- Goldman Sachs lowered its Q2 2026 Brent and WTI forecasts to $90 and $87 per barrel respectively, from $99/$91.
- The bank notes that prices could rebound if the ceasefire collapses or 1-2 million barrels per day of capacity is permanently lost.
- The forecasts highlight how sensitive prices are to the still‑closed Strait of Hormuz and emphasise significant downside and upside risks.
Financial markets have been quick to adjust to the ceasefire in the Middle East. In a note published Thursday, Goldman Sachs trimmed its Q2 price forecasts for Brent and US crude to $90 and $87 per barrel, respectively.
That is down nearly 10% from previous forecasts of $99 and $91. The bank cited hopes that the US-Iran truce would allow oil to flow again through the Strait of Hormuz.
But Goldman also warned that the path of prices remains highly uncertain. The bank flagged “credible risk” that 1 to 2 million barrels per day of capacity could be permanently lost or limited due to damage to mature fields, constrained export systems or sanctions.
ANZ analysts, in the same Reuters report, said the market might need “sustained prices above $100” to ration demand if supply recovery stalls. Other institutions show a wide range of expectations: UBS expects prices around $72, while Standard Chartered sees Brent at $85.50 in Q1 and nearly $98 in Q2.
Consensus forecasts should be treated with caution. Even as some analysts cut price expectations, the risk of upside spikes remains. With the Strait of Hormuz still largely closed and Iran floating the idea of tolls, supply could remain tight. Damage to pipelines and LNG facilities – such as the North Field incident in Qatar – could further constrain output.
Companies involved in price‑sensitive sectors, such as aviation, petrochemicals and heavy industry, should maintain flexible procurement strategies that allow them to lock in prices when beneficial but avoid over‑hedging. Policymakers should consider both scenarios when designing fiscal and energy policies.
A prolonged period of volatile prices could exacerbate cost‑of‑living pressures and impede investment in energy‑intensive sectors. Conversely, a sustained drop in prices would ease inflation but may delay some low‑carbon investments, reinforcing the need for policy support like Contracts for Difference and tax incentives.
