Saudi Aramco will be selling its crude to all buyers next month, even as OPEC+ agreed to boost supply by more than what analysts expected.Kpler’s Amena Bakr published the new Aramco price list on X, showing that the biggest price hike will hit buyers of Saudi crude in Europe. The hike across crude blends is $1.40 per barrel from July.

Asian buyers will have to pay between $0.90 and $1.30 more per barrel of Saudi crude next month, while buyers in North America will enjoy the most modest price hike, by between $0.20 and $0.40 per barrel.Summer is peak fuel demand in the northern hemisphere and analysts expected Aramco to hike its oil prices whatever OPEC+ decided at its latest meeting. What OPEC+ decided at that meeting was to add 548,000 barrels daily to its output, prompting a price drop in oil when markets opened today.

At the time of writing, Brent crude was trading at $67.88 per barrel, with West Texas Intermediate at $66.14 per barrel, both slightly down from Friday’s close.

The latest output hike should result in the return of 80% of the total cuts—at 2.2 million bpd—agreed back in 2022, according to RBC Capital Markets’ Helima Croft. However, Reuters noted in a report on the news that actual production growth among the eight OPEC+ members that were cutting supply has been slower than agreed, and most of it has come from the biggest cutter, Saudi Arabia.

Goldman Sachs, meanwhile, was quick to predict another oversized OPEC+ output hike in September, at 500,000 barrels daily. The bank issued the prediction on Sunday, saying “Saturday’s announcement to accelerate supply hikes increases our confidence that the shift, which we started flagging last summer, to a more long-run equilibrium focused on normalizing spare capacity and market share, supporting internal cohesion, and strategically disciplining US shale supply, is continuing.”

By Irina Slav, Oilprice.com – Jul 07, 2025

The Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited (Towngas) (HKEX: 00003) and Royal Vopak have entered a strategic partnership to jointly develop a green methanol supply chain aimed at accelerating shipping decarbonization across mainland China, Hong Kong, and the broader Asia-Pacific region.

Under the new framework agreement, the two companies will combine their strengths to scale up green methanol production, storage, bunkering, and trading. Towngas brings its proprietary technology for converting agricultural and forestry waste, as well as scrap tyres, into certified green methanol. The company already supplies the maritime sector and has achieved multiple international sustainability certifications, including ISCC EU and ISCC PLUS. Meanwhile, Royal Vopak will contribute its extensive coastal terminal infrastructure and logistics network across China to enable efficient storage and distribution.

The partnership targets key shipping hubs, including Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Ningbo, and Tianjin, creating an integrated supply chain that links green methanol production centers with bunkering and storage facilities at major ports. The collaboration also plans to expand supply to regional markets such as Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, and South Korea.

Towngas recently completed Asia’s largest green methanol bunkering project, delivering 6,000 tonnes through Royal Vopak’s Tianjin terminal. The company’s Inner Mongolia plant is expected to increase annual capacity from 100,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes by year-end, with plans to reach 300,000 tonnes by 2028. Towngas ultimately aims to scale to one million tonnes per year with additional plants across China.

This alliance strengthens both companies’ positions in the growing market for sustainable marine fuels, as shipping faces increasing pressure to decarbonize under international regulations. The Asia-Pacific region, home to several of the world’s busiest ports, is emerging as a critical arena for green fuel infrastructure development.

Royal Vopak, with its 3.5 million cubic metres of storage capacity across nine Chinese coastal provinces, continues to position itself as a key enabler in the energy transition, supporting new fuels such as ammonia, CO?, and sustainable feedstocks.

By: Editorial Dept, Oilprice.com – Jul 07, 2025.

The Official Receiver has secured an agreement with Glencore  to continue supplying crude oil to the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire, according to Sky News editor Mark Kleinman on Friday.

The deal was reached overnight and ensures ongoing operations at the refinery, which was a subsidiary of Prax Group, he posted on social media platform X.

Several parts of Prax Group entered insolvency proceedings earlier this week.

The Lincolnshire facility will continue to receive crude oil from the commodities giant Glencore under the new arrangement, maintaining the supply chain for the refinery during this period of corporate restructuring.

By: Investing , Maria Ponnezhath / 07/04/2025.

Enbridge plans to expand its infrastructure to increase oil transportation from the American Midwest to the Gulf Coast, anticipating rising exports and addressing current market logistical constraints.

Enbridge, a Canadian company specializing in energy infrastructure, is exploring the possibility of increasing the capacity of its pipelines designed to transport crude oil from Flanagan, Illinois, to the U.S. Gulf Coast. The goal is to better meet the growing demand for export logistics. This initiative particularly aims to improve supply to major Gulf terminals, where the volume of oil delivered from U.S. production areas is steadily increasing. Currently, limited pipeline capacity creates logistical constraints for market players.

Strategic Expansion toward Corpus Christi and Houston

Enbridge already maintains extensive infrastructure in the region, including the Houston Oil Terminal (EHOT) at Jones Creek, expected to begin operations by 2026. This terminal will have significant storage capacity capable of receiving and shipping approximately 930,000 barrels per day (b/d). The company also plans to invest around $700 million in constructing the Canyon Oil Pipeline System, capable of transporting 200,000 b/d of crude oil, and the Canyon Gathering System, a dedicated natural gas network with a capacity of 125 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d). These facilities will primarily support the offshore development of the Kaskida oil field.

Additionally, Enbridge operates the Gray Oak Pipeline, connecting the Permian Basin to Corpus Christi, Texas. This pipeline, currently with a capacity of 980,000 b/d, will soon undergo an additional capacity increase of 120,000 b/d. This expansion aims to ease logistical constraints between major producing basins and export terminals located along the Gulf Coast. Enbridge’s initiative aligns with a broader dynamic aimed at optimizing U.S. domestic oil flows to international markets.

Anticipating Rising Exports

U.S. crude oil exports continue to grow, increasing pressure on existing transportation capacities. This trend generates increased demand for robust logistics services between producing regions, primarily located in the Midwest and Southwest U.S., and Gulf Coast export ports. In response, Enbridge is closely evaluating investments to facilitate crude oil flows to these strategic locations.

These developments could significantly impact price differentials between Permian Basin oil and international markets. The establishment of these new capacities may also influence commercial strategies among U.S. producers and exporters, opening new prospects for oil market participants. Enbridge has not yet confirmed the precise timeline or total cost of the proposed projects.

By: Energynews /  24 June 2025

As Israel strikes Iran and Tehran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, the global oil trade braces for disruption to critical supply routes

Oil prices are lurching after Israel confirmed a strike on Iranian territory on 13 June, described by officials as a “pre-emptive strike” linked to Iran’s nuclear activities.

Brent crude leaped over 10%, hitting US$73.12 a barrel, the highest since January, while US crude on the NYMEX exchange matches it at US$73.20. These price swings are accompanied by a growing fear around supply chains, particularly if the conflict expands. 

Now, the Iranian parliament’s decision to vote for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz marks a turning point. This 50km-wide shipping corridor, sitting between Iran to the north and Oman and the United Arab Emirates to the south, is the busiest oil transit chokepoint in the world. Around 20% of global oil passes through this narrow lane daily.

The closure, if implemented, could halt US$1bn worth of oil shipments every day, choking off supply and hitting economies reliant on Middle Eastern crude.

More than just a regional issue, the potential blockage of the Strait of Hormuz poses a serious challenge to global energy flows and supply chains.

In the first half of 2023, about 20 million barrels of oil per day flowed through this route, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), representing US$600bn annually. This crude doesn’t just come from Iran – it also moves from Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE to buyers across Asia, Europe and beyond.

“The outlook for Iranian exports is a concern,” says Derren Nathan from Hargreaves Lansdown, “but also the potential for disruption to shipping in the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz. It’s a key route for about 20% of global oil flows and an even higher proportion of liquefied natural gas haulage.”

Any interruption would squeeze an already tense global supply chain. With tankers carrying both oil and liquefied natural gas threading through this narrow channel – about 33km at its tightest point – the logistical knock-on effects would be felt quickly.

From China and India to Japan and South Korea, importers would face higher costs. In 2022, more than 80% of oil and condensate leaving the strait went to Asia. China alone takes up around 90% of Iran’s oil exports. For countries like India, half of its crude and 60% of its natural gas imports sail through Hormuz. South Korea and Japan rely on it for 60% and 75% of their crude respectively.

Should Iran attempt to close it, experts suggest mines laid by fast-attack boats or submarines could make the strait impassable. While Iran’s navy could threaten commercial or military ships, retaliation by US forces would be likely.

The US, which escorted Kuwaiti tankers during the Iran-Iraq conflict in the 1980s, retains military options, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating: “It would hurt other countries’ economies a lot worse than ours.”

Trade routes shift

Efforts to find alternative paths are well underway but can’t match Hormuz’s scale.

Saudi Arabia operates its 1,200km East–West pipeline that runs to the Red Sea, shifting up to five million barrels a day. The UAE channels oil from inland fields to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman, capable of handling 1.5 million barrels per day. Iran’s Goreh–Jask pipeline, launched in 2021, carries 350,000 barrels, but exports have stalled since September 2024.

Those routes aren’t without risk, as Saleem Khan, Chief Data & Analytics Officer at Pole Star Global explains: “This morning, at 00:15 GMT, we saw the collision of two oil tankers in the UAE’s Persian Gulf.

“The collision between the Adalynn and Front Eagle does not seem to be “security related” according to maritime security monitor, Ambrey. However an analysis by Pole Star seems to hint toward a potential AIS jamming scenario. The Combined Maritime Force’s JMIC information centre said in an advisory this week that it had received reports of electronic interference originating from the vicinity of Iran’s Port of Bandar Abbas.” 

Even without disruption, collectively these routes can only manage about 3.5 million barrels a day – less than a fifth of what flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

The EIA notes that in 2024 the strait handled over one-quarter of global seaborne oil trade and one-fifth of all petroleum consumption. Meanwhile, disruptions elsewhere, such as at the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, have already prompted countries like Saudi Arabia to divert shipments through inland pipelines.

While the US now imports just 7% of its crude via Hormuz thanks to rising domestic and Canadian supply, the strait remains vital to the rest of the world.

As energy analyst Vandana Hari explains, Iran has “little to gain and too much to lose” from closing the strait. Such a move would not only isolate it from neighbours but also risk damaging ties with China.

By: Libby Hargreaves / June 23, 2025

On the heels of my recent article outlining how California’s unique fuel regulations — not corporate price gouging — are driving up gasoline prices in the state, new developments have added urgency to that conversation.

On May 6, California Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-San Diego) sent a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom sounding the alarm over what could become an energy and economic crisis in the state. Citing an analysis by University of Southern California professor Michael Mische, the letter warns that gas prices could spike 75% by 2026 — reaching as high as $8.43 per gallon — if two major refineries are allowed to shut down as planned.

This follows Professor Mische’s earlier study, which I referenced in my prior article. His research identified structural factors and policy-driven costs as the primary reasons California gasoline prices are consistently the highest in the nation — not oil company profiteering. These factors include high state taxes, a boutique fuel blend required only in California, and an increasingly constrained refinery landscape.

A Looming Supply Crunch

Two key in-state refineries are scheduled to close in the coming months: the Phillips 66 refinery in Los Angeles by the end of 2025, and the Valero refinery in Benicia by April 2026. Together, these facilities produce approximately 20% of California’s gasoline supply.

Professor Mische’s projections are stark. He estimates that gas prices could reach $6.43 per gallon after the first closure and climb to $8.43 by the end of 2026 after the second. These numbers assume stable crude oil prices. But if global oil markets turn volatile — as they often do — the ceiling could be even higher.

What’s Driving the Closures?

Refining gasoline in California has become increasingly difficult. The state’s stringent environmental rules, such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), coupled with recent legislation like SBX1-2 and ABX2-1, have layered on costly compliance burdens. Add in uncertainty around future bans on internal combustion vehicles and a hostile investment environment, and it’s not hard to see why refinery operators are opting to exit the state.

The problem isn’t limited to fuel prices. According to Senator Jones’ letter, the closures would also eliminate around 1,300 direct jobs and nearly 3,000 more indirectly. These are good-paying, union and trade jobs in communities that can ill afford the loss. Beyond economics, the closures also increase the state’s reliance on imported fuel — most of which must be transported by ship — raising logistical risks and, arguably, national security concerns.

Why This Matters

The letter from Senator Jones reads as both a policy critique and a plea for realism. It challenges Governor Newsom to reconsider regulations that are squeezing fuel producers out of the state and proposes collaboration with the energy industry to explore solutions. Those could include tax incentives to maintain refining capacity, or temporary relief from some of the more onerous rules that disproportionately affect California refiners.

It’s important to understand that California’s fuel market is largely isolated. The state’s environmental regulations and fuel specifications make it difficult to import gasoline from other states or countries. When refineries close, there aren’t many viable alternatives. And when supply tightens in a market with limited flexibility, prices surge — sometimes dramatically.

Reframing the Debate

Much of the public and political dialogue around gas prices in California has focused on oil company profits and alleged price gouging. But the data simply doesn’t support that narrative.

Multiple independent investigations — including those by the FTC and the California Energy Commission — have found no clear evidence that refiners are colluding or manipulating the market. The price premiums in California are mostly structural, driven by policy choices.

Those choices may reflect environmental priorities, but they also carry economic consequences. Policymakers must grapple with this trade-off, especially as the state’s energy mix continues to evolve.

The Bottom Line

If California continues down a path that discourages in-state refining while failing to address the growing supply gap, residents should brace for more sticker shock at the pump. Gasoline prices of $8 or more per gallon are no longer hypothetical; they are within view if the state doesn’t take action.

To be clear, this is not an argument against clean energy. California can pursue its climate goals and still maintain a stable, affordable energy supply. But doing so will require pragmatic policies that ensure reliability and economic viability — not just ambition.

As I wrote in my previous article, this isn’t about corporate greed. It’s about structural and regulatory decisions that have real-world consequences for working families, small businesses, and anyone who drives a car in California.

The choice isn’t between climate progress and affordable fuel. The choice is whether we make that transition responsibly — or let the market punish those who can least afford it.

By: Oil Price / June 17, 2025