Oil Price Snapshot: CL=F and BZ=F Pinned Near Four-Year Lows
Front-month BZ=F (Brent) is trading around $60–61 per barrel, with recent prints near $60.47 and weekly closes around $59.67, down roughly 2–4% versus last week’s $61.02. CL=F (WTI) is holding around $56–57 per barrel (quotes near $56.52–$57.37 versus $59.93 a week ago), leaving both benchmarks close to their weakest levels in several years.
From January to mid-December 2025, Brent has dropped about 18% and WTI close to 20%, unwinding the war-risk premium and replacing it with a pure oversupply discount. North Sea Dated, the physical benchmark related to BZ=F, averaged $63.63 in November, its fifth straight monthly decline and the longest losing streak in over a decade, effectively putting seaborne crude at roughly four-year lows.
Supply growth vs demand growth: a 3–4 million bpd imbalance building into 2026
The IEA numbers are blunt. Global oil demand is expected to rise roughly 830,000 bpd in 2025 and 860,000 bpd in 2026, but supply is projected to grow by about 3.0 million bpd in 2025 and another 2.4 million bpd in 2026, driven mainly by non-OPEC+ producers such as the U.S., Brazil, Canada and Guyana.
That mismatch is already visible in inventories. Observed global oil stocks are around 8.03 billion barrels, the highest in four years, with builds averaging about 1.2 million bpd over the first ten months of 2025. On IEA math, the implied surplus runs close to 3.7 million bpd on average from Q4 2025 through 2026, roughly 4% of world consumption – a scale more consistent with a structural glut than a minor overshoot.
2026 price gravity: consensus pulls BZ=F toward mid-$50s
Forward-looking price forecasts line up with that surplus. The EIA projects Brent averaging about $69 in 2025, then dropping sharply to roughly $55 in 2026, with WTI sliding from $65 to about $51. A broad sell-side survey pegs Brent around $62.2 and WTI near $59 in 2026, while one major bank now has Brent at $56 and WTI at $52, and openly flags risk of a temporary dip into the $40s if non-OPEC supply continues to overshoot or global growth stalls.
Another house is slightly less pessimistic, lifting H1-2026 Brent from $57.50 to $60 on the assumption that OPEC+ pauses further hikes and sanctions tighten a bit on Russian exports. But the centre of gravity is clear: the consensus anchor for BZ=F has shifted into a mid-$50s to low-$60s band, not back toward $80–90.
OPEC+ signalling: pausing hikes instead of defending a higher floor
On paper, OPEC paints a softer picture than the IEA. The group reports OPEC+ output around 43.06 million bpd in November and estimates call on its crude at roughly 43.0 million bpd in 2026, implying a trivial surplus of about 60,000 bpd if they simply hold current quotas. That is a rounding error compared with the IEA’s 3.8 million bpd surplus.
What matters for CL=F and BZ=F is behaviour, not rhetoric. OPEC+ has already signalled it will pause additional production increases in Q1-2026, explicitly citing oversupply risk. That is risk management, not a proactive defence of any specific price level. As long as Brent trades near $60 and global inventories keep climbing, the group is effectively tolerating a lower floor and betting that project deferrals and shale discipline eventually tighten the balance for them.
Russia’s Urals at $35: sanctions are crushing netbacks, not volumes
Russia illustrates how the surplus is being priced. Urals shipped from Novorossiysk is changing hands at roughly $34.52 a barrel, with cargoes from Primorsk closer to $36.07. Discounts versus BZ=F sit in the $23–25 range in key ports, and some shipments bound for China are being dumped at discounts of up to $35, effectively pushing realized prices below $30 – the weakest since the pandemic.
Those discounts are ripping through Moscow’s budget. Oil and gas revenues fell 34% year-on-year in November and are down 21% year-to-date. December oil-and-gas tax receipts are tracking toward about 410 billion rubles (~$5.1 billion), roughly 49% below December 2024. The federal budget was originally drafted on a $69 oil assumption with 10.94 trillion rubles in hydrocarbon tax revenue, then cut mid-year to $58 and 8.65 trillion, and still looks short by about 300 billion rubles. Total public-sector deficit (federal, regional and social funds) could hit 8 trillion rubles, about 4% of GDP.
The key point for BZ=F: sanctions are forcing Russia to accept 30–50% discounts to keep barrels moving. That pushes realized prices down, but it does not pull volume off the water fast enough to tighten the global balance.
Peace risk, not war risk: diplomacy now leans bearish for CL=F and BZ=F
The market’s reaction function has flipped. Hopes of a Russia–Ukraine peace framework now remove risk premium rather than add it. Repeated calls from Washington for Kyiv to “move quickly” toward a deal, plus expectations that senior Russian investment officials will sit in on talks, are reinforcing a view that sanctions on Russian oil flow could eventually be eased or at least stabilized.
That is exactly what you see in the tape. Into the latest peace headlines, Brent slid from the low $60s to the high $50s, and WTI followed, even as occasional attacks on tankers and infrastructure flashed across the screen. The dominant read for CL=F and BZ=F is now: peace equals lower risk premium and more stable Russian exports, not incrementally tighter supply.
Venezuela, blockades and why 1.1 million bpd is not moving the needle
The U.S. seizure of a Venezuelan crude tanker and a declared “full and complete” blockade on sanctioned Venezuelan oil created brief spikes in CL=F and BZ=F. Venezuela produces around 1.1 million bpd, mostly heavy crude, so a genuine disruption would matter for specific refiners.
But price action has been blunt. Each rally faded as quickly as it appeared because there is no evidence of a lasting supply loss. Mexican leadership has publicly opposed external intervention and pushed for a UN-mediated, diplomatic solution. Traders see rerouting and temporary delays, not a structural drop in exports. In a market staring at a 3–4 million bpd global surplus, a theoretical risk to 1.1 million bpd from Venezuela is not enough to sustain a bullish bid.
U.S. demand, inventories and shale economics: weak draws and rig attrition
On the fundamental side, the latest EIA data confirm soft U.S. demand. Commercial crude inventories fell by only about 1.3 million barrels last week, versus expectations closer to a 2.4-million-barrel draw, while gasoline stocks jumped roughly 4.8 million barrels. U.S. crude output still edged up by around 10,000 bpd to roughly 13.84 million bpd, keeping supply pressure alive.
At the same time, the U.S. oil rig count is down by 77 versus a year ago. That is the natural response to CL=F grinding into the mid-$50s: at these levels, many new shale wells sit close to breakeven, and higher-cost inventory simply does not get drilled. The equity tape reflects the squeeze. ProPetro Holding (PUMP) – a pure-play oilfield services name – has dropped about 20% between December 10 and 17, despite a JPMorgan upgrade from Neutral to Overweight with the target almost doubled from $7 to $13, and a Barclays target increase from $10 to $11.
Fundamentally, PUMP is adding business: its PROPWR unit just signed a new power services contract in the Permian with a Coterra subsidiary, lifting contracted power above 220 MW, with field work starting Q1-2026. The stock is being hit anyway because the sector’s earnings power is being repriced to $55–60 WTI, not $80.
Battery storage and the structural cap on long-run oil demand
Overlaying the cyclical glut is a structural headwind: the battery storage boom. Global utility-scale storage additions (excluding pumped hydro) are expected to reach 92 GW in 2025, up 23% from 2024, with China supplying over 50% of that capacity and the U.S. around 14%. Forecasts for 2035 put cumulative storage near 2 terawatts, roughly eight times 2025 levels.
Battery costs have dropped about 90% over the last 15 years, as mass production has ramped up. In the U.S., storage capacity has risen roughly 30-fold in California alone since 2018, and the country has met its 35 GW by 2025 storage goal despite wind and solar setbacks. Across the grid connection queues, storage projects now outnumber gas power by about 6.5x.
Mexico is lining up its own boom, with one developer operating nearly 200 MWh of storage and targeting another 300 MWh by 2026, while sourcing cheaper systems at less than half the price of three to four years ago. India is bidding aggressively for storage but is facing record-low tariffs that threaten economic viability and deter investors, slowing deployment despite an ambition to double renewables to 500 GW by 2030.
For CL=F and BZ=F, the message is simple: even if oil demand still grows in 2025–2026, long-run growth is being shaved by cheaper storage, rising EV penetration and policy pressure. The energy transition is uneven, but it is relentless enough to make $90–100 oil structurally harder to sustain without significant supply discipline.
December 2025 trading ranges: realistic bands for CL=F and BZ=F
Given the macro backdrop and the numbers on supply, demand and inventories, the rest of December is best framed in ranges rather than point targets.
Base case – slow grind around current levels
In the high-probability scenario, BZ=F trades mostly in a $60–65 band and CL=F in roughly $56–61 over the remaining December sessions. Weekly EIA reports show small crude draws or flat stocks but continued builds in gasoline and distillates. OPEC+ does not announce fresh cuts; it simply leans on its Q1-2026 pause. The IEA’s ~3.8 million bpd surplus narrative stays front and centre and any geopolitical pop is sold into. Price action is choppy but anchored: repeated tests of $60 Brent and mid-$50s WTI, with reflexive bounces on every tanker headline.
Bearish case – early test of sub-$60 Brent and low-$50s WTI
In the more negative scenario, inventory data worsen: crude stocks start rising again, gasoline and diesel builds stay heavy, and macro prints from China or Europe disappoint. Traders lean hard into the “super glut” angle: non-OPEC+ growth from the Americas, cooling Chinese demand and high stocks. Under that setup, BZ=F can slip into a $55–60 range and CL=F into $51–57, effectively front-running the 2026 averages sketched by the EIA and the more bearish banks.
Downside is partially self-correcting: at $50–55 WTI, U.S. shale growth slows, but that adjustment is not instantaneous. In the short run, the market can overshoot to the downside before capex cuts bite.
Bullish but low-probability case – geopolitics plus demand surprise
To push BZ=F convincingly into a $65–72 band and CL=F toward $61–68 this month, you would need several things simultaneously: a genuine and sustained loss of supply from Russia, Venezuela or another major exporter; clear evidence that exports are falling, not just being rerouted; and upside surprises in Asian demand alongside resilient U.S. data. Even then, the scale of the projected 2026 surplus means rallies into the high $60s–low $70s Brent are likely to face heavy selling from producers, hedgers and macro funds re-establishing shorts.
Sector impact: why oilfield services and high-beta energy remain under pressure
The PUMP price action is the template. An oil-services name with fresh analyst upgrades, a target doubled from $7 to $13, and a new 220 MW contract still sells off 20% in a week because the underlying commodity has broken its perceived floor. As CL=F trades mid-50s instead of 70s, investor positioning in high-beta energy names shifts from “growth plus dividends” to “late-cycle, margin squeeze, capex risk.”
Integrated majors with refining and chemicals can partially hedge through better downstream margins as feedstock costs fall, but pure upstream and services will continue to be repriced to the new curve: $55–60 WTI and $60–65 Brent for the next couple of years, not $80+. That is exactly what the equity market is discounting right now.
Investment stance on oil: Sell rallies in CL=F and BZ=F, avoid chasing value in high-beta names
Putting all the data together – 3–4 million bpd projected surplus, inventories at 8.03 billion barrels, Urals clearing below $35, Brent stuck near $60, WTI in the mid-50s, gasoline builds, weak U.S. demand signals, peace-driven compression of the Russia risk premium, and the structural drag from cheap battery storage – the balance of risk for CL=F and BZ=F over the next 6–12 months is down, not up.
Tactically, December looks like a range-trading month, not a collapse. Structurally, the curve is re-rating to a cheaper regime. On that basis, the clean stance is:
Verdict on front-month crude benchmarks (CL=F, BZ=F): Sell – bearish bias, fade strength into the high $60s on Brent and low $60s on WTI rather than treat current levels as a long-term buying opportunity.
That's TradingNEWS
