EU says no Swift exclusion for Gazprombank, Sberbank

: Coal, Crude oil, Fertilizers, LPG, Metals, Natural gas, Oil products, Petrochemicals
22/03/02

The EU will not exclude Russia's Gazprombank or Sberbank from the global financial messaging system Swift, in order to facilitate continued purchases of energy and other commodities.

Late yesterday France, which chairs meetings of EU member state ministers, indicated sanctions to exclude "certain" Russian banks from Swift had been approved by senior diplomats. The EU will later today publish the regulation effectively allowing for a 10-day period to exclude VTB, Promsvyazbank, Rossiya Bank, VEB, Bank Otkritie, Novikombank and Sovcombank.

A senior EU official said today it was not possible to exclude specific transactions, such as those to purchase energy or other commodities, from Swift.

"You can still make payments. You can use email, fax. In the financial system, they still know what faxes look like," said the official. "Does this mean [Gazprombank or Sberbank] will never show up on the list? I cannot say that.

Sberbank has said all its European businesses have closed, with the exception of its operation in Switzerland.

The exclusion from Swift of the other seven Russian banks will hit as much as 70pc of internal Russian transactions, the offical said.

Swift has noted the joint statement by the EU, France, Germany, Italy, UK, Canada, and the US on restricting "select" Russian banks and will "always comply with applicable sanctions laws".

By Dafydd ab Iago

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

25/04/11

Recycled resin importers caught in tariff uncertainty

Houston, 11 April (Argus) — US President Donald Trump's evolving tariff policies have created tremendous uncertainty for US importers of recycled polymers, and constant halts and flip-flopping from the administration have led some to pause their US operations. Multiple importers told Argus that the constantly changing US tariffs on goods have upended business plans, and forced them to pause their US operations for the time being due to uncertainty about the taxes their material will face when it reaches US shores. "You have to have some confidence that conditions will hold in order to import," one trader told Argus . Trump's tariff rollout began on 1 February, when he announced that China would face a 10pc universal tariff, and the US's two largest trading partners, Mexico and Canada, would face 25pc universal tariffs. At the time, market participants speculated that the 25pc tariffs on Canada and Mexico would make operations and sales more expensive for Mexican and Canadian recyclers, particularly those that trade bales or finished resin across the US border. After some negotiations between world leaders, the tariffs on Canada and Mexico were delayed for 30 days, though the 10pc tariff on China went into effect as planned. The 25pc universal tariffs on Canada and Mexico were pushed back again on 6 March, but tariffs on aluminum — a significant competitor to rPET packaging — went into place on 12 March. The tariffs on aluminum have not been rescinded or paused, and the extra cost for imported aluminum as a result of the tariff could incentivize US consumer goods companies to use more PET in their packaging. On 9 April, the US put into place varying reciprocal tariffs on a number of countries that export recycled resin to the US, including India, Malaysia and Vietnam. While rPET and vPET pellets were excluded from the reciprocal tariffs, importers of rPE, rPP and PET waste were not excluded from the tariff. The same day, the reciprocal tariffs were pushed back 90 days in favor of a 10pc universal tariff that excludes Canada and Mexico. China and the US's reciprocal tariffs have escalated into a trade war, and currently material from China faces a 145pc tariff. Since the price is too high for most importers to be willing to pay, in essence all recycled resin imports from China are halted. China is one of the largest buyers of US virgin polyethylene https://direct.argusmedia.com/newsandanalysis/article/2675420), and the current trade war with China has the potential to increase domestic supply as exporters are forced to find new buyers for resin. Increased competition from oversupplied virgin resin could pull down recycled resin pricing. Until some stability in tariff policy returns to the US, traders and importers will continue to turn to other destinations outside the US to sell their recycled resin. By Zach Kluver Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

US MAP-DAP premium primed to return on tariffs

25/04/11

US MAP-DAP premium primed to return on tariffs

Houston, 11 April (Argus) — The period of MAP and DAP prices trading near parity will be short-lived because newly-imposed US import tariffs could amplify MAP supply woes, market participants told Argus . MAP and DAP prices have traded in close proximity since early January, diverting from the significant MAP premium seen last spring and summer when a surplus of DAP was imported into the US. After limited MAP barge trading in March, activity accelerated at Nola this week as it became clearer that all non-North American phosphate imports would face at least 10pc import tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump starting last week. The Nola MAP price was assessed at a midpoint of $636.50/st fob this week, up by $9/st from last week, while DAP was assessed $12.50/st higher at $632.50/st fob Nola. Despite the "reciprocal" tariffs on certain phosphate producing countries being lowered to a universal 10pc this week by Trump for 90 days — in line with the original tariff imposed on other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Australia last week — the remaining levy is still enough to deter vessels from coming to Nola, sources said. In response, the Nola MAP price has averaged a $5.75/st premium to the Nola DAP price for April so far, flipping from a $3.88/st average discount in March. That is still a far cry from October 2024, when the Nola MAP price averaged a $61.45/st premium over the Nola DAP. From August through November, the Nola MAP price was 13pc higher on average than DAP. US market participants expect the premium to expand in the coming months as MAP is the preferred product of most farmers during the fall application season, potentially impacting buying decisions for that period. The US from July through February has imported 759,000 metric tonnes (t) of DAP, down by 26pc from the same period last year, according to US Census Bureau data. This lapse in imports for the start of 2025 was an initial driver in DAP's rising premium over MAP. In comparison, MAP imports for the same period have totaled roughly 853,000t, up by just 5pc from the year before. But at least 290,000 t of MAP will need to be brought into the US between now and the start of the summer to equal out with the tonnage imported for the full 2023-24 fertilizer year ahead of fall applications. That is a task that may not be easily achieved given the new tariff on most phosphate imports. One buyer this week said they could consider switching usual MAP demand toward an alternative NPS product heading into October and November given the difficult supply outlook for the US. "We are very much in wait and see mode, trying to see how tariffs evolve and how it works its way into the market in terms of price," another buyer said. The significant premium MAP held last fall also limited overall phosphate applications conducted by farmers, therefore raising the bar for the amount of phosphate fertilizer farmers will need to put into the ground later this year to replenish soil nutrients. By Taylor Zavala US DAP/MAP barge prices Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Mexico suspends Valero fuel import permits

25/04/11

Mexico suspends Valero fuel import permits

Mexico City, 11 April (Argus) — Mexico's tax authority SAT on 9 April suspended US refiner Valero's fuel import permits, the company said today. The company did not specify why its import license was suspended. "Valero is addressing each administrative observation noted in the suspension to clarify the issues. Additionally, [authorities] mistakenly stated that the company does not have valid import permits, which is incorrect since the permits are valid through 2038," the company said. When consulted, Valero told Argus it has no further information to share at this time. In Mexico, Valero holds gasoline, diesel and jet fuel import permits valid through 2038. The company is one of only a handful of private-sector companies with such permits. Shell, Marathon and ExxonMobil hold permits to import only gasoline and diesel. Valero is the leading private fuel importer in Mexico. On 9 April, its sales accounted for 10pc of Mexico's gasoline and diesel demand, according to the company. Private-sector companies started importing fuel into Mexico in 2016 after the market opened to more competition, but under former president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's administration, the energy ministry (Sener) cancelled dozens of fuel import permits. Valero is cooperating with the Mexican government and has recently joined a voluntary price cap agreement to keep regular gasoline below Ps24/l ($4.45/USG), the company said, adding that it "implements rigorous traceability and security controls throughout its supply chain." The company stores fuel at four private-sector terminals in Mexico, with over 4mn bl of capacity. The company is also expected to start storing fuel at the new 1.1mn bl OTM terminal in Altamira, Tamaulipas, in the near future. By Cas Biekmann Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Opec+ overproducers cast doubt on compensation pledges

25/04/11

Opec+ overproducers cast doubt on compensation pledges

Output is set to rise in the coming months, with Kazakhstan and Iraq unlikely to live up to commitments to rein in production, writes Aydin Calik London, 11 April (Argus) — The Opec+ alliance's planned production increases in April and May should, in theory, be offset by pledges to compensate for past overproduction, particularly by Kazakhstan and Iraq. But there are few signs that either country will significantly reduce output in the coming weeks. If anything, Kazakhstan has signalled that production will continue at or near record levels of around 1.8mn b/d , putting it some 300,000 b/d above its Opec+ target. Opec+ members subject to targets cut output by 90,000 b/d to 33.93mn b/d in March, according to Argus estimates, but this was still 80,000 b/d above the group's collective crude production target of 33.85mn b/d. The decision by a core group of eight Opec+ members to accelerate the return of 2.2mn b/d of production cuts is a key reason for the recent slide in oil prices, alongside US tariff announcements. But Opec+ has stressed that its implied output increase of 137,000 b/d for April and another 411,000 b/d in May should be cancelled out by compensation-related cuts of 249,000 b/d for April and 309,000 b/d in May. In reality, this is unlikely to happen — the group's output is set to rise. Kazakhstan is the main reason why Opec+ has exceeded its target over the past two months. Kazakh production has surged following a major output increase at the Chevron-led Tengiz field in January — part of the field's future growth project (FGP). Tengiz production rose to a record 901,000 b/d in March, compared with previous levels of 600,000-660,000 b/d. The increase came several months earlier than anticipated, Kazakh officials say, and they have subsequently asked international oil companies that operate Tengiz and the Kashagan oil field to reduce output. But the answer has so far been negative. "Unfortunately, we have not yet agreed with them to the reduction, because for them it is a very challenging action, especially Chevron, [which] spent $50bn on the FGP project. They told us it's not possible for them to reduce [output]," deputy energy minister Alibek Zhamauov said this week. Kazakhstan will try to reduce production from smaller fields operated by domestic producers such as state-controlled Kazmunaigaz, Zhamauov said. But any decrease from these fields will not be enough to offset the rise from Tengiz. Target practice Iraq's output dipped below its 4mn b/d target in March at 3.98mn b/d, but this was still well above the country's effective target of 3.88mn b/d under its compensation plan. If Iraq's past production record is anything to go by, its output is unlikely to fall much further in the months ahead. While Kazakhstan and Iraq are unlikely to see much change in their production, members such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE are set to drive the alliance's output higher. The biggest increase is expected from Saudi Arabia, which will see its 8.98mn b/d target rise by 222,000 b/d by May, offset only marginally by its compensation plans. Riyadh has already signalled that it is preparing to increase production after state-controlled Saudi Aramco cut the official formula price of its May-loading crude exports. The largest cut was for buyers in Asia-Pacific, Saudi Arabia's biggest market. Formula prices can indicate intentions on output, as producers fine-tune how affordable their crude is for marginal refiners. The second-largest production increase is set to come from the UAE, which has long been eager to raise output . The UAE will see its target rise by 103,000 b/d by May, which will also only be offset marginally by its compensation plan. Russia is also scheduled to deliver a significant production increase over the next two months, with its target rising by 105,000 b/d. But all of this increase will be cancelled out if the country sticks to its compensation plan. Opec+ crude production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Opec 9 21.22 21.36 21.23 -0.01 Non-Opec 9 12.71 12.66 12.62 0.09 Total Opec+ 18 33.93 34.02 33.85 0.08 *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable Opec wellhead production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Saudi Arabia 8.98 8.93 8.98 0.00 Iraq 3.98 4.05 4.00 -0.02 Kuwait 2.42 2.43 2.41 0.01 UAE 2.91 2.93 2.91 -0.00 Algeria 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.01 Nigeria 1.49 1.58 1.50 -0.01 Congo (Brazzaville) 0.26 0.24 0.28 -0.02 Gabon 0.20 0.22 0.17 0.03 Equatorial Guinea 0.06 0.06 0.07 -0.01 Opec 9 21.22 21.36 21.23 -0.01 Iran 3.34 3.38 na na Libya 1.36 1.39 na na Venezuela 0.87 0.84 na na Total Opec 12^ 26.79 26.97 na na *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable ^Iran, Libya and Venezuela are exempt from production targets Non-Opec crude production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Russia 8.97 8.96 8.98 -0.01 Oman 0.75 0.75 0.76 -0.01 Azerbaijan 0.47 0.47 0.55 -0.08 Kazakhstan 1.79 1.76 1.47 0.32 Malaysia 0.36 0.36 0.40 -0.04 Bahrain 0.18 0.18 0.20 -0.02 Brunei 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.02 Sudan 0.02 0.02 0.06 -0.04 South Sudan 0.07 0.07 0.12 -0.05 Total non-Opec 12.71 12.66 12.62 0.09 *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism

25/04/11

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — International shipping organisations and market participants mostly support the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism approved today at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, but some raised concerns. The structure approved by the IMO establishes that ships must reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. Emissions above this target will be charged at $380/tCO2e. The levels defined by the approved regulation are achievable, according to a market participant, who said the gradually increasing targets may allow the market to properly adapt to the transition. The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) secretary general Guy Platten said the sector is already investing billions of dollars in 'green' technology, so the agreement gives certainty that sustainable marine fuels producers need. "The world's governments have now come forward with a comprehensive agreement which, although not perfect in every respect, we very much hope will be formally adopted later this year," he said. The European Shipowners (ECSA) secretary general Sotiris Raptis agreed the draft "is not perfect", but he celebrated progress towards a net zero emissions target, saying "it is a good starting point for further work" and pointing out that it may ensure the necessary investment in production of clean fuels. During a press briefing, IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said ships operating in international waters will be obliged to comply with the regulations after adoption, despite the US' refusal to engage with the discussions . Adoption of the pricing mechanism will be discussed and voted on in October. Offering a counterview, the Global Maritime Forum said the agreed measures may not be strong enough to reach IMO targets. "The GHG intensity targets create uncertainty as to whether the strategy's emissions reduction checkpoints for 2030 and 2040 will be met," it said. "As currently designed, measures are unlikely to be sufficient to incentivise the rapid development of e-fuels such as e-ammonia or e-methanol , which will be needed in the long run due to their scalability and emission reduction potential." It said that failure to invest in these fuels would put at risk the target of at least 5pc zero- and near-zero emission fuel use by 2030 and the industry's entire 2050 net-zero goal. The World Shipping Council's vice president Bryan Wood-Thomas praised the agreement and said one benefit of it is the pricing system that is "more aggressive" if a vessel fails to meet the GHG intensity standard. "But you also have a fee system that gives investors more confidence in actual revenue [from using cleaner fuels]," he said. The Brazilian representative told Argus the fact that some countries thought the agreement was too ambitious while others indicated it was not ambitious enough show the group may have reached a balance that can be possible to comply. About the Brazilian position, the representative said the country "was never against an agreement". "We were only against some aspects of the agreement, and we think that the membership has heard our concerns, and that's why we ended up pretty happy with the results", he said. Brazil voted in favour of the agreement today. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Madeleine Jenkins, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more