CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

One of the reasons why the price of oil failed to soar during the "actively kinetic" phase of the Iran war, when shipments through Hormuz were effectively halted and the world faced a shortage of about 10-15mmb/d, is that Chinese oil demand plunged. Whether due to a sharp slowdown in the economy (which after the sudden "recap" of China's banks appears very likely) or due to an aggressive drain of China's strategic reserve, the reality is that, as discussed here extensively, both Chinese oil imports...

... and local product refining...

... cratered for much of 2026, signaling that Chinese oil demand has indeed plunged.

But no more: one of the telltale signs of the period of weak Chinese demand was the collapse in the Brent-Shanghai crude spread, which traded as negative as -$20 in late April. However, in the past few weeks, we have seen a dramatic jump in Shanghai crude, which is trading just shy of the highest level hit since the Iran war, well above $100. More importantly, it now trading a sizable premium to Brent, indicating that the period of weak Chinese demand is finally over. 

And sure enough, as Bloomberg report, China - the world's largest oil importer - is now aggressively bidding up crude prices across Africa, Canada, and Latin American markets as disruptions in the Hormuz chokepoint and limited Iranian supplies intensify competition for alternatives. The scramble is squeezing smaller Chinese refineries that once relied on heavily discounted Iranian barrels; the same refineries simply shut down a few months ago when there was not enough domestic demand.

But now, something has finally flipped, and demand for oil is suddenly soaring, sending Shanghai crude above $100 and threatening to push Brent prices - earlier today rising above $97 for the first time in over a month - also above $100 for the first time since May. 

The renewed Chinese buying marks a major shift from a period when subdued Chinese buying helped restrain crude oil prices. With Iranian exports almost entirely shut off by the US blockade and fighting flaring again, as seen Monday when Saudi Aramco's Jizan oil facilities were reportedly hit, the race to find replacement supplies around the world is becoming an increasingly expensive task for the Chinese. 

Here is what some traders who spoke with Bloomberg had to say: 

The turnaround is producing spikes in the price of various grades. Congo's Djeno crude was offered to Chinese buyers at premiums of as high as $20 a barrel over ICE Brent this week, up from around $15 a couple of weeks ago, according to traders who asked not to be named as they're not authorized to speak to the media.

Chinese buyers are also buying tanker loads of crude from Canada, Brazil, and Argentina, while stronger demand has lifted prices for Russia's ESPO crude. Asian buyers are also pushing Dubai crude futures toward $100 per barrel.  

While Chinese seaborne crude imports are still below prewar levels and are currently trending toward 10 million barrels per day, the Shanghai crude spread indicates that imports are aggressively rising, and that the race for alternative supplies may still intensify. 

Bloomberg pointed out that the rebound in crude imports comes as refinery math improves and inventories are being rebuilt in China. Improved processing margins, the resumption of fuel exports, and commercial restocking are encouraging refiners to ramp up purchases, according to GL Consulting founder Liao Na. 

Smaller independent refiners, known as teapots, face the greatest pressure because their traditional sourcing channels for Iranian and Venezuelan crude have eroded this year as access to those supplies has collapsed amid the Trump administration's push to rewire global energy markets. 

Liao said, "China's robust buying lately is largely driven by refiners taking advantage of decent margins," adding, "Active restocking by commercial players has also helped, but it’s not necessarily a sign of stronger underlying demand that’s supporting the recovery."

Separately, Goldman Sachs energy expert Daan Struyven expects China's ability to adjust purchases to prices to help moderate any spikes in crude prices, although he also warned that Brent may rally to as much as $120 a barrel if attacks on shipping in the Middle East increase.

“Events over the last few days do suggest that the risk of shipping disruptions broadening and intensifying is an important one,” Daan Struyven, co-head of global commodities research, said in an interview on Bloomberg TV.

Goldman's preferred way to trade another oil spike is buy going long natural gas and diesel as a way to capture gains:  “While we see meaningful upside to crude oil prices, we do recommend to investors to hedge geopolitical risks by going long in global natural gas and refined-oil products,” Struyven said, referring to bets on gains. “The supply shocks are bigger than in the crude market.”

Late last month, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney walked away from a trade deal with the United States. According to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Canada was "offered the best trade deal of any country on the globe," but Carney abandoned the deal "at the last minute."

According to the White House, "the U.S. offered Canada the most preferential market access of any country on Earth, with deep cuts on steel, aluminum, autos, lumber, and more. Instead of partnership, Canada chose unreasonable demands, walk-backs, and flat-out rejection." Canada responded with retaliation rather than negotiation, becoming the only other country besides China to do so.

And the reason is that Canada is trying to influence the 2026 midterm elections in the United States.

After the trade negotiations failed, Canadian officials announced that tariffs of up to 50% will hit roughly 700 American products starting September 8, covering close to $20 billion in goods, about 7% of everything Canada imports from the United States. The rates range from 15% to 50%, and tariffs on American steel and aluminum will double from 25% to 50%. This was a targeted economic strike meant to hit key states before the midterm elections.

Ottawa has barely bothered to deny it. Canadian Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said the tariffs were built to apply political pressure on specific states, telling reporters: "We are also targeting products that can target specific states in the United States. We are being smart and strategic in order to apply political pressure, and I think it's the right thing to do right now."

Asked directly about the political intent by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Joly did not walk it back: "We are putting pressure clearly on different states and different people. We don't want to do that. We don't want this trade war. We didn't start it."

The target list reads like a midterm map. Cheese products from Wisconsin. Washers and dryers from Kentucky, where GE Appliances is a major employer. Steel, aluminum and auto parts from Michigan. The Wall Street Journal reported that Canadian officials designed the package to protect domestic industry and to "sting President Trump and his Republican Party" heading into November.

"The states that are most reliant on Canada as an export market are often the northern-tier states - Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire," Ed Gresser told the Wall Street Journal. He argued that Canada is "trying to show the Republican party that there's a systemic cost to doing this sort of thing."

Trade consultant Eric Miller, who heads the Washington-based Rideau Potomac Strategy Group, said Canada picked targets with available substitutes, either domestic production or imports from Mexico and China, items like air conditioners and appliances, while simultaneously hitting producers in swing states and reliably Republican territory.

Nowhere was the targeting clearer than Maine, and nowhere did it collapse faster. Ottawa's original list carried a 25% tariff on American lobster, set to bite during the fall season when roughly half of Maine's catch goes to Canadian processors. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), facing re-election in November, had already warned that the trade war would hurt her state. The Maine Lobstermen's Association warned on Aug. 26 that the duty would land at the worst possible moment for an industry running on thin margins.

One day later, Canada removed seafood and fish products from the list entirely, citing "select adjustments" made "based on feedback" while insisting it was maintaining a dollar-for-dollar response. Collins applauded the reversal. Ottawa aimed at a vulnerable Republican senator's most iconic industry, took one day of political heat from that state, and backed off - which tells you the aim was never really about lobster.

The rest of the list is still standing.

Desjardins Capital Markets economist Royce Mendes estimates that the tariffs could add about 0.2 percentage points to Canadian inflation, already near 3%. The central bank is already managing higher energy costs and the risk of a slowdown, which makes this move extremely complicated for Canada, and, according to Corpay chief market strategist Karl Schamotta, Canada's strategy may backfire.

"An intensified trade war will hurt the country more than the U.S.," Schamotta explained. "Countertariffs will not help. In Canada, just as in the U.S., they are effectively taxes on domestic consumption. They raise the cost of living while doing little to shift trade balances or improve overall economic welfare."

Authored by Juan Galt via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The Liquid Network said Sunday that purported white-hat hackers withdrew about 4,000 bitcoin, worth about $320 million, from the federation wallet that backs L-BTC.

Bridge nodes were disabled, and the sidechain was paused. Other issued assets, including USDT, DePix and RWAs, were unaffected, the official account said on X.

The Liquid Network is a federated sidechain of Bitcoin, founded by Adam Back’s Blockstream. The Liquid chain issues a variety of assets such as LBTC, which it backs with BTC on the Bitcoin main chain, held in a large multisig of 15 corporate and known members. 11 of the 15 members need to sign a valid multi-signature transaction to move coins from the treasury. Before the hack, the treasury held over 4200 BTC; after the hack, Blockstream’s proof of reserves page reports a little over 207 BTC left. 

The hackers withdrew 4,019.4 BTC from the reserve address in a peg-out transaction using the SideSwap Peg-out Authorization Key. SideWap is a bridge exchange and a member of the Liquid Federation. While details on the mechanism of the hack are not confirmed yet, it appears an inflation bug on the LBTC side chain was exploited by the hackers to create over 4,000 LBTC that did not exist before, and cash them out for on-chain bitcoin from the federation. Because the transaction appeared as valid, given the consensus bug, the federation members’ HSM security servers signed the BTC withdrawal transaction, worth roughly 320 million at the time. 

The hacker moved the funds to an address ending in 6gyqjlte, from which they quickly signed a new transaction with a message on the OP_RETURN arbitrary data field saying “we are whitehats. contact us on chain.” Those coins were still at that address at the time of writing.

A small mainnet transaction to the hacker address followed by an OP_RETURN saying “Please contact security@blockstream.com”, presumably from a Blockstream public address, though that remains unconfirmed. A later OP_RETURN spend from the hacker address carried “Please contact us on Signal @m671aw.70”, however, this may be spam and does not share a link to the address with the stolen funds.

In response to the breach, exchanges were told to pause L-BTC deposits and withdrawals. Bridge nodes on the Liquid Network have been paused, limiting access to the side chain, which continues to produce blocks. 

JAN3 CEO Samson Mow said Aqua’s Liquid features were affected and that on-chain bitcoin still worked. Other wallets in the industry that use the Liquid Network are expected to be affected. Users holding LBTC now effectively have their savings at risk, since the underlying BTC is currently not redeemable. Given the private nature of the Liquid chain, user onchain analytics are scarce and not much public information is known about how much LBTC is held by retail users versus corporations of Blockstream itself. Nevertheless, should the funds not be returned, it would be a heavy blow to the Liquid Network’s user base.

Users of LBTC don’t have many options but to wait for conversations with the hackers to resolve. Given the size of the hack, it would be difficult for the hackers to get away with stealing all that bitcoin, though perhaps not impossible.

What may happen is that the hackers ask for a finder’s fee and return the majority of the funds. 

Iron ore futures in Singapore surged above $100 a ton, the highest level since mid-July, as tightening Chinese coking coal supplies lifted steelmaking costs and early signs of improving seasonal demand supported prices across the steel supply chain.

Rafael Barcellos, head of Latin American metals and mining, pulp and paper equity research at Bradesco BBI, wrote in a note last week that the coal squeeze is helping support steel prices, with rebar and hot-rolled coil reaching multi-month highs. Improving downstream conditions are, in turn, providing support for iron ore.

Barcellos pointed to China's August manufacturing purchasing managers' index as another encouraging economic signal. 

Iron ore inventories also continued to decline, spot activity at Chinese steel-trading houses increased for a second consecutive week, and steelmaker margins improved. Blast furnace utilization, however, declined for a second week, tempering the recovery picture.

Barcellos flagged a recovery: 

Even so, the recovery we flagged in VALE: Calling the Iron Ore Bottom? Attractive Asymmetry After 2Q26 Results is now playing out, with prices largely rebounding from the lows of the past couple of weeks — a trend we expect to persist amid firm cost support and improving downstream conditions. 

Barcellos' trade recommendation: 

Against this backdrop, we continue to favor Vale and Ternium over CSN, Gerdau, and Usiminas.

China's prolonged property downturn has weakened a major source of steel demand, weighing on iron ore prices despite periodic rebounds. 

The latest recovery to $100 a ton raises the question of whether improving seasonal conditions can translate into a sustained demand growth story, keeping prices in triple-digit territory. 

In the metals complex on Monday, London copper futures reached a new high of $14,530 a ton. For further context, we direct readers to our note, "The Copper Chart Causing Alarm."

Professional subscribers can read much more about the latest metals space here on our new Marketdesk.ai portal. 

The House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced six nuclear-industry bills on September 2nd, all without a single opposing vote. The measures target fuel recycling, uranium enrichment, licensing delays, regulatory staffing and transparency.

The vote to get it to the House floor is another testament to the lack of divide among the Republicans and Democrats regarding the need for more nuclear energy in America.

As we highlighted in a report from Goldman, the Western nuclear revival is gathering momentum across microreactors, small modular reactors and larger designs. But turning announcements into operating infrastructure requires fuel supplies and a regulatory system capable of processing the projects.

The six bills pushed to the House attempt to address at least some of the standing issues:

• H.R. 3978, Nuclear REFUEL Act, 44 yes - 0 no. This would simplify licensing for facilities that recycle spent nuclear fuel without isolating plutonium. Qualifying projects could use the single-step fuel-cycle licensing route instead of separate construction and operating approvals. The potential payoff is a clearer path to reusing nuclear material and developing domestic recycling capacity.
• H.R. 9612, American Enrichment Deployment Act, 43-0. Enrichment plants would receive treatment closer to other fuel-cycle facilities, including permission to begin construction before licensing under the same conditions. Developers would build at their own risk, but NRC approval would still be required. The aim is to bring additional domestic enrichment capacity online sooner.
• H.R. 5549, Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act, 44-0. This removes mandatory hearings when nobody with an affected interest requests one and requires informal procedures for covered hearings. It’s an opportunity to trim legal costs and delays without making public participation disappear.
• H.R. 9613, Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act, 41-0. This refocuses the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards on significant, novel reactor-design safety issues and changes membership and term rules. The idea is to reduce repetitive reviews.
• H.R. 9614, NRC Staff Pay Alignment Act, 42-0. The NRC chairman could pay career senior executives up to 110% of the applicable Senior Executive Service pay ceiling. It gives the regulator more room to retain experienced leadership as the industry competes for expertise.
• H.R. 9084, Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act, 41-0. DOE would have to announce covered nuclear-facility authorizations and safety-rule changes, and publish safety analyses, within 72 hours. It's unclear what the real benefit of this one is besides maybe providing more opportunity for nuclear skeptics to complain about faster regulatory actions. More transparency can be a good thing, but the benefit is less clear in this situation.

In July, ranking Democrat Frank Pallone, and even AOC, singled out the advisory-committee overhaul over concerns about weakening safety oversight. Pallone also sought implementation changes to the enrichment bill, while crediting the transparency measure with helping keep bipartisan nuclear legislation moving.

Surprisingly, those concerns never translated into recorded opposition at the full committee.

All this goes to highlight the dramatic change in opinion for the expansion of nuclear energy generating capacity in the US in recent years... 

Gallup found in 2025 that 61% of Americans favor nuclear energy, only a single point away from the highest level recorded in the poll's three-decade history. Gallop then ran a similar poll in April 2026, asking whether the U.S. should put more emphasis on various energy sources…

Nuclear was the only one of the six energy sources Gallup tested whose "more emphasis" support increased since 2021.