تابع رؤية 2030
بذكاء سياقي

The UK and 45 other European countries have signed an agreement that explicitly endorses plans to send unwanted asylum seekers to third country hubs. A political declaration from the 46 members of the Council of Europe, the body that oversees the European convention on human rights (ECHR), said states had an “undeniable sovereign right” to control their borders. It is understood that the UK is now seeking a deal with an unnamed third country, similar to the Italy-Albania agreement that allowed Rome to place detention centres in Albania. In that deal, the hubs were initially intended for asylum seekers from countries considered safe while their applications were processed. Giorgia Meloni’s government has since used them to hold people to be deported whose applications have been rejected. According to the seven-page document, countries should be free “to address and potentially deter irregular migration”. It said: “Amongst the forms of new approaches that have been envisaged by several member states are processing requests for international protection in a third country, third country ‘return hubs’, and cooperation with countries of transit.” The agreement also attempts to give more scope for countries to deport people to places where they may be in danger of inhuman or degrading treatment, and to limit courts’ powers to intervene. Ministers have claimed that articles 3 and 8 of the convention – the right to live free from torture and the right to family life – have been used to prevent people with no right to be in the UK from being removed. “Caution should be exercised … when assessing whether the expulsion or extradition of an individual to a non-state party would violate a state’s obligations under article 3 of the convention,” the agreement said. The convention has become a significant point of contention between the main political parties. While Keir Starmer backs ECHR changes, the Conservatives and Reform UK have pledged to leave. One leading migration specialist said she was not convinced that a political agreement would have a significant effect on immigration cases. Madeleine Sumption, the director of the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, said: “It’s not clear how much impact a political declaration makes given that judges’ decisions are also driven by domestic and international case law, which this declaration does not change. How much concrete difference it will make remains to be seen.” Yvette Cooper, who finalised the agreement at the high-level meeting in Chişinău, Moldova, is expected to discuss hubs over the next two days. The foreign secretary told the Guardian: “Reform and the Conservatives have called for the ripping up of international law altogether – even though those same international laws are essential to our law enforcement cooperation against the criminal smuggler gangs, or to upholding pillars such as the Good Friday agreement. “The Greens have called instead for the ripping up of border controls – damaging our national security. Neither of their approaches delivers for our national interest. “That is why Labour is reforming the ECHR with partners from across the continent, because we know the relationships we build abroad make us stronger at home.” Alain Berset, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, said discussions about removing people who arrived in Europe by irregular routes would take place during the conference “at a multilateral level”. Starmer’s government has promoted setting up return hubs as a possible deterrent to irregular migration. Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, told MPs in November that the Home Office was in “active negotiations” with several countries, but no deals had been confirmed. The previous government’s plans to send people arriving by small boats to Rwanda, which cost £715m by 2024, was cancelled after failing to send a single person. The supreme court ruled the policy was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe country. The EU has voted to allow the possibility of return hubs, with Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands involved in talks. Discussions have reportedly centred on 11 countries – Armenia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Libya, Mauritania, Rwanda, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda and Uzbekistan. Montenegro has denied reports that it is considering housing refused asylum seekers. Prof Eirik Bjorge KC, a legal academic at the University of Bristol, also questioned the effect of the declaration, but “deplored” attempts to modify human rights protections. “Article 3 is an embodiment of the very object and purpose of the convention and as such cannot be modified through political declarations,” he said. “In that regard, I deplore the attempt to relativise the notion of inhuman and degrading treatment.” Human rights organisations said they were concerned by the declaration. Akiko Hart, the director of Liberty, said: “The Chişinău political declaration on the ECHR is a hugely significant moment. “We are deeply concerned that changing how the ECHR is used by UK courts will open the door to a gradual weakening of human rights protections.”

The government will make it illegal to grant new oil and gas licences in the North Sea, the King said at the state opening of Parliament, in a sign ministers are refusing to buckle in the face of a barrage of criticism that the policy is depriving the UK of billions of pounds in tax receipts without helping the environment. As part of an Energy Independence Bill announced in the King’s Speech, the government will bake into law its pre-election pledge not to explore new oil and gas fields in a bid to “take control of our energy security”. In its 2024 manifesto, the Labour Party made a ban on all new exploration and drilling licences in the North Sea a key pillar of its promise to turn Britain into a “clean energy superpower” by 2030. But since entering government, the party has come under growing pressure to renege on the promise, with critics arguing it strangles one of Scotland’s most vibrant industries and fails to improve the UK’s environmental footprint. Backlash against ‘deluded’ North Sea policy Oil and gas still accounts for three-quarters of the UK’s energy mix. And the majority of those fossil fuels are now shipped in from abroad, meaning other economies benefit from the job creation and tax receipts that are derived from the lucrative drilling and refining processes. Calls for the ministers to rethink the ban have grown louder since the outbreak of war in Iran led the price of crude oil to nearly double in a month. Last week, Norway, which drills for oil in the same area of the North Sea as Britain, approved plans to reopen three gasfields that had been shut for decades to help sate the global demand for fossil fuels caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz shipping lane. Two of Labour’s main political opponents – Reform UK and the Conservatives – have both vowed to overturn the ban, in a move they say would help increase the UK’s tax take and inoculate it from any acute supply shocks. The ban, which the government claims will help Britain off the “roller-coaster of fossil fuel markets”, has also drawn criticism from the US’s ambassador to the UK, who has used multiple interviews to urge Britain to make more of its reserves. Shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho accused her opposite number Ed Miliband of being “utterly deluded” for seeking to put the ban into the statute book. “He is not making us more independent. He is making us more reliant on foreign imports,” she said. By City AM More Top Reads From Oilprice.com

Wes Streeting may not have launched a leadership challenge against Keir Starmer, but he has called for a “battle of ideas” about the government’s future direction. When it comes to economic policy, there are (at least) four overlapping Labour camps, which have recently generated a flurry of policies from which the leadership contenders could choose. Here we run through the main ideas behind each camp. Team Reeves Rachel Reeves seized on Thursday’s positive economic data – stronger than expected 0.6% growth in the first quarter – as evidence that she has “the right plan”. As set out in her Mais lecture earlier this year, that involves embracing the opportunities of AI, devolving more tax revenues to metro mayoralties, and seeking to negotiate a closer trading relationship with the EU. Reeves has also rewritten the fiscal rules to allow for significantly more public borrowing for investment, but is aiming to balance day-to-day spending with tax revenues. To that end, she has raised taxes significantly, with a focus on higher earners and businesses. View image in fullscreen Rachel Reeves has insisted that she has ‘the right plan’. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP Since Donald Trump launched his war on Iran, which Reeves has described as “folly”, she has insisted that any support for households will have to be targeted to the less well-off, instead of the costly across-the-board approach favoured by Liz Truss in 2022. Reeves is expected to say more next week about how she will shield consumers from the coming inflationary shock. The chancellor’s outriders have also been arguing that a change of personnel in No 11 could trigger a damaging crisis in the bond markets that would drive up the government’s borrowing costs. Labour Growth Group Chaired by the Milton Keynes North MP, Chris Curtis, who described Streeting this week as a “once in a generation talent”, the Growth Group has conveniently just published a policy prospectus. Grandly titled “An Honest Day: a new economic settlement for Britain”, it argues that too much wealth in the UK accrues to people just for holding assets. Echoing the “abundance” agenda developed by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson in the US, it blames this on the “rationing” of assets, as a result of failures by the state – through restrictive planning regulations, for example, or policies that make energy expensive. To tackle these challenges, the Growth Group calls on the government to lift the tax burden on workers and focus on cutting the cost of basic essentials. It would like to see the tax rate on capital gains and income to be equalised, for example – completing a shift already begun by Reeves. It says the additional revenue raised could then be used to fund a 2p cut in employee national insurance. View image in fullscreen The Growth Group believes Thames Water should be allowed to collapse into government control. Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA Regulations should be cut back for many markets, the Growth Group argues, but the state should stop colluding in what it calls “fake market capitalism” for essential services such as water. To that end, it calls for long-troubled Thames Water to be allowed to collapse into government control. “The message should be unmistakable: the public is not the backstop for owners who treated essential infrastructure as a financial chip in a casino where they never lose. In essential services, ownership comes with obligations.” Other policies include devolving more power to the mayoralties and reining in the Treasury, which it argues currently acts as “the unaccountable veto‐player over the elected programme”. Tribune Group In an edition of the policy journal Renewal this week, Labour MPs from the soft left Tribune Group, including the former transport secretary Louise Haigh and the backbench MP Yuan Yang, Tribune’s secretary, gave a similar economic diagnosis. “For too many people, hard work no longer guarantees rising living standards,” they argued, while, “growth has been too weak, too uneven, and too often driven by asset inflation rather than productive investment.” They put more emphasis than the Growth Group on making space for more borrowing to invest – with development corporations such as in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, and planned new towns, able to borrow directly, for example. Over time, Haigh also argues that the fiscal rules should switch to being measured over a 10-year horizon, to take more account of the long-term benefits of investment – although she cautiously insists this should take place only when the current budget is balanced, to avoid spooking bond markets. View image in fullscreen Louise Haigh’s proposals for tax reforms are more radical than anything contemplated by the Growth Group. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Haigh’s proposals for tax reforms are more radical than anything contemplated by the Growth Group – including scrapping stamp duty and cutting council tax in favour of a new property and land tax and closing inheritance tax loopholes, alongside moving capital gains tax rates closer to income tax. Yang argues that depressed consumer demand is one factor holding back economic growth. To ease the cost of living crisis and thereby boost demand, she urges the government to cut costs for households – echoing moves made by Reeves at last year’s budget but going much further. Yang’s suggestions include reforming energy pricing to cut poorer households’ bills; capping bus fares and clamping down on the rip-off property management fees charged to many leaseholders. Any potential soft-left candidate – Angela Rayner, Andy Burnham or Ed Miliband – might be expected to draw on ideas such as these. A wider constellation of leftwing thinktanks including the New Economics Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have also been publishing radical policy proposals, partly in the hope of influencing potential challengers – with the latter advocating rent controls this week, for example. Mainstream/Manchesterism Mat Lawrence, the director of the thinktank Common Wealth, has written a lengthy piece for this week’s New Statesman on “Manchesterism”, aiming to encapsulate what lessons could be learned from Burnham’s mayoralty for the wider UK. A taster for a report to be published by the Burnham-aligned campaign group Mainstream, its central argument is about what it calls a Productive State, doing more things directly, through public ownership – building social housing, for example. Like the Growth Group, Mainstream would like to see Thames Water placed into a government-run special administration; and like Tribune it calls for public corporations to be able to borrow directly, to finance investment projects. But it sees this as part of a more ambitious project, for the state to take over where the private sector is failing. Lawrence cites the eminent 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes, calling for what he called the “somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment”. View image in fullscreen Mainstream cites Andy Burnham’s Bee Network transport reforms as an example of socialisation of investment. Photograph: Andrew Milligan/PA He cites Burnham’s transport reforms as an example of how this can work: “The Bee Network’s restoration of bus routes in Manchester that private operators had abandoned is the practical demonstration: where private calculation withdraws, public provision steps in and serves.” Lawrence argues the Bee Network has been able to increase passenger numbers and hence reduce costs. The suggestion is that a similar approach could be pursued in other areas where there are public policy goals the private sector is not meeting – “what has been done for buses can be done with similar ambition for energy, water, housing, and care”. Alongside a greater role for the state, Burnham is also expected to base his economic pitch on a bolder approach to negotiations with the EU – with many Labour MPs keen to see the government flex the constraints of its manifesto and seek a closer deal.

Donald Trump left China on Friday after a much-hyped summit of the world’s two major powers that was rich in pageantry and promises of stability, but offered little by way of tangible progress. The US president had gone into the two-day talks with China’s Xi Jinping weakened by his prolonged war in Iran, and did little to change the perception that he and his nation are diminished on the global stage. Instead it was Xi who delivered the sharpest rhetoric of the meeting – over the future status of the self-governing island of Taiwan, with Trump notably failing to push back. In his final remarks in Beijing on Friday, Trump did claim that the US and China struck “fantastic trade deals”, although details were scarce, and that he and Xi settled “a lot of different problems”. But critics are likely to suggest that the carefully choreographed summit – attended by tech executives including Elon Musk of Tesla and Tim Cook of Apple, as well as Trump’s son Eric – was more performative than substantive, with no major breakthrough on Iran, Taiwan or the countries’ AI arms race. Instead, as he departed, Trump posted on his Truth Social network: “China has a Ballroom, and so should the U.S.A.!” – a reference to his long-running campaign to build a $400m ballroom at the White House. But he will return to Washington to find that the war in Iran still poses a major political headache. There is much speculation about how much pressure the US is putting on China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, to use its leverage with Iran to encourage the country to reopen the strait of Hormuz. And there is a question mark over whether or not Beijing would be willing to accede to that pressure. Speaking alongside Xi at the Zhongnanhai garden in Beijing on Friday, Trump said: “We did discuss Iran. We feel very similar about [how] we want it to end. We don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon. We want the straits open.” He added: “We want them [Iran] to get it ended because it’s a crazy thing there, a little bit crazy. And it’s no good, it can’t happen.” View image in fullscreen Donald Trump walks with Xi Jinping at the Zhongnanhai leadership compound. Photograph: Mark Schiefelbein/Reuters The White House readout of the more than two hours of talks between Trump and Xi on Thursday said the leaders “agreed that the strait of Hormuz must remain open to support the free flow of energy” and that “President Xi also made clear China’s opposition to the militarisation of the strait”. Later on Friday, Trump said he was considering lifting sanctions on Chinese companies that buy Iranian oil. He told Fox News that Xi assured him China will not supply Iran with military equipment, adding: “But at the same time he said they buy a lot of their oil there, and they’d like to keep doing that. He’d like to see Hormuz strait opened … I said, well, we didn’t stop it. They did it.” China’s foreign ministry on Friday again called for a ceasefire in Iran and said the strait of Hormuz should be opened “as soon as possible”. About half of China’s crude oil passes through the waterway, but the bigger threat for the Chinese economy is if the conflict in the Middle East causes a global recession that dents demand for its exports. But many in Beijing feel that the crisis in Iran is not China’s responsibility. Zhou Bo, a retired senior army colonel and a senior fellow in the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, said: “On Iran, China definitely wants to help but I read what Rubio said: he actually seems to shift the burden to the Chinese side. In China, we have a saying: it is like, ‘Why should I clean your shit?’” View image in fullscreen Trump walks with Xi at the Temple of Heaven. Photograph: Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo Meanwhile, Beijing made it clear that Taiwan, a self-ruled island that China claims as part of its territory, was a top priority during this week’s meeting. Xi warned Trump that their countries could have “clashes and even conflicts” if Taiwan was not handled properly, calling it the most important issue in US-China relations. On Friday Trump insisted that “nothing’s changed” about the US policy on Taiwan, while admitting that he may not approve a major arms sale for the self-governing island. Speaking to Fox News on the flight back to the US, the president said he made no commitment regarding the island, adding: “I don’t think there’s a conflict on Taiwan.” Taiwan’s foreign ministry said it had taken note of Trump’s remarks regarding the island, adding that arms sales are a security commitment explicitly set out in the Taiwan Relations Act. Xi sees unifying Taiwan with China as a core part of his legacy and has not ruled out the use of force to achieve that goal. At the top of Beijing’s wishlist regarding Taiwan is for the US to stop supplying the island with defensive weaponry. Trump said on Air Force One he had not determined whether to move forward on a major arms package for Taiwan that is planned for this year. Last year, the US approved a record $11bn arms package for Taiwan, sparking outrage in Beijing. There are plans for another package worth $14bn to be passed this year, but the White House reportedly stalled the plans ahead of Trump’s trip to Beijing. Trump was making the first US presidential visit to China in nearly a decade and revelled in the hospitality, including an immaculate arrival ceremony, tour of the Temple of Heaven and lavish state banquet in the Great Hall of the People, where Xi told Trump that China’s “great rejuvenation” could go “hand in hand” with “Make America great again”. Meeting for a working tea and lunch in the Zhongnanhai garden on Friday, Trump admired the roses, and said that Xi had promised to send him some seeds for the White House rose garden. “This has been an incredible visit,” he said as the men sat together in an opulent wood-panelled room with a huge golden carpet. “I think a lot of good has come of it. We’ve made some fantastic trade deals – great for both countries … We’ve really done some wonderful things, I believe.” Trump added: “We’ve settled a lot of different problems that other people wouldn’t have been able to solve.” View image in fullscreen Newspapers with images of Xi Jinping meeting Donald Trump at the Great Hall of the People. Photograph: Tingshu Wang/Reuters He claimed that China agreed to buy US oil, soybeans and 200 Boeing jets, with a potential commitment to purchase up to 750 planes, although Chinese officials did not confirm this. But on many key issues, there seems to have been little by way of concrete agreement. There was scant mention of human rights on the trip, although Trump told Fox News on the flight back from Beijing that Xi said he was “seriously considering” releasing jailed pastors in China. That would probably include Ezra Jin, a pastor who was arrested last year amid a sweeping crackdown on Christians. But Trump said that the case of Jimmy Lai, a democracy activist jailed in Hong Kong, was a “tough one”. Julian Gewirtz, a former director for China on the national security council during the Biden administration, said the new Chinese formulation about US-China relations was about “locking in this current phase of strategic stalemate for the remainder of Trump’s term and ideally beyond”. “Xi Jinping has been working for years to be ready for this moment, to bring an American president to Beijing as a peer, widely acknowledged as such around the world. And now it is happening,” Gerwirtz said. Wu Xinbo, a professor of international studies at Fudan University and a Chinese government adviser, said the balance of power between the US and China was “shifting towards greater parity”. “In the past, it always seemed as though the United States held the upper hand, constantly exerting pressure on China and taking the offensive. Now, however, it’s fair to say that the two countries have reached a new point of equilibrium,” Wu said. At a busy intersection near Trump’s hotel, the crowds that gathered to catch a glimpse of the presidential motorcade were thinner on Friday morning than on Thursday evening, with the heavy police presence encouraging people not to loiter. Many grumbled about the inconvenience caused by the repeated road closures. Asked for their views on Trump, the word that came up again and again from Beijingers was “unpredictable”. “What he says isn’t necessarily what it means,” said one Trump-watcher, who declined to give his name. Yu-chen Li contributed additional research

Shipping costs also climbed as suppliers rerouted cargoes around Africa to avoid conflict zones. Longer travel times tightened prompt supplies and kept buyers aggressive. That helped support the strong bullish tone… Early in the week, comments from U.S. officials suggesting the ceasefire situation remained unstable triggered fresh buying. Reports of tanker seizures and naval clashes added more fuel to the rally. Even though OPEC+ announced production increases in recent weeks, traders saw little immediate benefit because many barrels still cannot move efficiently through the Gulf region. The war between the United States and Iran continued to dominate trading activity. Fighting that started in late February has now disrupted a major portion of global oil flows. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off access to roughly one-fifth of the world’s seaborne crude shipments, creating major stress across energy markets. Crude oil prices rallied hard this week as traders focused on the growing supply threat tied to the U.S.-Iran conflict. July WTI crude oil futures settled Thursday at $97.91, gaining $6.79, or 7.45%, for the week. Prices traded in a wide range between $92.84 and $99.09 as the market reacted to war headlines, tighter inventories, and inflation concerns. The biggest driver remained the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route for global crude exports. Crude oil prices rallied hard this week as traders focused on the growing supply threat tied to the U.S.-Iran conflict. July WTI crude oil futures settled Thursday at $97.91, gaining $6.79, or 7.45%, for the week. Prices traded in a wide range between $92.84 and $99.09 as the market reacted to war headlines, tighter inventories, and inflation concerns. The biggest driver remained the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route for global crude exports. Crude Oil News Today: Strait of Hormuz Shutdown Keeps Supply Fears Elevated The war between the United States and Iran continued to dominate trading activity. Fighting that started in late February has now disrupted a major portion of global oil flows. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off access to roughly one-fifth of the world’s seaborne crude shipments, creating major stress across energy markets. Early in the week, comments from U.S. officials suggesting the ceasefire situation remained unstable triggered fresh buying. Reports of tanker seizures and naval clashes added more fuel to the rally. Even though OPEC+ announced production increases in recent weeks, traders saw little immediate benefit because many barrels still cannot move efficiently through the Gulf region. Shipping costs also climbed as suppliers rerouted cargoes around Africa to avoid conflict zones. Longer travel times tightened prompt supplies and kept buyers aggressive. That helped support the strong bullish tone across crude futures. Oil Prices Forecast Supported by Strong Inventory Draws The latest U.S. Energy Information Administration report added another bullish layer to the market. Commercial crude inventories posted a larger-than-expected decline, while storage levels at the Cushing, Oklahoma, delivery hub also dropped sharply. Gasoline inventories moved lower as global buyers searched for non-Gulf fuel supplies. U.S. exports remained extremely strong, preventing domestic stockpiles from rebuilding despite healthy American production levels. Refineries continued operating at elevated rates to meet seasonal fuel demand and rising export needs. Product supplies tightened further as summer driving demand increased. The inventory data confirmed what traders were already seeing in the futures market: global supplies remain tight, and available spare capacity is limited while the conflict continues. International Agencies Warn of Ongoing Supply Deficits Both the International Energy Agency and OPEC released reports pointing to continued stress in oil balances through 2026. The IEA warned that global markets could face major supply deficits in the coming quarters if Gulf disruptions continue. The agency also noted that inventories have already been falling for months. According to the report, current stock draws could accelerate if exports remain restricted. OPEC lowered its global demand growth outlook slightly because high energy costs are starting to slow economic activity. Even so, member countries are still struggling to increase output enough to offset lost Gulf supplies. These reports reinforced the idea that the oil market is operating with very little margin for error. Any additional disruption could quickly send prices higher. China Demand and Federal Reserve Policy Stay in Focus Demand concerns remained part of the conversation throughout the week. High fuel costs are beginning to slow consumption growth in transportation, manufacturing, and petrochemicals. China stayed in focus after U.S. and Chinese officials held talks in Beijing during the week. Traders watched closely for signs that China could help reduce tensions or support efforts to stabilize shipping routes. While discussions appeared constructive, there were no major breakthroughs tied to reopening Gulf export lanes. At the same time, rising oil prices continue to feed inflation concerns. Stronger inflation data increased expectations that the Federal Reserve may keep interest rates elevated longer than previously expected. A stronger U.S. dollar created some pressure on commodities late in the week, but the physical supply shortage remained the dominant market force. Weekly Light Crude Oil Futures Trend Indicator Analysis The main trend is up according to the weekly swing chart and moving average analysis. Despite the volatility the past two months, sellers have not been able to take out any significant bottoms, which is helping to keep the uptrend intact. A trade through $103.78 will signal a resumption of the uptrend. A sustained trade under $77.22 will shift momentum to the downside. The 52-week moving average is $66.84 and the nearest main bottom is at $55.27. Since these levels are not likely to be taken out over the near-term, the market will remain in “buy the dip” mode until the trend changes to down. The short-term range is $103.78 to $86.13. The market is currently straddling its retracement zone at $94.96 to $97.04. The intermediate range is $77.22 to $103.78. Its retracement zone at $90.50 to $87.36 was tested successfully last week on the plunge to $86.13. Buyers quickly regained it following the move and re-established support, while reaffirming the “buy the dip” strategy. The long-term range is $55.27 to $103.78. Its retracement zone at $79.52 to $73.80 is the last major support area before the 52-week moving average at $66.94. Inside this zone is the last main bottom at $77.22. This area will be very attractive to buyers if ever tested. The potential support areas look more structured than the tops, which suggests a floor is forming that could provide support even after the war ends. The previous tops were all formed by speculative spikes that were gone in a flash. This suggests that trying to pick an eventual top will be a difficult task. Weekly Technical Forecast The direction of the Weekly July Crude Oil futures contract for the week ending May 22 is likely to be determined by trader reaction to $97.04 to $94.96. Bullish Scenario A sustained move above $97.04 will signal the presence of buyers. This move could create the upside momentum needed to break out over $103.78, with $110.93 the next objective. Bearish Scenario A sustained move under the pivot at $94.96 will indicate the presence of sellers. This could create the downside pressure needed to retest the retracement zone at $90.50 to $87.36. If the selling is strong enough to take out the minor swing bottom at $86.13, then look for the weakness to extend into $79.52 to $73.80. Oil Prices Projections Point to Continued Volatility The oil market enters next week carrying a heavy geopolitical risk premium. As long as the Strait of Hormuz remains restricted, traders are likely to keep pricing in tight supplies and possible shortages. A major diplomatic breakthrough could trigger a fast selloff if normal shipping routes reopen. However, continued fighting would likely keep inventories falling and support higher crude prices. U.S. production helps soften some of the damage, but it cannot fully replace missing Gulf exports in the near term. Global stockpiles are already tightening, leaving the market vulnerable to additional shocks. The current trend still favors the bulls. Supply disruptions, falling inventories, and limited spare production continue to outweigh weaker demand signals and macroeconomic pressure. Unless tensions ease significantly, oil price forecast models will likely remain supportive of elevated crude prices and continued volatility across energy markets. Technically, a sustained move over $97.04 targets $103.78, then $110.93. A sustained move under $94.96 could revisit $90.50 to $87.36. If prices collapse through $86.13, then wait for a move to $79.52 to $73.80 before considering a long position again. Even with a war settlement, I believe issues in the area will keep traders in buy-the-dip mode, although the trading range will widen.