Latest News
-
Imperial Oil's quarterly profit misses expectations as throughput volume falls
Imperial Oil, a Canadian oil company, missed Friday's analysts' expectations for the?first quarter profit. Weaker crude realizations and unplanned outages at its facilities lowered?refinery?throughput. The geopolitical tensions that have been brewing in the Middle East have tightened the global oil supply. This has led to higher fuel prices. However, the gains are not enough for the weaker realisations and reduced downstream volumes. Imerial Oil refinery's quarterly?throughput dropped to 384,000 barrels a day (bpd), from 397,000 bpd?a year ago, and capacity utilization decreased to 88% from 90%, primarily due to unplanned outages and disruptions to synthetic crude feedstock. Early trading saw shares of the Calgary-based company, which is listed in the U.S., fall 2.7%. The company reported that the average price of synthetic crude oil fell from C$98.79 to C$96.13 a barrel, compared with C$98.79 a barrel a year ago. Western Canada Select remained largely unchanged at $58.33 per barrel. The quarterly upstream production however increased marginally to 419,000 barrels of crude oil equivalents per day (boepd) compared with the 418,000 boepd produced a year ago. The company also stated that the U.S. Trade Measures introduced in 2025 and Canada's retaliatory Tariffs were not expected have a material impact on its financial situation or operations. Imperial 'Oil reported its net income dropped to C$940 ($692.96 millions), or C$1.94 a share, for the quarter ending March?31. This compares with analysts' LSEG data compiled estimates of C$995?or C$2.47 a share.
-
RPT-Syria is dependent on Russian oil despite pivoting to the West
Reporting shows that Russia is now the largest oil supplier to Syria despite the alignment of the new government with the West, and despite widespread mistrust of Moscow due to its military support of the fallen leader Bashar Al-Assad. The report found that oil shipments from Russia increased by 75% this year to a total of?60,000 barrels a day. This was based on official announcements, and data from ship tracking sites such as LSEG MarineTraffic, and Shipnext. These volumes are a small part of Russia's daily oil exports. The flows will make Russia the dominant oil supplier in Syria after the fall of Assad, December 2024. This is replacing Iran, which was a major ally of the ousted president during the?14-year civil conflict. This dynamic shows how limited Syria's options are. Even though Syria emerged from the war as a Western-leaning country, its economy has not been closely integrated into global financial systems, even after Europe & Washington ended decades of sanctions against the?country last year. Three Syrian officials and two analysts said that the trade was a reflection of economic necessity for Damascus. It also gave Moscow influence over a country in which it still has two air and naval bases. Officials who spoke under condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive issues said that the relationship with Russia could strain ties between the EU and Washington. However, Damascus has limited options at the moment. According to Syrian economist Karam Shar, the trade could also expose Syria's energy industry to new Western sanctions. Shaar added that the Syrian government is aware of the risks, and is looking for alternatives suppliers. A representative of the state-run Syrian Petroleum Company said that Damascus is trying to diversify its suppliers and has, to date, unsuccessfully sought an oil agreement with Turkey, a country close to Sharaa's government. SynMax, a maritime analytics firm, said that financial constraints, commercial risk and years of conflict limited Syria's ability to access conventional tanker operators. It left Russian-linked networks as the most viable option. SynMax, in a press release, said that these shipping networks "could present reputational issues for Syria when it seeks re-establish its commercial credibility." However, the statement noted that a "transition to conventional international supply chain is unlikely to happen immediately." The Russian or Syrian energy ministries did not respond to comment requests. The U.S. State Department refused to comment on Syria’s oil trade with Russia. The U.S. Treasury issued temporary waivers to countries that bought sanctioned Russian oil or petroleum products at sea in response to the war in Iran. The Ministry of Information in Syria, which deals with media requests for Sharaa's Office, did not either respond. Officials from the Syrian Energy Ministry said that Syria's dependence on Russian oil was also due to its small market and low purchasing power. This made it difficult for Syria to sign long-term contracts, such as with Gulf oil producers. In March, the Central Bank of Syria reactivated their account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This opened the door to wider banking communication with the global financial systems for the first since 2011. RUSSIA IS FIRST TO SEND OIL FOLLOWING ASSAD'S DEATH According to Kpler and an official, Russia was the first country to send a cargo to Syria following Assad's fall. It went on to ship 16.8?million bbls by 2025 – or 46,000 barrels a day – through 19 cargoes between February 28th and December 31st. Calculations show that this has increased to 60,000 barrels a day. The names of 21 vessels that arrive in Syrian ports from Russia almost weekly were tracked. All 21 vessels are under Western sanctions. The increase is a dramatic departure from the previous years. Iran was Syria’s main crude supplier until 2025. Russia's contribution was limited to occasional diesel deliveries. Kpler data indicates that in 2024, all crude imports - 22.2 million barrels – came from Iran. This was after Assad fell. The government has regained control of the oil fields in eastern Syria but domestic production is still limited. Al-Omar, the country's biggest field in Deir-Ezzor, produces 5,000 barrels of oil per day. Total domestic production was 35,000 bpd by 2025, which is far below the 350,000 bpd levels before war. According to officials from the Syrian Petroleum Company, and the energy ministry, Syria's daily fuel and oil needs are between 120,000 and 150.000 barrels. Additional volumes, estimated by officials as around 50,000 bpd, are smuggled in from Lebanon, which imports its oil from many sources, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. The Russian shipments have covered the gap of approximately a third of the domestic demand. These contracts were purchased at a discounted price to Brent crude benchmark prices before the Iran War. An official from the Syrian Company for Oil Transport who is familiar with these contracts confirmed that the contracts were booked in advance of the Iran War. Syrian authorities do not reveal the origin of oil shipments in their state-run media, despite the fact that they are announced in public. This is because Russia's military support for Assad's government makes it unpopular in Syria. The government only identified one delivery, from an ally Saudi Arabia. It was described as a gift. Syrian officials admit that the fates of Russian bases are often discussed between Damascus, and Western capitals. In an April post on X, U.S. Republican Congressman Joe Wilson stated that Syria should "do the right thing" and do what the majority in Syria supports and remove the bases. SANCTIONED VESHELS LSEG data show that at Syria's Mediterranean Terminals, trade is handled through a rotating tanker fleet linked to Russia's network sanctioned or risky tankers. These vessels operate under multiple flags such as Panama, Liberia Marshall Islands, Comoros Madagascar Oman, Russia and Liberia. According to SynMax's analysis, ship-to-ship transfers are part of the supply chain and often take place near Greece, Cyprus, or Egypt. These 'transfers of crude oil at sea, rather than the direct unloading of cargo in port' are often used to cut transportation costs or evade sanctions through obscuring origin and ownership. The ship-to-ship operation indicates that the United States does not completely turn a blind-eye to these activities and that at least some of these shipments are being concealed by the Syrian and Russian authorities, said Shaar, an economist. SynMax reports that on its short journey from Cyprus, the?Comoros-flagged AlbarraqZ, sanctioned in January by the U.S. for alleged links to Iran-backed Houthi network, appears to have taken oil via three sea transfers. Ships had left Russian port before anchoring near Syria's Tartous where draft changes of 11.9 meters to 7 metres?suggested a cargo discharge. The purpose of these transfers could not be determined. Some vessels are linked to Iranian-linked networks of trading that Russia also uses. The U.S. Treasury sanctioned the Guinea-flagged Aether in 2025 and the Madagascar-flagged Briont in 2025 because of their links to Hossein Shamkhani's network, the son a former Iranian Supreme leader advisor. SynMax discovered that both vessels showed irregular tracking behavior. Aether transmitted intermittently from the beginning of January, and Briont broadcast under another vessel’s identity starting in mid-January. Could not determine the cause of the intermittent location data. One source said that Syria used these transfers partly because officials were familiarized with the logistics networks after being excluded for years from the normal shipping networks. Other ships that unload in Syria seem to be more closely linked to Russian logistic. According to two different analyses conducted by the intelligence firms Lloyd's List & Kharon, both Oman-flagged Carma & Lynx were owned by an UAE-based company that is linked to Russia's Sovcomflot state shipping giant. According to two separate analyses by intelligence firms Lloyd's List and Kharon, the Comoros flagged Grinch was detained by France back in February. The U.S. & EU have been sanctioning it since last year because of its links with Russia's oil exporting fleet from Murmansk. Could not independently verify ownership of the ships. Noam Raydan is a maritime and energy analyst with the Washington Institute. He warned that it's not just about Syria paying for and getting its oil. She said: "The question is, who are the sanctioned players that benefit from this trade?" (Written by Feras Dalatey; edited by Frank Jack Daniel
-
Denmark's FLSmidth looks into possible breach of sanctions against Russia
The Danish FLSmidth, a supplier of mining equipment and cement technologies, said in a Friday statement that it was investigating whether or not it had violated'sanctions' after discovering it had supplied certain pre-contract materials to Russia. As part of a continuing internal investigation, the company found that it provided materials to Russians in connection with limited potential projects in Kazakhstan. It added that the company had ceased to pursue tenders. When asked about the sanctions FLSmidth may have violated, the company replied that it had sent an email to both the U.S. authorities and the Danish ones. The company stated that "as the investigation is still in progress, we are only able to share the information contained in this press release at this time." The U.S., the European Union and other countries imposed sanctions against Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. FLSmidth stated that the tender activities which occurred before 2026 could be considered services within the scope of applicable sanction regulations and in conflict with internal procedures. The company said that the tender documents were given 'at the proposal stage, without the project contracts being 'completed. FLSmidth announced that it had notified the relevant authorities including the U.S. Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control and Danish Business Authority. It also said it would cooperate with authorities while?its internal investigations progress. The company said it was 'in the process of reviewing, enhancing and improving its compliance programme, risk management measures and other mitigating action. (Reporting and editing by Sharon Singleton, Louise Rasmussen)
-
Croatian fishermen hang their nets in response to fuel price hikes due to the Iran war
Dinko Cvjetojevic, a fishing captain in Dubrovnik whose day's work was halted because of the rising cost of fuel, sat on his?boat, moored there. The summer was approaching fast, and it was sunny. There were plenty of fish in the sea. Cvjetojevic, however, had already done the math. Fuel costs now account for as much as 90% of all operating costs. This is roughly double what they were before the conflict cut off the Strait of Hormuz, the main oil export route. This made fishing "completely non-profitable". He said: "As you can see, today is a beautiful day but the ships have been moored." He'stocked up fuel before the prices went up, so he could 'keep a second ship?running for the time being. He said, "I am constantly trying to keep alive." If it continues like this, we will work for another month and then go swimming. Commercial fishing is an important but small sector on the Adriatic coast of Croatia. It employs several thousand people, and provides fresh fish for restaurants and hotels in peak tourist season. When related activities are taken into account, tourism, Croatia's primary economic engine, represents about one-fifth the?gross?product. This leaves a large portion of the economy vulnerable if fuel prices continue to rise through the summer. Cvjetojevic stated that 'his boats usually supply markets from Dubrovnik and Istria with part of their catch being exported to Italy and Slovenia. He has now scaled down his business and is only selling locally. He said, "Without the state's help, I don't see a solution." (Reporting and writing by Antonio Bronic, Ivana Sekularac, Editing by Andrew Heavens).
-
Aluminum prices rebound amid supply concerns in the US-Iran standoff
Aluminum?prices rose on Friday as a result of fears that supply would be limited due to the ongoing standoff between Iran and the U.S., which has impacted shipments from the Gulf, where there are large smelters. Iran warned on Thursday that it would respond to any new attacks by the United States with "long, painful strikes". In official open-outcry trade, benchmark three-month aluminum on the London Metal Exchange increased 1.4% to $3.522 per metric ton, ending five sessions of losses. Metal used for construction, transportation and packaging reached $3,672 per?ton, its highest level in four years on April 16. This was after disruptions in operations in the Gulf?which accounts for around 9% of worldwide production. Prices fell after the truce that halted the attacks. Nitesh Sha, commodity strategist for WisdomTree, said: "It is?the danger of supply-side destruction due to a prolonged conflict, as the facilities in Qatar or Bahrain will not open?anytime? soon." There are indications of escalation and then de-escalation. You don't know where you stand at any given time. Prices are a bit choppy. Emirates Global Aluminium has said that it could take a full year to fully restore primary aluminium production in its Al Taweelah Smelter, which was damaged by an Iranian attack. The LME Cash Contract premium to the three-month Future The price of a ton rose by 7% on Friday to $60, after having more than doubled in the past two months. This indicates concerns about supply. The Shanghai Futures Exchange was closed for Labour Day until Wednesday, which slowed down trading. LME nickel dropped?0.5% during official activity, to $19380 per ton, after reaching a two-year high of $19 645 earlier in session due to reduced supplies from top producer Indonesia. Bank of America analyst Michael Widmer stated in a note that the nickel positioning adjustment was?remarkable. Funds switched from being net-short to net-long. "All things considered, we only see a limited downside to nickel." LME copper for three months fell 0.2%?to $12.965 per ton. Zinc dropped 0.6% to $3.342, while lead remained unchanged at $1.955. Tin gained 0.2%, to $49.300. Click here to see the latest news in metals.
-
Gold prices rise, causing gold to fall by a weekly loss
Gold prices dropped more than 1% on Friday, and are expected to drop a similar amount each week as high oil prices continue to fuel inflation fears that could discourage central banks from reducing interest rates. At 1149 GMT spot gold was down by 1.1%, at $4,573.33 an ounce, and is on course for a loss of 2.8% per week. U.S. Gold Futures for June delivery dropped 1% to $4585.20. UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo said that gold remains negatively correlated with oil in the short-term, because it impacts interest rate expectations. Iran warned on Thursday that it would respond to any new attacks by the United States with "long and painful" strikes on U.S. bases, while reiterating their claim over the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude prices are now double what they were at the beginning of the year. This has raised concerns about a global slowdown, as well as higher inflation. U.S. Inflation accelerated in march as the war increased gasoline prices. This reinforced expectations that the Federal Reserve would keep interest rates at current levels well into next. Following similar decisions made this week by both the Fed and Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank and Bank of England kept interest rates unchanged on Thursday. In a high-interest rate environment, gold, which is traditionally seen as a hedge against geopolitical unrest and inflation, may lose its appeal in favor of yield-bearing investments like U.S. Treasuries. Staunovo, however, said UBS maintained a positive outlook for the next six to twelve months. He said that the uncertainty surrounding the upcoming midterm elections in the United States, as well as expectations of a weaker U.S. Dollar over time and falling real interest rates will likely "support" investment demand along with continued central bank demand. He said that these factors could push prices up to $5,900/oz in late 2026. Silver spot prices dropped 0.3%, to $73.53 an ounce. Platinum was down 0.5%, at $1,975.65, while palladium fell by 0.1%, to $1,522.18. (Reporting by Anjana Anil in Bengaluru; Editing by Kirsten Donovan)
-
Russell: The UAE dumping OPEC will not have the same effect on crude oil as expected.
It is generally believed that the United Arab Emirates' decision to withdraw from OPEC will weaken the influence of the producer group, and lead to a race for increased production. This could ultimately result in a sharp drop in crude oil prices. The U.S.-Israeli war against Iran has impacted the global crude oil markets in such a way that it is unlikely to produce the results expected. The UAE's decision to leave the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries may have weakened the group. There may also be more crude produced by the UAE once or if the pre-war shipping volume is resumed through the Strait of Hormuz. These two outcomes may not be the only ones, nor as certain as they seem. First, let's ask how much damage OPEC has suffered. It is a big blow to lose the fourth largest producer in the group. The UAE and Saudi Arabia, the de facto leader of OPEC, are two exporters that can ramp up production quickly. The 65-year old producer group has survived departures in the past and managed to remain relevant and influence the global crude oil supply and price. Angola left the UAE in 2024. Qatar? in 2020. Ecuador again in 2020. Indonesia in 2016. Gabon in 1995. Gabon rejoined later. One could argue that none of these nations were as important as the UAE. However, Angola and Qatar would still be considered major losses. It would take a brave analyst to believe that Saudi Arabia and OPEC+ members Russia are weakened by the loss of a producer who produced 12% of OPEC's production. It will be interesting to see how Saudi Arabia and Russia react and if they decide to engage in a price and volume war. This move is not intended to force the UAE into maintaining production discipline. This would be more aimed at driving high-cost producers out of the market. The primary target is U.S. Shale output. The irony of the situation is that while U.S. president Donald Trump welcomed the UAE's decision to leave OPEC the move could lead to a price and volume war. The energy companies will be the ones to suffer. The Republican Party and Trump may benefit politically from lower retail fuel prices, but this outcome shows that Trump is not as friendly to his country's energy sector as he claims. The impact may depend on the response to a re-opened strait The main question about the UAE's move is if it will lead to a price and volume war. Before the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, which took place on February 28, the UAE shipped about 3.3 millions barrels of oil per day. This effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz. Analysts estimate that the UAE's production could rise quickly to 4.5m bpd, and then?hit 5.0m bpd over the medium-term. This assumes, of course, that the Strait of Hormuz will be fully and sustainably opened at some point. However, this is not certain given the current conflict and the apparent lack of progress among the warring parties. Even if the flow of crude oil returns to the pre-war levels, will the additional barrels supplied by the UAE be enough to cause a price correction? Importers' tactics and the actions of other exporters are equally important. Importers are attempting to replenish their depleted inventory as quickly as possible in anticipation of another Middle East war. Or, do they adopt a more measured approach, hoping for a moderated price? China, as the world's largest crude importer has historically built up stockpiles during low price periods and cut imports when prices reach levels that its refiners deem too high. China's massive stockpile of oil, estimated at 1.2 billion barrels, have not been used. The U.S. will likely see its crude oil exports fall once the Strait of Hormuz has been fully opened, but it is not certain how quickly inventories will be rebuilt. The question is also whether production can return to pre-war levels in the Middle East, considering that many fields were destroyed and facilities damaged by missiles and drones. The Iran conflict has created a lot of variables. This means that it is difficult to predict how the UAE's withdrawal from OPEC would affect the group or the overall supply-demand balance. You like this column? Check out Open Interest, 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 the columnist, an author for.
-
Chevron's upstream strength lifts first-quarter earnings past estimate
Chevron's first-quarter earnings exceeded Wall Street expectations on Friday as higher oil prices related to the U.S./Israeli war against Iran helped boost its results in its upstream business. LSEG data show that the company's adjusted earnings per share were $1.41, which is well above the consensus estimate. Despite the big beat, overall profits were at their lowest levels in five years. This was partly due to timing effects related to financial derivatives. Chevron’s largest business unit upstream generated $3.9 billion, an increase of 4% on the previous year, as oil prices rose. In a press release, CEO Mike Wirth stated that despite increased geopolitical instability and supply disruptions related to it, Chevron had delivered a solid first-quarter result, highlighting the resilience of its portfolio and the importance of disciplined execution. The conflict between Iran and the West, which began on 28 February, has caused significant disruptions to global energy markets. The Strait of Hormuz has been closed to shipping, causing a shortage of oil and a spike in prices of up to 50%. The net income for January-March was $2.2 billion. This is down from $3.5billion a year ago. Chevron is still only a small part of the Middle East's turmoil, with less than 5%. Results of the Downstream are in Red Downstream operations, on the other hand, saw a swing to a loss, falling from $325 million in profit last year, to $817 million this year. This decline was due primarily to "accounting mismatches" from derivative-related time effects. These are expected to reverse in the next quarter. Exxon, a larger rival, also reported a similar loss?from timing effect. Eimear Bonner, chief financial officer at Chevron, said in an interview that the company expects to close paper positions of?about $1billion and make a profit in the second-quarter. She said that excluding the timing effects of a volatile market, Chevron’s business was solid. We can see our cash flow increasing, we can also see our earnings growing and all of our plans are on schedule. The company stated that it may see further timing effects in the event of a continued rise in oil prices and a "unwinding" effect when prices drop. LIMITED MIDDLE-EAST EXPOSURE Chevron's Middle East production is lower than its peers. The company reported that production in the U.S. was robust and exceeded 2 million barrels per a day for the third consecutive quarterly. The first-quarter volumes decreased slightly to 3,86 million barrels per day of oil equivalent compared to the previous three month due to downtime in the Tengiz?field, Kazakhstan following a fire. The free cash flow was also down to $1.5 billion, due to lower operating cash flows. The metric was down on a?adjusted basis, excluding the impact of?working capital. Bonner reiterated the company's goal of achieving a 10% annual increase in adjusted free cash flows through 2030. Chevron paid $3.5 billion as dividends during the quarter and purchased $2.5 billion of shares. The company's buyback was less than in the previous quarter. However,?Bonner stated that the company still targets a full-year purchase between $10 billion to $20 billion. Biraj Borkhataria is an analyst at RBC Capital Markets. He wrote in a note that Chevron had strong results, but some investors might be disappointed with the lack of increase in buybacks. He also said that a stronger cash flow this year would likely help boost repurchases in the second quarter. The company reported that its capital expenditures in the first quarter of 2026 were higher than the previous year. This was partly due to the investments made in connection with the Hess acquisition. However, this was offset by lower spending in the Permian basin. Chevron's shares rose less than 1% before the market opened. Sheila Dang reported from Houston, and Nathan Crooks edited the story with Sherry Jacob Phillips and Chizu nomiyama.
Pentagon official: U.S. War in Iran cost 25 billion dollars so far
A senior Pentagon official said that the United States war against Iran had 'cost' $25 billion to date. This was the first estimate of the cost for the military.
Democrats have been able to gain a strong lead in opinion polls in the six months before mid-term elections, when Trump's Republicans will likely face a tough battle to maintain their House majority. They are also attempting to link affordability with the unpopular Iran War.
Jules Hurst who is the comptroller told the House Armed Services Committee members that the majority of this money was "for munitions".
Hurst didn't specify what was included in that estimate, or whether it took into account the projected costs for rebuilding and repairing the base infrastructure damaged by the conflict in the Middle East.
Rep. Adam 'Smith, the top Democrat in the House Armed Services Committee responded to?Hurst by saying: "I am glad that you answered that?"question. We've asked for a very long time and nobody has given us a number.
The United States began to conduct strikes against Iran in February. Both sides maintain a fragile truce. Pentagon has sent tens and thousands of additional forces to the Middle East. Three aircraft carriers are also stationed in the area.
Thirteen U.S. soldiers have died in the conflict and hundreds of others were injured.
The disruptions in oil and gas shipments since the start of the war have caused a rise in the price of gasoline and agricultural products like fertilizers in the United States, in addition to the list of other high prices for consumers.
Trump's popularity is down since U.S. and Israel started a war on Iran in February, which led to an increase in gas prices.
A recent Ipsos survey found that only?34% Americans approve of the U.S. war with Iran. This is down from 36% at mid-April, and 38% at mid-March.
(source: Reuters)