Trump backs diesel export ban as prices hit record

source:

[1] Trump endorses diesel export ban. A decision is coming 'fast, one way or the other.' (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-endor ...)[2] Trump says decision on possible diesel export ban to come ‘fast’ (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/22/trum ...)[3] 'Let's not send out the diesel': Trump floats ban on US diesel exports (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/lets-not ...)[4] Trump says he backs the idea of a ban on diesel exports (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/trump-sa ...)[5] Diesel prices just hit a new record. Would a U.S. export ban bring relief? (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/diesel-p ...)

Related News

Sep 22 2026, 20:30

Boehly's Gulf-backed bid for Lukoil assets faces 3 approval gates

Todd Boehly has lined up US government support and Gulf investors with ties to the Trump family for a bid on Lukoil's international assets, opening a transaction that must clear US, European and Russian approval before any barrels change hands, the Financial Times reported Tuesday. "The buyer group is assembling political cover before it assembles capital," said Omar Tariq, an energy analyst covering Asia-Pacific resource flows. "That ordering tells you where the deal risk actually sits." Lukoil's overseas holdings span refining, retail fuel networks and upstream stakes across Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia. The Moscow-listed parent reported first-half profit up 50% year on year on Aug. 28, and its shares last changed hands at 3,911 rubles on the Micex, giving the company a market capitalization of about 32.66 billion rubles-equivalent, per MarketScreener data. Brent crude traded at $98.35 a barrel, down 1.60% on the day, while WTI sat at $89.62, down 2.83%. The consortium's structure is the story. Boehly, the Eldridge Industries co-founder who previously led a Chelsea Football Club acquisition, is pairing US institutional capital with Gulf money — a combination that gives the bid both Washington's blessing and the balance sheet to absorb assets that Western majors have spent three years exiting. Reuters said it could not immediately verify the FT report, and no deal value, payment structure or premium to any undisturbed price has been disclosed. ## Sanctions Are the Binding Constraint, Not Price Lukoil has been under US, UK and EU sanctions since 2022, and its international subsidiaries sit inside a web of restrictions that make any change of control a licensing question before it is a valuation question. A buyer must obtain an OFAC license or a general authorization covering the transfer, and European assets would separately require EU member-state approval — a process that has taken 12 to 18 months for comparable Russian-linked divestments since 2023. The US House passed a Russia sanctions bill targeting countries that buy Russian oil, adding a second layer of political risk to any transaction touching Moscow-linked barrels. India's Ministry of External Affairs said publicly that the bill's "potential implications for not just the bilateral relationship but also the international energy market have been very clearly articulated," the first time New Delhi has signaled the measure could strain ties with Washington. For a consortium whose Gulf partners trade heavily with both the US and Russia, that bill is a live variable rather than background noise. Kremlin reaction is the third gate. Russia has required presidential approval for disposals of strategic energy assets since 2022, and has repeatedly blocked or reversed foreign exits it deemed unfavorable. Lukoil itself has been hit operationally in the meantime: Ukrainian drone strikes halted processing at its NORSI refinery on Aug. 26 and at its Perm refinery after an Aug. 21 attack, and Moscow fuel stations began limiting sales on Aug. 19 amid shortages. ## Gulf Capital Keeps Buying Energy Assets The Gulf leg of the consortium fits a pattern that has run through 2026. Sovereign-wealth-linked capital has been reallocating into strategic energy assets as European and US buyers retreat from Russian-adjacent holdings, and Gulf funds have the mandate and the currency to hold assets through a multi-year sanctions cycle. That patience is precisely what a deal of this shape requires — a buyer willing to sit on refining and retail infrastructure while licensing works through Washington and Brussels. The comparison that matters is scale. Lukoil's international portfolio is a fraction of the roughly $200 billion in Russian energy assets that Western companies wrote down or sold at discounts after 2022, but it is the largest single block still in play. If the consortium closes, it resets the reference price for Russian-linked energy assets and gives Gulf capital a Western-sanctioned route into European refining. If it stalls at the licensing stage, the assets stay frozen and the discount widens further. For traders, the near-term read is narrower than the headline. Lukoil's Micex shares and Russian-linked energy equities are the instruments most exposed to headline risk on approval or rejection, while Brent and WTI are currently trading on supply and demand signals — Brent down 7.20% over five sessions — rather than on this transaction. The next hard checkpoint is whether OFAC issues a license or the consortium files formally; neither has been disclosed. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

Sep 22 2026, 20:25

Jet fuel follows diesel higher as Hormuz squeeze hits 2 markets

Jet fuel has joined diesel in a sharp climb as the Strait of Hormuz disruption forces refineries to ration distillate output, tightening two markets that compete for the same barrel. The squeeze is now visible in the sky as much as on the road. "Squeezed refineries are struggling to supply a world hungry for both diesel and jet fuel," MarketWatch reported on Sept. 22, describing a refining system that cannot satisfy simultaneous demand from trucking fleets and airlines. The constraint is structural rather than seasonal: a single barrel of crude yields a fixed distillate cut, so every incremental gallon routed to diesel is a gallon denied to jet. The two fuels sit at the top of the same barrel. Refiners running at maximum distillate yield still face a hard ceiling on how much kerosene-type jet fuel and ultra-low-sulfur diesel they can produce together, which is why the price moves have tracked each other rather than diverging. Diesel led the advance; jet fuel followed, and the spread between them has narrowed as buyers of both compete for the same limited output. The pass-through is where the damage compounds. Higher jet fuel lifts airline operating costs directly, since fuel typically represents one of the largest single line items in carrier expense structures, while diesel sets the marginal cost of moving freight by truck and rail. Both feed into headline inflation, and both land on margins before they land on consumers. Ukraine's campaign against Russian refining capacity has added to the pressure. Strikes on refineries have removed processing capacity from a system already short of it, compounding the Hormuz-driven constraint rather than offsetting it, according to reporting by Forbes on Sept. 22. The asymmetry matters for positioning. Refiners with spare distillate capacity and access to non-disrupted crude grades can capture wider crack spreads, while airlines, trucking operators and fuel-intensive industrials absorb the increase as an earnings headwind. Sustained energy-cost inflation also complicates the rate outlook, since central banks reading a higher fuel component in price indices have less room to ease. What happens next depends on how quickly Hormuz flows normalize and whether refinery outages elsewhere are repaired. If the disruption persists beyond days, the distillate squeeze extends into the winter heating season, when diesel demand typically peaks and inventories are drawn down further. If flows resume, the crack spread unwinds fast — refined product markets have historically corrected more violently than crude on supply restoration, because the bottleneck is processing capacity, not the crude itself. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

Sep 22 2026, 20:15

Apple builds screenless Whoop rival as Garmin swings 4%

Apple is developing a screenless health and fitness wristband that would put it directly against Whoop, a prototype-stage project that has not been cleared for release and would not reach shelves before 2028 at the earliest. The plan has backing from Executive Chairman Tim Cook and services chief Eddy Cue, according to people familiar with the matter cited by Bloomberg on Sept. 22. Apple has spent several months exploring the category and is now building prototype hardware, the report said, describing the effort as a "technology investigation" — internal language for research that has not been committed to shipping. Prototypes consist of a thin fabric band with a sensor-equipped computing module and no display, a form factor that separates the device from the Apple Watch, which is built around a screen and bundles fitness tracking with apps and notifications. Data would flow to Apple's Health and Fitness apps on an iPhone. Whoop's wristbands run more than two weeks per charge without a display to drain; the Apple Watch typically needs charging close to daily. Apple's watch starts at $249. The disclosure moved rival wearables names before the effect faded. Garmin shares fell as much as 2.5% intraday before reversing to close up 1.6%, while Apple traded around $340 after an early pop gave way. The muted follow-through reflects the distance between a prototype and a product: no release decision has been made, and Apple has not disclosed pricing, sensor specifications, battery life or expected volumes. ## Whoop and Oura are racing to public markets first The competitive backdrop explains why Apple is looking at the category at all. Whoop carries a valuation of roughly $10 billion and is weighing an IPO, while smart-ring maker Oura filed for a listing this month. Both have built user bases in the millions on subscription health tracking, and Google entered the screenless segment with the Fitbit Air, a $99 band whose core features work without a subscription. Garmin has held the endurance and outdoor tracking market for years. Apple's own health franchise is being rebuilt around that simpler model. Jeff Williams, the former chief operating officer who oversaw the watch and health businesses, retired at the end of last year. Stan Ng, who ran marketing for the Apple Watch and health products, and Jay Blahnik, who led fitness strategy, have both left. Cue, who took over health late last year, has pushed the team to study Whoop and its peers and bring a narrower, health-first product philosophy into Apple's lineup. That shift is already visible in shipping products. The latest Apple Watch and a redesigned Health app added more advanced heart-rate tracking, a daily readiness score and an estimate of the user's physiological age from health data — features that mirror Whoop's core offering. Apple published a heart study in September arguing the Apple Watch Series 12 is the most accurate health wearable, a comparison that also highlighted how competitive the Whoop 5 tracker has become. The band sits inside a broader wearables push. Apple's Vision hardware group, which is developing the Vision Pro headset, is also working on the company's first smart glasses and camera-equipped AirPods, both targeted for 2027. A camera-equipped AI pendant that would have collected visual data for a new version of Siri has been postponed. Apple is also planning a larger Apple Watch redesign as early as late 2027, the first substantial overhaul since the Ultra model launched four years ago. ## The 2028 timeline caps the damage to incumbents For investors, the arithmetic matters more than the rumor. Apple's wearables, home and accessories segment generated roughly $40 billion in annual revenue in recent years, and a screenless band priced below the $249 Apple Watch entry point would be aimed at expanding that base rather than replacing it — a cheaper device with a two-week battery is a different sale than a $249 watch. The threat to incumbents is real but distant. Whoop's roughly $10 billion valuation and Oura's IPO filing both rest on subscription revenue that a $99 Google Fitbit Air already pressures; an Apple entry would compress pricing power further, but not before 2028 on the current timeline. Garmin's 2.5% intraday drop and subsequent 1.6% gain is the market's way of pricing a headline with no revenue attached. Apple, trading near $340, has a market capitalization above $3 trillion, which makes a single unlaunched accessory immaterial to the equity until a launch date is confirmed. The next signal to watch is whether Apple moves the project out of technology investigation and into a formal development program with a ship date. Until that happens, the screenless category belongs to Whoop, Oura, Garmin and Google. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.