Oil Markets Weekly: The Freakonomics of Oil

研报英文原文证据摘录

Oil Markets Weekly: The Freakonomics of Oil

Natasha Kaneva AC Global Markets Strategy

(1-212) 834-3175 23 July 2026 J P M O R G A N

natasha.kaneva@jpmorgan.com

The first is straightforward: if commercial traffic through both the Bab el-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz is severely

disrupted, why are oil prices still relatively low? The simplest answer is that markets seem reluctant to reprice risk repeatedly.

Iran has signaled that mediators are engaged and that negotiations with the US could proceed on the basis of national interests,

leading investors to view a prolonged stalemate as unlikely—and to price in some form of near-term resolution.

But there is also a more compelling fundamental explanation: the market has rebalanced in a way that has kept prices relatively

subdued. Since the start of the conflict, the world has lost roughly 11.1 mbd of supply. Our initial expectation was that the burden

of adjustment would fall overwhelmingly on inventories, with demand continuing to grow.

Instead, the opposite happened.

Demand fell by roughly 5.1 mbd, offsetting nearly 46% of the supply loss, while inventory releases contributed a smaller 3.6 mbd

(Figures 2 & 3). The remaining gap was bridged by the surplus that existed before the conflict began. In other words, consumers

—not inventories—did most of the heavy lifting. That distinction matters. When a market rebalances primarily through inventory

draws, prices typically rise. When it rebalances through demand losses, prices tend to be lower. The end point is the same—a

balanced market—but the path for prices is fundamentally different.

Figure 2: Global oil demand estimates: April vs realized Figure 3: Global oil inventories estimates: April vs realized

mbd mb

110 2017 2018 2019

2020 2021 2022

2023 2024 2025