President Donald Trump this week pardoned former U.S. Rep. Stephen Buyer, R-Ind., who was convicted in 2023 on four counts of securities fraud for stock trades about mergers that he made before the information had been made public. Photo by Shawn Thew/UPI | License Photo
June 6 (UPI) — President Donald Trump pardoned former U.S. Rep. Stephen Buyer, R-Ind., who was convicted on four counts of securities fraud in 2023 after he left Congress.
Buyer had been convicted and sentenced to 22 months in prison after he was charged with trading stock based on two mergers he knew about based on work at his consulting firm, ABC News and The New York Times reported.
The two mergers he based trades on were T-Mobile’s deal to acquire Sprint and the professional services firm Guidehouse’s deal to buy its competitor Navigant.
In a proclamation released Thursday by the White House, President Donald Trump included a list of current and former members of members of Congress, including Sens. Roger Wicker and Lindsey Graham and Reps. Pet Sessions and Jack Bergman, among several others.
“Mr. Buyer’s career serving as a judge advocate general in the United States Army and as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the State of Indiana was distinguished and highly productive,” Trump said.
Buyer was first elected to Congress in 1992, retired from the House in 2010 and then formed his consulting company.
The trades he made based, which were based on executives of the companies he was working for, netted him well over $330,000 in profit when he sold shares of the companies after the mergers were announced.
During his time in Congress, Buyer also was a House prosecutor during the impeaching of former President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s.
Republican Stephen Buyer was convicted and sentenced to 22 months in prison, though he has maintained his innocence.
Published On 6 Jun 20266 Jun 2026
United States President Donald Trump has issued a pardon to Stephen Buyer, a former Republican congressman from Indiana who served nearly two years in prison for making illegal stock trades based on inside information after he left office.
The pardon was dated Thursday and released by the White House late Friday night.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Buyer was sentenced to 22 months in prison in 2023 for trades made while working as a consultant and lobbyist. He was ordered to forfeit more than $350,000, representing the amount of the illegal gains, as well as pay a $10,000 fine. He was released in 2025.
The Supreme Court in May rejected Buyer’s appeal without comment or noted dissent.
In granting “a full, complete, and unconditional pardon” to Buyer, Trump cited the Republican’s work, both as a judge advocate general in the US Army and as a politician in the US House. Trump described his career as “distinguished and highly productive”.
Buyer said the pardon “corrects a politically motivated prosecution” and that it was “horrific to be imprisoned for a crime that I did not commit”. He maintains that he is innocent.
Trump used his Truth Social media platform on May 31 to share a pair of letters requesting a presidential pardon for Buyer, a lawyer and Gulf War veteran who left office in 2011.
He was a House prosecutor at Democratic President Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment trial, and in 2016, he served on Trump’s transition team, focusing on veterans’ issues.
A letter signed by more than 40 former Republicans in Congress said Buyer was “targeted by the deep state” because of his involvement in Clinton’s trial.
“Like you, Mr President, Steve has been the victim of lawfare conducted by the Biden Administration,” they wrote in the April 2025 letter.
A second letter, from five current House Republicans, said pardoning Buyer would bring justice to his case. The June 2025 letter was signed by Tom Cole of Oklahoma, Ken Calvert of California, Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, Jack Bergman of Michigan and Pete Sessions of Texas.
Buyer, 67, was convicted in connection with insider trading involving the $26.5bn merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, announced in April 2018, and illegal trades in the management consulting company Navigant when his client Guidehouse was set to acquire it in a deal publicly disclosed weeks later.
The US Constitution gives the president broad power to grant pardons for federal crimes.
A pardon does not erase a recipient’s criminal record but can be seen as an act of mercy or justice.
WASHINGTON — President Trump has issued a pardon to Stephen Buyer, a Republican former congressman from Indiana who served nearly two years in prison for making illegal stock trades based on inside information after he left office.
Buyer was sentenced to 22 months in prison in 2023 for trades made while working as a consultant and lobbyist. He was ordered to forfeit more than $350,000, representing the amount of the illegal gains, and pay a $10,000 fine. He was released in 2025.
The Supreme Court in May rejected Buyer’s appeal without comment or noted dissent.
In granting “a full, complete, and unconditional pardon,” Trump cited Buyer’s career as a judge advocate general in the Army and in the House that was “distinguished and highly productive.” The pardon was dated Thursday and released by the White House late Friday.
Buyer asserted that the pardon “corrects a politically motivated prosecution” and that it was “horrific to be imprisoned for a crime that I did not commit.”
Trump used his social media platform May 31 to share a pair of letters requesting a presidential pardon for Buyer, a lawyer and Persian Gulf War veteran who left office in 2011. He was a House prosecutor at President Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial and in 2016 he served on Trump’s transition team focusing on veterans issues.
A letter signed by more than 40 Republican former members of Congress said Buyer was “targeted by the deep state” because of his involvement in Clinton’s trial a generation ago.
A second letter, from five current House Republicans, including Ken Calvert of Corona, said pardoning Buyer would bring justice to his case. The June 2025 letter was also signed by Tom Cole of Oklahoma, Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, Jack Bergman of Michigan and Pete Sessions of Texas.
Buyer, 67, was convicted in connection with insider trading involving the $26.5-billion merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, announced in April 2018, and illegal trades in the management consulting company Navigant when his client Guidehouse was set to acquire it in a deal publicly disclosed weeks later.
The Constitution gives a president broad power to grant pardons for federal crimes. The pardons do not erase a recipient’s criminal record but can be seen as an act of mercy or justice.
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 Behavior of Prices and the Risk of Middle East Supplies
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?
The Strait of Hormuz
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.
Production Outages That Don’t Make the Front Page
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.
Key Risk Factors Shaping Market Sentiment in 2026
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:
Export infrastructure and production infrastructure are currently under physical threat to production.
Sanctions regimes and the dynamics of their enforcement.
Disruption of shipping routes and attendant disruption of the trade economics.
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.
Active Conflict Zones and Exposure to Infrastructure
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.
The Persistent Iranian Supply Question
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.
Infrastructure Concentration Risk
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.
OPEC+ Internal Dynamics
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.
Non-State Actor Activity and Shipping Friction
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.
How the Market Prices Geopolitical Risk
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.
Risk Premium in Practice
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:
The nearness to active conflict, producing fields, or the working export terminals.
Production capacity that would be available to make up for the loss of production elsewhere.
The availability and magnitude of the IEA’s strategic stockpiles to be tapped.
Current tanker market conditions and the viability of an alternative route.
Diplomatic messages sent by governments in the area, including the United States and other great powers
Past examples of similar events, which have had identifiable supply impacts.
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.
Historical Supply Disruptions and Price Responses
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.
Broader Market Implications
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:
Tanker freight rates, which can also rise sharply without reference to crude prices during times of major-scale rerouting.
In oil-dependent economies, currency markets can be affected by changes in the prices of the oil that the state supplies, which change expectations of fiscal revenue and sovereign credit risk.
LNG markets with some short-term fuel switching demand in the exposed economies as a result of regional geopolitical pressure.
In agricultural commodity markets, where there is known overlap between energy input costs and food production, processing, and transport economics
Strategic Reserve Releases (SRRs) as a Counterweight
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.
Geopolitical Risk Analysis: What It Does and Doesn’t Accomplish
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:
Escalation and de-escalation are non-linear and unpredictable to a great extent. Conflict situations that appear to be intractable can be solved in a flash, and stable times can fall apart in an instant. Both directions remain silent and don’t herald themselves.
When demand for a commodity is the same, the market price may be quite different in the two market conditions. There are interactions between the geopolitical trigger and positioning, sentiment and open interest that are not modelable in advance.
Secondary effects (such as freight repricing, product supply shifts and insurance cost changes) happen at varying rates to the initial crude price move, and thus the total impact of the market is more difficult to gauge in real time.
Analytical path dependency can occur when geopolitical narratives set up a framework that later information gets filtered through, without being recognized as such.
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.
Conclusion
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.
Disclaimer
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.
Michele Spagnuolo allegedly used insider information to profit from bets on people on Google’s most-searched list.
Published On 28 May 202628 May 2026
A Google software engineer has been charged with fraud by US authorities after allegedly using insider information to win more than $1.2m in bets on the prediction market platform Polymarket.
Michele Spagnuolo, an Italian citizen residing in Switzerland, is accused of using confidential information to wager on the results of Google’s annual most-searched list, according to a criminal complaint unsealed on Wednesday.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
US prosecutors accuse Spagnuolo of using an account named “AlphaRaccoon” to make trades on various markets linked to the results of Google’s 2025 Year in Search.
The total sum of the bets was approximately $2.75m, according to the complaint, filed in federal court in New York.
Among the bets, Spagnuolo successfully predicted that indie pop musician d4vd would top the list for the most-searched for person last year, hours after accessing confidential data at Google, according to prosecutors.
Spagnuolo, 36, faces charges of commodities fraud, wire fraud and money laundering.
“Today’s charges reinforce a decades-old message: corporate insiders cannot use confidential business information to turn a profit in our markets,” US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton said in a statement.
“Insider trading compromises the integrity of our markets, and the American people want this greed-driven conduct investigated and prosecuted,” Clayton added.
Bets on Maduro’s capture
Google said in a statement that it is working with law enforcement and that using confidential information to place bets is a serious breach of company policy.
Spagnuolo has been placed on leave, according to a Google spokesperson.
A Polymarket spokesperson said the company had worked closely with the US Attorney’s Office on the investigation and that the firm “is the only prediction platform to date whose cooperation has led to insider trading charges in the United States”.
“We are committed to maintaining accurate, fair, and transparent markets as well as enforcing our rules and working with our regulators and law enforcement,” the spokesperson added.
Last month, a US soldier was charged with using classified military information to place bets on Polymarket regarding the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
Prosecutors accuse Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, of cashing in on the US operation against Maduro, to the tune of more than $400,000.
Tonight’s instalment (May 17) saw three 18 year olds, who have given up on education, as they were taken to one of Britain’s most elite and traditional private boarding schools – Christ College in Brecon.
A synopsis teased: “Three 18-year-olds who’ve given up on education bed down in one of Britain’s most elite and traditional private boarding schools, where excellent results and respect count for everything.”
Following Shadiya from Bristol, Molly from Essex and Danny from London, the synopsis continued: “For the next week, these three reluctant sixth formers will be bedding down in Christ College, a prestigious private boarding school in Brecon.
“Established by King Henry VIII, it’s one of the oldest schools in Wales and believes in getting results ‘the Brecon Way’. The strict rules and fierce competition will be a real test for its newest pupils.”
The students were forced out of their comfort zone as they re-entered a classroom for the first time in a while, but for Molly, things soon became a struggle.
Molly, a part time retailer from Essex, was distraught on GCSE results day when she found out she had only passed three subjects, leaving her with a very negative view of education. A post showing the moment she opened her results was viewed by more than 20 million people online.
On the show, Molly was recruited in the school’s chapel choir due to her musical background, but was soon seen struggling to read the sheet music and sing in French, leaving her deflated.
During practice, the 18-year-old was stunned as she admitted she struggled to keep up. Speaking to producers, she added: “When I heard I had choir practise, I was so happy, and then wow that is something different. I couldn’t sing in French and I just felt so awkward the whole time.”
She later said: “Music is literally the most important thing ever to me and that made music miserable.”
In a further revelation, Molly said on her diary cam: “Everyone is really polite which feels slightly odd. I feel like I haven’t really seen anyone express themselves properly.
“They’ve all kind of got the same humour, same kind of mannerisms, same attitude, it kind of feels like a cult.”
The next day, when it came to the performance, Molly continued to feel the nerves as she admitted: “Yesterday I was thinking about just walking out of the choir, I was like no I cannot do this.”
Getting dressed in a striking red robe, Molly could be heard telling the group: “I really don’t want to do this guys.”
However, despite her nerves, Molly performed in the chapel choir and was proud of her achievements. She told producers: “Being judged is something that really does scare me and concern me.
“I got bullied in Year 7 to 8 and that really did just ruin my time at school. I just felt really uncomfortable around everyone in a classroom watching me.”
Trading Places is available to watch on Channel 5.
The show takes a fresh group of young people each week, plucking them from their comfort zones and dropping them headfirst into a completely different way of life.
On Sunday night (May 10), viewers watched as self-confessed shopaholics Saffron, Umar, and Bridie swapped their lavish lifestyles for a 1960s-inspired, off-grid existence in Cornwall.
Things quickly became overwhelming for Saffron, however, when the reality of her new surroundings hit home upon arrival.
The moment she stepped into their accommodation with her suitcase in tow, the 26-year-old broke down in tears, reports Wales Online.
She commented: “I can’t do this, I don’t like any of it. I don’t want to do this anymore. No, I really don’t want to do this anymore. It’s too much, I can’t.”
Farm resident Babu stepped in to comfort a distressed Saffron, who struggled to articulate just how overwhelming she found the whole experience. She added: “The bees, the walking, the climbing. I’m not used to quiet at all.”
With some gentle encouragement from Babu, Saffron ultimately decided to stick it out and embrace farm life. Throughout the episode, viewers also gained a fascinating insight into her life back home.
Speaking candidly to the camera, she revealed: “I am a sugar baby. A sugar baby is basically a companion. When I have a long-term sugar daddy, then the items per month would be a few Chanel handbags or a few Christian Louboutins.
“The men that I’ve dated, they’ve always looked after me, I’m just a 24/7 princess, so I don’t know what life is without that.”
Saffron explained to the group at the farm that their relationships remain platonic, focusing primarily on conversation rather than anything physical.
After a difficult beginning, Channel 5 audiences witnessed a transformation in Saffron as she threw herself into producing fresh organic apple juice for sale at a farmers’ market.
The 26 year old became emotional later in the programme when discussing the bullying she endured in her younger years, though the experience appeared largely beneficial for her overall.
Reflecting as the episode concluded, she admitted: “The biggest challenge of this week has been the whole bl***y week! I know that everyone thought I was going to leave day one, myself included, but no, I stayed the week! I’m not proud of myself this week, no.”
She continued candidly: “I’m going to be real, I think there’s a lot more I could’ve tried, but there was so much emotion that kept coming over me every time in every single activity, I was finding bits of myself that I’d hidden for so long.”
Trading Places is available to watch on Channel 5.
The conflict involving Iran and the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz have shaken global energy markets. Supply constraints and extreme volatility have driven oil prices sharply higher, exposing a growing structural divide in how major oil companies operate across the Atlantic.
European majors profit from trading strength Companies such as BP, Shell, and TotalEnergies have benefited from strong oil trading performance. Their global trading networks allow them to move crude and refined products across regions, taking advantage of price differences created by supply disruptions.
These firms trade volumes far exceeding their own production, turning volatility into profit. In the current crisis, trading has significantly boosted earnings, offsetting weaker performance in other segments.
Volatility creates both gains and exposure The sharp rise in Brent crude prices and market instability has created lucrative arbitrage opportunities. Companies have rerouted fuel shipments across longer and unusual routes to capture higher margins.
However, these strategies come with risks. Trading at such scale requires large amounts of capital, and holding cargoes for extended periods increases financial exposure if market conditions shift.
Trading as a shock absorber For European majors, trading divisions have acted as a buffer during the crisis. Losses from disrupted production or regional exposure have been partially offset by gains in trading, highlighting the strategic importance of these operations in volatile markets.
US majors rely on production strength In contrast, Exxon Mobil and Chevron focus primarily on large scale oil and gas production. Their output significantly exceeds that of European rivals, giving them a strong advantage when prices rise.
While they have more limited trading operations, their upstream strength allows them to generate substantial cash flow in high price environments without relying heavily on market arbitrage.
Structural differences in strategy The divergence reflects long term strategic choices. European companies invested more heavily in renewables and diversified energy portfolios, which limited growth in their upstream production. US firms, by contrast, maintained a strong focus on expanding oil and gas output.
As a result, European majors depend more on trading to drive returns, while US majors depend on production scale.
Analysis The Iran war has highlighted a clear split in the global energy industry between trading focused and production focused business models. European majors have shown that strong trading capabilities can generate significant profits during periods of disruption, effectively turning volatility into an advantage.
However, this model is inherently unpredictable. Trading gains depend on market conditions and may not be sustainable if volatility declines. In contrast, the US model offers more stable returns tied directly to production levels and commodity prices.
In the long term, this divide could shape investor perceptions and valuations. If European companies continue to rely heavily on trading while lagging in production, the gap between them and US rivals may widen. The industry is increasingly defined by a fundamental question: whether it is more profitable to move oil around the world or to produce it at scale.
