Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
European Oil Markets
15JUN

Brent whipsaws as spreads ignore deal

4 min read
11:33UTC

Brent fell to $77.73 on 18 June as the US-Iran framework signed, bounced to $80.57 when the Switzerland talks collapsed, then eased near $80, while the structural spreads barely moved.

EconomicDeveloping
Key takeaway

Brent oscillated on diplomacy while Brent-WTI and the Brent-Dubai EFS stayed flat, refusing the war premium.

Brent crude fell through its 17 June three-month low of $78.96 to $77.73 a barrel in Asian trade on 18 June as the US-Iran framework signed, then bounced to $80.57 on Friday 19 June when the Switzerland technical talks collapsed, and eased back near $80 by 22 June 1 2. Brent is the global benchmark that prices roughly two-thirds of traded crude. The two-day oscillation netted a subdued move, leaving it barely above the level it had broken a week earlier when it dropped 4% to $85.80 intraday on 12 June .

The structural spreads tell the real story, because they barely re-priced. Brent-WTI, the gap between the European benchmark and US West Texas Intermediate, held near $3 a barrel at the lower end of its $3 to $4 band, with WTI still tightened by the run of weekly US crude draws 3. The Brent-Dubai EFS, the exchange-of-futures-for-swaps spread that measures relative demand between Atlantic and Gulf crude grades, did not re-widen on the reopening.

A desk that wanted to put Hormuz risk back on after one failed negotiation would have paid up through the EFS to do it, and it did not. Flat price is the only thing the framework moved, and it moved it by a net $1.61 a barrel off the 17 June low. The spreads that price the physical and relative-demand reality stayed where they were, which is the market declining to re-price a war premium on a single collapsed session.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Two numbers help explain why the oil price barely moved when a ceasefire was announced. First, Brent crude fell to $77.73 when the deal was signed on 18 June, then jumped back to $80.57 when peace talks collapsed the next day, and then eased near $80 by 22 June. The net move over five days was small because traders had already guessed what would happen: they sold in advance when talks looked likely, and bought back when they fell apart. Second, a specialist price gap called the Brent-Dubai spread failed to re-widen when the Hormuz news landed. That spread measures whether Asian or Atlantic crude buyers are more eager. Its failure to move means Asian buyers (mainly China) were not rushing to bid for Gulf oil even when a ceasefire seemed possible, because they had already filled their storage tanks and reduced purchases.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Brent's two-day oscillation between $77.73 and $80.57 netted a subdued $1.61/bbl move for three structural reasons.

The CFTC's week-to-9-June data showed WTI managed money had rebuilt to +94,725 net long at entries well above current screens, meaning a large position sat on $15-18 adverse moves as Brent approached $77.73. That trapped-long overhang capped the rally from the MOU signing: covering rather than adding was the rational trade. The 20 June COT report (delayed to 22 June by Juneteenth) was the decisive position-flush data point not yet available in this window.

Simultaneously, the Brent-Dubai EFS failed to re-widen on the MOU signing because the Brent-Dubai differential responds to Asian vs Atlantic crude demand, not to Gulf supply expectations alone. With Chinese seaborne imports at their lowest May level in nearly a decade, the EFS had no demand-side catalyst to widen on an optimistic political reading of supply.

The Lukoil-ISAB GL 131F clock running to 27 June provided a competing supply-loss risk that partially offset the Hormuz-easing thesis in the same session window.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    The CFTC COT for the week to 17 June (delayed to 22 June by Juneteenth) will show whether the $94,725 WTI managed-money net long was flushed in the $15-18 adverse move. If the long was cleared, there is no residual position overhang to cap a rally on genuine Hormuz reopening news.

  • Risk

    If the Lukoil-ISAB GL 131F clock lapses on 27 June without an OFAC transaction licence (ID:4330), the 320kbd Priolo Gargallo refinery faces stranding, creating a discrete European product-supply shock that flat-price crude markets have not priced.

First Reported In

Update #10 · Hormuz opened on paper, freight said no

Al Jazeera· 22 Jun 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
Sanctions compliance officer reviewing a Lukoil International GmbH bid
Sanctions compliance officer reviewing a Lukoil International GmbH bid
OFAC's amended FAQ 1224 gives a compliance desk its first published standard: full severance from Lukoil and a US-jurisdiction blocked account for sale proceeds. The conditions name neither ISAB nor Italy, so a Priolo Gargallo-linked bid answers a different question than a Neftochim Burgas or Petrotel Ploiesti one.
Managed-money funds on Brent Last Day
Managed-money funds on Brent Last Day
CFTC data for the week to 21 July showed managed money flipping 74,400 contracts to a net long of 15,665 against 1,410 short on the Brent Last Day contract, code 06765T. A fund that held that short through July has now covered it, and the spent short base raises the bar for the next leg higher.
Saudi crude exporters
Saudi crude exporters
Saudi-linked tanker transits through Bab el-Mandeb fell to about 7.5 a day after the 24 July underwriting withdrawal, pushing more barrels onto the longer route round the Cape or through the Yanbu terminal. Every diverted barrel ties up a ship for longer, and a fleet that turns slower charges more.
Tanker owners on the Bab el-Mandeb route
Tanker owners on the Bab el-Mandeb route
Lloyd's-market syndicates withdrew war-risk cover from Saudi-linked hulls on 24 July, leaving owners of that class of vessel to sail Bab el-Mandeb uninsured or not at all. Tanker transits on the route fell to roughly 7.5 a day, and cover, once withdrawn, does not return on a shipowner's timetable.
Eni
Eni
Eni's board approved second-quarter results on 29 July, swinging refining EBIT to a EUR0.08bn profit from a year-earlier loss even as group profit doubled, and named Red Sea freight cost as a cap on that improvement. A refiner absorbing higher shipping costs on Saudi-linked crude while its numbers improve treats the freight line as a drag, not a crisis.
Asian buyers (India, Japan, China, South Korea)
Asian buyers (India, Japan, China, South Korea)
Asian refiners are absorbing 62% of Yanbu's 3.75m b/d flow, the bulk of Saudi Arabia's rerouted crude now clearing east rather than into the Atlantic basin. That destination split leaves Asian buyers more exposed to any single Yanbu-specific disruption than under the kingdom's normal multi-terminal export pattern.