Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Russia-Ukraine War 2026
13MAY

Oil holds above $90 despite IEA release

4 min read
20:00UTC

Brent has climbed 41% in two weeks, settling into a $90–95 corridor that signals the market has moved from pricing a short war to pricing an extended one.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Strategic reserves address supply shortfalls; they cannot reopen a chokepoint under active military interdiction.

Brent Crude closed Wednesday at $91.98, up 4.76%. WTI closed at $87.25, up 4.55%. By Thursday pre-market, WTI pushed to approximately $95 — 9% above Wednesday's open. Since 27 February, when Brent traded at $67.41, the war has driven a 41% price increase in under two weeks.

The price has moved through three phases. The first was panic: Brent spiked to $119.50 on Day 10 , driven by the largest single-day percentage gains since late 1988 . The second was relief: Trump's public prediction that the war would end "very soon" and profit-taking on overcrowded long positions triggered a $30 intraday reversal — the market briefly priced in a short war. The third phase is recalibration. Prices have settled into the $90–95 corridor, which represents the market's revised consensus: the war continues, Hormuz remains functionally closed to most traffic, and neither strategic reserves nor diplomacy have altered the supply picture. A spike to $119 and back reflects a single session's fear. A corridor sustained across multiple sessions at $90–95 reflects settled judgement that supply will remain constrained.

The $90–95 range carries specific consequences for economies that import the majority of their energy. South Korea — which triggered its second market circuit breaker in four sessions when prices were spiking — imports virtually all its crude. Sustained $95 oil threatens a current account reversal for an economy already managing semiconductor-cycle weakness. India, the world's third-largest oil importer, will see its fuel subsidy bill expand at these levels, widening a fiscal deficit the government had been working to narrow. Japan, importing roughly 90% of its energy, faces equivalent cost pressure against a weakening yen. For European economies that fell 2–3% on energy-war fears before the worst of the rally , a sustained $90–95 corridor means the energy-driven inflation they spent 2022–2024 unwinding returns through the same transmission channel: imported fuel costs feeding into transport, manufacturing, and food prices.

The weekly gains are already the largest in the history of US crude futures dating to 1983 . The question is no longer whether oil returns to pre-war levels — it will not while the strait is contested — but whether it stabilises below $100 or breaches it on sustained volume. Qatar's energy minister issued his $150 warning when Brent traded at $92.69. It now stands at $91.98, with the IEA's record reserve release already absorbed. The gap between current prices and $100 — at which point central banks in Seoul, New Delhi, and Tokyo would face pressure to intervene — is narrow enough that a single additional supply disruption could close it.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Governments keep emergency oil stockpiles — called strategic reserves — for exactly this kind of crisis. When supply tightens suddenly, they release stockpiles onto markets to flood supply and push prices down. The IEA just made the largest ever coordinated release: 400 million barrels. The problem is that this tool was designed for a different kind of crisis — a hurricane hitting Gulf refineries, or a sudden production cut. It assumes the problem is too little oil being produced. The Hormuz blockade is different: oil is being produced normally, but it cannot leave the Gulf. Releasing reserves adds supply on paper but does not open the blocked exit. Markets grasped this within hours and kept buying, pushing prices higher regardless.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The failure of the largest reserve release in IEA history within hours publicly demonstrates that Western collective energy security architecture has no effective tool for a geopolitically selective maritime blockade. This will accelerate bilateral government-to-government supply deals, emergency LNG terminal investments, and reconfigurations of energy security alliances outside IEA structures — changes that will persist well beyond this conflict.

Root Causes

The IEA release mechanism was designed in the mid-1970s for supply reduction emergencies. It has no instrument calibrated for deliberate transit closure enforced by active military interdiction. The gap between what the mechanism can do and what this crisis requires is structural — a design flaw revealed by a scenario the IEA's architects did not model.

What could happen next?
  • Meaning

    The IEA mechanism has been publicly exposed as inadequate for deliberate transit interdiction, reducing its deterrent credibility for future energy crises.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Consequence

    Import-dependent economies — South Korea, India, Japan, Pakistan — face stagflationary pressure as oil costs rise faster than central banks can respond without triggering recession.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Risk

    If Brent exceeds $100 for more than a week, emergency monetary responses in South Korea and India could trigger capital outflows from emerging markets.

    Medium term · Suggested
  • Precedent

    A state actor has demonstrated that a targeted transit blockade can neutralise the West's primary collective energy crisis instrument within hours of its activation.

    Long term · Assessed
First Reported In

Update #32 · UN condemns Iran 13-0; ceasefire blocked

CNBC· 12 Mar 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
Oil holds above $90 despite IEA release
Oil settling into a sustained $90–95 corridor is economically more damaging than a brief spike to $119, because it forces import-dependent economies to reprice at the new level rather than wait out a temporary disruption. The corridor signals the market has moved from pricing a short war to pricing an extended one.
Different Perspectives
NATO eastern flank (B9 + Nordics)
NATO eastern flank (B9 + Nordics)
The B9+Nordic Bucharest joint statement on 13 May reaffirmed Ukraine's sovereignty within internationally recognised borders and backed NATO eastern flank reinforcement; the summit accepted Zelenskyy's bilateral drone deal proposal as a structural alternative to the stalled US export approval pathway, treating it as a European defence architecture question rather than aid delivery.
IAEA / Rafael Grossi
IAEA / Rafael Grossi
Grossi is still negotiating a sixth ZNPP repair ceasefire with no agreement after 50 days of 750 kV line disconnection; the 3 May ERCL drone strike that destroyed environmental monitoring equipment represents a qualitative escalation in infrastructure degradation that the IAEA has documented but cannot compel either party to halt.
Péter Magyar / Hungary
Péter Magyar / Hungary
Magyar's incoming foreign minister pledged on 12 May that Hungary will stop abusing EU veto rights; the pledge is a statement of intent rather than a binding legal commitment, and Magyar's MEPs voted against the €90 billion loan as recently as April, while a planned referendum on Ukraine's EU accession preserves a downstream blocking lever.
EU Council and European Commission
EU Council and European Commission
The Magyar cabinet formation on 12 May removes the Hungary veto that had blocked the €9.1 billion first tranche since February; the Commission is now coordinating the three-document disbursement package for an early-June vote. The structural blocker is gone; the disbursement question is now scheduling, not politics.
Donald Trump / White House
Donald Trump / White House
Trump announced a 9-11 May three-day ceasefire with a 1,000-for-1,000 prisoner exchange attached, then called peace 'getting very close' on 11-13 May while Russia's 800-drone barrage was under way; his public framing adopted Russian diplomatic language without securing any Russian operational concession or verifying the exchange was agreed.
Vladimir Putin / Kremlin
Vladimir Putin / Kremlin
Putin told reporters on 9 May the war is 'coming to an end' while Peskov confirmed on 13 May that territorial demands are unchanged and Russia requires full Ukrainian withdrawal from all four annexed regions; the verbal accommodation costs Moscow nothing and conditions any summit on a pre-finalised treaty Kyiv cannot accept.