12JUN

Brent touches $100 on expiry, closes at $97.91

3 min read

09:18UTC

Lowdown Wire

← Back to Trump halts strikes, touts deal Iran denies Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Brent closed 45 per cent above the pre-war baseline after a 21 April round trip through the $100 handle.

Brent Crude briefly crossed $100 per barrel on expiry morning on 21 April before retreating to $97.91 by close after Trump's extension post landed ¹. The close sits 45 per cent above the $67.41 pre-war baseline. Goldman Sachs's $120 Q3 severe scenario remains the operative forecast frame across sell-side desks.

Monday's 7 per cent surge to $96.88 on early extension hope gave Tuesday's market the exit-trigger test, and the trigger was identified as unreachable faster than the futures curve could reprice. The four-dollar round-trip through the $100 handle tracked the moment the market parsed the Truth Social text: blockade continues, unified-proposal condition unmet, tanker risk at the Hormuz gate unchanged. Dated Brent's refusal to settle below $96 across five sessions now is what a blockade-continues price looks like once traders stop pricing a near-term diplomatic resolution.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Oil is priced in US dollars per barrel on global markets. Before Iran's conflict with the US began, a barrel of Brent crude (the international benchmark) cost $67.41. On 21 April it briefly crossed $100 before settling at $97.91 , a 45% increase. The jump to $100 and rapid retreat happened because markets were testing whether Trump's social media post meant the war was genuinely winding down. When traders read the post carefully and saw the blockade was still in place, the price pulled back. But it did not fall far, because the underlying blockade risk had not changed. Higher oil prices feed through to petrol and diesel costs within weeks, and also raise the price of goods that are transported or manufactured using energy.

What could happen next?

Risk
Goldman Sachs's $120 Q3 severe scenario remains live if OFAC designations follow the GL-U lapse and target specific Chinese buyers, which would remove China's demand cushion and drive a supply withdrawal.
Consequence
Brent settling above $96 for five consecutive sessions shifts institutional hedging benchmarks, locking fuel cost inflation into airline, shipping, and manufacturing forward contracts for Q3.

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources from Israel

Israel

Primary parallel: During the 1990 Gulf War oil price spike, Brent crossed $40 intraday in October 1990 and retreated within hours when the market parsed the first credible diplomatic statement. The 2026 round-trip through $100 mirrors that mechanics: expirations combined with a forcing moment, one credible-seeming text (the Truth Social post), and a price collapse once traders identified the text as incomplete.

Counter-parallel: The 2019 Saudi Aramco Abqaiq attack sent Brent up 15% intraday and the price recovered fully within two weeks as spare capacity from Saudi and US sources absorbed the supply loss. The 2026 situation differs: there is no spare capacity large enough to replace Hormuz volume , so the price floor is structurally higher and a comparable diplomatic text would produce a smaller percentage drop from a higher base.

The $97.91 Brent close represents a 45% premium over the $67.41 pre-war baseline, sustained across a second consecutive expiry cycle. Goldman Sachs's $120 Q3 severe scenario , originally conditioned on a ceasefire failure , now functions as the operative forecast frame even during a ceasefire, because the blockade's continuation has decoupled the price from the ceasefire/war distinction.

The transmission channels: tanker war-risk insurance rates have increased 800-1200% above pre-war baselines for Hormuz transits; P&I clubs have imposed voyage-specific surcharges; the futures curve is inverted in the front months (backwardation), reflecting physical scarcity rather than demand-side pressure. Each of these mechanisms is slow to unwind even after a ceasefire is formalised, which is why Wood Mackenzie's Hittle assessed a $10-15 structural residual even in a full-reopening scenario.

Consensus view: Goldman Sachs commodity chief Daan Struyven and Wood Mackenzie's Ann-Louise Hittle both read the $97.91 close as a 'blockade-continues' price rather than a ceasefire price: the four-dollar round-trip through $100 on expiry morning and the fast retreat tracked exactly how quickly traders parsed the Truth Social text , blockade unchanged, unified-proposal trigger unmet, kinetic risk at Hormuz gate unresolved .

Counter-view: Vanda Insights' Vandana Hari argues that Dated Brent's refusal to settle below $96 across five sessions reflects supply-disruption pricing combined with a structural insurance premium now baked into tanker finance globally , so even a full Hormuz reopening tomorrow would leave a $10-15 residual premium in place until P&I coverage normalises.

Key tension: Whether the $97.91 price reflects a reversible geopolitical risk premium that a signed ceasefire could deflate, or whether the war has permanently re-rated the cost of Hormuz tanker insurance in a way that will outlast the blockade itself.

Sources:Windward

Mentions:Goldman Sachs →Saudi Aramco →Wood Mackenzie →Ann-Louise Hittle →Vandana Hari →Vanda Insights →Prima →Iran →Truth Social →Gulf War →Brent Crude →Donald Trump →Saudi Arabia →Daan Struyven →

First Reported In

Update #76 · Trump posts an exit Iran can't reach

Windward· 22 Apr 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

This Event

Brent touches $100 on expiry, closes at $97.91

Market pricing reads the extension as marginal de-escalation inside a continuing blockade, not as a ceasefire price; Goldman's severe scenario remains the operative frame.

Led to

Brent closes at $105.73, dark activity rises

Brent $105.73 close extends the post-extension recovery from $97.91 close after the ceasefire-relief dip

Occurred 24 Apr 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

Oil markets and Lloyd's of London

Brent fell to $89.25 on ceasefire probability, not new barrels, with traders voting for Trump's deed over Tehran's denial. Lloyd's has not repriced Hormuz war-risk cover because its trigger requires a UN Security Council resolution or government certification, so tanker insurance costs remain elevated regardless of the spot move.

Pakistan and Qatar mediators

Pakistan's Mohsin Naqvi was in Tehran for his second visit in under a week, using the Pakistan-Qatar channel that delivered April's ceasefire after an identical public-denial cycle. The channel carries both civilian and military buy-in from Islamabad, the only configuration Iran's split command cannot dismiss as a partial signal.

India

India summoned the US Deputy Chief of Mission after three Indian sailors were killed aboard MT Settebello, the first formal grievance from a major non-belligerent directed at US enforcement. Indian seafarers supply roughly 12 per cent of the global maritime workforce; their presence on third-flag Gulf tankers is structurally inevitable regardless of bilateral diplomacy.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)

The IRGC declared Hormuz closed on 11 June while civilian negotiators were on the same mediation channel, then issued no public comment on the MoU framework. Its silence on the framework, rather than any foreign ministry statement, is the operative approval signal; the corps' unilateral Hormuz closure shows it did not treat the diplomatic track as binding on its operations.

Iran foreign ministry (Baghaei)

Esmail Baghaei told IRNA that reports of a finalised deal were 'merely speculation' and that Iran had 'not yet made a final decision'. The denial is structurally identical to Iranian foreign ministry statements during the April ceasefire talks, which produced a binding text within 48 hours of the same language.

Trump administration / CENTCOM

Trump cancelled the third strike day and called the MoU 'very strong' and almost ready to sign, while CENTCOM kept tanker enforcement running in the same 24-hour window. The administration is simultaneously withdrawing the military pressure it claims drove the deal and sustaining the enforcement campaign it is trying to trade away.