Archive for Energy

How Wall Street is shifting electric utilities toward consolidation and profit

By Conor Harrison, University of South Carolina 

A corporate merger that would form the largest electric utility in the United States is underway. It’s just one of many recent utility mergers and acquisitions as electric utilities enter a period of rapid growth.

On May 18, 2026, NextEra Energy announced it would buy Dominion Energy for US$66.8 billion.

What’s driving this deal and others like it is not an increase in residential electricity demand. Rather, it’s based on rising demand for power to data centers for artificial intelligence systems and a desire to increase corporate profits.

As a scholar of the electricity industry, I seek to understand how and why the electricity grid and the companies that run it are changing. In my book “Brokers of Power” I explain that a primary force in the industry is not the desire to improve service for the rate-paying public, nor even for industries that want to use more electricity. Rather, stock market investors and Wall Street businesses are changing how electric utilities make money in the U.S.

A variety of electricity suppliers

In every state, the majority of companies that distribute and deliver electricity to homes and businesses over the wires are regulated monopolies with specific geographic service areas. But where that electricity comes from varies widely.

Many cities, some quite large, get their power from a municipally owned utility. Many rural areas get theirs from membership cooperatives. These organizations are nonprofits whose general goals are to serve their customers with reliable, affordable power.

However, around 70% of U.S. households get their electricity from private companies. Most are controlled by large holding companies, such as NextEra Energy, which customers know through subsidiaries such as Florida Power and Light and Dominion Energy, which operates local subsidiaries in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah. These companies’ main goal is to make money for their shareholders.

Regulated and unregulated markets

How a for-profit electric utility company makes money depends on where it operates.

In 28 states, electricity markets are traditionally regulated, meaning that the utility is a monopoly that owns everything it needs to make electricity – from the generators, wires and poles to the meter on the side of your house. Customers in these states cannot choose their provider, but the prices they pay are set by a state regulator based on negotiations with the company. Those prices are set so the utility can earn a profit on the money it spends improving the electricity system – a margin that is generally around 10%.

The other 22 states are considered deregulated markets, in which profits are not capped, but neither are potential losses. In those markets, companies that own power plants compete to sell electricity on a wholesale market. In 14 states, a middleman company buys the power and competes to find customers, in effect providing households with a choice of electricity providers. In the rest, distribution companies buy the power from wholesalers and deliver it to their customers.

Since states began electricity deregulation in the late 1990s, utilities that historically operated in a single state have expanded to other states, both with and without regulated markets. The result is holding companies with complicated corporate structures and various ways of earning profits. In my research, I have found that investors prefer utilities that have mastered four overlapping ways of making money.

1. Monopoly operations

First, utilities need to operate successfully in monopoly territories.

In general, utility companies in monopoly markets aren’t allowed to make any profit on just selling electricity. Rather, their profits depend on their investments in the infrastructure to generate and distribute electricity. For example, if a company builds a $100 million power plant expected to last 30 years, utilities can add that cost plus an additional $10 million – their 10% profit – to customer bills over the next three decades.

Utilities therefore have a financial incentive to predict that electricity demand will rise much faster than it actually does. They can use those predictions to justify overspending on new equipment, such as wires, transformers and substations, to handle those future loads. The ratepayers pick up the tab, and the company makes its 10% profit, even if the new equipment ends up being unnecessary.

For investors, monopoly utilities are not typically considered growth stocks, but they deliver reliable profits and returns for investors.

2. Deregulated markets

Wall Street also likes utilities that can succeed in deregulated markets, in which utilities are allowed to earn profits if they can generate electricity cheaply and sell it at high prices. In reality, utilities see periods of rapid demand growth and resulting high electricity prices, followed by the collapse of both.

This volatility is attractive to investors who are comfortable with risk, such as private equity firms, which use borrowed money to buy shares in companies.

As states such as California began deregulating in the late 1990s, many utilities saw the opportunity to make more money by trying to time the sale of electricity to maximize revenue, as well as timing the purchase and sale of power plants themselves in order to stay ahead of changes in the market that either raise or lower electricity prices. Most companies that tried this approach failed.

NextEra, however, has succeeded in deregulated markets by developing large renewable-energy projects that deliver cheap energy into markets with rising demand for renewables. The company uses long-term contracts that mimic regulated returns, avoiding the fluctuations customary in deregulated markets.

3. Mergers and acquisitions

Buying and selling power plants themselves is part of the third way electricity utilities can make profits: mergers and acquisitions. That’s what’s behind NextEra’s acquisition of Dominion.

NextEra’s success in deregulated markets has introduced more risk than its investors are keen to bear.

The company hopes that buying a regulated company like Dominion, which holds a monopoly over providing electricity in what some call northern Virginia’s “data center alley,” will rebalance its risk, improve its credit rating and help it raise money to build the next round of profit-generating infrastructure to support the data center boom.

4. Controlling regulations

For all this to work, NextEra and Dominion need to excel in the final way that utilities make profits – dominating the regulatory arena. In Florida, NextEra famously employed one lobbyist for every two legislators.

Crucial to electric utilities’ profitability is their power to win regulators’ approvals for their rate-increase requests, get lawmakers to pass laws that increase their guaranteed profit margins and – as with the massive NextEra-Dominion deal – gain approval of mergers by convincing policymakers they will not harm existing customers.

As the data center building boom and its growing demand for electricity roll along, utilities are jostling for prime position to benefit. For many companies, that means trying to become larger companies with more market and lobbying power. But whether bigger is better for residential customers is another question entirely.The Conversation

About the Author:

Conor Harrison, Associate Professor of Economic Geography, University of South Carolina

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Energy costs are high and unaffordable – what utilities, governments, communities and you can do to help save consumers money

By Sanya Carley, University of Pennsylvania; Alexandra Klass, University of Michigan; Alison L. Knasin, University of Pennsylvania; David Konisky, Indiana University, and Shelley Welton, University of Pennsylvania 

For many Americans, energy bills are becoming increasingly unaffordable.

Energy prices increased approximately 30% on average from 2021 to 2026. In some places, the rates of increase have been much steeper. In the Mid-Atlantic and eastern Midwest region where several of us live, the regional electricity grid is run by PJM Interconnection, and power prices in the first quarter of 2026 were 76% higher than the same period in 2025.

These rising utility costs are a shock to many people, including those already having a hard time paying for the energy they need. In 2024, 1 in 3 American households reported struggling to pay their energy bills, and 15.1 million homes were disconnected from their electricity or gas services because the residents couldn’t pay their bill. Energy insecurity is a pervasive and potentially dangerous predicament for these millions of households, and a growing challenge for America as energy bills rise.

Energy markets, which we study, are famously complex. But many parties in these marketplaces, from the federal government to individual consumers, have opportunities to help provide Americans with affordable energy. Some may not be obvious to the casual observer, or even to savvy energy wonks.

Federal programs

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program helps households with lower incomes afford energy, particularly for heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. Historically, the funds provided by Congress – totaling about US$4 billion in 2025 – have not been enough to help everyone in need. Yet in his last two budget proposals, President Donald Trump has proposed eliminating all of the program’s funding, though Congress has so far preserved the funding.

Another federal effort, the Weatherization Assistance Program, provides around $370 million a year to help people conserve energy by sealing gaps around windows and doors and increasing insulation in their homes. This program serves approximately 32,000 homes, saving each household an average of $372 in direct energy expenses each year.

Entities that run the electricity grid

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state public utility commissions jointly regulate the nation’s electricity grid. Federal law requires them to ensure that electricity prices and practices are “just and reasonable.” They can use their authority to ensure that the grid is built and run efficiently, that utilities do not earn outsized profits, and that electricity markets are producing fair electricity prices for consumers.

In most U.S. regions, nonprofit organizations collectively called “regional transmission organizations” are the front-line managers of the nation’s electricity grid. Under federal supervision, these utilities make rules for how to connect new power plants or other electricity generation equipment to the grid, how electricity markets run, and how transmission lines are planned and paid for.

These rules directly affect how much customers pay for power. Their implications have become clearer, as data center electricity demand has caused regional wholesale electricity market prices to soar. Research suggests that better regional planning, accelerated permission for connecting new-generation sources, and updated market design could save consumers billions of dollars.

State governments

Many states prevent utilities from disconnecting residential customers’ electricity, even if the bills aren’t paid. In Virginia, for example, utilities can’t cut power during periods of extreme hot or cold weather. In Montana, the restrictions cover specific months when cold weather is common. Pennsylvania prevents power cuts if someone in the home has a certified medical condition that makes them dependent on electricity – such as needing an oxygen tank, which can increase electricity bills by hundreds of dollars per year.

Many states, such as Maine, also run programs to weatherize homes and improve home efficiency. Illinois helps pay to install solar panels or battery storage systems in homes. These efforts lower energy bills either by directly reducing a home’s energy use or by offsetting some of that use.

These services and technologies lower energy bills by either reducing the total energy that a household needs to consume or offsetting their energy with a zero-fuel cost option. Some of us were a part of a team that in 2025 found low-income households across the United States that recently installed residential solar were 44% more likely to report being able to pay their energy bills relative to similar households that did not have solar.

Other states more directly supervise utility bills to ensure they remain within the household’s budget. For instance, Illinois offers bill discounts for many low-income households that range from 5% to 84% savings on a customer’s gas bill. And other states, like Massachusetts, require utilities to partially forgive consumers’ debt after they make some number of on-time payments that also include some repayments of what is owed.

Utility companies

Utility companies can adopt billing and repayment policies that accommodate customers’ household budgets. They can also provide detailed, public information about these programs to their customers. Often, states place specific requirements on utilities’ policies, but companies can also choose to set their own billing practices.

Utilities can identify their customers most at risk of disconnection by analyzing customers’ payment data and consumption patterns, and offer to switch them to these plans, while also steering them toward bill and weatherization assistance. Some states, like New Jersey, automatically enroll customers who are either past-due or have been disconnected into utility payment plans.

Local communities

County and municipal governments can help their residents by spreading the word about federal, state and utility assistance programs and by identifying specific people or families who may be most in need. As two examples, they can use information about households’ use of other aid programs or examine data on who is calling 311 for local nonemergency assistance.

Many communities also operate warming or cooling centers for people who cannot afford to turn on their air conditioning or heating during times of extreme temperatures. These spaces can also be safe locations for people during power outages.

And local nonprofits can support people who need help with energy costs find other support, such as food banks and low-cost transportation, which can help relieve other sources of financial stress.

Local organizations can also couple energy aid with other housing and social services, including job training, for more holistic supports for struggling households and communities.

Residents and customers

Consumers themselves have a key role in energy affordability too. First, they can avoid wasting energy by turning off lights and rarely used appliances, or washing clothes with cold water and hanging them to dry. But that isn’t likely to make a significant difference. So they can seek out help from the government, utility companies and local nonprofits.

If people have some money available, they can also invest in technologies or services that will help them keep their bills lower, such as weatherization, efficient appliances or residential solar panels.

No entity can single-handedly solve the energy affordability crisis. U.S. energy markets are highly decentralized, and high prices are the result of many factors, only some of which can be addressed through government and corporate policies and programs. We believe, however, that complexity cannot be an excuse for inaction, because energy is essential for people’s health and well-being.The Conversation

About the Authors:

Sanya Carley, Presidential Distinguished Professor of Energy Policy and City Planning, University of Pennsylvania; Alexandra Klass, James G. Degnan Professor of Law, University of Michigan; Alison L. Knasin, Lab Manager, Energy Justice Lab, University of Pennsylvania; David Konisky, Lynton K. Caldwell Professor of Public Affairs, Indiana University, and Shelley Welton, Professor of Law and Energy Policy, University of Pennsylvania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

WTI oil prices have collapsed below 80 dollars per barrel

By JustMarkets

On Tuesday, the US stock market showed mixed dynamics caused by large‑scale profit‑taking in the artificial intelligence sector. By the end of the day, the Dow Jones Index (US30) rose by 0.64%. The S&P 500 Index (US500) fell by 0.57%. The Technology Index NASDAQ (US100) closed lower by 1.89%. Chipmakers suffered significant losses: Intel plunged by 8.5%, AMD by 7.3%, Micron by 6.2%, while Broadcom and Nvidia declined by 4.4% and 2.4%. At the same time, SpaceX shares rose by 4.8%, extending their gains after last Friday’s IPO on news of a planned acquisition of Cursor for 60 billion dollars. Additional support for the market came from declining government bond yields, triggered by falling oil prices, which noticeably eased investors’ inflation fears. This occurred ahead of the June Federal Reserve meeting, where rates are expected to remain unchanged, although analysts do not rule out hawkish rhetoric from Fed Chair Warsh regarding further balance sheet reduction.

European indices closed in the green yesterday. By the end of the day, Germany’s DAX (DE40) rose by 0.07%, France’s CAC 40 (FR40) closed up by 0.75%, Spain’s IBEX 35 (ES35) gained 0.69%, and the UK’s FTSE 100 (UK100) ended the session higher by 0.61%. Investor sentiment remained supported by expectations of a peace agreement with Iran and the resumption of safe navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

Palladium (XPD) prices stabilized near 1,350 dollars per ounce after reaching an eight‑month low, supported by easing Middle East tensions and short‑covering. Precious metals were also positively influenced by declining US Treasury yields. Despite a monthly decline of 3.84%, palladium prices still exceed last year’s level by 30.39%. Market participants are now assessing supply risks, demand prospects from the automotive sector, and awaiting a series of central bank meetings.

On Tuesday, crude oil prices (WTI) recorded a sharp drop of more than 6%, pushing the price per barrel down to 75.5 dollars – the lowest level since early March. This decline almost completely erased the previous rally triggered by the Middle East conflict, amid news of the imminent restoration of exports from Persian Gulf countries. The easing of tensions is supported by the likely signing of a memorandum between the US and Iran, which will ensure unimpeded tanker passage through the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, US strategic reserves have fallen to their lowest level in 43 years. Meanwhile, Iranian supplies will most likely be directed toward replenishing China’s depleted inventories.

The US natural gas prices (XNG) increased by more than 2%, reaching 3.2 dollars per MMBtu and showing positive dynamics for the third consecutive day. The main drivers of growth were fexpectations of hot weather, expected to remain above seasonal norms until early July, forcing power plants to increase fuel consumption to support air‑conditioning demand.

On Tuesday, Japan’s Nikkei 225 (JP225) rose sharply by 0.13%, China’s FTSE China A50 closed lower by 0.81%, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng (HK50) fell by 1.40%, and Australia’s ASX 200 (AU200) closed higher by 0.04%.

The Australian dollar (AUD) consolidated above 0.70 USD, continuing its recovery after a two‑month low. This was supported by the hawkish stance of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA): despite keeping the base rate at 4.35% at the June meeting, Governor Michele Bullock emphasized that inflation risks remain high and demand must slow further. Although the RBA paused to assess the impact of the previous three rate hikes, Bullock did not rule out further monetary tightening. The central bank’s hawkish tone led investors to price in a 50% probability of another rate hike by the end of the year.

S&P 500 (US500) 7,511.35 -42.94 (-0.57%)

Dow Jones (US30) 51,999.67 +328.64 (+0.64%)

DAX (DE40) 24,910.41 +16.40 (+0.07%)

FTSE 100 (UK100) 10,494.21 +63.59 (+0.61%)

USD Index 99.57 -0.07 (-0.07%)

News feed for: 2026.06.17

  • Japan Trade Balance (m/m) at 02:50 (GMT+3) – JPY (LOW)
  • UK Consumer Price Index (m/m) at 09:00 (GMT+3) – GBP, UK100 (HIGH)
  • UK Producer Price Index (m/m) at 09:00 (GMT+3) – GBP, UK100 (MED)
  • Sweden Riksbank Rate Decision at 10:30 (GMT+3) – SEK (HIGH)
  • Eurozone Consumer Price Index (m/m) at 12:00 (GMT+3) – EUR (HIGH)
  • US Retail Sales (m/m) at 15:30 (GMT+3) – USD (MED)
  • US Crude Oil Reserves (w/w) at 17:30 (GMT+3) – WTI, BRENT (HIGH)
  • US Federal Funds Rate at 21:00 (GMT+3) – USD, XAU, US indices (HIGH)
  • US FOMC Economic Projections at 21:00 (GMT+3) – USD, XAU, US indices (HIGH)
  • US FOMC Statement at 21:00 (GMT+3) – USD, XAU, US indices (HIGH)
  • US FOMC Press Conference at 21:30 (GMT+3) – USD, XAU, US indices (HIGH)

By JustMarkets

 

This article reflects a personal opinion and should not be interpreted as an investment advice, and/or offer, and/or a persistent request for carrying out financial transactions, and/or a guarantee, and/or a forecast of future events.

COT Energy Charts: Speculator Bets led by Brent Oil

By InvestMacro 

Speculators OI Energy Futures COT Chart
Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday June 9th and shows a quick view of how large traders (for-profit speculators and commercial entities) were positioned in the futures markets.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by Brent Oil

Speculators Nets Energy Futures COT Chart
The COT energy market speculator bets were lower this week as just one out of the six energy markets we cover had higher positioning while the other five markets had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the energy markets was Brent Oil with an increase by 9,488 contracts.

The markets with declines in speculator bets for the week were WTI Crude (-25,573 contracts), Gasoline (-8,579 contracts), Natural Gas (-7,842 contracts), the Bloomberg Index (-5,608 contracts) and with Heating Oil (-2,267 contracts) also seeing lower bets on the week.

Energy markets were lower across the board

For the Energy markets this week, they were all lower across the board with Natural Gas seeing the least decline on the week with a -1.29% shortfall. The Bloomberg Commodity Index dropped by -2.42%, while Gasoline was lower by -2.54%.

Heating Oil was lower by -9.23%, followed by WTI Crude Oil, which dropped by -9.73%.

Brent Oil was the biggest decliner on the week with a -9.76% decrease.


Energy Data:

Speculators Table Energy Futures COT Chart
Legend: Weekly Speculators Change | Speculators Current Net Position | Speculators Strength Score compared to last 3-Years (0-100 range)


Strength Scores led by Brent Oil

Speculators Strength Energy Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that Brent Oil (68.5 percent) leads the energy markets this week.

On the downside, the Bloomberg Commodity Index (0.0 percent) and Natural Gas (8.0 percent) come in at the lowest strength level currently and is in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength score was WTI Crude (29.2 percent).

Strength Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (29.2 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (37.4 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (68.5 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (55.0 percent)
Natural Gas (8.0 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (13.0 percent)
Gasoline (39.1 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (48.6 percent)
Heating Oil (45.8 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (48.8 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (0.0 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (5.4 percent)

 


Brent Oil top the 6-Week Strength Trends

Speculators Trend Energy Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that Brent Oil (23.8 percent) leads the past six weeks trends for the energy markets.

WTI Crude (-19.9 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with Natural Gas (-17.8 percent) as the next market with lower trend scores.

Move Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (-19.9 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (-11.7 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (23.8 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (7.1 percent)
Natural Gas (-17.8 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (-11.4 percent)
Gasoline (-10.1 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (-1.6 percent)
Heating Oil (-2.4 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (-1.8 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (-5.6 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (-0.4 percent)


Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures Futures:

WTI Crude Oil Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • WTI Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 130,301 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position lowering of -25,573 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 155,874 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 29.2 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 64.6 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 80.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

WTI Crude Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:18.045.84.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:11.554.32.4
– Net Position:130,301-170,72640,425
– Gross Longs:360,524919,78689,544
– Gross Shorts:230,2231,090,51249,119
– Long to Short Ratio:1.6 to 10.8 to 11.8 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):29.264.680.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-19.915.025.0

 


Brent Crude Oil Futures Futures:

Brent Last Day Crude Oil Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Brent Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -8,883 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position gain of 9,488 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -18,371 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 68.5 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 22.9 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 96.5 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

Brent Crude Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:22.331.95.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:25.930.92.7
– Net Position:-8,8832,4626,421
– Gross Longs:56,15180,16013,212
– Gross Shorts:65,03477,6986,791
– Long to Short Ratio:0.9 to 11.0 to 11.9 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):68.522.996.5
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BullishBearishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:23.8-32.344.8

 


Natural Gas Futures Futures:

Natural Gas Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Natural Gas Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -193,957 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position reduction of -7,842 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -186,115 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 8.0 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 90.8 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 49.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

Natural Gas Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:14.735.83.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:26.625.12.3
– Net Position:-193,957175,73818,219
– Gross Longs:240,948586,19556,264
– Gross Shorts:434,905410,45738,045
– Long to Short Ratio:0.6 to 11.4 to 11.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):8.090.849.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bearish-ExtremeBullish-ExtremeBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-17.815.87.5

 


Gasoline Blendstock Futures Futures:

RBOB Gasoline Energy Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Gasoline Blendstock Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 47,043 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position fall of -8,579 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 55,622 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 39.1 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 52.9 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 71.9 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

Nasdaq Mini Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:25.547.58.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:10.566.24.6
– Net Position:47,043-58,97311,930
– Gross Longs:80,104149,26626,345
– Gross Shorts:33,061208,23914,415
– Long to Short Ratio:2.4 to 10.7 to 11.8 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):39.152.971.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-10.19.9-3.4

 


#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures Futures:

NY Harbor Heating Oil Energy Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • #2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 1,824 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position lowering of -2,267 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 4,091 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 45.8 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 41.5 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 85.1 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

Heating Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:15.744.119.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:15.054.49.9
– Net Position:1,824-26,34124,517
– Gross Longs:40,044112,29849,677
– Gross Shorts:38,220138,63925,160
– Long to Short Ratio:1.0 to 10.8 to 12.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):45.841.585.1
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBearishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-2.43.6-5.4

 


Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures Futures:

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -80,890 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position decline of -5,608 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -75,282 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 0.0 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 63.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

Bloomberg Index Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:41.656.70.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:74.224.20.0
– Net Position:-80,89080,412478
– Gross Longs:102,893140,412536
– Gross Shorts:183,78360,00058
– Long to Short Ratio:0.6 to 12.3 to 19.2 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):0.0100.063.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bearish-ExtremeBullish-ExtremeBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-5.65.6-5.0

 


Article By InvestMacroReceive our weekly COT Reports by Email

*COT Report: The COT data, released weekly to the public each Friday, is updated through the most recent Tuesday (data is 3 days old) and shows a quick view of how large speculators or non-commercials (for-profit traders) were positioned in the futures markets.

The CFTC categorizes trader positions according to commercial hedgers (traders who use futures contracts for hedging as part of the business), non-commercials (large traders who speculate to realize trading profits) and nonreportable traders (usually small traders/speculators) as well as their open interest (contracts open in the market at time of reporting).See CFTC criteria here.

All information and opinions on this website and contained in this article are for general informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice.

COT Energy Charts: Speculator Bets led by Gasoline & Bloomberg Index

By InvestMacro

Speculators OI Energy Futures COT Chart
Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday May 26th and shows a quick view of how large traders (for-profit speculators and commercial entities) were positioned in the futures markets.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by Gasoline & Bloomberg Index

Speculators Nets Energy Futures COT Chart
The COT energy market speculator bets were overall lower this week as two out of the six energy markets we cover had higher positioning while the other four markets had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the energy markets was Gasoline (3,698 contracts) with the Bloomberg Index (1,152 contracts) also seeing a positive week.

The markets with declines in speculator bets for the week were WTI Crude (-11,582 contracts), Natural Gas (-10,985 contracts), Brent Oil (-7,848 contracts) and with Heating Oil (-3,036 contracts) also seeing lower bets on the week.

Natural Gas leads Energy market price performances

In the Energy markets this week, Natural Gas was the only market that saw a higher five-day percentage gain. Natural Gas jumped by over 14% with a 14.74% rise over the past week.

On the downside, the Bloomberg Commodity Index dipped by -2.93% on the week, followed by WTI Crude Oil, which slid by -3.42%. Heating Oil was down by -6.68%, while Gasoline saw a similar -6.74% decrease.

Finally, the biggest decliner on the week was Brent Crude Oil with a -10.93% shortfall on the week.


Energy Data:

Speculators Table Energy Futures COT Chart
Legend: Weekly Speculators Change | Speculators Current Net Position | Speculators Strength Score compared to last 3-Years (0-100 range)


Strength Scores led by Gasoline & Heating Oil

Speculators Strength Energy Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that Gasoline (47.5 percent) and Heating Oil (46.9 percent) lead the energy markets this week.

On the downside, the Bloomberg Index (1.5 percent) and Natural Gas (2.1 percent) comes in at the lowest strength level currently and is in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength score was Brent Oil (34.4 percent).

Strength Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (39.1 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (42.8 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (34.4 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (45.6 percent)
Natural Gas (2.1 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (9.1 percent)
Gasoline (47.5 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (43.4 percent)
Heating Oil (46.9 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (50.9 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (1.5 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (0.3 percent)

 


Gasoline & Bloomberg Index top the 6-Week Strength Trends

Speculators Trend Energy Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that Gasoline (1.0 percent) leads the past six weeks trends for the energy markets and is the only positive mover at the moment.

WTI Crude (-14.7 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with Brent Oil (-13.1 percent) as the next market with lower trend scores.

Move Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (-14.7 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (-9.5 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (-13.1 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (8.8 percent)
Natural Gas (-10.5 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (-5.3 percent)
Gasoline (1.0 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (-9.6 percent)
Heating Oil (-6.6 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (-4.3 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (-0.5 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (-1.1 percent)


Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures Futures:

WTI Crude Oil Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • WTI Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 160,998 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position decrease of -11,582 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 172,580 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 39.1 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 57.0 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 69.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

WTI Crude Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:18.945.04.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:10.854.72.4
– Net Position:160,998-195,47334,475
– Gross Longs:378,088900,99782,778
– Gross Shorts:217,0901,096,47048,303
– Long to Short Ratio:1.7 to 10.8 to 11.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):39.157.069.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-14.715.7-11.7

 


Brent Crude Oil Futures Futures:

Brent Last Day Crude Oil Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Brent Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -32,814 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position fall of -7,848 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -24,966 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 34.4 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 59.1 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Brent Crude Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:23.335.15.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:36.524.72.4
– Net Position:-32,81426,0556,759
– Gross Longs:58,11087,60312,803
– Gross Shorts:90,92461,5486,044
– Long to Short Ratio:0.6 to 11.4 to 12.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):34.459.1100.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-13.18.636.6

 


Natural Gas Futures Futures:

Natural Gas Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Natural Gas Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -203,181 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position fall of -10,985 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -192,196 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 2.1 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 36.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Downtrend.

Natural Gas Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:14.136.53.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:26.424.92.4
– Net Position:-203,181190,17813,003
– Gross Longs:230,515598,59451,581
– Gross Shorts:433,696408,41638,578
– Long to Short Ratio:0.5 to 11.5 to 11.3 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):2.1100.036.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bearish-ExtremeBullish-ExtremeBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-10.512.3-7.5

 


Gasoline Blendstock Futures Futures:

RBOB Gasoline Energy Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Gasoline Blendstock Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 54,627 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position lift of 3,698 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 50,929 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 47.5 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 43.5 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 80.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Nasdaq Mini Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:27.246.38.8
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:9.069.04.2
– Net Position:54,627-68,41713,790
– Gross Longs:81,746139,27626,365
– Gross Shorts:27,119207,69312,575
– Long to Short Ratio:3.0 to 10.7 to 12.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):47.543.580.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBearishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:1.0-2.68.1

 


#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures Futures:

NY Harbor Heating Oil Energy Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • #2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 2,607 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position fall of -3,036 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 5,643 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 46.9 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 38.1 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 92.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Heating Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:15.544.121.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:14.556.210.3
– Net Position:2,607-29,85227,245
– Gross Longs:38,565109,63952,929
– Gross Shorts:35,958139,49125,684
– Long to Short Ratio:1.1 to 10.8 to 12.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):46.938.192.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBearishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-6.6-0.515.2

 


Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures Futures:

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -75,263 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position advance of 1,152 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -76,415 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 1.5 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 98.6 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 62.8 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Bloomberg Index Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:43.455.80.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:74.624.80.0
– Net Position:-75,26374,793470
– Gross Longs:104,841134,793509
– Gross Shorts:180,10460,00039
– Long to Short Ratio:0.6 to 12.2 to 113.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):1.598.662.8
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bearish-ExtremeBullish-ExtremeBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-0.50.6-7.5

 


Article By InvestMacroReceive our weekly COT Reports by Email

*COT Report: The COT data, released weekly to the public each Friday, is updated through the most recent Tuesday (data is 3 days old) and shows a quick view of how large speculators or non-commercials (for-profit traders) were positioned in the futures markets.

The CFTC categorizes trader positions according to commercial hedgers (traders who use futures contracts for hedging as part of the business), non-commercials (large traders who speculate to realize trading profits) and nonreportable traders (usually small traders/speculators) as well as their open interest (contracts open in the market at time of reporting).See CFTC criteria here.

All information and opinions on this website and contained in this article are for general informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice.

COT Energy Charts: Weekly Speculator Bets led by WTI Crude & Heating Oil

By InvestMacro 

Speculators OI Energy Futures COT Chart
Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday May 19th and shows a quick view of how large traders (for-profit speculators and commercial entities) were positioned in the futures markets.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by WTI Crude & Heating Oil

Speculators Nets Energy Futures COT Chart
The COT energy market speculator bets were mixed this week as three out of the six energy markets we cover had higher positioning while the other three markets had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the energy markets with a modest weekly rise was WTI Crude (2,703 contracts) with Heating Oil (2,635 contracts) and the Bloomberg Index (315 contracts) also having positive weeks.

The markets with declines in speculator bets for the week were Natural Gas (-15,890 contracts), Brent Oil (-6,932 contracts) and with Gasoline (-3,596 contracts) also seeing lower bets on the week.

Energy Markets price performance lower across the board.

The Energy Markets saw lower prices across the board with all six of the markets we cover seeing weekly declines. The lowest weekly decline for the past five days was by the Bloomberg Commodity Index, which fell by -1.94%. Natural Gas came in second with a -3.61% decline, and Gasoline fell by almost -4% with a -3.96% shortfall.

Heating Oil was next with a -5.42% decrease on the week, while WTI Crude Oil dropped by -6.78%. Brent Oil saw the biggest decline on the week with a -7.25% drop.

All the Energy Markets have seen higher percentages over the past 30 days, with Gasoline the highest at a 16.68% increase over the past 30 days.

Natural Gas is the only market with a decline over the past 90 days as it has fallen by -16.98%. Gasoline prices are up 78.39% over the past 90 days. Heating Oil, WTI Crude Oil, and Brent Oil are all higher by over 50% in these past 90 days.


Energy Data:

Speculators Table Energy Futures COT Chart
Legend: Weekly Speculators Change | Speculators Current Net Position | Speculators Strength Score compared to last 3-Years (0-100 range)


Strength Scores led by Heating Oil

Speculators Strength Energy Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that Heating Oil (50.9 percent) leads the energy markets this week.

On the downside, the Bloomberg Commodity Index (0.3 percent) and Natural Gas (9.1 percent) come in at the lowest strength level currently and are in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength score was WTI Crude (42.8 percent).

Strength Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (42.8 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (41.9 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (45.6 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (55.4 percent)
Natural Gas (9.1 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (19.3 percent)
Gasoline (43.4 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (47.4 percent)
Heating Oil (50.9 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (47.4 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (0.3 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (0.0 percent)

 


Brent Oil tops the 6-Week Strength Trends

Speculators Trend Energy Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that Brent Oil (8.8 percent) leads the past six weeks trends for the energy markets and was the only positive mover in the latest trends data.

Gasoline (-9.6 percent) and WTI Crude (-9.5 percent) lead the downside trend scores currently with Natural Gas (-5.3 percent) as the next market with lower trend scores.

Move Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (-9.5 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (-14.1 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (8.8 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (25.4 percent)
Natural Gas (-5.3 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (-5.7 percent)
Gasoline (-9.6 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (-15.2 percent)
Heating Oil (-4.3 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (-9.3 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (-1.1 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (-100.0 percent)


Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures Futures:

WTI Crude Oil Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • WTI Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of 172,580 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position lift of 2,703 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 169,877 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 42.8 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 55.5 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 55.9 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

WTI Crude Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:19.245.03.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:10.655.02.5
– Net Position:172,580-200,40927,829
– Gross Longs:384,294900,62578,845
– Gross Shorts:211,7141,101,03451,016
– Long to Short Ratio:1.8 to 10.8 to 11.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):42.855.555.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-9.59.2-1.0

 


Brent Crude Oil Futures Futures:

Brent Last Day Crude Oil Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Brent Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of -24,966 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position decrease of -6,932 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -18,034 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 45.6 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 51.1 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 95.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Brent Crude Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:24.534.24.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:34.825.62.4
– Net Position:-24,96620,8294,137
– Gross Longs:59,81383,2849,907
– Gross Shorts:84,77962,4555,770
– Long to Short Ratio:0.7 to 11.3 to 11.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):45.651.195.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:8.8-10.15.7

 


Natural Gas Futures Futures:

Natural Gas Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Natural Gas Futures large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of -192,196 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position decrease of -15,890 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -176,306 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 9.1 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 93.3 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 48.5 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Downtrend.

Natural Gas Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:14.436.23.7
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:26.425.32.6
– Net Position:-192,196174,22417,972
– Gross Longs:230,391578,82159,864
– Gross Shorts:422,587404,59741,892
– Long to Short Ratio:0.5 to 11.4 to 11.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):9.193.348.5
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bearish-ExtremeBullish-ExtremeBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-5.38.0-9.9

 


Gasoline Blendstock Futures Futures:

RBOB Gasoline Energy Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Gasoline Blendstock Futures large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of 50,929 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position reduction of -3,596 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 54,525 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 43.4 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 47.6 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 78.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Nasdaq Mini Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:25.147.48.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:9.167.54.3
– Net Position:50,929-64,24213,313
– Gross Longs:80,150151,61227,203
– Gross Shorts:29,221215,85413,890
– Long to Short Ratio:2.7 to 10.7 to 12.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):43.447.678.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBearishBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-9.69.8-5.1

 


#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures Futures:

NY Harbor Heating Oil Energy Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • #2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of 5,643 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position gain of 2,635 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 3,008 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 50.9 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 36.3 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 89.5 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Heating Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:16.246.319.6
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:14.058.69.4
– Net Position:5,643-31,77626,133
– Gross Longs:41,735118,94050,371
– Gross Shorts:36,092150,71624,238
– Long to Short Ratio:1.2 to 10.8 to 12.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):50.936.389.5
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BullishBearishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-4.3-1.513.1

 


Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures Futures:

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of -76,415 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position boost of 315 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -76,730 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 0.3 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 99.7 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 66.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Bloomberg Index Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:43.555.70.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:74.824.60.0
– Net Position:-76,41575,902513
– Gross Longs:106,216135,902538
– Gross Shorts:182,63160,00025
– Long to Short Ratio:0.6 to 12.3 to 121.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):0.399.766.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bearish-ExtremeBullish-ExtremeBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-1.11.2-8.6

 


Article By InvestMacroReceive our weekly COT Reports by Email

*COT Report: The COT data, released weekly to the public each Friday, is updated through the most recent Tuesday (data is 3 days old) and shows a quick view of how large speculators or non-commercials (for-profit traders) were positioned in the futures markets.

The CFTC categorizes trader positions according to commercial hedgers (traders who use futures contracts for hedging as part of the business), non-commercials (large traders who speculate to realize trading profits) and nonreportable traders (usually small traders/speculators) as well as their open interest (contracts open in the market at time of reporting).See CFTC criteria here.

All information and opinions on this website and contained in this article are for general informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice.

The missing link in America’s critical minerals push isn’t mining – it’s processing expertise

By Hélène Nguemgaing, University of Maryland and Alan Collins, West Virginia UniversityThe United States is spending billions of dollars to secure access to critical minerals – minerals and metals that are essential to modern technology, from electric vehicles to smartphones and military systems.

But amid the push to dig more, one question gets far too little attention: Who will actually process what comes out of the ground?

Between mining and the finished product lies a complex chain of separation, refining and advanced manufacturing. Since the 1990s, however, the United States has lost much of its critical mineral processing capacity.

Rebuilding domestic mineral supply chains will depend not only on resource availability and funding, but also on whether the U.S. can rebuild the technical expertise and industrial systems required to process those materials on a large scale.

MP Materials’ Mountain Pass mine and processing facility in California was for years the only U.S. rare earth elements mine.
Tmy350/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

How America lost its lead

The United States was a global leader in rare earth minerals from 1965 through the mid-1980s. It produced about 15,000 metric tons a year, about three times the amount produced by the rest of the world.

The Mountain Pass mine in California supplied the majority of the world’s rare earth elements used in electronics and the defense industry. American metallurgists, chemical engineers and processing facilities had significant expertise in its production and processing.

However, environmental damage, including wastewater pipeline leaks that released radioactive wastewater into the Mojave Desert during the 1980s and 1990s, and tightening regulations increased operating costs in the United States. During that period, much of the world’s manufacturing base for rare earth elements shifted to China, where labor costs were lower and environmental regulations were less stringent.

As production grew abroad, U.S. production of rare earth elements fell sharply – to near zero by the early 2000s, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

In recent years, as much as 90% of the rare earth minerals extracted in the United States and allied countries have been shipped to China for processing. In 2024, the U.S. relied on imports for about 80% of its rare earth compounds and metals.

Why bringing processing back is not simple

The U.S. government is now pushing to increase domestic critical minerals production, citing national security. But building a processing facility is not like opening a warehouse.

These facilities require years of permitting, highly specialized equipment and a workforce trained in metallurgy, chemical engineering and industrial systems operation. The time from investment decision to production can stretch across a decade.

The U.S. currently has two domestic rare earth mining locations. One is in southeast Georgia, which extracts rare earth elements as a byproduct of heavy mineral sand mining. The other is Mountain Pass, which produces bastnaesite, a rare earth carbonate mineral. The mines produced about 51,000 metric tons of rare earth mineral concentrates in 2025, while the U.S. imported about 21,000 metric tons of rare earth compounds, most of them from China, according to 2025 U.S. Geological Survey data.

The U.S. has also lost expertise. Mining and mineral engineering education programs now produce only a few hundred graduates per year, well below the levels of past decades. The number of accredited programs has declined since the 1980s. Many faculty members are nearing retirement.

Industry projections estimate that the mining workforce will need to grow significantly in the coming years to meet rising demand. Specialized skills in areas such as rare earth separation, metallurgical testing and environmental systems design require years of training and practical experience. And while mining can produce high-paying jobs, the industry also has a reputation for environmental damage and hazardous conditions.

Environmental compliance is part of the skill set

Processing critical minerals is a dirty industry. That fact has made it more difficult for processing and refining companies to operate in the U.S.

For example, separating rare earth elements typically involves chemical processing with acids and solvents. When waste streams are poorly managed, these processes can produce toxic wastewater and air pollution and contribute to soil erosion. In parts of China where rare earth production expanded rapidly in the 1990s and 2000s, contamination from mining and processing has polluted rivers and damaged nearby farmland, and the wastewater can seep into soil and groundwater.

In the U.S., modern facilities must meet strict federal and state standards for air quality, water discharge and waste management that raise the cost of processing. These regulations were developed in response to environmental disasters, like the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969, when industrial oil and waste on the river burned, and hazardous waste crises like the Love Canal disaster that led to landmark environmental laws.

Operating a refinery or separation facility in compliance with regulatory standards today requires expertise in pollution control, waste treatment and sustainable process design. That requires a workforce skilled in materials science and engineering and with knowledge of environmental systems. Without environmental expertise, operational risks, regulatory challenges and project delays can increase, affecting long-term viability.

How to build a US supply chain

Rebuilding U.S. supply chains will require more than expanding extraction.

Canada’s critical minerals strategy offers an example. It connects mining projects to battery and electric vehicle manufacturing by funding processing facilities, developing regional supply chain hubs and investing in workforce training programs tied to those industries.

Australia has combined critical minerals policies with incentives and public financing to encourage domestic mineral processing, while also expanding university and vocational training in mining, metallurgy and mineral processing.

The United States has many of the key ingredients needed to rebuild its processing capacity, including research universities and workers with transferable industrial skills. Land-grant and technical universities could expand programs that integrate mining, materials science, environmental restoration and recycling. In regions such as Appalachia, where coal’s decline has left workers with skills but few job opportunities, retraining programs for new mineral recovery jobs could help people transition to a new industry.

A few federal programs support parts of this transition, including research hubs that develop new extraction and processing technologies, apprenticeship initiatives and university-industry partnerships. However, these efforts are spread across multiple agencies, with limited coordination to align priorities and investment.

The real bottleneck

America’s critical minerals strategy is often discussed in terms of geology and geopolitics – where resources are located and who has access to them.

But supply chains depend on people and systems. That’s America’s real bottleneck in creating a domestic supply chain.

A successful domestic supply chain will require workers who know how to separate neodymium from praseodymium, operate solvent extraction circuits and maintain hydrometallurgical plants within regulatory standards. These are highly specialized skills that take years to develop.

The United States has significant mineral resources and growing policy support. Now, it needs to pay attention to the workforce and industrial capacity needed to transform those resources into usable materials.

This gap developed over decades. Addressing it will likely require sustained investment alongside broader mineral policy changes such as permitting reforms and investment in domestic processing facilities.The Conversation

About the Author:

Hélène Nguemgaing, Assistant Clinical Professor of Critical Resources & Sustainability Analytics, University of Maryland and Alan Collins, Professor of Natural Resource Economics, West Virginia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

COT Energy Charts: Speculators push Brent Crude Oil Bearish Bets to lowest since October

By InvestMacro

Speculators OI Energy Futures COT Chart
Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday May 5th and shows a quick view of how large traders (for-profit speculators and commercial entities) were positioned in the futures markets.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by Brent Oil & Gasoline

Speculators Nets Energy Futures COT Chart
The COT energy market speculator bets were mixed this week as three out of the six energy markets we cover had higher positioning while the other three markets had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the energy markets was Brent Oil (16,333 contracts) with Gasoline (2,677 contracts) and Heating Oil (2,022 contracts) also having positive weeks.

The markets with declines in speculator bets for the week were WTI Crude (-13,125 contracts), Bloomberg Index (-1,552 contracts) and Natural Gas (-373 contracts) also seeing lower bets on the week.

Brent Crude Oil Bearish Bets drop to lowest since October

Highlighting Energy futures markets this week is Brent Crude Oil. This market saw a jump by over 16,000 speculative net contracts this week and this market has seen gains in seven out of the past 10 weeks. The Brent Crude Oil futures market traditionally has a negative net large speculator standing due to a lot of hedging activity. This week, however, the market is close to an almost neutral overall position with a total of -9,224 net contracts. This is the least bearish level for Brent Crude Oil since October 2025. Typically, when bets have fallen this low, the oil price is also low. The last two times the net position has been this low, the Brent Crude Oil price has been trading around $60 per barrel. But due to the Iran war, the oil price is currently over $100 per barrel with perhaps more risk to the upside at the moment.

Energy market prices were down across the board this week.

In the Energy markets, In the Energy markets price performances, we saw lower markets all across the board for the week. Heating Oil dipped by -1.43%, followed by the Bloomberg Commodity Index, which fell by -1.63%.

Gasoline was lower by over 2% this week with a -2.02% decline. Natural Gas was also lower by -2.68%. Brent Oil fell by -6.58%, while WTI Crude Oil was the biggest negative returner on the week with a -7.32% decrease.


Energy Data:

Speculators Table Energy Futures COT Chart
Legend: Weekly Speculators Change | Speculators Current Net Position | Speculators Strength Score compared to last 3-Years (0-100 range)


Strength Scores led by Brent Oil & Gasoline

Speculators Strength Energy Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that Brent Oil (68.0 percent) and Gasoline (52.2 percent) lead the energy markets this week.

On the downside, the Bloomberg Index (0.0 percent) comes in at the lowest strength level currently and is in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength score was Natural Gas (25.5 percent).

Strength Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (44.8 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (49.0 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (68.0 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (44.7 percent)
Natural Gas (25.5 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (25.8 percent)
Gasoline (52.2 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (49.2 percent)
Heating Oil (50.9 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (48.3 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (0.0 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (1.6 percent)

 


Brent Oil & Natural Gas top the 6-Week Strength Trends

Speculators Trend Energy Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that Brent Oil (11.9 percent) and Natural Gas (3.8 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for the energy markets.

The Bloomberg Index (-64.9 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with WTI Crude Oil (-17.7 percent) as the next market with lower trend scores.

Move Statistics:
WTI Crude Oil (-17.7 percent) vs WTI Crude Oil previous week (-8.6 percent)
Brent Crude Oil (11.9 percent) vs Brent Crude Oil previous week (-4.3 percent)
Natural Gas (3.8 percent) vs Natural Gas previous week (7.5 percent)
Gasoline (-12.1 percent) vs Gasoline previous week (-22.5 percent)
Heating Oil (-5.1 percent) vs Heating Oil previous week (-15.5 percent)
Bloomberg Commodity Index (-64.9 percent) vs Bloomberg Commodity Index previous week (-62.5 percent)


Individual COT Market Charts:

WTI Crude Oil Futures Futures:

WTI Crude Oil Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • WTI Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 178,786 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position fall of -13,125 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 191,911 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 44.8 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 53.8 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 55.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

WTI Crude Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:18.545.13.8
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:9.855.12.5
– Net Position:178,786-206,15027,364
– Gross Longs:381,542933,44279,154
– Gross Shorts:202,7561,139,59251,790
– Long to Short Ratio:1.9 to 10.8 to 11.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):44.853.855.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-17.718.6-11.9

 


Brent Crude Oil Futures Futures:

Brent Last Day Crude Oil Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Brent Crude Oil Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -9,224 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position advance of 16,333 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -25,557 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 68.0 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 28.6 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 81.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Brent Crude Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:30.932.04.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:34.929.32.8
– Net Position:-9,2246,2033,021
– Gross Longs:71,48574,0799,396
– Gross Shorts:80,70967,8766,375
– Long to Short Ratio:0.9 to 11.1 to 11.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):68.028.681.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BullishBearishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:11.9-14.111.3

 


Natural Gas Futures Futures:

Natural Gas Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Natural Gas Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -166,646 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position lowering of -373 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -166,273 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 25.5 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 79.3 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 37.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Downtrend.

Natural Gas Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:14.635.53.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:24.826.12.6
– Net Position:-166,646153,15013,496
– Gross Longs:237,674578,70855,616
– Gross Shorts:404,320425,55842,120
– Long to Short Ratio:0.6 to 11.4 to 11.3 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):25.579.337.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:3.80.3-16.1

 


Gasoline Blendstock Futures Futures:

RBOB Gasoline Energy Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Gasoline Blendstock Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 58,893 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position lift of 2,677 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 56,216 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 52.2 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 38.5 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 83.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Nasdaq Mini Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:26.747.88.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:7.871.43.8
– Net Position:58,893-73,38214,489
– Gross Longs:83,248149,32926,330
– Gross Shorts:24,355222,71111,841
– Long to Short Ratio:3.4 to 10.7 to 12.2 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):52.238.583.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BullishBearishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-12.110.14.2

 


#2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures Futures:

NY Harbor Heating Oil Energy Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • #2 Heating Oil NY-Harbor Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 5,689 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position lift of 2,022 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 3,667 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 50.9 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 38.4 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 83.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Heating Oil Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:17.447.819.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:15.059.99.2
– Net Position:5,689-29,53723,848
– Gross Longs:42,178115,95646,091
– Gross Shorts:36,489145,49322,243
– Long to Short Ratio:1.2 to 10.8 to 12.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):50.938.483.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BullishBearishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-5.10.110.4

 


Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures Futures:

Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Bloomberg Commodity Index Futures large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -76,636 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position lowering of -1,552 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -75,084 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 0.0 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 63.1 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

Bloomberg Index Futures StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:44.754.50.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:75.424.00.0
– Net Position:-76,63676,162474
– Gross Longs:111,634136,162527
– Gross Shorts:188,27060,00053
– Long to Short Ratio:0.6 to 12.3 to 19.9 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):0.0100.063.1
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bearish-ExtremeBullish-ExtremeBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-64.964.91.8

 


Article By InvestMacroReceive our weekly COT Newsletter

*COT Report: The COT data, released weekly to the public each Friday, is updated through the most recent Tuesday (data is 3 days old) and shows a quick view of how large speculators or non-commercials (for-profit traders) were positioned in the futures markets.

The CFTC categorizes trader positions according to commercial hedgers (traders who use futures contracts for hedging as part of the business), non-commercials (large traders who speculate to realize trading profits) and nonreportable traders (usually small traders/speculators) as well as their open interest (contracts open in the market at time of reporting). See CFTC criteria here.

UAE’s OPEC exit has been long in the works – and may mark the beginning of a Gulf realignment

By Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, Rice University 

The United Arab Emirates’ decision to withdraw from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will leave the oil cartel weakened at a crucial time. It also illustrates the ongoing tensions between the UAE and Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s largest producer and de facto leader.

The UAE announced on April 28, 2026, that it will depart OPEC and OPEC+, an expanded grouping which includes Russia, on May 1, depriving the groups of their third- and fourth-largest oil producer, respectively.

Though the move may seem abrupt, as a close observer of the UAE and intra-Gulf politics, I believe Abu Dhabi’s decision to leave OPEC and go it alone was in the cards for a while and follows years of Abu Dhabi’s complaints about the cartel.

The announcement also follows years of divergence between Emirati and Saudi oil policies, as well as the growth of competitive rivalries between the two countries over wider regional questions. This rift between the two largest Sunni Gulf states burst into the open in December 2025, when competing visions for security in Yemen threatened to reignite civil conflict in the war-torn country.

Unity in the face of Iranian attacks since then should not mask that underlying split, of which the UAE’s OPEC decision is merely the latest manifestation.

The world’s most prominent cartel

OPEC formed in 1960 as a way for the main oil producers to set production limits and therefore control the price of crude around the world.

The UAE has been a member of OPEC since the seven-emirate federation was established in 1971, although Abu Dhabi – the emirate that holds 95% of Emirati oil reserves – has been a member since 1967.

At its height in the mid- and late-1970s, OPEC played a powerful role in reshaping the balance of power between oil producers and consumers, and countering Western dominance in a postcolonial setting of resource nationalization.

While other members have withdrawn from OPEC in recent years – such as Qatar in 2019 and Angola in 2024 – the impact of the UAE’s departure is on a far greater scale, affecting about 12% of OPEC’s total oil output.

Furthermore, the exit of the UAE removes one of the few major swing producers from OPEC, weakening the organization’s ability to respond rapidly to changing market conditions in the future.

Diverging Gulf priorities

The UAE has been signaling a potential split for at least five years, when differences of opinion with Saudi Arabia on how to manage oil policy emerged ahead of a November 2020 OPEC+ summit. The rift became openly visible during a subsequent meeting of OPEC+ countries in July 2021.

In both cases, the UAE wished to increase oil production – which had been sharply curtailed by OPEC members during the COVID-19 pandemic – while the Saudis sought to maintain high prices by keeping output lower and prices higher.

In part, this reflects the different circumstances of the two Gulf nations. The Saudis are reliant on higher oil prices to drive the revenues needed to fund its lavish budget and pay for massive infrastructure projects like its Vision 2030 project. The Emirati economy, on the other hand, is more diversified and less directly dependent on oil revenues.

Instead, Abu Dhabi has invested heavily in recent years to expand capacity to be able to increase oil production from 3.4 million barrels a day before the U.S.-Israel war against Iran to 5 million barrels a day by 2027 – and potentially higher later on. This reflects a desire to monetize its reserves and move the oil to market to avoid the risk of stranded assets should global demand fall in any future transition away from fossil fuels.

Shorn of the constraints of OPEC quotas, which the Emiratis have chafed against for years, officials in Abu Dhabi will be able to increase production should it wish to do so once the impasse with Iran is broken and the Strait of Hormuz fully reopens.

Post-Iran war regional shifts

It is clear that UAE leadership is first and foremost intent on doubling down on the pursuit of its national interests, with an emphasis on prioritizing ties with the U.S. – and likely also Israel – over those with countries that Abu Dhabi feels reflect an old world it is now seeking to leave behind.

While the war in Iran may have temporarily overshadowed the eruption of Saudi-Emirati tensions over Yemen and visions for the region, the rift had not been resolved prior to the U.S. and Israeli launch of military operations on Feb. 28.

Comments by prominent Emiratis have suggested that officials in the UAE have paid close attention to which countries have, in their view, stepped up to assist the UAE in times of crisis, and which have not.

The OPEC decision thus reflects a calculation in Abu Dhabi that there is no longer any utility in remaining part of a Saudi-dominated organization. The UAE’s reconsideration of other memberships, such as the Arab League, Organization of Islamic Conference or even the Gulf Cooperation Council, may be next, as the UAE and other regional countries begin to think ahead to an uncertain post-war landscape.The Conversation

About the Author:

Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, Fellow for the Middle East at the Baker Institute, Rice University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

What’s in the price of a gallon of gas?

By Robert I. Harris, Georgia Institute of Technology 

The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects nationwide retail gasoline prices to average near US$4.30 a gallon for April 2026 – the highest monthly average of the year. The political response has been familiar. Georgia has suspended its state gas tax, other states are weighing their own tax holidays, and the White House has issued a temporary waiver of a law known as the Jones Act in hopes of moving more domestic fuel to East Coast ports.

As an energy economist, I am often asked about what contributes to gas prices and what different policies can do to affect them.

The price of a retail gallon of gas is the sum of four things: the cost of crude oil, refining, distribution and marketing, and taxes.

In nationwide figures from January 2026, crude oil accounted for about 51% of the pump price, refining roughly 20%, distribution and marketing about 11% and taxes about 18%. That mix shifts with conditions: When crude oil prices spike, that can drive more than 60% of the price; when the price drops, taxes and logistics are larger shares of the cost.

Crude oil is the biggest ingredient

Because the price of crude oil is the largest element, most of the price at the pump is derived from the global oil market.

Usually, big swings in crude prices come mainly from shifts in global demand and expectations – not from supply disruptions, according to widely cited research in 2009 by the economist Lutz Kilian.

But what is happening in early 2026 with the war in Iran is one of the exceptions: a classic supply shock. Severe disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on Middle East oil infrastructure have taken millions of barrels a day off the global market.

Most drivers generally can’t quickly reduce how much they drive or how much gas they use when prices rise, so gasoline demand doesn’t change much in the short run. That means a jump in crude costs tends to result in people paying more rather than driving less.

Refining, regulations and the California puzzle

Refining turns crude into gasoline at industrial scale. The U.S. doesn’t have a single gasoline market, though. Roughly a quarter of U.S. gasoline is a cleaner-burning blend of petroleum-derived chemicals called “reformulated gasoline,” which is required in urban areas across 17 states and the District of Columbia to reduce smog.

California uses an even stricter formulation that few out-of-state refineries make. California is also geographically isolated: No pipelines bring gasoline in from other U.S. refining regions.

California’s gasoline prices have long run above the national average, explained in part by higher state taxes and stricter environmental rules. But since a refinery fire in Torrance, California, in 2015 reduced production capacity, the state’s prices have been about 20 to 30 cents a gallon higher than what those factors would indicate.

Energy economist and University of California, Berkeley, professor Severin Borenstein has called this the “mystery gasoline surcharge” and attributes it to the fact that there isn’t as much competition between refineries or gas stations in California as in other states. California’s own Division of Petroleum Market Oversight says the surcharge cost the state’s drivers about $59 billion from 2015 to 2024. It’s not exactly clear who is getting that money, but it could be gas stations themselves or refineries, through complex contracts with gas stations.

Getting the gas into your car

The distribution and marketing category covers the costs of everything involved in getting the gasoline from the refinery gate to your tank.

Gasoline moves by pipeline, ship, rail and truck to wholesale terminals, and then by local delivery truck to service stations.

At the retailer’s end, the key factors are station rent and labor, the cost to buy gasoline in bulk to be able to sell it, credit card fees of as much as 6 to 10 cents a gallon at current prices, and franchise fees paid to the national brand, such as Sunoco or ExxonMobil, for permission to put their branding on the gas station.

Most gas station operators net only a few cents per gallon on fuel itself – which is why many gas stations are really convenience stores with pumps out front. Borenstein and some of his collaborators have also documented that retail gas prices rise quickly when wholesale costs climb but fall slowly when wholesale costs drop.

The question of gas tax holidays

The federal government charges a tax on fuel, of 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline and 24.3 cents a gallon for diesel. States charge their own taxes, ranging from 70.9 cents a gallon for gas in California to 8.95 cents in Alaska.

When gas prices rise, many politicians start talking about temporarily suspending their state’s gas tax. That does reduce prices, but not as much as politicians – or consumers – might hope. Research on past gas tax holidays has found that consumers get about 79% of the reduction in gas taxes. That means oil companies and fuel retailers keep about one-fifth of the tax cut for themselves rather than passing that savings to the public.

Gas tax holidays also reduce funding for what the taxes are designed to pay for, typically roads and bridges. That pushes road and bridge upkeep costs onto future drivers and general taxpayers.

There is an additional problem, too: Taxes on gasoline are supposed to charge drivers for some of the costs their driving imposes on everyone else – carbon emissions, local air pollution, congestion and crashes. But Borenstein has found that U.S. fuel tax levels are already far below the true cost to society. Removing the tax on drivers effectively raises the costs for everyone else.

The Jones Act: A small number that adds up

The 1920 Jones Act is a federal law that requires cargo moving between U.S. ports to travel on vessels built and registered in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed primarily by U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Of the world’s 7,500 oil tankers, only 54 meet this requirement. Only 43 of these can transport refined fuels such as gasoline.

So, despite significant refining capacity on the Gulf Coast, some U.S. gasoline is exported overseas even as the Northeast imports fuel, in part reflecting the relatively high cost of moving fuel between U.S. ports.

Economists Ryan Kellogg and Rich Sweeney estimate that the law raises East Coast gasoline prices by about a penny and a half per gallon on average, costing drivers roughly $770 million a year. In light of the war’s effect on gas prices, the Trump administration has temporarily suspended the Jones Act requirements – an action more commonly taken when hurricanes knock out Gulf Coast refineries and pipeline networks.

What moves the number

The result of all these factors is that the price that drivers see at the pump mostly reflects the global price of crude, plus a stack of domestic costs, only some of which are inefficient.

Tax holidays give a partial, short-lived rebate. Jones Act waivers trim pennies, though permanent repeal may cause more fundamental changes, such as reduced rail and truck transport of all goods, which could lower costs, emissions and infrastructure damage associated with cargo transportation. Harmonizing fuel blends across states and seasons may lower prices somewhat, but likely at the expense of increased emissions.

Ultimately, the best protection against oil price shocks is a more efficient gas-burning vehicle, or one that doesn’t burn gasoline at all. In the meantime, the best I can offer as an economist is clarity about what that $4.30 actually buys.The Conversation

About the Author:

Robert I. Harris, Assistant Professor of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.