon,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for Gas Buddy.
The U.S. dollar edged lower, as investors tracked shifting developments around a potential Iran deal and the resulting moves in oil prices, which influenced inflation expectations and safe-haven demand.
The dollar index (DXY), which measures the greenback against a
Trump said on Saturday that an agreement would include the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, without giving further details.
Source link
Japan’s stock market surges to record high on hopes of an end to US-Israel war on Iran.
Published On 25 May 202625 May 2026
Oil prices have fallen sharply amid tentative hopes for a deal to end the US-Israel war on Iran.
Brent crude, the primary benchmark for global oil prices, fell about 5 percent on Sunday as US President Donald Trump gave mixed signals on the prospects for a permanent end to the conflict.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Brent futures for July stood at $98.47 a barrel as of 01:05 GMT, down about 9 percent from a month ago but still up by more than a third compared with before the start of the war.
Japan’s benchmark stock index, the Nikkei 225, surged more than 3 percent in morning trading, hitting an all-time high after closing at a record peak on Friday.
Trump said in a social media post on Sunday that negotiations with Tehran were proceeding in an “orderly and constructive manner”, but he had instructed officials “not to rush into a deal”.
“Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Trump’s remarks came after he raised hopes for a breakthrough on Saturday by announcing that a deal had been “largely negotiated,” with the terms including the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
“Fundamentally, there is no change to the underlying picture, where 10-11 million barrels per day of crude oil continue to be shut-in for every day the Strait of Hormuz remains shut,” June Goh, a senior oil market analyst at Sparta in Singapore, told Al Jazeera.
“However, markets are expecting a gush of 100 million barrels of crude oil from the stranded ships to flow out once the deal is in place.”
Goh said markets are likely to remain on edge for some time after any deal is finalised.
“Sparta estimates still about three to six months required to get everything back to status quo, including time to bring production and refineries back online,” Goh said.
Iran has effectively blockaded the strait since the start of the war in late February, disrupting about one-fifth of the global oil trade.
The US has imposed its own blockade of Iranian ports since mid-April, further disrupting commercial shipping in the waterway.
In his Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump said the US blockade would remain “in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed”.
U.S. crude oil plunges below $100 on U.S.-Iran optimism; three supertankers exit Hormuz
Source link
The waiver reflects increasing supply concerns over certain fuels due to the effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Source link
Crude oil edges lower as traders await clarity on U.S.-Iran talks
Source link
France signals possible windfall tax on TotalEnergies amid oil price surge
Source link
Venezuelan oil revenues are currently controlled by the US Treasury Department. (Archive)
Caracas, May 15, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan oil production has moved past 1 million barrels per day (bpd) for the first time in over seven years.
The latest OPEC monthly report placed the Caribbean nation’s April output at 1.031 million bpd, as measured by secondary sources. The figure increased by 46,000 bpd compared to the previous month.
For its part, state oil company PDVSA reported April’s production at 1.136 million bpd, up from 1.095 million bpd in March. Direct and secondary measurements have differed over time due to disagreements over the inclusion of natural gas liquids and condensates.
With the oil industry under crushing US coercive measures, crude production plummeted from around 1.9 million bpd when the first sanctions were levied against PDVSA. Following the US imposition of an export embargo in January 2019, output fell under 1 million bpd, hitting decades-lows around 350,000 bpd in 2020 before a steady recovery in recent years.
Since the January 3 US military strikes against Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has imposed control over the nation’s energy sector, with revenues deposited in US Treasury-run accounts before being partially returned to Caracas at US officials’ discretion.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on Thursday that “for the first time in over a decade the wealth of Venezuela is benefitting the people of Venezuela,” though he did not mention the impact of US sanctions first imposed in late 2014.
While US coercive measures remain in place, the White House has issued a series of licenses allowing Western corporations to return to the Venezuelan energy sector.
BP, Chevron, Eni, Repsol, and Shell are among the companies to have struck oil and natural gas contracts with the Venezuelan government led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez in past weeks, taking advantage of a recent pro-business legislative overhaul that slashed royalties and taxes, granted private partners increased control over operations and sales, and opened the way for disputes to be settled in international arbitration bodies.
Lesser-known companies Overseas Oil and Crossover Energy have likewise inked agreements for energy projects in the South American country.
ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips are also evaluating prospects for a return to Venezuela, according to the Wall Street Journal. The two oil giants saw their assets nationalized by the former Hugo Chávez government in the 2000s after refusing to accept the country’s reforms asserting sovereignty over the industry. Both corporations would go on to secure compensation via international arbitration, with an award of over US $10 billion to ConocoPhillips still outstanding.
The recent rebound in oil production coincided with an increase in US-sourced diluent imports. Exports also surged in April to 1.23 million bpd, the highest figure in over seven years. Apart from a growing number of cargoes to US refineries, Indian refiner Reliance is receiving increased shipments after securing US Treasury approval.
In contrast, two tankers reportedly headed to China and Cuba, respectively, will return their cargoes to Venezuelan ports after being intercepted by US naval forces. Prior to the January 3 operation and US control over oil exports, China had been the primary destination for Venezuelan crude. Caracas had likewise been the main supplier of oil to Cuba in the last two decades.
Venezuelan and US authorities have offered no clarity on the return of export proceeds to the South American country, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating that Caracas needs to submit a “budget request” before accessing its funds. The Venezuelan Central Bank’s handling of US-disbursed resources will be subjected to outside auditing, with Pentagon and CIA contractor Deloitte reportedly among the companies hired.
Despite the absence of official data on Venezuelan export revenues and the portion being returned to the country, the Rodríguez administration’s injection of foreign currency into exchange tables run by public and private banks increased in April and May. US authorities reportedly mandated that PDVSA revenues be funneled directly to private sector importers via forex auctions as opposed to having the Venezuelan Central Bank run foreign currency assignments.
Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.
Cubans lit fires in Havana’s streets to protest electricity blackouts.
Source link
The imposition of Venezuelan state sovereignty over the oil industry was one of the pillars of the Bolivarian Revolution from the get-go.
This edition of Tatuy Tv’s “Chávez the Radical” compiles several speeches by Comandante Chávez where he discusses the multiple policies that had subordinated the Venezuelan oil industry to transnational corporate interests and their nefarious consequences.
Issues like state ownership, royalties, taxes, and international arbitration are as relevant as ever today as the country undergoes major pro-business reforms in the oil sector.
Source: Tatuy Tv
US President Donald Trump has called Cuba ‘a failed nation’, as his administration expands its pressure campaign. Cuba has announced it’s getting rid of its fixed prices at the petrol pump as fuel shortages and power cuts worsen.
Published On 13 May 202613 May 2026
Share
After successfully launching Nigeria’s only operational oil refinery in 2024, billionaire businessman Aliko Dangote has set his sights on East Africa as the next location for another mega refinery project, according to recent reports.
It comes as African countries are actively seeking ways to make energy more secure, following huge global disruptions amid the US and Israel’s war on Iran and Tehran’s subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas is shipped.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Dangote, Africa’s richest man, appeared to be one of the winners from this fallout when his newly operational refinery, located in Nigeria’s commercial Lagos State, began selling large volumes of crude oil across the continent as the war on Iran escalated in March and global oil prices soared.
At present, West, South and East Africa rely primarily on importing refined petroleum products from the Middle East, meaning they are highly vulnerable to disruptions there.
Neighbours of Nigeria – Cameroon, Togo, Ghana and even Tanzania, further to the east – are among the countries that have turned to Nigeria as supplies from the Middle East dry up.
By the end of March, the refinery, which has the capacity to produce 650,000 barrels per day (bpd), reported it was also receiving orders from beyond the continent, especially for severely scarce jet fuel as hundreds of flights were cancelled across regions.
Supply from Dangote’s refinery has cushioned the impact of the war in terms of fuel supply for Nigeria and neighbouring countries, analysts say.
Nigeria is Africa’s largest oil producer, and the $19bn project in Lagos is currently the world’s largest single-train refinery, meaning it employs a single processing line rather than multiple units. But it hit full production capacity in February 2026, the same month the war with Iran started.
Nigeria has no functional state-owned refinery, so Dangote’s refinery is now positioning the country to be a net exporter of jet fuel and diesel.
Here’s why more refining capacity in Africa matters for the continent:
In April, Kenya’s President William Ruto announced that East African countries were in talks to build a joint oil refinery at Tanzania’s Tanga port, which would have a similar capacity to Dangote’s Lagos operation.
“We do not want to be held hostage any more by the Strait of Hormuz,” Ruto said at a Nairobi business event in April, which Dangote was present at.
“We do not want to be held hostage by wars that are started by other people. We have our resources here, and we are saying we are going to use our African resources to industrialise our region.”
In an interview with the Financial Times on Sunday, however, Dangote said he would prefer to build the new operation in Kenya rather than Tanzania.
“I’m leaning more towards Mombasa because Mombasa has a much larger, deeper port,” the billionaire told the UK newspaper.
“Kenyans consume more. It’s a bigger economy,” he said, adding that “the ball is in the hands of President Ruto … Whatever President Ruto says is what I’ll do.”
He has projected construction costs of between $15bn and $17bn.
But venturing into East Africa, which has a very different commercial landscape from West Africa, could prove a challenge, analyst Dumebi Oluwole of Lagos-based intelligence firm Stears told Al Jazeera.
“Dangote has proven it [his operation] can build at scale,” she said. “The East African test will be whether it can also navigate the political and logistical landscape of a fragmented, multi-country market.”
Despite having sizeable crude reserves, African countries only refine about 44 percent of the total oil consumed themselves, with imports making up the rest, according to a 2022 African Union report.
The top producers of refined oil are Algeria, Egypt and South Africa. There are about 21 refineries in North Africa.
Southern Africa has another seven, while West Africa has 14. However, most refineries in the two regions are either not operating or are producing below the capacity they are equipped to.
East Africa’s only existing refinery is in Mombasa, but it stopped operating in 2013 due to a combination of slow government policies and exiting investors, who deemed it commercially unviable as a result.
There is currently no refining capacity at all in East Africa, despite the region having about 4.7 billion barrels of crude reserves, according to the African Union, mainly in Uganda, South Sudan, Kenya and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Kenya imported 40 million barrels of petroleum in 2025. It regularly buys oil from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, India and Oman, all of which have been hampered by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Nigeria itself is Africa’s biggest net crude producer with a 1.5 million to 1.6 million bpd capacity. The country has not refined meaningfully since 2019.
Exporting most of its crude to then import refined products is expensive and puts Africa on the back foot, analyst Oluwole said.
More oil refined on the continent would mean lower petrol pump prices, lower transport costs, and more energy available for people and businesses, in theory. It would also mean greater access to by-products like fertilisers for farmers, for example, or petrochemicals for manufacturers.
“Dangote has demonstrated that a viable, scalable, intra-African energy supply option is possible – that proof of concept matters enormously,” said Oluwole.
“It reflects a growing continental conviction that Africa can provide for itself, and that this is no longer wishful thinking,” she added.
In Nigeria’s case, Dangote’s refinery is yet to ease pressures, though. Local airlines, for example, have complained about having to pay high prices for jet fuel even with improved local supplies. Analysts say that could be because Nigeria’s government removed fuel subsidies in 2023. Bureaucracy within the state oil company also forced Dangote’s refinery to import crude.
Still, the refinery is contributing to “a more transparent and competitive market”, Oluwole said, adding that results should eventually show.
Other countries are stepping up. Last week, Angola’s $470m Cabinda refinery began supplying domestic as well as foreign markets. The project is owned primarily by the United Kingdom’s Gemcorp Capital and has a capacity of 30,000bpd, with plans to double by the end of 2026.
Dangote’s planned refinery in Kenya, if completed, could also help to reduce East Africa’s reliance on the Middle East.
A separate, government-funded refinery project in Uganda’s Hoima region is also in the works. Authorities expect the project to be able to refine 60,000bpd when it starts operations in 2029. It will be fed by the joint Uganda-Tanzania East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), an ongoing project which will transport crude from Uganda’s Lake Albert to Tanzania’s Tanga Port.
Uganda also plans to produce diesel, jet fuel, kerosene and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG).
With big plans in place, Oluwole says it’s now left to African governments to create enabling business environments for the private sector.
“Dangote has opened the door,” she said. “The question now is whether African institutions and governments will walk through it.”
US Department of Energy moves to transfer 53.3 million barrels amid rising oil prices.
Published On 12 May 202612 May 2026
The United States has announced its latest release of emergency oil stockpiles in coordination with the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The US Department of Energy said on Monday that it had begun transferring 53.3 million barrels from the strategic petroleum reserve after awarding contracts to nine companies under its emergency exchange programme.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Trafigura Trading LLC, a Texas-based commodities trading company, was granted the biggest haul of nearly 13 million barrels, with Marathon Petroleum Corporation and ExxonMobil set to receive 12.4 million barrels and 11.4 million barrels, respectively.
Macquarie Commodities Trading US, Atlantic Trading & Marketing, BP Products North America, Energy Transfer Crude Marketing, Mercuria Energy America and Phillips 66 will receive between 1.05 million and 6.55 million barrels each, according to the Energy Department.
Under the department’s exchange scheme, participating firms are required to replenish the stockpile with new barrels at a later date.
“These actions continue to move oil swiftly into the market, address near-term supply needs, and ensure that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve remains strong through the return of premium barrels,” Kyle Haustveit, the head of the department’s Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office, said in a statement.
The transfer comes after US President Donald Trump’s administration agreed in March to release 172 million barrels of crude as part of the IEA’s coordination of the largest unloading of global stockpiles in history.
Oil prices have surged since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran in late February, with Tehran’s retaliatory blockade of the Strait of Hormuz paralysing one of the world’s most important trade routes.
Maritime traffic in the strait has ground to a halt amid Iranian threats against commercial shipping, disrupting about one-fifth of the global oil trade.
Oil prices continued to edge higher on Monday after Trump dismissed Iran’s latest peace proposal and warned that the ceasefire between the sides was “on life support”, dampening hopes for a quick resolution to the conflict.
Facing growing public discontent over rising fuel prices, Trump on Monday also pledged to waive the 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal tax on petrol, though taxation is the purview of the US Congress.
Futures for Brent crude, the international benchmark, were up about 1 percent in Asia on Tuesday morning, topping $105 a barrel.
Published on •Updated
Oil prices surged in early trade as investors digested the latest developments in the Middle East, with both Brent and US crude climbing over 4%.
It comes after Trump’s rejection of Tehran’s response to the latest US proposition on bringing the conflict in Iran, and subsequent impact on trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz, to an end.
In other trading, US futures edged lower, while Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 fell 0.4% to 62,486.84 after briefly reaching another record high in intraday trading at above 63,300.
South Korea’s Kospi gained 4.1% to 7,804.71. It also hit an all-time intraday high, led by gains from tech-related stocks including Samsung Electronics and memory chip maker SK Hynix.
Technology-related stocks and growing artificial intelligence-related interest have supported markets in Japan and South Korea despite the Iran war, with the Nikkei 225 and Kospi rising more than 10% and 30%, respectively, over the past month.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump will head to China this week for talks with his counterpart, Xi Jinping. The two leaders are expected to discuss a wide range of topics, including trade concerns.
SlavkoSereda/iStock via Getty Images
Crude oil futures gained Sunday after President Trump rejected Iran’s latest response to his proposal to end the Middle East as “totally unacceptable,” while the Strait of Hormuz remains mostly closed.
Iran’s proposal reportedly emphasizes Iranian sovereignty over the strait while calling
Satellite images have captured a suspected oil slick spanning dozens of square kilometres near Iran’s Kharg Island, the country’s main oil export hub. Despite fears of a disaster, environmental observers say the slick is shrinking.
Published On 10 May 202610 May 2026
Share
Large-scale crude oil storage tanks are seen in the background at a Sodegaura Refinery in Sodegaura, Chiba Prefecture, Tokyo Bay, Japan, 06 April 2026. Photo by FRANCK ROBICHON / EPA
May 8 (Asia Today) — Japan is expanding imports of Russian Sakhalin-2 crude oil beyond a one-time emergency purchase, extending supply arrangements to multiple refiners and fuel networks around Tokyo Bay as concerns grow over instability in the Strait of Hormuz.
Japanese officials have reportedly asked Fuji Oil, an Idemitsu Kosan affiliate, to accept crude shipments from the Sakhalin-2 project after similar imports were arranged through Taiyo Oil.
The move comes as Japan seeks to reduce risks tied to Middle Eastern oil supplies while continuing to use sanction exemptions that remain in place for Sakhalin-2 energy resources.
The Sankei Shimbun reported Wednesday that the tanker Voyager, carrying crude oil from the Russian Far East project, was heading toward Fuji Oil facilities in Sodegaura, Chiba Prefecture.
Fuji Oil became a subsidiary of Idemitsu Kosan in November 2025 and operates a refinery that supplies petroleum products to the greater Tokyo metropolitan area.
According to ship tracking data cited by the newspaper, the Voyager departed Prigorodnoye Port in southern Sakhalin on April 24 and arrived near Imabari in western Japan on Sunday. The vessel later conducted unloading operations at Taiyo Oil facilities before departing for Tokyo Bay.
The tanker is expected to arrive in Sodegaura on Friday and leave Tokyo Bay on Saturday.
Idemitsu Kosan acknowledged the shipment was made at the request of Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
A company spokesperson told Sankei that the import did not violate sanctions and described it as part of efforts to diversify procurement sources and maintain stable fuel supplies.
Before halting most Russian crude purchases after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Idemitsu sourced roughly 4% of its oil imports from Russia.
Analysts say the significance of the latest shipment lies not simply in Japan buying Russian oil again, but in Tokyo integrating Sakhalin-2 crude into a broader emergency procurement network involving multiple refiners.
Japan had already begun using the sanctions exemption amid rising Middle East tensions, but the latest deliveries suggest the mechanism is evolving into a more permanent contingency supply channel.
The development is also drawing attention in South Korea, which remains heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil imports.
According to Korea National Oil Corp. data, South Korea imported about 1.03 billion barrels of crude oil in 2024, with 71.5% sourced from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia accounted for 32.2% of imports, followed by the United States at 16.4% and the United Arab Emirates at 13.7%.
Although South Korea has steadily increased imports of U.S. crude, its supply structure remains highly exposed to shipping disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz.
Energy analysts say South Korea may eventually need to move beyond reliance on strategic petroleum reserves alone and develop broader contingency planning that includes alternative suppliers, refinery compatibility and supply stability at major refining hubs such as Ulsan, Yeosu, Daesan and Incheon.
Japan’s latest actions suggest governments are increasingly seeking practical emergency supply options within existing sanctions frameworks rather than relying solely on traditional energy security measures.
— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI
© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.
Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260508010001814
Zawiya refinery shut down in ‘precautionary measure’ as emergency declared following explosions and gunfire nearby.
Published On 8 May 20268 May 2026
Libya’s largest operational oil refinery at Zawiya has been shut down and an emergency declared following fighting between armed groups nearby.
The National Oil Corporation (NOC) and Zawiya Refining Company announced a “precautionary halt” to operations and evacuated employees from the oil complex and port.
list of 3 itemsend of list
NOC confirmed the safety of all employees and added that fuel supplies would continue as normal.
A Facebook statement said alarm sirens were activated “following armed clashes involving heavy weapons that erupted around the oil complex in the early hours of Friday”.
“These clashes resulted in several heavy weapons projectiles landing in various locations within the oil complex,” adding that no significant damage had been reported.
“However, the clashes have intensified and reached the residential area adjacent to the refinery, making the area a direct target for heavy shelling and significantly increasing the risk of further damage,” it said.
Authorities in Zawiya, west of the capital Tripoli, said they had launched a “large-scale operation” against criminal groups, as fighting and explosions were heard, the AFP news agency reported.
The operation targeted “criminal hideouts and wanted individuals” who were “involved in serious acts”, the authorities said, citing “murder and attempted murder, kidnapping and extortion, drug, arms and human trafficking and illegal migration”.
Videos verified by Al Jazeera showed explosions and gunfire, as well as damage to several cars and facilities inside the refinery. The sound of sirens was audible after shells fell inside operational sites.
The Zawiya Refining Company called on all parties to cease fire immediately and for the Libyan authorities to intervene to protect lives and key facilities.
The refinery, around 40km (25 miles) west of Tripoli, has a capacity of 120,000 barrels per day. It is connected to the 300,000 bpd Sharara oilfield.
Since Muammar Gaddafi’s downfall in 2011, Libya has been plagued by violence between the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU), led by Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, and the eastern-based government, led by military leader Khalifa Haftar which is not internationally recognised.
It is unclear what caused the fighting, but local media said it started following a security operation against armed groups.