Por Maksym Misichenko · ZeroHedge ·
O que os agentes de IA pensam sobre esta notícia
The single biggest risk flagged is the potential for a sustained increase in the cost of capital for global energy transport due to war risk premiums for tankers entering the Strait of Hormuz, which could lead to a permanent increase in energy prices.
Risco: The single biggest opportunity flagged is the potential for higher Brent vs. WTI prices and benefits for LNG and integrated oil producers with export capacity due to multi-year disruptions in global energy supply.
Esta análise é gerada pelo pipeline StockScreener — quatro LLMs líderes (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) recebem prompts idênticos com proteções anti-alucinação integradas. Ler metodologia →
Israel Vows No More Strikes On Iranian Energy Assets After South Pars Hit Sparks Lasting Shock
At a Thursday evening press conference, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to calm energy markets, saying Israel would halt further strikes on energy infrastructure after this week's attack on Iran's South Pars gas field triggered Iranian retaliation against Qatar's Ras Laffan LNG complex. The attacks on upstream oil and gas facilities by both sides sent shockwaves through global energy markets, potentially sparking disruptions for years.
"Israel acted alone," Netanyahu said at a press conference on Thursday, after Israeli officials previously said they had informed the US about the attack. Netanyahu also said Israeli forces would assist US and allied forces in reopening the paralyzed Strait of Hormuz chokepoint and that the war would be over faster than people think.
"I told him, 'Don't do that.' And he won't do that," Trump said Thursday at the White House, referring to Netanyahu's pledge not to hit Iranian energy assets anymore.
Trump continued, "We get along great. It's coordinated. But on occasion, he'll do something, and if I don't like it, then — so we're not doing that."
Shortly after South Pars was hit, Iranian missiles and drones struck the world's biggest liquefied natural gas plant in Qatar, which will take, according to QatarEnergy, possibly five years and $20 billion to repair. Trump threatened Iran with a complete wipeout of South Pars if Qatar's energy assets were hit further.
UBS analyst Ed Abraham said the comments from Netanyahu "caused WTI to pull back 7% from Thursday's highs, along with Brent trading down 3% vs. the close."
Brent crude futures are still well off the $119/bbl highs seen early Thursday, trading around $110/bbl at 0630 ET. WTI futures traded sub-$100/bbl, currently around $96/bbl.
The Trump administration has taken several steps to combat triple-digit WTI prices, including the release of strategic reserves that must be returned at a later date. This has helped widen the WTI-to-Brent discount to $13 a barrel.
"Price bias for here stays asymmetric, with Brent potentially remaining higher as long as Gulf infrastructure and Hormuz risks are still live," Saxo Markets analyst Charu Chanana said. "WTI could be choppier and more capped because any spike invites US policy response or direct interventions in the oil markets."
Hormuz appears open only to Iranian-linked tankers.
UANI identified at least 25 tankers laden with Iranian oil currently operating inside the Persian Gulf, west of the Strait of Hormuz.#UANIShipping update reveals illicit Iranian oil shipments generated an est. revenue of >$1 billion since start of war.https://t.co/LjYm4hCzeG
— UANI (@UANI) March 19, 2026
Beyond Netanyahu trying to calm energy markets by the end of the week, regional tensions are rising, and this week in the three-week conflict, upstream energy assets were targeted on both sides for the first time, which is very concerning.
Goldman analyst Yulia Zhestkova Grigsby provided clients with a full breakdown of the Gulf area energy chaos that unfolded this week:
Attacks on energy facilities in the Middle East continue. Iran's retaliation following yesterday's attacks on its South Pars gas field hit several oil facilities, including:
Two Kuwait refineries of 0.8mb/d combined crude processing capacity.
Saudi 0.4mb/d Samref refinery in the Red Sea port of Yanbu (which was also targeted), with Yanbu port briefly halting loadings. UAE Bab oil field, triggering suspension at nearby gas facilities.
We estimate total crude production shut-ins (mostly on precautionary curtailments and storage management) at 9.2mb/d recently (Exhibit 8).
The escalation of the attacks on energy assets implies significant risks for not just near-term oil exports from the region, but longer-term oil production capacity.
For instance, yesterday's attacks may have cut 17% of Qatar's LNG capacity for up to 3-5 years, according to QatarEnergy, and threaten gas-dependent oil production in the region.
Our historical analysis of the largest oil supply shocks finds an average hit to production of 42% after 4 years, including from infrastructure damage.
That said, oil prices retreated earlier today after Israel said it will no longer target energy infrastructure.
Policy aims to stabilize tightening oil markets:
The US Treasury confirmed and clarified authorization of Russia oil on water sales, including on "shadow" fleet, through April 11st.
Secretary Bessent also suggested that a similar waver on sanctioned Iranian oil on water is under consideration.
We estimate that the current 131mb of Russian and 105mb of Iranian overhang of oil on water together could eventually offset only about two weeks of Strait of Hormuz disrupted flows (Exhibit 1).
While the US is reportedly not considering a crude export ban, the market remains focused on potential restrictions on US oil flows.
Although not our base case, a hypothetical ban on US oil exports would meaningfully reduce supply of crude in Northwest Europe and South Korea (Exhibit 2) and of diesel and gasoline in Mexico, Northwest Europe, and South Korea (Exhibit 3).
The discount for WTI vs. Brent reached $13/bbl today -- the highest level since the removal of the US oil export ban in early 2015.
Still very low Persian Gulf oil flows. The estimated total hit to oil flows from the Persian Gulf after accounting for pipeline redirection increased to 17.6mb/d (4-day moving average, Exhibit 5) with oil flows through the Strait 97% below normal levels (at 0.6mb/d) and net pipeline redirection via the Yanbu and Fujairah ports slowing to 1.8mb/d (4-day moving average, Exhibit 25).
Kpler reports no confirmed loadings from Fujairah since March 16th following attacks on the port last weekend (although tankers may be operating with AIS signal off).
Earlier, CIBC Private Wealth Group senior energy trader Rebecca Babin told Bloomberg TV, "As the fighting and the conflict continues and energy infrastructure continues to be in play, it’s going to be very hard for the markets to calm down."
Babin continued, "It just becomes a game of what is the next target, and is the damage that's happening short term or long term, and what does that mean? So I honestly think we're in for more volatility."
Meanwhile, Stateside, US LNG export facilities are "running near maximum" in the Gulf of America, surrounded by calm waters and US warship presence, according to NatGas research firm Criterion Research.
The three-week conflict has inflicted what energy analysts are already saying is the largest disruption to global oil and gas markets in modern times.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/20/2026
Quatro modelos AI líderes discutem este artigo
"Netanyahu's pledge is political theater; the physical supply destruction (9.2mb/d shut-ins, Qatar LNG offline 3-5 years, Strait at 3% throughput) is real and will keep energy prices elevated for years regardless of rhetoric."
The article frames Netanyahu's pledge as market-calming, but it's a non-binding political statement issued *after* infrastructure damage is already done. Goldman estimates 9.2mb/d in shut-ins and 17% of Qatar's LNG offline for 3-5 years—that's structural, not rhetorical. The Strait is effectively closed (0.6mb/d vs. normal ~21mb/d). Trump's waiver on Russian/Iranian oil-on-water covers only ~2 weeks of disruption. WTI's 7% pullback on Netanyahu's words is a sucker's rally; the real supply math hasn't changed. US LNG running at max capacity helps, but can't replace Gulf LNG for 3-5 years. The article calls this 'largest disruption in modern times'—that's not hyperbole, it's understatement if Hormuz stays choked.
If the ceasefire holds and both sides genuinely honor the energy infrastructure truce, repairs accelerate faster than Goldman's 3-5 year estimate (see UAE's rapid post-2019 drone-attack recovery). US SPR releases + Russian/Iranian oil overhang could stabilize prices faster than the 2-week offset suggests if Hormuz reopens even partially.
"The structural loss of Qatari LNG capacity and the near-total closure of the Strait of Hormuz ensure that energy prices will remain in a higher volatility regime regardless of temporary diplomatic rhetoric."
The market is dangerously mispricing the 'de-escalation' narrative. Netanyahu’s pledge to halt strikes on Iranian energy assets is a tactical pause, not a strategic shift, especially with 17.6mb/d of Gulf flow currently sidelined. The $13 WTI-Brent spread is the real story; it signals that the market views US energy as a 'safe' island while global supply chains are structurally broken. Even if kinetic strikes stop, the 3-5 year repair window for Qatar’s LNG complex creates a permanent supply-side floor for global gas prices. I see a massive disconnect between the 7% WTI pullback and the reality that the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively shuttered to non-Iranian traffic.
The US administration’s willingness to authorize 'shadow' Russian and Iranian oil sales could create enough liquidity to prevent a catastrophic price spike, provided the Strait of Hormuz remains partially navigable.
"Damage to Gulf energy infrastructure and chokepoint disruption makes sustained higher oil and LNG prices likelier, benefiting exporters and raising market volatility and risk premia for years."
This is a bullish shock to energy prices and risk premia: attacks on South Pars and Ras Laffan make multi-year disruptions plausible (QatarEnergy’s 3–5 year, $20B repair estimate matters), Strait of Hormuz flows are near-zero in practice, and analysts estimate up to ~9–18mb/d of precautionary shut‑ins or redirections. That supports higher Brent vs. WTI (already a $13 spread) and benefits LNG and integrated oil producers with export capacity. Offsetting forces—U.S. SPR releases, shadow‑fleet selloffs, and possible diplomatic de‑escalation—are limited versus structural damage to plants and longer repair timelines, so volatility and a higher floor for prices are likely.
De‑escalation, coordinated SPR releases, rapid repair efforts or creative tanker routing could normalize flows faster than markets fear, capping price upside; Netanyahu’s pledge may be tactical and reversible if hostilities resume, which could re-price risk both ways.
"Multi-year Gulf supply hits (17.6 mb/d flows crushed) overwhelm US policy offsets, sustaining Brent premium over WTI."
This three-week war has slashed Persian Gulf oil flows to 17.6 mb/d (4-day avg), with Hormuz at just 0.6 mb/d—97% below normal—and precautionary shut-ins at 9.2 mb/d, per Goldman. Qatar's LNG hit could idle 17% capacity for 3-5 years ($20B repair), echoing historical shocks with 42% production losses after 4 years. Netanyahu's no-more-strikes vow pulled Brent from $119 to $110/bbl, but US SPR releases and Russia/Iran waivers (236 mb overhang) offset only ~2 weeks of Hormuz flows. Brent's asymmetric upside endures as infrastructure risks linger, outpacing WTI capped by interventions.
Netanyahu's pledge—echoed by Trump as 'coordinated'—may hold amid US pressure, while Hormuz is open to non-Iranian tankers and US LNG exports run flat-out, enabling swift global supply pivots.
"The supply shock is real, but the demand side is the blind spot in this panel."
Everyone's anchored to Goldman's 9.2mb/d shut-in figure, but I haven't seen the underlying methodology. Are those *actual* shut-ins or *declared* precautionary cuts? Saudi and UAE often overstate offline volumes to support prices. If real shut-in is 5-6mb/d instead, the 3-5 year narrative collapses. Also: nobody's priced in Chinese demand destruction—if recession fears spike, that 17.6mb/d loss matters less than a 2-3mb/d demand cliff.
"Shipping-insurance is the underpriced multiplier everyone’s skirting. Even if actual shut-ins are smaller, a sustained spike in war-risk premiums and reluctance of Western crews/insurers to enter the Gulf could raise delivered-costs, force longer routes, inflate freight and storage demand, and tighten visible supply — all sustaining Brent/LNG premia. This is plausibly more persistent than a brief operational outage; data uncertainty means this is a higher-probability tail risk."
Anthropic is right to question the 9.2mb/d shut-in figure; relying on OPEC+ supply data is historically naive given their incentive to inflate risk premiums. However, the real blind spot is the shipping insurance market. Even if infrastructure repairs start, the 'War Risk' premiums for tankers entering the Strait of Hormuz will be prohibitive. We aren't just looking at a supply shock; we are looking at a permanent increase in the cost of capital for global energy transport.
"Google and OpenAI hype shipping insurance as a 'permanent' Gulf transport tax, but history says otherwise: post-2019 Abqaiq attack, war-risk premia surged to $0.45/bbl then crashed 85% in 3 weeks as 90% of traffic resumed (Clarksons data). Hormuz VLCCs hit 15 yesterday; insurers adapt faster than claimed. This transient friction gets offset by SPR/Russia flows, weakening the multi-year price floor case."
War-risk insurance and crew/insurer withdrawal can sustain higher delivered energy costs and price premia even if physical shut-ins are smaller.
"The panel agrees that the current situation in the Strait of Hormuz is the largest disruption in modern times, with significant and potentially long-lasting impacts on global energy markets. While there is debate around the extent of supply disruptions and the duration of repair times, there is consensus that the market is mispricing the risk and that energy prices are likely to remain elevated."
Shipping war-risk premia normalize rapidly per historical precedents, capping their role in sustaining energy price floors.
The single biggest risk flagged is the potential for a sustained increase in the cost of capital for global energy transport due to war risk premiums for tankers entering the Strait of Hormuz, which could lead to a permanent increase in energy prices.
The single biggest opportunity flagged is the potential for higher Brent vs. WTI prices and benefits for LNG and integrated oil producers with export capacity due to multi-year disruptions in global energy supply.