Latest News
-
Bessent: US expects Japan not to buy Russian energy
U.S. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent told Japanese Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato on Wednesday that the Trump administration expected Japan to stop importing Russian oil. Bessent, who spoke on X after the meeting on Wednesday, said: "Minister Kato & I discussed important issues pertaining the U.S. - Japan economic relationship as well as the Administration's expectations that Japan cease importing Russian Energy." Bessent met with Kato on the sidelines this week of the G7, G20 and annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund. When asked if Japan had been urged to stop buying Russian energy from Bessent, Kato replied that Japan would do its best to follow the principle of coordination with G7 nations to achieve peace in Ukraine. The Group of Seven nations (G7) - the U.S.A., Japan Canada, Britain France Germany and Italy -- agreed this month to coordinate, intensify and target sanctions against Moscow for its war in Ukraine. They will do so by targeting countries who buy Russian oil, thereby enabling sanctions circumvention.
-
Oil prices rise 1% after Trump claims India has promised to stop purchasing Russian oil
The oil prices increased by about 1% on Thursday morning after U.S. president Donald Trump announced that Indian Prime Minister Narendra modi had promised to stop purchasing oil from Russia. Russia supplies around one-third the country's imports. Brent crude futures increased 57 cents or 0.9% to $62.48 per barrel at 0046 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures (WTI) also gained 0.9% or 54 cents to trade at $58,81. The two contracts reached their lowest levels since early May, in the previous session due to the U.S.-China tensions. Also, the International Energy Agency had warned that a large surplus would be expected next year because OPEC+ producers will increase output amid low demand. Trump announced on Wednesday that India will stop buying oil from Russia, its largest supplier. The U.S. will then try to convince China to follow suit as Washington intensifies its efforts to cut Moscow's revenue and to pressure it to negotiate an agreement in Ukraine. India and China are two of the top buyers for Russian crude oil exports by sea, which is sanctioned both by the U.S.A. and the European Union. Modi has resisted U.S. demands to stop purchasing Russian oil for months. Indian officials have defended the purchases, claiming they are vital to India's energy security. Tony Sycamore is a market analyst with IG. He said, "At a margin, this would be a positive development as it would remove a major buyer of Russian oil (India)." Investors will be looking for the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) weekly U.S. Inventory Statistics release on Thursday after the mixed data released by the American Petroleum Institute trade group. Market sources cited API figures to say that U.S. crude, gasoline, and distillate stocks increased last week while inventories decreased. The sources reported that crude stocks increased by 7.36 millions barrels during the week ending October 10. Gasoline inventories also rose by 2.99 million barrels. Distillate inventories, however, fell by 4.79million barrels compared to a previous week. The U.S. remains the world's largest oil consumer. While the distillate stockpiles are down, they indicate a stronger demand for diesel. Analysts predict that U.S. crude stocks rose by approximately 0.3 million barrels in the past week. (Reporting and editing by Jacqueline Wong, Jamie Freed, and Katya Glubkova from Tokyo)
-
REFILE-China's refined metals restriction can only be fired once by Russell
China has once again rolled out a big cannon to curb metals and minerals that are vital for the global energy transformation, as well key components used in weapons and electronic devices. It is no secret that when China restricts exports or threatens to do it, Western governments and businesses are concerned. They have become dependent on China's dominance in the production and processing of refined metals. China has recently decided to tighten up its export restrictions on minerals such as magnets and critical minerals. This behaviour is not without risk for China, since the cannons of export restrictions can only be fired in anger once. It would be a major disruption for Western supply chains if China were to decide to stop selling metals to Westerners, such as rare Earths, lithium cobalt antimony tungsten tungsten, and other metals. It would also lead to a rapid expansion of supply and processing infrastructures in the West. Western nations could easily mine the raw ore that is used to produce many of these metals. It would be difficult to increase refining capacity but it could be done quickly if China stopped supplying Western buyers. The cost would be high, but the West would not have any choice other than to pay it. The need for new supplies would override all financial concerns. China's ultimate risk is that by cutting off Western buyers of refined metals, it could end up destroying its industry due to massive overcapacity while Western buyers develop their own supply chain. China produces 90% of rare earths refined, 90% of graphite and just over 80% of cobalt. China's share is much lower, but when you add its control over Indonesian nickel refinery to the amount of nickel produced in China, it comes out at around 70%. The West could meet its copper needs by relying on other sources than China. POLITICS DRIVER Why does China restrict the export of metals and minerals that are critical to the global economy, when it is only encouraging its customers to create alternative supply chains by doing so? The answer seems to be largely political. China and President Donald Trump are engaged in a difficult trade war. Both sides have made threats to use whatever leverage they can to improve their negotiation positions. Beijing's problem is that, as it imposes more and more restrictions on export of critical minerals, it will encourage the West to build alternative supply networks. China does not even need to fire a cannon. The threat to do so, particularly in the refining of metals, will be sufficient to spur the needed investment from the West. Trafigura's Chief Executive Richard Holtum said at the LME Week Seminar in London, on Monday that processing minerals was more important than mining. Holtum stated that "you do not have national safety if all you have is stuff in the earth." If the West's capitals are increasingly receptive to his message, then it is likely that additional cash will be invested in metals refinery, along with subsidies and incentives, even though existing refineries can't compete at current prices with China. China's export restriction will likely lead to the creation of a global two-tier system for critical metals. This system would be more expensive for Western consumers, but also safer. It would also result in a Chinese system which is cheaper and subject to Beijing's demands. You like this column? Open Interest (ROI) is your new essential source of global financial commentary. ROI provides data-driven, thought-provoking analysis on everything from soybeans to swap rates. The markets are changing faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, X. These are the views of a columnist who writes for.
-
REFILE - China can only use the big gun once with regards to refined metals restrictions: Russell
China has once again rolled out the big cannon to curb metals and minerals that are vital for the global energy transformation, as well key components used in weapons and electronic devices. It is no secret that when China restricts exports or threatens to do it, Western governments and businesses are concerned. They have become dependent on China's dominance in the production and processing of refined metals. China has recently decided to tighten up its export restrictions on minerals such as magnetizing minerals. This behaviour is not without risk for China, since the cannons of export restrictions can only be fired in anger once. It would be a major disruption for Western supply chains if China were to decide to stop selling metals to Westerners, such as rare Earths, lithium cobalt antimony tungsten tungsten, and other metals. It would also lead to a rapid expansion of supply and processing infrastructures in the West. Western nations could easily mine the raw ore that is used to produce many of these metals. It would be difficult to increase refining capacity but it could be done quickly if China stopped supplying Western buyers. The cost would be high, but the West would not have any choice other than to pay it. The need for new supplies would override all financial concerns. China's ultimate risk is that by cutting off Western buyers of refined metals, it could end up destroying its industry due to massive overcapacity while Western buyers develop their own supply chain. China produces 90% of rare earths refined, 90% of graphite and just over 80% of cobalt. China's share is much lower, but when you add its control over Indonesian nickel refinery to the amount of refined nickel produced in China, it comes out at around 70%. The West could meet its copper needs by relying on other sources than China. POLITICS DRIVER Why does China restrict the export of metals and minerals that are critical to the global economy, if it only encourages the current customers to create alternative supply chains? The answer seems to be largely political. China and President Donald Trump are engaged in a difficult trade war. Both sides have made threats to use whatever leverage they can to improve their negotiation positions. Beijing's problem is that, as it imposes more and more restrictions on exports of critical minerals, it will encourage the West to build alternative supply networks. China does not even need to fire a cannon. The threat to do so, particularly in the refining of metals, will be sufficient to spur the needed investment from the West. Trafigura's Chief Executive Richard Holtum said at the LME Week Seminar in London, on Monday that processing minerals was more important than mining. Holtum stated that "you do not have national safety if all you have is stuff in the earth." If the West's capitals are increasingly heeding his message, then it is likely that more money will be invested in metals refinery, along with subsidies and incentives, to keep existing refining plants operating, even though they cannot compete with China's current prices. China's export restriction will likely lead to the creation of a global two-tier system for critical metals. This system would be more expensive for Western consumers, but also safer. It would also result in a Chinese system which is cheaper and subject to Beijing's demands. You like this column? Open Interest (ROI) is your new essential source of global financial commentary. ROI provides data-driven, thought-provoking analysis on everything from soybeans to swap rates. The markets are changing faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, X. These are the views of a columnist who writes for.
-
US Judge dismisses the lawsuit of youth activists challenging Trump's energy policy
A federal Montana judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by youth activists to stop President Donald Trump’s fossil fuel energy policies. The court ruled that the suit asked it to oversee hundreds of possible government rules and regulations. In May, a group of youths represented by Our Children's Trust filed a lawsuit alleging that Trump's executive order aimed at "unleashing American energy" was unconstitutional. Their lawyers announced that they would appeal the ruling on Wednesday. U.S. district judge Dana L. Christensen stated in an order that the activists, while they had demonstrated that Trump's policies would harm them, asked him to take a broad role in climate regulation which would exceed his powers as a court. This court would have to monitor a large number of federal agency decisions to see if they violated its injunction. Christensen stated that this is a request which cannot be met because plaintiffs have no precedent. Julia Olson, Our Children's Trust's chief legal counsel, said in a press release that Trump's policies on energy are causing irreparable damage to the health and safety of the 22 youths who filed the lawsuit. Olson stated, "We will appeal because the courts cannot afford more protection to fossil-fuel companies who want to protect their profits than young Americans who are trying to preserve their rights." The Justice Department didn't immediately respond to an inquiry for comment. Trump, a Republican from the United States, announced executive orders in early January that aimed to maximize oil and gas production and roll back environmental protections, as well as withdraw the U.S. According to the United Nations, scientific evidence shows that fossil fuel emissions are a major cause of climate change and rising temperatures. In their lawsuit, activists claimed that Trump's policies will cause them to suffer a number of harmful effects, including life-threatening conditions due to rising temperatures, air pollutants from wildfires, and flooding caused by increasingly powerful storms. They asked the court for a declaration that Trump's orders were illegal, to block their implementation and to roll back any policy changes resulting from them. The Trump administration stated that the activists did not have the right to dictate climate policies through litigation, and instead should seek redress via the political process. In a court filing, lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice stated that "a self-designated children and young plaintiffs assert they are better placed to set national energy policies than the President of United States." (Reporting from Jack Queen in New York, Additional reporting by Luc Cohen, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama Rod Nickel and Aurora Ellis.)
-
Trump claims Modi assured him India would not buy Russian oil
U.S. president Donald Trump said that Indian Prime Minister Narendra modi told him on Wednesday that India would stop buying oil in Russia. Trump called this a "big move" in his efforts to economically isolate Moscow. "I was not happy about India buying oil and he assured that today they will not buy oil from Russia," Trump said to reporters at a White House function. It's a huge step. We'll now get China to follow suit. The Indian Embassy in Washington didn't immediately reply to questions emailed about whether Modi made this commitment to Trump. The Indian promise to stop buying Russian oil could be a turning point for global energy diplomacy as Washington intensifies its efforts to choke off Moscow's oil revenue amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This would be a significant shift for one of Moscow's largest energy customers, and it could change the equations for other countries that still import Russian crude. Trump is using bilateral relationships, not just multilateral sanctions, to isolate the economy. In his remarks to reporters, Trump said that India couldn't "immediately stop" the shipments. He added, "It will take a little while, but it will be done soon." (Reporting from Nandita BOSE in Washington, and Jarrett Renshaw at Philadelphia; Trevor Hunnicutt contributed additional reporting; Chris Reese edited the story).
-
Finance Ministers in Brazil offer plan to finance $1.3 trillion annually as Brazil prepares for COP30 climate negotiations
A group of 35 Finance Ministers presented suggestions on Wednesday to increase climate finance from $1.3 trillion a yearly to $1.3 trillion a yearly. This is a major demand of developing nations in advance of the COP30 talks this year in Brazil. The first report of its kind, led by Brazil, proposes financial changes in areas like credit ratings, insurance premiums, and lending priorities of the development banks. The 111-page guide is intended to help governments and financial institutions increase the amount of money available to combat climate change. In a joint statement, the ministers stated that "every year we delay climate action increases both the risk and investment required." It's up each country to decide if - and how to - use it. Tatiana Rosito said that the report, which was presented on the sidelines of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington, highlighted the importance of the finance ministers' role in the discussion. Rosito said that he wanted to integrate climate and macroeconomic policy into the development bank and international fund boards. "Finances are usually seen as a hindrance." Rosito said that finance is the major bottleneck. "I believe we can provide solutions." The report was released after the COP29 agreement last year in Baku. There are currently no plans to include it on the COP30 Agenda. The agreement, which committed wealthy nations to provide $300 billion annually in climate finance from 2035 onwards, was criticised by developing countries for being too low, given that U.N. studies suggest that they will require at least four-times that amount. The report is part of a roadmap from Baku to Belem, which includes chapters on indigenous rights, the environment and efforts to reduce climate-warming carbon emission. The document from the finance ministers was eagerly anticipated as nations struggled to assess the ambition of wealthy countries amid the U.S. retreat, and the EU's juggling concerns over energy security and Russian aggression. The ministers suggested that countries improve their regulations to manage risk, and banks should set lending policies according to the risk profile of a project rather than a nation's. The report proposes also that carbon markets should work together to synchronize their standards in order to achieve a global price for carbon. The final report has weakened some of the recommendations made in an earlier draft, which was seen by us back in August. The final report dropped the earlier draft's requirement that "we must see external concessional Climate Finance flows grow significantly and reach $250 billion annually by 2020". Rosito said that the ministers had spent months consulting governments and adapting the advice so it was relevant and practical for all. There is still much more to be done The release of the report in Washington, D.C., was timed to coincide with the pre-COP30 talks in Brasilia, where over 70 countries met to refine the agenda for November's summit. The delegates decided to establish rules for evaluating progress towards past goals. This includes setting targets for "adaptation projects" aimed at preparing against weather extremes or other climate-related dangers. They did not, however, agree that this year's COP30 would produce a final accord by all countries. They could instead focus on smaller agreements that don't require consensus. Andre Correa do Lago, COP30 president, told reporters on Tuesday evening that "we have made progress toward consensus." There is much more work to be done. Marina Silva, Brazil's Minister of the Environment, reminded countries about their commitment to move away from fossil-fuels. This sparked protests from regimes that rely on fossil fuels. Silva rejected the objections, saying that the effort to reduce fossil fuel usage and emissions "cannot [be] selective." It is a series of decisions that must be treated equally. (Reporting from Washington, D.C., Lisandra paraguassu, Brasilia, Simon Jessop, London, and Patricia Reaney, editing)
-
Trump's team considers attending the COP, but there is influence in either direction
Trump Administration weighs COP30 Participation Energy Secretary indicates he's open to going Conservative groups oppose U.S. attending global climate meeting By David Sherfinski The global COP30 Summit, which will take place in Brazil's Amazonian City of Belem next month, is expected to bring together representatives of almost every country in the world to discuss their efforts to combat climate change. There are many countries that must make major decisions about how to keep greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, which Trump has said the U.S. will abandon. The White House is yet to publicly disclose whether or not the U.S. has an official role in the annual United Nations Climate Conference. Experts say that whatever the U.S. decides, it will have an impact on the world. Jean Su, a member of a group that advocates for biological diversity, told the Center for Biological Diversity that even if it was a small presence, it could be enough to thwart efforts by other countries. Su said, "It is not productive for Trump to be there when we are serious about the fight against fossil fuels." They have the power to stop any single decision made by COP. 'GREAT PLATFORM' The COP29, which was held in Baku (Azerbaijan) last year, produced only limited results. The developing countries criticized the agreed-upon goal of $1.3 trillion per year in climate finance commitments, and in particular a $300 billion pledge from developed countries. COP29 was held immediately following the U.S. Presidential election of 2024. At the time, attendees and dignitaries remarked that Trump's looming influence could be felt. Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to limit the average global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Trump did the same thing during his first term as president. The administration has room to participate as the newer version of the U.S. withdrawl does not come into effect until next. The global meeting will be impacted by the Trump administration's outreach to the fossil-fuel industry. The U.S. declined to sign a World Bank declaration reaffirming its efforts to fight climate change. This could be a preview of the U.S.'s approach at COP30. The Trump administration is aggressively promoting the use of fossil energy by increasing oil and gas leasing sales, reopening coal mines that have been closed and opposing tax breaks for renewable sources of energy. Last month, U.S. Energy Sec. Chris Wright said he was not opposed to attending COP30. Wright told Bloomberg, "I wouldn't be against going at all if I could engage the world with an audience." Climate change is real. We think there are ways to make progress. Here are the trade-offs involved. If I could do it on a platform that was great, I would go. 'GLOBAL CLIMAT SCAM' After Wright's remarks, a group of conservatives wrote to him and to the administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin, urging them to not send a delegation to Brazil. The letter, signed by the Heartland Institute as well as the American Lands Council, stated that "the message sent by not bringing a delegaiton to COP30 is that the U.S. won't be a victim anymore of the global climate fraud." The message that it sends is that Trump's administration puts America first. Steve Milloy, of the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (one of the groups who organized the letter), said that attending COP30 would "just send the wrong message". He said, "There is no point in attending." "Even though the U.S. was playing, there wasn't much of a difference." The Energy Department, Interior Department or EPA did not respond to questions regarding the letter and COP30. Automated response to a request for comment sent by the White House said that government shutdown may result in delays and blamed Democrats. Lack of a significant U.S. participation at COP30 may encourage other major emitters, such as China and India, to take a more cautious approach in implementing meaningful climate action. Milloy pointed out that the U.S. can ignore any final agreements. He said that the UN could not come up with a binding agreement for the U.S. Su said that the Trump administration might be a "lethal player" in the proceedings. She said, "They are arguably even more fatalistic in their role during negotiations when they are present than if not."
Bessent: US may increase stakes in strategic companies against China
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced on Wednesday that the Trump administration would seek to tighten its control over strategic industries by taking more equity stakes into key companies in order to counter China's export restrictions and economic policies.
Bessent said at a CNBC conference that China's new restrictions on rare-earth minerals and magnets demonstrate the need for the U.S. be self sufficient in critical materials, or to rely on trusted allies more.
Bessent explained that when facing an economy which is not a market economy, such as China, you must exercise industrial policy.
Under Donald Trump's presidency, the U.S. has moved away from subsidizing companies to taking direct stakes, including Intel Corp, minerals miner Trilogy Metals, and rare earths miners MP Materials.
Bessent stated that more stakes could be placed in sectors critical to the national security of the United States, such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and steel. The administration will also establish strategic stockpiles and price floors for rare earths.
Bessent stated that "we're not going into non-strategic sectors and taking stakes, but we have identified seven industries to develop locally." Bessent said that the government must be "very cautious not to overreach", and ensure that its investments are meeting its strategic goals.
Bessent criticized also the practices of certain defense contractors and said that the government might have to increase pressure on them in order to improve their performance.
He said: "I think our defense companies have fallen behind in deliveries. We may need to prod them, as their largest customer, to do more research and a few fewer stock purchases, which are what really got Boeing into trouble." (Reporting and editing by Stephen Coates; Reporting by David Lawder)
(source: Reuters)