Will crude oil jump to $150 or fall back to $70? Here’s what analysts say

In less than ten days, crude oil has swung from $70 to $126 and back toward $81. Goldman Sachs warns of $150. Wood Mackenzie says $200 is possible. J.P. Morgan still forecasts $60 for the year. Every single one of them is right — and the entire divergence rests on one variable: how long the Strait of Hormuz stays closed.

Before February 28, 2026, the global oil market was oversupplied. Inventories were building. OPEC+ was preparing to add 206,000 barrels per day from April. The U.S. Energy Information Administration was forecasting Brent crude to average $57.69 per barrel for the full year of 2026, down from $69.04 in 2025. Analysts had a consensus estimate of $63.85 for Brent and $60.38 for WTI. The world was awash in oil, and prices were drifting lower.

Then the United States and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran on February 28, 2026.

Within 10 days, the entire analytical framework for oil pricing was shattered. The market fractured into two parallel realities that now sit in direct contradiction with each other — and both are equally legitimate, depending on a single question: when does the Strait of Hormuz reopen?

Every major analytical firm — Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Wood Mackenzie, Barclays, RBC, the EIA, Kpler, Mizuho — has published a revised oil price outlook since the conflict began. Their forecasts range from $57 to $200 per barrel. The divergence is not the result of different methodologies or different data. It is the result of different assumptions about one variable: the duration of the Strait of Hormuz disruption.

The futures market is already pricing in this bifurcation. Near-term April delivery contracts are trading around $115 per barrel, while longer-dated October contracts are at $79 — an extreme state of backwardation that reflects the market’s belief that the crisis is temporary, but that temporary could still mean weeks rather than days.

WTI posted its biggest weekly gain in history at 35.6%. Brent hit an intraday peak of $126 per barrel. And yet, contracts for delivery in 2027 and 2028 are trading in the high $60s — the market’s clearest signal that traders do not believe $100+ oil is a permanent condition.

The following table summarises the current forecasts from the world’s most influential energy research institutions as of March 10, 2026. The range is historically unprecedented — a nearly $143 spread between the lowest and highest price target from credible analysts operating on the same data.

The divergence is not random. It maps precisely onto different assumptions about the duration of the Hormuz closure. Institutions that assume a rapid resolution — within days to two weeks — arrive at near-term prices in the $80–$100 range and full-year averages that still reflect pre-crisis supply-surplus conditions. Institutions that model a 4-to-6-week closure arrive at $150. Those that model a structural, multi-month closure arrive at $200.

Goldman Sachs: 17 Times Larger Than Russia’s 2022 Shock

Goldman Sachs has issued the most alarming near-term forecast. The bank notes that crude flows through the Strait have fallen to just 10% of normal levels — a drop even deeper than their own earlier estimate. Based on this data, Goldman frames the current disruption as a shock 17 times larger than the peak impact from Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, a historical benchmark that pushed prices to $110.

Goldman’s explicit modelling: If flows remain sharply curtailed for an additional five weeks, Brent prices would reach $100 — a level associated with larger demand destruction. If the blockade persists through the end of March without amelioration, Goldman warns of $150 per barrel.

Critically, Goldman has simultaneously maintained a Q4 2026 Brent forecast of $60 per barrel — reflecting the baseline assumption that the crisis is resolved and the pre-existing supply surplus reasserts itself in the second half of the year.

J.P. Morgan: The ‘Unthinkable’ Has Already Happened

J.P. Morgan analyst Natasha Kaneva described the crossing of $100 per barrel as the ‘unthinkable’ — analysts had not expected triple-digit oil unless and until the U.S.-Israeli action extended to the three- to five-week mark. The Strait shut down in days, not weeks. The bank’s baseline for the broader 2026 cycle remains bearish at approximately $60 per barrel for Brent, predicated on supply-demand fundamentals that were firmly in surplus territory before the conflict.

J.P. Morgan’s position reflects the tension at the heart of this market: the fundamental, structural outlook for oil in 2026 was bearish. The disruption is a geopolitical overlay on top of a structurally weak market. If the overlay is removed — if the Strait reopens — the market reverts rapidly to the bearish fundamentals.

Wood Mackenzie and Lipow: The $200 Scenario

Research firm Wood Mackenzie has presented the most extreme scenario in mainstream analysis, forecasting prices could reach $150 per barrel in the coming weeks and potentially $200 per barrel depending on the trajectory of the conflict. This is not a fringe view. It is the logical endpoint of a sustained Hormuz closure modelled to its conclusion.

The mechanism behind the $200 scenario is not simply rising demand against shrinking supply. It is a cascade. The Strait closure is already forcing Iraq, Kuwait, and the UAE to cut production — not because they want to, but because with nowhere to ship their oil, storage has reached capacity. Gulf producers are running out of room. As this continues, even producers with alternative export routes like Saudi Arabia, which is increasing Red Sea shipments, will eventually face the same storage wall. Saudi Arabia produces 10 million barrels per day. If Saudi production is forced offline, the global supply shock reaches a level that no reserve release mechanism can address.

Based on the composite view from all major institutions, the oil price outlook for the next 30 days bifurcates into three distinct scenarios. Each is anchored to a specific condition of the Strait of Hormuz, and each carries radically different macroeconomic consequences.

Scenario A: The Strait Reopens Within 1–2 Weeks — Back to $70

This is the scenario that futures markets are partially pricing in through their backwardated structure. The conditions required: a diplomatic breakthrough, Iranian military neutralisation sufficient to allow tanker passage, and the restoration of insurance coverage for vessels transiting the waterway.

Under this scenario, oil prices fall rapidly. The world was in a supply surplus before the conflict. OPEC+ has 3.5 million barrels per day of spare capacity. U.S. shale production is already being accelerated. The EIA forecasts Brent falling below $80 in Q3 2026 and toward $70 by year-end — and that forecast was built before the crisis hit.

The key mechanism in the bearish resolution: global oil storage was building before the conflict. Once the Strait reopens, the pent-up Gulf crude that has been accumulating in storage floods the market. Prices undershoot.

Scenario B: Partial Reopening Over 2–3 Weeks — $100–$120

This is the scenario currently being priced into near-term contracts. The Strait does not reopen fully, but tanker traffic begins to recover partially — aided by U.S. naval escorts, the provision of government-backed shipping insurance, and Iranian restraint following diplomatic signals.

The U.S. government has offered to provide ships with insurance and naval escorts. On Friday, March 7, the agency responsible for offering that insurance said it could provide a total of up to $20 billion in coverage, on a rolling basis, to qualifying vessels. JPMorgan Chase has estimated the amount of insurance required to cover all the tankers in the Gulf at more than $350 billion — making the government offer meaningful but far from sufficient.

Mizuho Bank notes that even under a naval escort scenario, the war premium does not disappear. Higher insurance costs could add between $5 and $15 per barrel. Trump’s assurances only mitigate — they do not eliminate — the enduring upside risk. In this scenario, the IEA’s extraordinary reserve release provides a partial floor, and prices settle in the $100–$120 range as the market waits for clearer signals.

Scenario C: Strait Remains Closed 4+ Weeks — $150 to $200

This is the scenario Goldman Sachs and Wood Mackenzie are explicitly modelling. The conditions: Iran retains sufficient military capability to credibly threaten tanker traffic, no diplomatic breakthrough materialises before the end of March, and the cascade of Gulf production cuts reaches Saudi Arabia.

The arithmetic is stark. The Strait is currently operating at 10% of normal capacity, with roughly 9 million barrels per day of supply already offline. The world’s oil storage facilities are under immense strain — the inventory buffer is finite. Goldman’s analysis frames this as a shock 17 times larger than Russia’s 2022 invasion.

Kpler’s lead crude research analyst Homayoun Falakshahi put it directly: ‘If between now and the end of March you don’t have an amelioration of traffic around the strait, we could go to $150 a barrel.’ The IRGC has itself warned that continued strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure could send prices above $200 per barrel.

Beyond the analyst forecasts, the market itself is sending clear signals about which scenario traders are actually betting on. Reading those signals requires looking at three data points simultaneously: the spot price, the futures curve, and equity market behaviour.

Signal 1: Extreme Backwardation in Futures

Near-term April WTI delivery contracts are trading around $115. October 2026 contracts are at $79. Contracts for 2027 and 2028 delivery are in the high $60s. This extreme backwardation is the market’s clearest statement: traders believe the disruption is real and severe in the short term, but they do not believe it is permanent. They are pricing in resolution. The longer the Strait stays closed without resolution, the more that backwardation collapses — and the more the far-dated contracts reprice upward.

Signal 2: Equity Markets Already Pricing Recession Risk

Japan’s Nikkei 225 closed more than 5% lower in the days following the price spike. South Korea’s KOSPI fell 6%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 900 points at its intraday low before recovering. These are not reactions to high oil prices alone — they are reactions to the recession probability that $120+ oil implies. Deutsche Bank has warned that without near-term relief, airlines worldwide could be forced to ground thousands of aircraft.

Signal 3: The $3.48 Gasoline Price — And Its Political Ceiling

U.S. gasoline prices rose roughly 50 cents in a single week to $3.48 per gallon — higher than at any point in either of President Trump’s terms. This creates a political ceiling on price tolerance. The Trump administration’s willingness to sustain a conflict whose visible domestic cost is measured at the pump every day is finite. Top House Republicans have already begun framing the oil price surge as a ‘short-term experience.’ The political economy of $150 oil in a U.S. election year is a structural constraint on how long the conflict can be allowed to persist without resolution.

Every analyst surveyed has converged on the same three variables as the determinants of outcome. These are not abstractions. They are measurable, reportable data points that will be updated daily over the coming weeks.

The 2026 oil crisis has produced the most extreme analyst divergence in the history of crude oil pricing. From $57 to $200 — a $143 spread between credible forecasts published within days of each other — the range is not a sign of analytical confusion. It is an accurate reflection of genuine, binary uncertainty.

The Strait of Hormuz is 21 miles wide at its narrowest point. It carries roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day — approximately one-fifth of global consumption. Before February 28, 2026, it was taken as a fixed assumption by every oil market model in the world. No scenario planning tool for any major financial institution had a live operating model for what happens when it closes, because it was assumed the world would not allow it to close.

It has closed. The world is now finding out what happens.

Goldman Sachs, Wood Mackenzie, Kpler, and Lipow Oil Associates all arrive at $150+ under a sustained disruption scenario. The EIA, J.P. Morgan, and the futures market all arrive at $60–$70 under a rapid resolution scenario. Both sets of analysts are working from the same data. The only variable is time.

Every other factor — OPEC spare capacity, U.S. shale acceleration, G7 reserve releases, naval escorts, government insurance programmes — exists on the margin. They mitigate. They buy time. They do not substitute for 20 million barrels per day of daily throughput through a 21-mile passage between Oman and Iran.

The answer to that question — measured in days and tanker counts on a live AIS feed — will determine whether this crisis is recorded as a temporary spike or a structural break in global energy markets. For now, the market is betting on the former, while pricing in the possibility of the latter. That is the most rational position available. It just happens to be one that implies historic volatility in either direction, with everything depending on a single 21-mile stretch of water.