2026 Jan-Jul U.S. Imports of 2709002090 - Import Review
U.S. Customs import records, January-July 2026. Product data supplied by gTrade Data.
2026 Jan-Jul U.S. Imports of 2709002090
Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, testing 25 degrees API or more, crude, not elsewhere specified or included.
CIF value: $29.07B | 355,875,182 barrels | 33,730,518.8 reported secondary units | average $81.68 per barrel
Canada supplies 53.1% | Chicago, IL accounts for 15.9% of CIF value | July volume was 32.4% below January
Leading origins
Share of total CIF value · 0–100% scale
Leading districts
Share of total CIF value · 0–100% scale
Source: gTrade Data | Period: January-July 2026 | Value in CIF and FOB USD
This review covers U.S. imports under HS 2709002090 from January through July 2026. It examines import value, reported quantity, unit value, monthly movement, origin concentration and customs district distribution.
Two features define the period. Import spending remained near $4B per month even as reported volume contracted, and Canada retained a dominant position in the supply mix.
📌What the seven-month period looked like
Scale. Imports reached $29.07B in CIF value and 355.9M reported barrels. The weighted average CIF value was $81.68 per barrel.
Value held up while volume fell. July CIF value was 4.0% above January, but reported volume was 32.4% lower.
Unit value rose sharply. CIF value per barrel increased from $63.89 in January to $98.35 in July and peaked at $104.92 in June.
Canada anchors supply. Canada supplied $15.43B, equal to 53.1% of total CIF value. The top three origins accounted for 75.2%.
📈1. Monthly Import Data, January-July 2026
Monthly CIF value, reported barrels, secondary quantity, FOB value, CIF value per barrel and month-over-month change.
| Month | CIF USD | Barrels | Secondary qty | FOB USD | CIF per barrel | MoM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3,956,080,818 | 61,916,319 | 6,115,202.2 | 3,800,732,914 | $63.89 | n/a |
| February | 3,624,657,088 | 54,880,669 | 6,009,204.5 | 3,476,967,757 | $66.05 | -8.38% |
| March | 4,042,447,598 | 56,492,963 | 6,067,889.6 | 3,891,183,407 | $71.56 | +11.53% |
| April | 4,590,766,904 | 54,915,225 | 4,549,662.9 | 4,429,848,907 | $83.60 | +13.56% |
| May | 4,264,065,201 | 43,183,194 | 4,039,359.5 | 4,138,038,448 | $98.74 | -7.12% |
| June | 4,474,404,043 | 42,644,779 | 3,570,273.5 | 4,362,530,406 | $104.92 | +4.93% |
| July | 4,115,053,586 | 41,842,033 | 3,378,926.5 | 4,005,855,182 | $98.35 | -8.03% |
| Total | 29,067,475,238 | 355,875,182 | 33,730,518.8 | 28,105,157,021 | $81.68 | n/a |
April recorded the highest monthly CIF value at $4.59B. February was the lowest at $3.62B. The stronger value readings from April onward were not supported by higher reported barrel volume. Unit value was the main offset.
🌍2. Partner Countries and Entry Districts
Top partner countries by value
| Rank | Country | CIF value | Barrels | CIF per barrel | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Canada | $15.43B | 188,863,331 | $81.72 | 53.09% |
| 2 | Saudi Arabia | $3.49B | 47,649,831 | $73.19 | 12.00% |
| 3 | Guyana | $2.92B | 31,502,163 | $92.82 | 10.06% |
| 4 | Argentina | $1.20B | 13,379,457 | $89.51 | 4.12% |
| 5 | Mexico | $1.15B | 14,415,371 | $79.90 | 3.96% |
| 6 | Nigeria | $1.10B | 12,087,240 | $90.90 | 3.78% |
| 7 | Iraq | $782.8M | 13,067,666 | $59.90 | 2.69% |
| 8 | Brazil | $781.0M | 8,968,364 | $87.09 | 2.69% |
| 9 | Libya | $749.1M | 8,759,246 | $85.52 | 2.58% |
| 10 | Ghana | $477.0M | 5,267,319 | $90.56 | 1.64% |
⚓ Top entry districts by value
| Rank | District | CIF value | Barrels | CIF per barrel | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chicago, IL | $4.63B | 60,191,323 | $76.94 | 15.93% |
| 2 | Seattle, WA | $3.80B | 47,206,981 | $80.54 | 13.08% |
| 3 | New York City, NY | $3.45B | 38,553,466 | $89.39 | 11.86% |
| 4 | Philadelphia, PA | $3.38B | 38,528,605 | $87.68 | 11.62% |
| 5 | San Francisco, CA | $3.01B | 34,709,380 | $86.67 | 10.35% |
| 6 | Los Angeles, CA | $2.31B | 26,126,118 | $88.37 | 7.94% |
| 7 | Port Arthur, TX | $2.12B | 30,739,287 | $68.89 | 7.29% |
| 8 | Great Falls, MT | $1.82B | 24,352,343 | $74.56 | 6.25% |
| 9 | Detroit, MI | $1.59B | 17,977,647 | $88.57 | 5.48% |
| 10 | Mobile, AL | $683.4M | 8,828,608 | $77.41 | 2.35% |
🔎3. Reading the Numbers
Canada is the structural anchor
Canada accounts for more than half of CIF value and reported barrels. This concentration creates efficient established supply but also makes overall market performance sensitive to Canadian availability, transport conditions and pricing.
Value resilience came from unit value
Reported barrels fell in five of the six month-to-month comparisons. CIF value did not decline at the same rate because CIF value per barrel increased sharply through June. The period should therefore be read as price-supported spend rather than volume-led expansion.
Entry activity is more distributed than origin supply
The top three districts accounted for 40.9% of CIF value, well below the top-three origin share of 75.2%. The wider district spread may support routing flexibility, but the source does not identify specific origin-to-district routes or spare capacity.
🧭4. Trend Assessment
What works in its favour
Monthly CIF value remained between $3.62B and $4.59B.
Ten listed origins represented 96.6% of total value, with several suppliers outside Canada contributing meaningful scale.
Entry activity was distributed across inland, coastal and border districts.
Where it is fragile
Canada alone supplied 53.1% of CIF value.
Falling barrel volume may constrain growth if unit values soften.
Average unit values differ materially by origin and district, indicating mix and logistics effects that should not be treated as identical-product price changes.
Trend outlook
The near-term signal is a high-value, lower-volume market. Subsequent months should be assessed through both barrel volume and CIF value per barrel. A decline in both measures would be more consequential than the volume contraction observed through July.
✅5. Recommendations
Origin strategy
Protect Canadian supply relationships while testing practical alternatives among Saudi Arabia, Guyana, Mexico and other listed origins.
Monitor the top-three origin share monthly. A rising share would increase concentration exposure.
Compare crude grade, contract terms and freight conditions before treating country-level unit values as price benchmarks.
Pricing and risk management
Budget with separate volume and unit-value assumptions.
Track the CIF-to-FOB spread, which averaged approximately 3.4% over the period.
Use grade-level and shipment-level evidence for hedging or procurement decisions.
Channel resilience
Assess capacity and lead times across Chicago, Seattle, New York City, Philadelphia and San Francisco.
Confirm origin-to-district routing before combining supplier and gateway disruption scenarios.
ℹ️Data Notes
HS classification. All figures refer to HS 2709002090.
Source. Big Trade Data based on the supplied U.S. import workbook.
Period. January-July 2026, seven months.
Units. Values are in U.S. dollars. Primary quantity is treated as barrels. The secondary quantity label should be confirmed against the source metadata before external publication.
Market share. Origin or district CIF value divided by total period CIF value.
MoM. Current month CIF value divided by prior month CIF value minus one.
🎯Bottom line
U.S. imports of HS 2709002090 totaled $29.07B in CIF value from January through July 2026. Canada supplied 53.1% of value. Reported barrel volume fell 32.4% from January to July, while CIF value per barrel increased 53.9%. The market remained large and financially resilient, but the data points to concentration risk and greater sensitivity to unit value than to volume growth.