>>543812711
Because shipping companies are charging a 1000% premium on transportation through the strait to account for the possibility of being fucking blown up.

>>543812711
same reason prices here skyrocketed "cause tariffs" and never went back down after the tariffs went away

aka it's just price gouging

Kpler even claims

>According to Kpler data, the overall tally for crude, oil products, chemicals and non-gas liquids averaged 22.4 million bpd in the seven days to September 30.

>Before the US-Israel war on Iran began, exports averaged 18 million bpd between March 2025 and February 2026.

File: supply demand.png (7 KB, 552x362)

7 KB PNG

>>543812819
That explanation doesn't work.

Elementary economic theory tells us that there is only one price on the demand curve for any given quantity. If quantity returns to pre-war level, then the price should also return to pre-war level.

The only way the price can be above pre-war level when the quantity is at pre-war level is if the demand curve has shifted upward, which seems exceedingly unlikely - if anything, the demand curve should have shifted downward due to demand destruction.

If transport through Hormuz is more expensive, that means the seller has to absorb the extra cost, because it is not possible to find buyers for this quantity of oil at a higher price than the pre-war price.

>>543812711
Oil tankers pay the hormuz toll, hidden taxes are everywhere (amerimutt petrodollar, kosher cert ified goyslop and hormuz toll)

>>543812903
go be jewish somewhere else

>>543812903
It takes time and funds to fill up inventories there are local differences compared to the global supply and demand (e.g. wti cheaper than brent) + hidden scams

>>543812955
>>543812963
If it is possible to find buyers at ~$114 while the market is being supplied with pre-war quantity of oil, then sellers would already have been charging $114 before the war began, rather than just ~$65

>>543812711
This is news to me I thought the hormuz was still mostly inoperable

>>543813148
Spr and inventories everywhere are below where they were when it began, filling them increases demand, the appearance of shortages (price gouging) allows higher prices supply and demand curve is amacro tautology outside the relevant domain

>>543813094
WTI is also above the pre-war level, not much below Brent.

It might be worth pointing out that the graph I posted is Brent spot price (time series DCOILBRENTEU), not Brent futures price. The spot price is higher than the futures price.

>fill up inventories
Which countries are significantly stockpiling right now? China is still drawing down stocks, the US SPR is being very slowly drained, the G7 just announced another release.

>>543813261
Which are the countries filling their SPRs?

>the appearance of shortages allows higher prices
Only if it causes people to hoard en masse, thus increasing demand, however this I am not aware is happening

>>543812711
>meme flag
>word salad
Slide

>>543813164
It's a matter in dispute.

The US government says the strait is open. Some analysis companies (which happen to be highly dependent on American satellite imagery providers, which in turn are highly dependent on the US DoD as a customer) also say so.

By the way, an interesting quote from the head of policy and geopolitical risk at Kpler, one of the analysis companies that claims the flows are back to pre-war levels or even above pre-war levels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v72t8SYw8z8

35:30

>So it's not like the numbers changed. It's just how you read the platform.
>And if you tried to piece it together yourself and you didn't capture all of them, then you missed it.
>And really what made us want to do it is because they kept saying, well, Kpler doesn't match the U.S. government.
>Well, and at first we were like, is it possible that the U.S. government is double counting or has some discrepancies in their own data, right?
>And I had talked to somebody and she said, listen, I can't tell you how we do it, but I trust the data, and I trust her inside the U.S. government. She's very good.
>And so I was like, okay, let's figure out how we can find a way... and once we started putting this together, we could see, okay, the way that the U.S. government tracks their ships is different.
>They aggregate it different than how we had been aggregating it. So once we re-aggregated it, it started to match, which then we get, okay, we are - what was the - we're like the mouthpiece for the U.S... we're taking the data from the U.S. government, but like, we've been tracking these ships in this methodology for a decade, right?
>So, I guess I welcome the debate on the ship tracking, and we could scramble this all over again and put it together in a whole different format, and the numbers could... will still be the same

>>543812903
>That explanation doesn't work.

Actually, it does, because it's true. Didn't read the rest of your post lol.

>>543813837
I didn't say it isn't true that the cost of transport through Hormuz is higher. I said it doesn't explain the higher prices charged to customers.

>>543813514
I guess china

>>543812711
They just lie now.

>>543812711
because only nations friendly to Iran are getting oil.
China is getting heavily discounted oil and exporting to the rest of Asia.

>>543814257
This says

>Refineries processed 13.91 million bpd in August, the most since March, according to official data released on Tuesday, meaning throughput was 640,000 bpd more than available crude.

https://www.reuters.com/commentary/reuters-open-interest/china-draws-crude-inventories-august-refinery-runs-rise-2026-09-15/

This text from September 23 says

>Chinese oil imports so far in September are running at just under 7 million barrels a day, according to Vortexa, a commodity intelligence firm. That’s lower than the average rate for July and August.

https://archive.ph/Q4KBB

>>543813945
>I said it doesn't explain the higher prices charged to customers.
Makes sense to me. You think these companies are going to eat those additional costs?
These prices are about to get a hell of a lot higher for US consumers right after the midterms. However, there's another 40mb drawdown proposed from the SPR. Applications expire tomorrow, so we'll see how this plays out shortly.

>>543812711
Because only Iran's allies are getting the oil

Because it's all fake made up bullshit.

>>543812711
Because of backlog disruptions and lingering risks, duh?
Can't immediately process all that sgit so the optimal routes are still unavailable as they are now not so much blocked for lack of oil but rather cligged with too much, meaning oil needs to travel further to be bought.

It takes a while for disruptions to straighten out.

>>543812711
energy analyst here. i dont respond to memeflags. gfy.

>>543814596
They might want to charge more. That doesn't matter unless they can find customers willing to pay, which they can't find if quantity is at pre-war level. That was the crux of my argument.

>>543814616
It's pretty evident that Iran isn't managing to stop every single ship from running its blockade

>>543814715
If more crude oil is available than can be processed due to refinery backlogs, so much that crude oil tankers is having trouble finding a port that will take their cargo, that just means crude oil prices should now be even lower than pre-war prices.

>>543815109
The way things are going, in 6 months no one is going to take an "energy analyst" seriously

>>543813148
>then sellers would already have been charging $114 before the war began, rather than just ~$65
No, because they would have been undercut by their competition. That competition is gone or at least unable to undercut them currently.

File: news4.jpg (961 KB, 2000x2800)

961 KB JPG

>>543812711
these are great for news

>>543812711
Because they’re lying

>>543815670
What competition is gone? The only supplier that is gone is Iran. No one except Chinese teapot refineries bought Iranian oil anyway, so Iran was never a competitor in other markets.

There are many oil suppliers. There is no lack of competition.

>>543815660
FUD
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Aramco-CEO-Warns-Oil-Inventories-Are-Scarily-Thin.html
China buying dont miss out the pump and dump
https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/rising-oil-imports-china-risk-crude-price
Noboday can determine exact strategic resource flows in times of wars, shadow fleets and piracy
If supply and demand curve is true then demand went up for such prices (there are many more transient factors at play)

>>543812903
>If quantity returns to pre-war level, then the price should also return to pre-war level.
lol, lmao even

>>543815970
Straigth from the chinky mouth

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3368047/chinas-crude-imports-are-rising-again-what-will-mean-oil-prices

My guess is china is buying oil spamming diesel and selling high

>>543815888
Not the producers, the ships. No one is shipping oil out of the gulf without that additional risk so no one is willing to offer a the prewar price.

>>543812711
Because refining capacity is also down.

>>543812711
Because the claim is a lie.

>>543812903
Are you shopping around for your oil such that prices would actually match this curve, ie, due to competition?

>>543812903
you can't reason with miggers anon. these are the same retards who thought china would pay for the tariffs kek

>>543815970
The graph in the text you linked only has data up to August.

This text >>543814485 says Chinese imports fell to below 7 mb/d in September, below August and July levels.

>Nobody can determine exact strategic resource flows
The USG, Kpler and others claim to be able to do just that

>there is an unexplained surge in demand
An alternative, perhaps more likely explanation is simply that the USG and Kpler are full of shit.

>>543816035
Gulf oil extraction cost is something like $25 per barrel or even less. There is plenty of room for the seller to absorb increased transport costs.

>no one is willing to offer a the prewar price
They still can't sell unless they can find a buyer willing to pay the price they want. If pre-war quantities of oil were available on the market, they should not be able to find a buyer willing to pay above pre-war prices.

>>543816693
you do you im shorting vietnamese diesel and long the dong bc china will dump it

>>543816159
Me? No. Are there others who will do this? Absolutely. If there is an arbitrage opportunity, commodity traders will descend on it like a pack of hyenas.

>>543816038
That lowers demand for crude oil. If anything, it means crude oil prices should be below the pre-war level

>>543812711
Because crude needs to be refined and reserves need to be filled up, that will halt any price drop for who knows how long.
IF hormuz is actually open now.

>>543817009
Which countries are significantly stockpiling right now? As previously mentioned in this thread, China is drawing down stocks, the US SPR is being very slowly drained, and the G7 just announced another release.

>>543813539
>word salad
American reading comprehension in the year of our lord 2026

>>543812711
>memeflaggot
>naive retard
You must be new here, and by here I mean the whole fucking humanity.
Here are some other mysteries from past and future (yes I have a crystal ball and I am pondering it regularly).
>after Covid came and went, and supply chain problems vanished overnight why didn't prices go back to pre-covid era?
>after AI slop bubble burst and NVIDIA, Samsung and other suppliers stopped getting billions for high grade datacenter HW, why didn't prices of Ram and SSD disks back to normal?
Starting to see the pattern retardo?
Why the fuck would anyone willingly lower prices when consumers already settled for bigger ones?

>>543812819
>>543812955
>>543813094
So why are we releasing reserves still? If this was purely a cost issue there’d be no need to dump 100 million barrels on the market from reserves. If we were refilling reserves we wouldnt be simultaneously releasing oil FROM those very reserves.

>>543814596
See drawdowns. Not filling reserves.

>>543816027
What the article says is that China's oil imports are still running far below normal, just not as low as the extremely low levels in June

>>543818118
While OT, I can still answer these

>why didn't prices go back to pre-covid era?
Because very very large amounts of money were printed during covid. Also, sanctions on Russia.

>after AI slop bubble burst
It hasn't

>>543816844
>There is plenty of room for the seller to absorb increased transport costs.
>source: my ass
They're moving oil out in smaller faster ships in convoys directed by the US Navy. Shipping options out of the strait are limited. There is no one to undercut them.
>If pre-war quantities of oil were available on the market, they should not be able to find a buyer willing to pay above pre-war prices.
You're assuming a linear demand curve at about a 1:1 slope like in your picture. For most buyers there's a range of prices where the quantity demanded is nearly constant. Add in a bit of extra demand from stockpiles being drained and middle east refineries not running and they can find plenty of buyers at the current price.

>>543818118
So why are inventories falling with oil flowing at a higher rate than ever before? 22>18 bub. If true inventories should be REFILLING, but they arent.

>>543816857
Why yes, china is drawing down their reserves to send the oil to other countries. Just like the jews do! Oh wait thats projection and they are keeping it all internal.

>>543819798
>its price gouging!
>The oil is flowing!
>this isnt a massive unforced error caused by the jews!
Look MIGApeed, IF the oil is flowing as claimed (at roughly 20% higher than ever before), inventories would be refilling NOT drawing down. So where is all the oil going?

>>543812711
In capitalism prices only go up. Right wingers are subhuman.

>>543819798
>smaller faster ships
From Reuters:
>However, attacks on tankers continued, with at least seven incidents reported in the past week, Marisks said, noting the very large crude carrier (VLCC) Kazimah III was struck on October 1 by an unknown projectile while in the strait, causing a fire onboard. Its owner, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company, did not respond to a request for comment.
>Marisks said on Monday that the Liberian-flagged Aframax tanker Lipsi was struck by an unknown projectile on October 4 while transiting northeast of Jazirat Um Al Fayarin, Oman, in the Strait of Hormuz, damaging its engine room.
VLCCs and Aframax tankers are not what I would call "smaller faster ships"

>there is no one to undercut them
Who are "them"? You have multiple countries in the Gulf exporting oil. And even pre-war, Gulf oil was only about 20% of global oil supply. There is plenty of competition. No one has suddenly achieved additional monopoly power in the crude oil market. If anything sellers' pricing power has been reduced because OPEC seems to be fraying.

>You're assuming a linear demand curve at about a 1:1 slope like in your picture
No, I'm just assuming that each quantity has one single price associated with it, that is, the demand curve is never vertical anywhere. It could be straight, it would be curved, it doesn't matter, as long as it is never vertical.

>Add in a bit of extra demand from stockpiles being drained and middle east refineries not running
This does not increase demand

>>543820661
>No one has suddenly achieved additional monopoly power in the crude oil market. If anything sellers' pricing power has been reduced because OPEC seems to be fraying.
And by the way, the means by which a monopoly increases prices is by restricting supply

>>543820661
>VLCCs and Aframax tankers are not what I would call "smaller faster ships"
Those are also the ones that got hit.
>Who are "them"?
The tankers running the strait. You can't actually be this dense.
>And even pre-war, Gulf oil was only about 20% of global oil supply.
20% is a lot. Oil is not as elastic as you're pretending it is.
>No, I'm just assuming that each quantity has one single price associated with it
So you're assuming the demand curve is time invariant? That's even more retarded.
>as long as it is never vertical
The demand curve is a composite of demand curves of individual buyers and for a lot of them it is definitely vertical over certain price ranges.
>This does not increase demand
>deferred oil purchases in the past won't increase demand now
>refining crude outside the gulf won't increase the amount that needs to be shipped out.
Again, you can't actually be this dense.

>>543812711
Greed

>>543815304
>what is inelastic demand

>>543822078
Inelastic demand is when the demand curve slope is steep.

Even if demand was perfectly inelastic, i.e. vertical slope, then sellers would have already been exploiting this fact before the war by charging higher prices.

>>543821866
>Who are "them"?
The point is that Gulf sellers are not a monolithic entity

As I mentioned here
>>543812903
if the demand curve shifts over time, it would be a shift *downward* due to demand destruction. What might cause the demand curve to shift upward is if countries decide to start refilling SPRs, which they aren't

Even if the demand curve was vertical, sellers would have already exploited this fact pre-war by charging the price at the highest possible point, so this assumption doesn't change anything. A vertical section in the demand curve is pretty much equivalent to discontinuous section where the curve makes a jump from the low point to the high point.

>>543822398
No because the oil market isn’t a monopoly. Well not completely anyways.
Point is if the cost of doing business goes up for some of the producers, then they can all jack up prices and there’s fuckall consumers can do about it and they can’t comfortably reduce demand.

As for where all the extra oil coming from strategic reserves is actually going, well I don’t know but I’m guessing it’s going into private reserves.

>>543822858
If increased price didn't reduce demand, then sellers would already have jacked prices up as much as possible. The sellers are not leaving free money on the table. It doesn't matter if there's a monopoly or not.

>>543812711
If you have a ton of barrels coming out, but you now spend 3x as much in hazard pay and insurance because the area has greater risk attached to it, each barrel is now that much more expensive.