Hormuz risk-driven inventory tightening: Goldman Sachs raises Brent crude oil Q4 forecast to $90

On April 27, 2026, Goldman Sachs’ commodities research team released their latest oil market report, raising their Q4 2026 Brent crude oil price forecast from $80 per barrel to $90, a 12.5% increase. Meanwhile, WTI crude oil forecasts were raised from $75 to $83, and the 2027 Brent and WTI forecasts were respectively adjusted to $85 and $80. The report also lifted the Brent price forecast for this quarter (Q2 2026) to $100, and for Q3 to $93, constituting a systematic reassessment of the annual oil price curve.

The core driver behind this upward revision is the “extreme inventory depletion” triggered by the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Goldman Sachs analysts Daan Struyven and Yulia Zhestkova Grigsby explicitly warn in the report, “Extreme inventory depletion is unsustainable,” and if the supply shock persists further, the market may be forced to endure a larger demand reduction.

As of April 27, data from Gate行情 shows Brent crude (XBR) at $101.40, up 1.04% in 24 hours, with an intraday trading range of $99.71 to $101.93; WTI crude (XTI) at $96.45, up 1.12% for the day, with a range of $94.62 to $97.07. Both benchmarks are strengthening in tandem, directly responding to Goldman Sachs’ upward revisions and the deadlock in US-Iran negotiations.

From Escalation to Strait Blockade

The sharp volatility in international oil prices this round can be traced back to February 28, 2026—when the US and Israel jointly launched a military strike against Iran. The conflict rapidly expanded from airstrikes to maritime confrontation. Over the following two months, the transit status of the Strait of Hormuz experienced multiple reversals, forming a clear yet turbulent timeline.

Late February to March: After the US-Israel joint attack, Iran responded with the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz as its core countermeasure. This critical route, carrying about one-fifth of global oil transportation, saw daily transit volumes plummet to near zero. Major Gulf oil producers like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and the UAE faced dual pressures of blocked export channels and nearly saturated domestic storage tanks, forcing significant production cuts or halts. The IEA estimates that global oil supply losses in March alone exceeded 360 million barrels.

Mid-April (17-18): A brief diplomatic window appeared at the Strait of Hormuz. On April 17, Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi announced that, following Lebanon and Israel’s ceasefire, Iran would open the Strait to all commercial ships. US President Trump confirmed via social media. However, Iran set three conditions for passage—only commercial ships, via Iran-designated routes, with Iranian military permission—and explicitly stated that the US would maintain a comprehensive maritime blockade.

April 18: Within 24 hours, the situation sharply reversed. The Central Command of Iran’s armed forces issued a statement accusing the US of “repeated breaches of commitments” and “pirate attacks” under the guise of blockade, declaring the Strait of Hormuz under military control. The IRGC issued a clear warning: all ships in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea must remain in port; any approaching the strait would be considered hostile, and violators risk attack.

April 24-27: Diplomatic efforts faced severe setbacks. Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi visited Pakistan and Oman, and on the 27th flew to Moscow for talks with President Putin. The US, on April 25, canceled the scheduled talks between Special Envoy Wittkoff and Jared Kushner with Pakistan and Iran, citing “long travel time, high costs,” and internal chaos within Iran’s leadership. Trump, in a Fox News interview on April 26, signaled that “Iran can call to talk,” but Iran explicitly denied any negotiations.

At this point, the geopolitical deadlock and the Strait blockade formed a mutual lock-in—lack of progress in peace talks exacerbates the blockade’s persistence, and the blockade itself becomes the key bargaining chip.

Data and Structural Analysis: Quantitative Breakdown of Supply-Demand Imbalance

Goldman Sachs’ upward forecast revision is not merely emotional reaction but based on a rigorous supply-demand balance analysis. The report dissects the price effects of the Hormuz shock structurally, allowing a clear assessment of each factor’s quantitative contribution.

Supply Gap: Over 500k Barrels Daily Loss

Goldman provides impactful baseline data: in April, Persian Gulf oil production loss reached 14.5 million barrels per day—compared to pre-conflict forecast of 26.4 million bpd, current actual output is about 11.9 million bpd. The report cross-validates this scale via three independent methods:

• Inventory Method: Global visible inventories in April decreased by 5.8 million barrels daily; adding estimated hidden inventories (mainly non-OECD refined products) of 6.2 million barrels daily, total about 12 million barrels daily.
• Supply-Demand Flow Method (Hormuz flow tracking): Estimating exports via straits and pipelines, the supply-demand gap in April is about 11.3 million barrels per day.
• Country Balance Method: Global production at 9.02 million bpd versus demand at 10.16 million bpd, also indicating a 11.3 million barrel daily gap.

The global oil market, which had a surplus of 1.8 million barrels per day in 2025, suddenly shifted to a historic deficit of 9.6 million barrels per day in Q2 2026, with OECD commercial inventories decreasing by 2.2 million barrels daily in the quarter.

Decomposition of Price Structure: Where Does the ~$30 Jump Come From?

Goldman’s upward adjustment of Q4 Brent from $80 to $90 involves a systemic reassessment of nearly $30 (relative to pre-Hormuz impact):

Further, the report notes that global spare capacity was about 3.7 million bpd pre-shock. Each 1 million bpd reduction in effective spare capacity raises long-term prices by about $4. The estimate suggests that, after considering sanctions release, strategic reserves, demand decline, and Russian/U.S. output increases, the Hormuz shock will lead to a net reduction of about 1.24B barrels in global commercial inventories by Q4 2026.

Demand-side Passive Contraction

The supply shock also forces demand to shrink. Goldman expects that, due to soaring refined product prices, global oil demand in Q2 2026 will decline by 1.7 million bpd YoY, and for the full year by 100k bpd. The largest demand reductions are in the Middle East (directly affected by supply shock), South Korea and Japan (chemical industry centers with tight raw material supplies), and Africa. The IEA’s outlook is more pessimistic, projecting a demand contraction of 800,000 bpd in 2026, with monthly declines of 810k bpd.

Notably, the current demand decline is not purely “price-driven.” JPM strategist Natasha Kaneva points out that Brent futures prices are below $100, yet global demand in March fell by 2.8 million bpd, further dropping to 4.3 million bpd in April—at a pace exceeding the demand peak during the 2009 financial crisis. This suggests that part of the “demand decline” is actually a reflection of supply shortages on the demand side: consumers are not unwilling to buy oil, but cannot access it.

Structural Tension Between Data and Price Signals

A notable contradiction is that Brent spot prices peaked in March, then declined in late April, and current futures prices are actually lower than the March peak. Optimism about reopening the Strait temporarily suppressed risk premiums and triggered “front-running” inventory depletion. Goldman Sachs emphasizes that this optimism and the actual supply situation are mismatched, representing the greatest risk currently. In other words, prices have not fully reflected the deteriorating supply-demand fundamentals—when optimism wanes and reality dominates, revaluation potential remains significant.

Market Opinions: Divergences and Consensus Among Major Institutions

Regarding current oil price trends and supply-demand outlooks, major global energy research institutions and investment banks display clear differences. Here, we analyze their core logic based on methodological differences.

Goldman Sachs: Inventory Depletion as Core, Bullish Scenario as Baseline

Goldman Sachs’ report centers on inventories as the key analytical anchor. The logical chain is complete: Persian Gulf production loss → record depletion of global inventories → rising spot premium → long-term safety premium reassessment → upward price adjustment. They highlight “unsustainable extreme inventory depletion” as a risk warning, implying that prices will continue rising until demand is further cut, a market-clearing path. They stress that economic risks are greater than their baseline scenario suggests—“upside risks include net higher oil prices, abnormally high refined product prices, shortages, and unprecedented scale of this shock.”

Morgan Stanley: More Optimistic Starting Point, Converging Endpoints

Morgan Stanley maintains its forecast of $110 Brent in Q2, $100 in Q3, and $90 in Q4. Their calculations show Gulf countries reducing about 14.2 million bpd daily, with global inventories decreasing by 4.8 million bpd daily. Their estimate of inventory depletion speed is more moderate, but their Q4 target aligns with Goldman’s upward revision—indicating no fundamental disagreement on the “mid-term supply-demand balance.”

JPMorgan: Supply-Demand Imbalance, Prices Must Be Much Higher

JPM strategist Natasha Kaneva argues “oil prices must rise much, much higher.” The core logic: when idle capacity cannot keep up and inventories are drawn down, prices must rise further to suppress consumption and clear the market. They note observed inventory draws of 4 million bpd in March, accelerating to 7.1 million bpd in April, yet the deficit remains unfilled. The real risk is that not all inventories are visible—especially refined product stocks—meaning actual inventory depletion could be larger than reported. This aligns closely with Goldman’s “hidden inventories” thesis.

IEA and EIA: From Severe Surplus to Structural Shortage

The IEA’s monthly report depicts a dramatic reversal: before the conflict, 2026 global supply was expected to be nearly 4 million bpd above demand, creating a record surplus; after the conflict, March global supply plunged by 10.1 million bpd to 97 million bpd, the largest monthly drop on record, removing nearly 250 million barrels of supply. EIA projects that in Q2 2026, global inventories will decline by 5.1 million bpd, with Brent potentially reaching $115. The three agencies (IEA, EIA, OPEC) have all sharply lowered their Q1 2026 inventory forecasts by over 2.9 million bpd collectively.

Core Disparities: Methodology and Assumptions

Overall, the market’s divergence on oil price outlooks mainly hinges on two aspects: when the Strait of Hormuz will normalize—Goldman’s baseline is delayed to end-June, while markets still hold earlier recovery hopes; and the true transmission of inventory depletion to prices—JPM believes current prices are far from clearing levels, Goldman uses inventory-term structure and spot-premium frameworks for quantitative estimates. Yet, all agree that under the current supply gap, upside price risks outweigh downside risks.

Industry Impact Analysis: Transmission Mechanisms and Structural Shocks in the Energy Chain

Upstream: Price Rise and Supply Recovery Lag

For upstream oil and gas extraction, the biggest structural effect of the Hormuz shock is the removal of global spare capacity’s buffer value. Remaining spare capacity is highly concentrated in Saudi Arabia and the UAE; with the Strait blocked, these capacities are nearly inaccessible globally. Meanwhile, US shale’s meaningful incremental output typically takes 3–6 months to materialize, contributing only about 300k–700k bpd short-term; Russia has about 300k bpd idle capacity, but ongoing infrastructure attacks hinder quick increases. All supply correction mechanisms are effectively disabled; the market can only rely on inventory depletion and demand compression. Ping An Securities notes that even if the conflict eases, the medium-term price center for upstream oil and gas has shifted upward, with a new median above $80, making it difficult to revert to pre-conflict oversupply levels around $60.

Midstream Refining: Abnormally High Product Prices

Refined product markets are an underestimated risk vector in this shock. Goldman Sachs explicitly states that the spread between refined products and crude oil prices is at historic highs. Post-conflict, attacks on Middle Eastern refineries and export disruptions severely impact chemical supply chains. Many European and Asian chemical plants cut capacity due to high raw material costs and shortages—ethylene, PVC, methanol, ethylene glycol all see significant reductions. Singapore’s middle distillates (diesel, jet fuel) prices briefly soared past $290 per barrel, a record. As of April 27, US gasoline averaged $4.10 per gallon (up 37%), diesel $5.46 per gallon (up 45%). Consumers face price pressures far exceeding what futures prices suggest.

Downstream and Real Economy: Deep and Broad Demand Reconfiguration

The petrochemical industry is experiencing a top-down cost shock. March’s petrochemical index rose 2.49 points to 99.09, but internal sector divergence is evident—upstream oil and fuel refining margins improved, while mid- and downstream manufacturing suffered from soaring raw material costs and weak terminal demand. China’s natural gas imports from Qatar account for about 15%; the blockade causes large LNG supply disruptions, with substitution costs likely to emerge in Q2–Q3.

Global Economic Inflation Transmission

The IEA’s April 15 report highlights systemic pressure on the global economy from oil shocks. Brent has risen nearly 50% since the conflict’s outbreak, and high oil prices both restrain growth and push up inflation. In the current macro environment, sustained high energy costs will constrain central bank policies, trade balances, and consumer spending worldwide.

Conclusion

Goldman Sachs’ systematic upward revision of Brent forecasts fundamentally reflects the exposure of the global energy market’s structural fragility under extreme stress—when over ten million barrels of daily supply are withdrawn, inventories are depleted at an unprecedented rate, and spare capacity is geographically constrained, prices become not just a supply-demand reflection but the last balancing mechanism. The supply shock originating in the Strait of Hormuz is profoundly reshaping the pricing logic of energy markets.