New US sanctions to slow but not stop China's Iranian oil imports, traders say
SINGAPORE, March 21 (Reuters) - Iranian oil shipments into China are set to fall in the near-term after new U.S. sanctions on a refiner and tankers, driving up shipping costs, but traders said they expect buyers to find workarounds to keep at least some volumes flowing.
Washington on Thursday imposed new sanctions on entities including Shouguang Luqing Petrochemical, a "teapot," or independent refinery in east China's Shandong province, and vessels that supplied oil to such plants in China, the top buyers of Iranian crude.
It was the fourth round of sanctions on Iran's oil sales since President Donald Trump's February call for "maximum pressure" on Tehran, including efforts to drive its crude exports to zero.
Iranian oil flows to China had already dropped due to rising freight costs as earlier sanctions hit shipping capacity, said traders, including three directly involved in the business.
A Chinese trading executive involved in Iranian oil business said the latest sanctions did not come as a surprise and expects that more plants or terminals could be targeted.
"But once companies re-adjust their business structures, imports would continue," said the executive, referring to measures such as changing entities for oil payments.
Still, imports may be curbed as the sanctions give larger private refiners pause, said a second Chinese trader.
Freight costs for a Very Large Crude Carrier, or VLCC, sailing from waters near Malaysia, a key transshipment point for Iranian oil, to China's refining hub Shandong have more than doubled since late 2024 to $3-$4 per barrel, the first executive added.
China's Iranian oil imports recovered in February to 1.43 million bpd, from 898,000 bpd in January, data from analytics firm Kpler showed.
About 33 million barrels have been delivered this month, with volumes forecast to reach 1.7 million bpd before the latest sanctions, senior Kpler analyst Muyu Xu said, adding that discharge volumes for the rest of March could decline sharply due to the sanctions.
Most Iranian oil shipments to China, which make up over 10% of its crude imports, are rebranded by traders as sourced from Malaysia.
"This marks a clear escalation in sanctions policy, though not as severe as if a Chinese port had been designated," said Brian Leisen, commodities strategist at RBC Capital.
'INDISCRIMINATE AND ILLEGAL'
China, which defends its trade with Iran as legitimate, on Friday reiterated its opposition to "indiscriminate and illegal" unilateral sanctions and pledged to protect the rights of Chinese enterprises, which one trader said buyers would take comfort from.
Luqing, which operates a 160,000 bpd refinery, is among the larger regular buyers of discounted Iranian oil, according to traders. It is the second teapot sanctioned by the U.S. after Haiyou Petrochemical was designated in 2022.
A person answering the phone at Luqing did not have immediate comment on Friday. The company did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Oil from Iran, Venezuela and Russia shunned by many Western buyers has saved Chinese refineries billions of dollars in recent years as flagging economic growth and stagnant fuel demand depress margins.
One trader dealing in Iranian oil said a teapot operator seemed unfazed by Thursday's announcement.
"Our regular client appeared nonchalant when I shared the sanction document translated into Chinese late last night and carried on asking for the latest Iranian oil quotes," the trader said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Target's own staff blow whistle on HUGE price hikes across the store: 'Everything's going up'
Target workers say prices are exploding — and shoppers are about to feel it. Store staff are posting pictures of their early morning price-changes on social media. The images show shelf labels adjusting with giant price bumps. 'I feel bad doing all these price changes when everything goes up,' one Target staffer said in a Reddit post. Another commenter added: 'I've been doing price change everyday for the past 4 months or so. Seeing everything going up all at once is really making me sad.' In one post, a Target employee shared a picture of pricing labels for a Paw Patrol toy that sold for $51.99 until May 29. The same item's price ballooned to $101.99 on June 7 — a 96 percent jump. Another post showed a box of Monster Energy drinks increasing from $15.59 to $24.99 — a nearly 38 percent spike. The hikes come as retailers grapple with inflationary pressures. Target didn't respond to questions about the cause of the price increases. But the adjustments aren't a huge surprise. At the beginning of the year, multiple executives — including Target's CEO — warned that President Donald Trump's tariffs would push prices higher on a broad range of consumer goods. Since that announcement, Target has seen a steady stream of employees turning to social media to vent about price changes. In mid-May, another employee posted a picture of an old and new label for a Heyday brand USB-C cord. The price increased from $9.99 to $17.99, an 80 percent increase. Independent analysts say the price adjustments are the result of careful modeling, not sticker shock theater. Retailers like Target rely on data and competitive pricing tools to avoid losing customers over even small increases. 'Price changes are a constant in retail and shouldn't be assumed to be nefarious,' Carol Spieckerman, a retail analyst and president of Spieckerman Retail, told 'If Target is over-stepping or gouging, it will feel the pain quickly. Shoppers are smart and do research.' Still, the price swaps are worrying Target employees, who have increasingly voiced concern over the retailer's direction and profit drops. And it's not just Target. Other major chains are seeing the same kind of social media blowback from employees tasked with adjusting thousands of prices. Target has been warning customers that some products will see price increases (stock image) Walmart staffers are posting screenshots from handheld devices on Reddit, revealing sweeping internal price hikes. 'Lately my section has been getting 5,000 to 9,000 a week,' one Walmart employee claimed, saying it marked a 40 to 50 percent increase from normal. The wave of price changes is even extending into the automotive world. At Ford and BMW dealerships, employees have leaked internal bulletins showing MSRP hikes of more than $1,000. Subaru, Toyota, and Mitsubishi have all said they're raising prices. Unlike retail chains, carmakers are often more upfront about cost shifts. But transparency comes with risk. Large corporations that openly tie rising prices to tariffs are drawing fire from the Trump administration. In May, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon warned that prices would rise in response to sweeping tariffs on Chinese goods — a comment that drew backlash from President Donald Trump. 'Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain,' Trump threatened on social media.' Amazon briefly considered adding a line item for tariff costs on product pages. But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the potential change a 'hostile and political act. ' Since then, both Walmart and Amazon have silently raised prices — but they've kept quiet on why. And customers should expect more price hikes. According to Spieckerman, consumers scanning the toy aisle should prepare for fluctuating prices, like the Paw Patrol toy, because margins are thinner and costs are rising fast. 'They're definitely a tariff-sensitive category that is in high demand for the holidays,' she said. 'I expect prices will rise and fall based on aggressive promotions.' But for workers on the ground, that just means more price changes — and more customers asking why everything suddenly costs more.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Trump attack on Left-wing bias on TV sparks ‘constitutional crisis'
Elon Musk may have stepped aside, but Donald Trump still has a Doge problem. The US president's plan to run a scythe through up to $425bn (£316bn) of government spending could be gutted or even vetoed in the Senate, where just a few rebel Republicans could scupper the cuts. But Trump and Russell Vought, his budget tsar, have hatched a scheme, called a 'pocket rescission', that might keep the Doge (department of government efficiency) dream on track. And it could even shift the constitutional balance of power between president and Congress towards a testy Trump. It's a high-risk, high-stakes strategy. The outcome will determine whether the Doge spending reductions can go ahead, helping to pay for Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax cuts without blowing out the budget and rattling the bond markets. But the unprecedented procedure takes the White House and Capitol Hill into uncharted legal waters. So it is likely to end up in the courts – joining a raft of litigation that will either reinforce the institutional checks on the president's power or unleash him. 'It's a challenge to Congress,' says Sarah Binder, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. 'I don't like to throw around the term 'constitutional crisis', but it's not a great position for lawmakers and institutions.' Under the constitution, Congress has the so-called power of the purse, meaning that lawmakers, not the president, are the final arbiter of what the government spends or does not spend. If the president wants to cut funding or programmes that Congress has already authorised, his only option is to launch a rescission procedure – a formal request for the cuts, which both houses of Congress must approve. The rescission process was introduced in a law called the Impoundment Control Act, which had the overall aim of making it hard for Richard Nixon, the then-president, and his successors from delaying or withholding funds once Congress had green-lighted them. Rescission has seldom been used. Ronald Reagan used it to secure $15.2bn of spending cuts as president in the early 1980s, but later in the decade, Congress tended to ignore or refuse his rescission messages. Trump tried it on with a $15bn-plus request in his first term, but was stymied in the Senate. The Democrats then got control of Congress in the midterms and pushed back another $27bn salvo. Now Trump is trying again. The initial proposal – Vought says it will be 'the first of many' – is to scuttle $9.4bn of spending on public broadcasters and international aid programmes. This rescission was flagged back in March but formally put to Congress only this month. In an executive order early last month, Trump said he wanted to terminate all public funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which accounts for about $1bn of this first rescission package. 'Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,' Trump said. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' The White House has until July 18 to persuade Congress. The rescission scraped through the House of Representatives by 214 votes to 212, but the Senate is the real test. If just four Republicans in the 100-seat upper house swap sides, the spending stays in place. It's not looking promising for Trump. Several Republicans have already voiced concern about at least some of the cuts. The dissenters include Senator Susan Collins, who chairs an influential Senate finance committee that will consider the cuts at a session on June 25. There could be fireworks. Vought will appear before the committee and, in recent weeks, he has started airing the possibility of bypassing Congress altogether through an untested and almost unknown variant of rescission: the so-called pocket rescission. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used, but it is there,' Vought told CNN. 'And we intend to use all of these tools.' The trick with the pocket rescission is to make the request to Congress right before the end of the fiscal year, which runs to Sept 30. The White House reckons that the Impoundment Control Act's wording creates a loophole: if Congress does not act on the request before Sept 30, then even if the window is well short of 45 days the spending approval will lapse automatically on that date. The case for pocket rescissions was made recently by Wade Miller, of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a Right-wing think tank. 'A rescission is a viable tool for carrying out the broader political mandate to curb unnecessary spending,' he wrote in a briefing paper. 'If the executive branch decides to use this process, the deployment of a rescission with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year is a statutorily and constitutionally valid strategy.' The CRA was set up by Vought himself, after he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the final six months of Trump's first term. He returned to the White House with the president this January, in the same role. But other Washington think tanks trenchantly oppose the CRA's position. 'Calling it a pocket rescission implies that it's like an actual functional tool under the law, in a way that it's actually not. It is a strategy that the person who is running the Office of Management and Budget has articulated to evade the law,' says Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at Protect Democracy. She says the whole purpose of the Impoundment Control Act was to stop any presidential ploy to skirt its strictures. 'One of the reasons why they might want to do this is because they're afraid they don't have the votes to actually make the cuts the legal way.' Binder, from Brookings, says that the Act doesn't explicitly deal with what happens if a president makes the request right before the end of the fiscal year. 'There's certainly room here for an aggressive Office of Management and Budget and an aggressive administration to try to stretch – others might say manipulate – the silence in the budget law,' she says. 'But the logic of the matter suggests that pocket rescissions are not legal under the Act and I would imagine there's a strong argument that they are unconstitutional under Congress's power of the purse.' Binder suspects Vought is looking to get a test case into the courts. Given there could be a constitutional principle at stake, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges are Republican appointees. In the meantime, litigants could get restraining orders or injunctions to prevent the Doge cuts. But they can't necessarily get the White House to respect these. The stage is set for a constitutional showdown. The question is whether Trump and Vought will really pull the trigger. And then, whether the weapon will actually work.
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Middle East tensions put investors on alert, weighing worst-case scenarios
NEW YORK, June 21 (Reuters) - Investors are mulling a host of different market scenarios should the U.S. deepen its involvement in the Middle East conflict, with the potential for ripple effects if energy prices skyrocket. They have honed in on the evolving situation between Israel and Iran, which have exchanged missile strikes, and are closely monitoring whether the U.S. decides to join Israel in its bombing campaign. Potential scenarios could send inflation higher, dampening consumer confidence and lessening the chance of near-term interest rate cuts. This would likely cause an initial selloff in equities and possible safe-haven bid for the dollar. While U.S. crude prices have climbed some 10% over the past week, the S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab has been little changed as of yet, following an initial drop when Israel launched its attacks. However, if attacks were to take out Iranian oil supply, "that's when the market is going to sit up and take notice," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B Riley Wealth. "If you get disruption to supply of oil product on the global marketplace, that is not reflected in today's WTI price and that is where things get negative," Hogan said. The White House said on Thursday President Donald Trump would decide on U.S. involvement in the conflict in the next two weeks. Analysts at Oxford Economics modeled three scenarios, ranging from a de-escalation in the conflict, a complete shutdown in Iranian production, and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, "each with increasingly large impacts on global oil prices," the firm said in a note. In the most severe case, global oil prices jump to around $130 per barrel, driving U.S. inflation near 6% by the end of this year, Oxford said in the note. "Although the price shock inevitably dampens consumer spending because of the hit to real incomes, the scale of the rise in inflation and concerns about the potential for second-round inflation effects likely ruin any chance of rate cuts in the U.S. this year," Oxford said in the note. The biggest market impact from the escalating conflict has been restricted to oil, with oil prices soaring on worries that the Iran-Israel conflict could disrupt supplies. Brent crude futures have risen as much as 18% since June 10, hitting a near 5-month high of $79.04 on Thursday. The accompanying rise in investors' expectations for further near-term volatility in oil prices has outpaced the rise in volatility expectations for other major asset classes, including stocks and bonds. But other asset classes, including stocks, could still feel the knock-on effects of higher oil prices, especially if there is a larger surge in oil prices if the worst market fears of supply disruptions come true, analysts said. "Geopolitical tensions have been mostly ignored by equities, but they are being factored into oil," Citigroup analysts wrote in a note. "To us, the key for equities from here will come from energy commodity pricing," they said. U.S. stocks have so far weathered rising Middle East tensions with little sign of panic. A more direct U.S. involvement in the conflict could, however, spook markets, investors said. Financial markets may be in for an initial selloff if the U.S. military attacks Iran, with economists warning that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by Trump's tariffs. Still, any pullback in equities might be fleeting, history suggests. During past prominent instances of Middle East tensions coming to a boil, including the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, stocks initially languished but soon recovered to trade higher in the months ahead. On average, the S&P 500 slipped 0.3% in the three weeks following the start of conflict, but was 2.3% higher on average two months following the conflict, according to data from Wedbush Securities and CapIQ Pro. An escalation in the conflict could have mixed implications for the U.S. dollar, which has tumbled this year amid worries over diminished U.S. exceptionalism. In the event of U.S. direct engagement in the Iran-Israel War, the dollar could initially benefit from a safety bid, analysts said. "Traders are likely to worry more about the implicit erosion of the terms of trade for Europe, the UK, and Japan, rather than the economic shock to the US, a major oil producer," Thierry Wizman, Global FX & Rates Strategist at Macquarie Group, said in a note. But longer-term, the prospect of US-directed 'nation-building' would probably weaken the dollar, he said. "We recall that after the attacks of 9/11, and running through the decade-long US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the USD weakened," Wizman said.
