UK’s Delusional Threats to Europe over ‘Hard Brexit’

UK’s Delusional Threats to Europe over ‘Hard Brexit’

UK’s Delusional Threats to Europe over ‘Hard Brexit'

Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May delivered her much-anticipated speech on Brexit this week, and it was suffused with delusions of grandeur. When are British leaders going to realize that their days of imperial greatness are long gone? Listening to May, however, one would think that the world’s map was still splattered in red, white and blue colors of the Union Jack – otherwise known by former colonial subjects as the Butcher’s Apron.

The Conservative prime minister gave a bravado speech that heralded a blissful, prosperous future for «global Britain». May said that Britain was now open for free trade with the rest of the world, after having voted in a referendum last June to quit the European Union, after 43 years of membership.

Finally, after seven months of dithering and confusion on the matter, May declared that Britain would henceforth be seeking a «hard Brexit», whereby the United Kingdom would no longer seek to be part of the EU’s single market. It would therefore be free from obligations concerning migration and free movement of European citizens. That is, Britain would gain full control of its borders. A «soft Brexit» option would have involved a compromise between retaining single-market membership and accepting a degree of open borders.

No way. Theresa May was at last supposedly giving clarity on Britain’s position, saying there would be «no half measures, no half in, half out… Brexit means Brexit». The Financial Times approved of her upbeat message with the headline: «No more Theresa Maybe».

Listening to May’s prognosis of glowing prospects for «global Britain» – trading with the US, Canada, China, India and the Persian Gulf among others as bilateral partners – makes one wonder why Britain ever bothered joining the EU’s single market back in 1988, as her predecessor Margaret Thatcher had zealously committed to (15 years after its original accession to the European Economic Community, the precursor of the EU.)

Perhaps it has something do with the fact that nearly 50 per cent of the UK’s exports go to EU markets – free from any trade barriers. How Britain’s exports will fair in a global marketplace of cut-throat trade tariffs is a moot question.

According to the British government it’s all going to be rosy. That, by the way, wasn’t May’s position prior to the referendum. She campaigned for remaining in the EU and in doing so she had predicted that leaving the bloc would spell economic disaster for Britain. All that doom seems to have dramatically disappeared now in May’s apparently revised upbeat world outlook, without providing an explanation for her U-turn.

Here’s the thing: Downing Street’s supposed announcement of clarity on the Brexit this week raises, on the contrary, even more befuddling questions. May is aiming to conclude Brexit negotiations in two years with the European Commission based in Brussels. But that timescale is impossibly optimistic. Only a few weeks ago, her top diplomat charged with negotiating the Brexit was forced to resign because he dared to warn that a separation deal would take up to 10 years to finalize. And that longer-term view is probably a realistic assessment. For instance, it took Canada seven years to recently conclude a free-trade pact with the EU. For Britain, with many more legal entanglements to resolve, any less timeframe seems in the realm of «daydreams» – as some EU politicians caustically remarked following May’s speech this week.

Britain’s Foreign Minister Boris Johnson can crow all he likes that «the world is queuing up to do business with Britain». One of those potentially new trade partners is Britain’s old colony, the United States of America. Following President Donald Trump’s welcoming remarks for a «quick trade deal» with Britain earlier this week, there was much excitement from Johnson and other Brexiteers that a new lucrative horizon was indeed dawning.

The harsh reality is that Britain will be technically and legally a member of the EU until it concludes departure negotiations that could several years. Under those circumstances, as several EU politicians have pointed out, Britain will not be free to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with the US or any other nation. That means that Britain will not be able to gallop off into supposed new trade deals with the US, China or anyone else, until it finishes its no doubt protracted divorce proceedings with the EU.

The Brexit process is going to be a rude awakening for British leaders who seem to harbor delusions about Britain’s stature in the world.

This delusional thinking was revealed when Theresa May issued a barely veiled warning to the EU that Britain would not accept a «punitive» Brexit deal.

Despite her speech opening with charming talk of Britain being the best of friends with Europe, May drew a dagger towards the end.

«I know there are some voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path. That would be an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend,» said the British premier.

With a foreboding tone, she added: «Britain would not – indeed we could not – accept such an approach. And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.»

It was a glinting threat from May, akin to flashing a knife at the EU.

Earlier, May said in contradictory fashion that while Britain was leaving the single market, at the same time it was demanding «full access to markets as an associate member to make trading as frictionless as possible».

So, only in a rhetorical sense is the British government declaring a «hard Brexit» by purportedly «leaving the single market». For all intents and purposes, however, the British still want «full access» to the market, as May stipulated in her speech. And this privilege is to be had at the same time that Britain takes full control of its borders over EU migration.

That sounds like Britain wanting to have its cake and eating it. Supposedly being out of the market, but still in it for all practical purposes, while pulling up the draw bridge on the rest of Europe. Moreover, the British prime minister is declaring that if Britain does not get «full access» it will be perceived as «punitive» – and then in that case her country will «walk away» from negotiations.

Her haughty attitude sparked outrage across the EU. Guy Verhofstadt, the EU Parliament’s point man on Brexit, reportedly fumed that Britain’s «days of cherrypicking and a la carte Europe are over».

Tomas Prouza, the Czech’s EU minister, noted sardonically of the British position: «Trade as free as possible, full control of immigration… where’s the give for all the take?»

What May was alluding to in her threat of walking away was that Britain would undercut the EU by slashing corporation tax, thereby luring foreign companies away from continental Europe to set up shop in Britain. That is, turning Britain into a tax haven to cheat the rest of Europe.

May also hinted that Britain’s military forces in NATO might be pulled out of Poland and the Baltic states, which would have the effect of destabilizing these EU members, given their congenital paranoia over alleged Russian aggression.

The British government’s threats to the EU stems from a misplaced arrogant attitude of a has-been world power, which somehow still thinks that it can pontificate to other, perceived lesser nations.

With a ballooning trade deficit with Europe and an all-but extinct industrial base, the only asset that the UK can claim is its City of London global financial center – which accounts for 80 per cent of its national economy. Despite Theresa May’s supercilious tone, Britain will find that it needs Europe a lot more than Europe needs Britain. And if cut loose harshly, the former Great Britain is in no industrial shape to ply the global markets as it once did with the backing of its colonial armies of occupation.

Britain’s «hard Brexit» is all «hard talk» belying typical British subterfuge to wheedle self-serving concessions. Such conceited British attitude will only stiffen EU resolve to make minimal trade concessions in the final separation. If the British are seen to get a «cherry-picked» deal of access to the single market, yet be able to spurn any immigration, that would be tantamount to giving an exit license for other members of the EU to do likewise. And given the level of Euro-skepticism rising across Europe, Brussels and other pro-EU governments must, of their own necessity, act sternly towards Britain in its divorce arrangement.

Britain can indeed expect a «hard Brexit». On much harder terms from the EU than delusional British politicians are arrogantly demanding. Less Rule Britannia; more like Fool Britannia.

Scottish Zionist Wants to “Bomb the lot of them”

See you on the dark side of the moon? The lunatics are everywhere these days.

Beware of British Exits

Beware of British Exits

The new British government of Theresa May is playing for time and stalling with the triggering of Article 50. It is clear that the whole machine of British governance was completely unprepared for the result of the EU referendum. It is also an indication that withdrawal from the European Union is going to be a mammoth task that will consume all the energy of Whitehall for many years to come. In many ways it is mission impossible which further reinforces the reckless irresponsibility of David Cameron for calling the referendum in the first place. No responsible Prime Minister would ever have agreed to open such a dangerous Pandora’s Box.

History teaches us that British exits are fraught with peril and have been handled in the usual British governmental way of incompetence and ensuing disaster. As Dr Henry Kissinger has said, «time is not neutral». The past is still very much with us and informs the present while shaping the future. Ergo, it is instructive to review the success of British Exits of the past and the consequences that have flowed from them which are still with us today. When it became clear to the British ruling elite that the British Empire was no longer financially sustainable (rather than any moral considerations) that was the trigger for Brexit from the imperial colonies which Britain had acquired through invasion, land grabs and colonisation. 

Take India for example. The borders that the British Government in the late 1940s drew up to partition India into Hindu and Muslim areas with two separate States creating Pakistan left tens of millions of minorities stranded in newly divided India and Pakistan. Millions of Muslims travelled into Pakistan and Hindus vice versa into India. The ethnic shuffle this partition created led to terrible violence costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the ensuing population transfer. The issue of Kashmir is still a flash point of tension between India and Pakistan to this day.

A similar situation was left behind by the British partial exit in Ireland. By the end of the First World War and the excessively draconian crackdown on southern Irish nationalist rebels after the attempted insurrection of Easter 1916, the British Government decided to partition the island of Ireland into two separate states similar to the exit strategy they had pursued in India. While the South of Ireland was set on a path to become an independent republic, the North was reduced to a rump of six counties, roughly the size of Yorkshire, with its own devolved Parliament and local Government but still within the UK, purposely designed to ensure a pro-British majority due to the presence of descendants of English and Scottish Protestant settlers (shipped in during the 16th century as colonists known as «unionists» or «loyalists») by omitting three counties from what is known as the Province of Ulster.

As with the partition of India and Pakistan, a significant minority of Roman Catholics who felt more Irish than British were left stranded in what became Northern Ireland and were confronted by a sectarian devolved administration that actively promoted discrimination against the Catholic minority in housing, employment, cultural rights and local government. The civil unrest that broke out in British administered Northern Ireland mirrored the violence that erupted with the British partition and exit from India and Pakistan.

Then there was Rhodesia, what is now known as Zimbabwe. After trying to get rid of the racist white minority government of Ian Smith, the British Government cut a deal with the equally unsavoury extremist Robert Mugabe handing over the country to him which he still runs to this day. With the washing of their hands of Zimbabwe the British Government left the country in the hands of a crazed, megalomaniac dictator who has run Zimbabwe into the ground ever since.

Along with Brexit from the European Union and the concerns over British withdrawal there has been quite a to do recently concerning Chinese investment in critical British national infrastructure, namely the proposed nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point C. While the Chinese have no history or record of interfering with other countries key national assets, the British have a track record of this which also highlights another disastrous British Exit. The Suez Canal was stolen from Egypt by the British Government of Benjamin Disraeli in the 19th century. Rather than return the Suez Canal to its rightful owners, the Egyptians, the British Government attempted to maintain possession of it even when they were divesting themselves of their imperial possessions elsewhere even going to the extreme lengths of invading the canal when the Egyptian regime of Colonel Nasser rightly nationalised it bringing it back under Egyptian control. The British military intervention ultimately failed, thanks in part to the wise decision of the Eisenhower administration to initiate a run on the pound to reign in British imperial pretensions and adventures abroad. The British led military disaster had the counterproductive effect of strengthening the rule of Nasser, not weakening it. It was also one of the greatest military humiliations the British had suffered since their inability to stop the advancing Wehrmacht during the Fall of France in the summer of 1940 and the infamous retreat and scuttle at Dunkirk.

Now Europe and the rest of the world are braced for the next great Brexit in a long line of inglorious, inept and in many cases as illustrated above – deadly – British exits and withdrawals. Unfortunately, many British Governments whether they be Tory, Labour or Liberal down the ages have not acquitted themselves well when it came to disentangling themselves from commitments either abroad or within the British Isles. Sadly, as history has shown, wherever the British State has inserted itself abroad where it had no business interfering in and then exited, a litany of death, violence, destruction and civil and ethnic unrest has followed. So the historical portents are not promising. The EU is rightly in no mood to bend over backwards to accommodate the peculiarities of the UK in its self-induced Brexit crisis. Other European member states have spent the last forty-three years constantly accommodating the peculiarities of the UK and giving out special dispensations to London.

Now, after the disgusting Leave campaign which was endorsed by the majority of the British electorate, Brussels patience with the difficult Brits has understandably been exhausted. There is very little good will left towards Britain in Brussels which makes the next epic British Exit just as fraught as the previous Brexits.

Palestinians Say Thank You To Celtic Football Fans!

Posted on August 23, 2016

Celtic Palestinians!

Palestinians express their thanks for the amazing display of solidarity shown by Celtic football fans in Glasgow, Scotland last week. Humanity at its finest! Sadly, in a show of pettiness, the Union of European Football Associations, or UEFA, is attempting to punish the fans by imposing penalties, in the form of a hefty fine, upon the team. The fans, however, seem to be taking it in stride, having set up a crowdfunding appeal, raising enough to pay off the fine as well as to send some extra money left over to Palestinian charities!

See report by RT. The UEFA should hide its head in shame.

Scottish Football Fans Wave Palestinian Flag During Match With Israel

[ Ed. note – Amazing! See more on the story here, plus commentary by Yvonne Ridley here. By the way, the Scotts won the match 5-2. Bravo! ]

Celtic: UEFA should ban israel from International competitions & not try to suppress support for Palestine

Celtic fans defy UEFA ban to fly sea of Palestine flags in match against Israelis (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

The Celtic football team faces a penalty from UEFA after the Scottish club’s fans waved Palestinian flags during a Champions League playoff match against Israel’s Hapoel Be’er Sheva. The not-so-warm welcome was followed by a defeat for Israel: Celtic FC won the match 5-2.

Scottish police urged fans to not bring Palestinian flags, threatening them with arrest, the Daily Record reported. Under Scottish law anyone found guilty of inciting “hatred against a group of persons based on their membership (or presumed membership) of a group,” could be detained.

But despite the UEFA warning, the Scottish fans went on to display Palestinian flags at the match, handed out prior to the game by “Palestine Alliance” activists.

The mass action to show support for the Palestinian cause was organized via a Facebook group titled “Fly the flag for Palestine, for Celtic, for Justice”, which according to the group registered over 1,200 in attendance.

In organizing the event the activists called on Celtic fans to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, and what the group called “Israeli apartheid, settler colonialism, and countless massacres of the Palestinian people.”

The activists also urged UEFA to join their cause and not support Israel and its policies.

“When someone is representing Israeli state institutions it is sadly never merely a game; football, UEFA, and Celtic FC are being used to whitewash Israel’s true nature and give this rogue state an air of normality and acceptance it should not and cannot enjoy until it’s impunity ends and it is answerable to international law and faces sanctions for the countless UN resolutions it had breached,” the group said on Facebook

UEFA fined Celtic two years ago when fans waved Palestinian flags at a game against Iceland’s KR Reykjavik. UEFA’s Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Committee took action based on Article 16 (2) (e), which forbids political, ideological and religious messages at sports events.

SEE ALSO Celtic fans fly Palestinian flags during Hapoel match | The Times of Israel

Scottish football fans fly flag of Palestine in match against Israeli team

Brexit, the Turkish coup and oil prices

Brexit, the Turkish coup and oil prices

Brexit, the Turkish coup and oil prices

By STEVE AUSTIN for OIL-PRICE.NET,

2016/07/22

We’ve been hearing a lot about Brexit. What is Brexit, by the way? Well, in June a referendum was held in Britain to decide whether the nation should remain with the European Union or not. The British people embraced uncertainty and voted to ‘exit’ the European Zone which is termed, Brexit. In a nutshell, Brexit, is the UK voting to exit from the European Union through a referendum. Frequent readers will recall how oil-price.net predicted Brexit nine months ago – as millions of welfare migrants flooding into Europe would exacerbate distrust between nations and trigger a breakdown of the EU.

If the stock markets were upbeat expecting a ‘remain’ vote, the euphoria evaporated quickly and immediately. The shock wave of Brexit spread to markets across the globe affecting almost all. Without exception, the US markets went down too. The pound slumped to its lowest since 1985. While gold prices rallied, oil prices fell. In the case of oil, Brexit pushed down the oil prices six percent in a single day to $48 per barrel. As markets expected demand for oil to slow down, investors moved to safer bets like gold and government bonds. When markets stabilized, the turmoil in Turkey threw cold water on investor confidence.

 

Effects of Brexit

In one stroke, Brexit has done; undone a lot and in the wake presenting a new Prime Minister for the UK in Theresa May. It’s a typical case of- both- fear about immigration and nostalgia for a ‘great’ Britain pushing the UK out of the European Union. Pernicious calamity or a benign move? Only time will tell. However, in the resultant twirling vortex, the Pound fell to a thirty year low vis-à-vis the Dollar. More than £100 bn was knocked off from the FTSE 100. In simple terms, any shock, like the Brexit, on the pound and Euro makes dollar more expensive. Technically, when dollar gets strong, the crude prices slump. It’s about weakening currencies like Pound, Euro and a strong Dollar. In the Brexit fallout, the oil prices slid by around $4 on various justified concerns. As pointed earlier, the pound hit a 31-year low and three UK property funds suspended. Markets stumped and slumped, Chinese commodities (mainly agriculture and iron ore) were sold off in a hurry. With the shift in dynamics, the Bank of England lowered the amount of capital banks should hold so that they can lend more.

Post Brexit, there were widespread fears of a domino effect across the world markets with annulled trade agreements, curbs in free movement of goods and services and panicked stock markets leading to recession. Wedged thus, in such cases, demand for oil naturally falls leading to weakened oil prices. In addition, a strong dollar means it’s costlier to buy oil which depresses the prices further.

Were the fears realized? Well, that’s debatable. For a start, unlike the Asian countries, many of the countries in Europe are pretty divested of oil and economic growth as of now. Yes, many oil companies have delayed projects waiting for the long term effects of Brexit to sink in. Yet, it hasn’t been all ‘crush’ ‘panic’ and ‘wrap up’.

The main point is that the immediate knee-jerk reactions are all short term volatility with trickled in uncertainty borne out of Brexit. Since then though, prices have recovered. If anything, the oil prices are back in the bracket of $45- 50. Specifically, Brent crude oil averaged $47 barrels a day in May. Indeed, this is the fourth consecutive monthly increase since January. A far cry from when oil prices bottomed at $26 last February. For the third quarter, oil-price.net raises its Brent forecast to $54 a barrel and WTI is $51 a barrel.

On the sidelines, many of the oil firms have actually performed better, that is after the initial fright. Deftly, the stocks of BP and Royal Dutch shell have gained in the wake of the referendum. The reason for this is simply that they have withdrawn funds from stocks exposed to the whims of UK economy and reinvested them in safer options. Also, these energy companies do business (revenue, dividends) mostly in US dollars and thus the present stronger dollar translate as better results for them. Essentially, the firms have grown in girth with the ingestion of British investors looking for better hosts. Asian stocks have rebound scaling new heights. For the US, Brexit means the Federal Reserve will shy away from raising the interest rates for now.

On the employment front, the news was good. According to the Labor Department, 287,000 jobs were added last month. In gasoline’s case, historically, when prices go down usage increases. In March, American gasoline consumption was at an all time high of 9.25 million barrels a day. Still, as a matter of fact, there’s a gasoline glut in the US at present. One reason, apart from Brexit for the brief fall in oil prices. The IEA predicts non – OPEC supplies to contract by 0.9 mbd in 2016. Taking the case of stocks, by July 15, the Dow Jones and the S&P 500 were scaling record highs.

Capital in oil

Let’s look at the bigger picture. Among the cluster of facts, is also the whole story of ‘investment’. Oil prices at $50 is still just about the manageable levels for the oil firms taking into account the high operating costs. Of course, this means lower investment in drilling and exploration. The old infrastructure has to be replaced, right? So, together with decline in output from existing fields, there may be a supply side deficit as the year moves on. Further, there’s a certain level of uncertainty in the market which rules out investment in the oil sector. Even before Brexit, investors were wary of investing in oil because of stringent environmental policies, low price and returns and unrest in many parts of the oil producing countries. With Brexit, the oil industry would be further divested of capital. Delay in investment means a supply crunch in the future. For instance, the North Sea Basin is one of the major oil producing basins in the UK. However, production in the basin has been declining over the years. If there is no money for maintenance, the basin will eventually shut down.

UK and oil post Brexit

Before Brexit, British industrial growth was at its fastest in six years. Now, the situation has changed dramatically. With a falling Pound, technicians working in the oil industry will move out of the country to greener pastures like Canada, Australia and the US. Right now, there is a free travel arrangement between the UK and the EU. With this free movement off the equation, oil companies will have to pay more for people moving between the UK and the EU because of bureaucracy hurdles and other add-on costs, which will increase the cost of travel. Notably, many of the oil and gas firms will move to EU from the UK. This is hardly good news. It stands to reason that the oil companies will prefer to employ people in the EU to work there instead of spending to bring in employees from the UK. In the UK,demand for energy may fall because of decline in economic activities. Also, consumers in the UK will pay more for oil because of the mismatch between pound and dollar.

There have been talks of another Scottish referendum (IndyRef), not to mention similar moves from Northern Ireland. In fact, Scotland overwhelmly voted to stay in the European Union. If they elect to move off, then the ownership of North Sea Basin comes into focus. To be clear, this could lead to more uncertainty affecting investor confidence and Scotland secedes from the UK, taking its oil reserves along. Also, UK has shale oil that’s waiting to be explored. Though estimates vary, it’s put between 2.8 and 39.9 trillion cubic meters. We don’t have any number as to ‘proven reserves’. It’s safe to say that gas that is actually extracted will be much lower than the estimates. And, you need higher investment to extract shale. With Brexit, UK will continue to import gas.

Turkey’s failed coup

Before the dust settled on Brexit, Turkey reeled under military coup and rocked the oil prices.

Effectively, Turkey is the only Muslim country in the world that has been a democracy for any length of time… thanks to the Turkish military who enforces it. Much in a similar way US service members pledge to defend the US constitution, Turkey’s millitary branch has the constitutional right (and responsibility) to act as a “reset button” against tyrants which muslim voters are prone to elect. This mechanism has worked well for Turkey in the past. Since the fifties, four military interventions in Turkey didn’t deter the democratic process in play. In each instance the military, after every takeover, facilitated the continuation of the elected Government. This is because Turkish military enforces and respects democracy. Thanks to this balance Turkey has thrived, that is till the arrival of the present President.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s rule has been autocratic with a strong Islamic bent poisoning the secular country. A staunch rival of Syrian President Bashar al- Assad, Erdogan backed terrorist Islamists groups to wage war against Assad. Indeed, it was because of widespread Saudi-funded wahhabism in Turkish mosques that ultranationalist and ISIS-friendly Erdogan was elected to power with the collaboration of Saudi Arabia. Turkey under Erdogan devised a plan to build a gas pipeline from Qatar through Syria in a bid to displace Russia as the foremost provider of natural gas to Europe. Syria’s Assad disagreed with Erdogan’s plan, so Turkey helped funnel Islamic fighters into Syria through its border leading to the Syrian civil war.

Map of Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline and Qatar-Turkey pipeline

The Turkish military took note and in application of the Turkish constitution acted swiftly to overthrow this dangerous dictator. However, in spite of thousands dead and more wounded, the coup attempt failed. Since then Erdogan has taken more alarming measures to gut its military, which prompted its NATO allies (friends of the Turkish military) to demand Turkey withdraw from NATO.

If history teaches us a lesson it’s that gutting the Iraqi military caused a power vacuum which let Islamists (ISIS) establish themselves without opposition. The same is about to happen in Turkey, NATO’s second largest military power after the US. European government are partly to blame for Erdogan’s move. By demonstrating their inability to stem migration flows and terror attacks, then outsourcing Europe’s eastern border control to Turkey, Europe has fueled the imperialist ambitions of Erdogan and his Islamist backers. Now Erdogan is taking more aggressive steps as he did with Syria and if he is not stopped, the situation will quickly deteriorate in Europe. Politically the situation is tense.

Now, to the question of oil: The Bosphorus Strait which handles about three percent of global oil shipments, chiefly from Russia and the Caspian Sea, has reopened. Turkey is also shipping oil from Caspian Sea and other countries directly to its exporting terminal bypassing Bosphorus. The Turkish straits, including Bosphorus and Dardanelles, are among the world’s busiest and strategic choke points. That they are back in business is great news for oil. Besides, BP’s 1768 kilometers long Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which exported a staggering 740,000 million barrels of crude day in the first quarter continues nonstop. As for the ports, oil tankers are back to loading and unloading cargoes.

Limited impact of Brexit on oil

We are still wading through uncharted waters where the currents can change any moment. Still, as of now, the impact of Brexit has been lower than expected.

We at oil-price.net estimate that there would be excess supply at 1.5 million barrels per day until 2017. If, such a prediction holds true, oil prices should slump. However, look at the demand. In the first quarter of 2016, demand for oil has, in fact, increased 1.6 million barrels a day. And, according to the American Petroleum institute, crude inventories actually fell by 6.7 million barrels to July 1 to 520.9 million. Analysts were expecting a decrease of just 2 million barrels. OPEC, meanwhile, shares similar sentiments of whittled down oil inventories. It remains to be seen if the gains from Nigeria and Canada can offset the supply woes. Similarly, in its monthly report, OPEC has forecast world oil demand to whip up by 1. 2 million barrels per day in 2017, which is the same as its forecast for 2016.

After Brexit, the oil prices fell, rose, fell and increased. Sheer madness, as the wont of all stock markets. If you are wondering what might happens, don’t. We predict that, together, higher demand from across the globe, supply disruptions and falling crude production will stabilize this wobble soon. Ultimately, the future for oil, as always, is bullish.

%d bloggers like this: