Impending oil energy crisis and tipping point in June 2026: The government is downplaying the situation – but the storage facilities are almost empty

Flight cancellations, lubricant shortages, price explosions: This is how hard the Hormus blockade is really hitting us

Oil price shock in June: Why experts are now warning of $150 per barrel

In the spring of 2026, the global economy faces an unprecedented turning point. Following the de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz as a result of a military conflict in the Persian Gulf, global oil reserves are dwindling at an alarming rate. While leading energy market experts and business leaders warn of a critical tipping point in June—with potential record prices of up to $150 per barrel and tangible physical shortages—politicians attempt to downplay the situation. But reality tells a different story: Alternative routes are reaching their capacity limits, the historical emergency reserves of Western nations are largely depleted, and disrupted supply chains increasingly threaten the production of fuels and lubricants in Europe. The following analysis illuminates the harsh market reality of a system losing its most important buffer and shows why the most serious consequences for industry, mobility, and consumers are yet to come.

Oil crisis in June 2026: The looming tipping point

When the reserves are silent – ​​and politics reassures

The oil market is facing a turning point. Not because of panic, not because of speculation, but because of a stark physical reality: Global reserves are dwindling faster than replacement sources can be built up, and the Strait of Hormuz has been effectively closed since the end of February 2026. Anyone who ignores the warnings of leading energy market experts today risks facing a fait accompli tomorrow—and this applies not only to gasoline prices at the pump, but also to raw materials for industry, aviation, chemicals, and transportation.

Outbreak of war in the Persian Gulf – a new situation for the global economy

On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched massive airstrikes against Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard responded immediately: Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the 50-kilometer-wide waterway at the entrance to the Persian Gulf, was effectively halted. This blocked one of the world's most critical energy routes—an average of around 20 million barrels of crude oil pass through this strait daily, representing approximately 20 percent of global oil consumption.

The immediate consequences were drastic. The Iranian attacks of March 18 severely damaged between 30 and 40 percent of the Gulf's refining capacity, resulting in an estimated 11 million barrels per day being cut from global supply. The price of Brent crude oil reached peaks of $120 per barrel—a level last seen in June 2022 during the global energy crisis following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. After the announcement of a two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran in early April, the price briefly fell to around $92 before rebounding to over $100. On May 11, 2026, the price of Brent crude stood at around $105 per barrel.

Approximately a quarter to a third of global oil shipments and about a fifth of global liquefied natural gas trade typically pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Eighty percent of the transported oil and gas is destined for Asian markets, with China being by far the most important buyer of Iranian oil, accounting for more than 90 percent. The consequences are therefore not just European; they are global.

The bottleneck is narrowing – why alternative measures are reaching their limits

In the first few weeks after the closure, the global oil market was still able to partially mitigate the bottleneck through alternative measures. Saudi Arabia increased its oil production in February 2026 to 10.882 million barrels per day—a significant increase compared to the 10.1 million barrels in January. Exports via the Yanbu port on the Red Sea rose to almost 4.6 million barrels per day and have thus already reached their capacity limit. The United Arab Emirates exports via Fujairah, also located outside the Strait of Hormuz—this corridor, too, is now largely operating at capacity.

Frederic Lasserre, chief analyst at the global commodities trader Gunvor, sums up the situation: The market is already tapping into existing stockpiles and approaching the end of these reserves. We will soon see the bottom of the tanks for oil products. Specifically, Lasserre explained that the current contingency measures have now reached their limits: Saudi Arabia's alternative routes are fully utilized, US and African export volumes can no longer compensate for the shortfall, and the strategic reserves of IEA member states have already been largely depleted.

On March 11, 2026, the International Energy Agency (IEA) took a historic step, deciding to release 400 million barrels of oil from the strategic emergency reserves of its 32 member countries—more than twice the amount released after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Germany contributed 19.51 million barrels. These 400 million barrels correspond to approximately 20 days of the usual oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz. This sounds like a substantial buffer—but these reserves have now been largely depleted, and refilling them is simply not possible with the strait remaining closed.

June as a crossroads: When the warehouses run dry

This is precisely the crux of the warning issued by energy market professionals in May 2026. Kerstin Hottner, head of commodities at the Swiss investment firm Vontobel, describes the situation precisely: By the end of June, global inventories are likely to have been reduced to a minimum. Then the price must rise significantly for demand to react accordingly, i.e., fall. In this scenario, Hottner considers record prices of up to US$150 per barrel possible.

This warning is not fear-mongering, but market logic. When physical inventories reach a critical lower limit, the market loses its most important buffer. Price signals must then take over the work that inventory management has performed until then: curbing demand, setting priorities, and incentivizing substitution. In an economy like Germany, which derives 60 percent of its energy mix from oil and gas, this is not an abstract consideration.

RWE CEO Markus Krebber articulated the dilemma from the perspective of an energy supplier: the real, physical shortage has only just begun. The energy that had been coming from the region had been at sea for another two to three months—now no new shipments are arriving. In his annual press conference, Krebber also stated that if the crisis persists, Europe will have to address the issue of gas storage facilities before next winter. The RWE CEO explicitly rejected a state-run strategic gas reserve and instead advocated letting the market find a solution—provided the conflict resolves itself within three to four weeks. If this doesn't happen, a price spike will turn into a structural shortage.

Deutsche Bank CEO Christian Sewing expects an average oil price of $95 in the current crisis year—around 50 percent higher than last year. This forecast is already above the pre-conflict annual average for Brent crude and implies significant follow-up costs for industry, logistics, and consumers. By comparison, at the end of 2025, Deutsche Bank had projected a Brent price of $55 for 2026 in its baseline scenario—the Iran war has completely invalidated this expectation.

Multiple supply fronts at once – the Druzhba pipeline and the lubricant problem

The Strait of Hormuz is not the only fault line in Germany's oil supply. Since May 1, 2026, no Kazakh crude oil has flowed to Germany via the Druzhba pipeline. Russia halted transit—officially for technical reasons, but presumably due to Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian infrastructure. The PCK refinery in Schwedt, which supplies Berlin and northeastern Germany with fuel, is thus losing approximately 17 percent of its crude oil supply.

The Brandenburg state government remained optimistic: the PCK refinery could continue operating at around 80 percent capacity in May and cushion supply disruptions with reserves. Alternative routes via the port of Gdańsk in Poland are available. Leuna, in turn, is supplied with US oil via a pipeline from Gdańsk. However, this alternative route costs time, money, and logistical effort—three resources that are scarce in an acute supply crisis.

Another, less well-known problem is exacerbating the situation: Base oils for engine oil and synthetic lubricants are threatening to run out by June. Cargo ships carrying these resources are stuck in the Persian Gulf. Europe and the US are searching for alternative suppliers, but these too are facing difficulties: The crucial PAO raw material ethylene traditionally comes in large quantities from the Persian Gulf. Spot prices for Group III lubricants are already rising rapidly. Should the blockade continue for an extended period, finished lubricants for the automotive sector will be the next shortage – with direct repercussions for vehicle maintenance and the automotive industry.

Furthermore, the European Union, according to internal forecasts, is warning of impending shortages of diesel and kerosene within the bloc. EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen has been sounding the alarm for weeks: the oil crisis is escalating into a comprehensive energy crisis that will severely impact Europe's economy. Kerosene prices have been twice as high as pre-war levels for more than two months. In this context, the German Airports Association (ADV) is warning of flight cancellations: in the worst-case scenario, some airports face a capacity reduction of ten percent, which, extrapolated to all airports, would affect 20 million passengers.

The European response: emergency reserves, price rules and political symbolism

The political response in Europe ranges from concrete emergency measures to attempts to reassure the public. On March 30, 2026, the G7 heads of state and government declared their readiness to take all necessary measures to ensure energy stability. The EU intends to introduce new measures soon to reduce consumption and promote alternatives. According to estimates by the European Commission, gas prices have risen by 70 percent and oil prices by 50 percent, resulting in additional import costs of €13 billion.

Germany intervened directly in pricing: since the IEA's release of reserves, gas stations are only allowed to raise their fuel prices once a day. This intervention in the market protects consumers from extreme price spikes in the short term, but does not solve the structural supply problems. OPEC+, for its part, gradually increased production quotas by 206,000 barrels per day for April and May, and by 188,000 barrels for June—but many of the agreed-upon production increases can hardly be implemented for the time being as long as export routes remain blocked.

The United Arab Emirates has since withdrawn from OPEC+, further weakening the cartel's ability to coordinate and making market dynamics more difficult to predict. While Saudi Arabia is utilizing alternative export corridors—via the Yanbu pipeline in the Red Sea—these capacities are almost exhausted. Analysts estimate that restarting damaged refinery facilities in the Gulf could take several months, and a complete reconstruction could take up to three years.

State-of-the-art cargo planes, optimized transport routes, and multimodal logistics chains are interchangeable—they can be bought, leased, or outsourced. What money can't buy are direct contacts with producers in Peruvian mines, reliable supply relationships in the CIS countries, and years of built-up trust in markets that are unfamiliar to outsiders. The decisive competitive advantage in global commodity trading lies not in transporting the good from A to B, but in knowing where the good comes from, who produces it, and how to gain access before others even know the market exists. Whoever owns the network sets the price. Everyone else pays it.

More information here:

• Integrated Sourcing & Trading House: Raw Materials, Global Sourcing & Trading

Peace talks and their limits: Why even an agreement is not enough

In early April 2026, the US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire. Iran announced it would open the Strait of Hormuz to non-hostile shipping. A few tankers began passing through the strait again. The price of oil briefly fell by around 16 percent. But these signs of de-escalation masked the true depth of the problem.

Negotiations have been frozen ever since. As of mid-May 2026, Washington is still awaiting an Iranian response to a 14-point peace proposal. Iran's foreign minister set conditions that are difficult for the US to accept: the immediate lifting of all US sanctions and the naval blockade, a new legal framework for the Strait of Hormuz, and the complete withdrawal of US troops from the region. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is hoping for a serious Iranian offer, but the two sides remain far apart.

Even if a complete peace agreement were reached tomorrow, the supply problem would not automatically be solved. For one thing, the infrastructure in the Persian Gulf is, in some places, severely damaged—refineries cannot be restarted immediately. Secondly, the tankers that are normally en route to supply Europe and Asia are no longer on course. The supply chains are disrupted, and it will take weeks or even months to rebuild them. Krebber's observation that the energy that was in the pipeline has now been exhausted and no new cargo is arriving accurately describes this timeframe. This is not a hypothesis, but a consequence of the physical reality of oil transport: tanker voyages take three to six weeks, and the pipeline from the region will be empty by May.

Political appeasement: Remain calm or hide the truth?

At a RheinEnergie conference, Federal Economics Minister Katherina Reiche stated in an interview with Andreas Kuhlmann that she could truly allay concerns about physical shortages. This statement stands in stark contrast to the warnings of leading energy experts and the actions of the Federal Government itself, which has activated crisis teams, released emergency reserves, and enacted price regulations. Reiche had previously repeatedly asserted that Germany foresaw no shortages of oil and gas. She maintained that the supply of kerosene was secure, despite warnings to the contrary from airport associations and EU commissioners.

It would be wrong to dismiss this communication as a mere political maneuver. Economics ministers also bear the responsibility of preventing panic, stabilizing markets, and avoiding hasty stockpiling of fuel—all legitimate goals in a crisis. Reiche has also acknowledged that the situation is volatile and that the crisis is being closely monitored. And it's true: Germany has a diversified refinery infrastructure, connections to alternative suppliers, strategic reserves, and a well-developed pipeline network to the west and north.

But there is a subtle yet crucial difference between the goal of avoiding panic and the goal of preparing the population and the economy for a real shortage. Anyone who believes they can allay concerns must also explain how global stockpiles will be replenished before the predicted tipping point in June. Politicians are currently failing to provide this answer.

Economic consequences: What a price of $95 to $150 means

The price forecasts from Christian Sewing—an annual average of $95—and Kerstin Hottner—a potential peak of $150—are not abstract figures. They translate directly into production costs, inflationary pressure, and a loss of purchasing power. For Germany, as an import-dependent industrialized nation, persistently high oil prices represent a structural burden for the chemical, logistics, plastics, automotive, and agricultural sectors.

The Brent crude oil price stood at around US$101 on May 8, 2026—an increase of approximately 58 percent year-on-year. On May 11, 2026, it rose further to over US$105. This increase is directly reflected in producer prices and is passed on to consumers with a delay. According to their own estimates, the additional import costs for fossil fuels in the EU already amount to €13 billion—and this does not include the impending further price increase in June.

The mechanism Hottner describes is classic supply-scarcity economics: when physical supplies are depleted, the price must rise until demand falls to the new supply level. This is not a market failure—it is the market fulfilling its function. However, the social and industrial policy consequences are significant. Energy-intensive industries such as chemicals, aluminum, and cement will reduce their production or relocate capacity. Consumers will restrict their mobility. Supply chains will come under renewed pressure.

A sustained oil price above $100 would also reignite inflation in Germany, which had just stabilized after the decline in energy prices in 2024 and 2025. This would create a significant dilemma for the European Central Bank: monetary policy cannot combat geopolitically induced supply shocks without simultaneously harming the economy.

Energy policy consequences: An accelerator for the transformation or a relapse into fossil fuels?

The crisis also exposes a contradiction in energy policy. On the one hand, structurally high oil prices accelerate the economic attractiveness of renewable energies, electromobility, and heat pumps—the signal is clear: seek and finance alternatives to fossil fuel imports. On the other hand, the German government plans to tender 12 gigawatts of gas-fired power plants with state funding from the Climate and Transformation Fund as early as 2026.

At the CERAWeek energy conference in Texas, German Economics Minister Reiche openly advocated for a more flexible approach to the EU's climate target of achieving climate neutrality by 2050, accepting a shortfall of up to ten percent. She championed the development of further North Sea gas reserves and emphasized security of supply as the top priority over climate protection. While the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs denied that Reiche had fundamentally questioned the climate targets, the direction of the energy policy agenda is unmistakable: more fossil fuel infrastructure, more flexible climate targets, and increased gas imports and production.

EU Energy Commissioner Jörgensen draws the opposite conclusion: The EU must reduce the consumption of fossil fuels as soon as possible and promote alternative measures. He wants to save energy, but at the same time warns against artificially making supply cheaper than it actually is. This is both correct and painful from an energy policy perspective—price signals must be allowed to have an effect if they are to fulfill their steering function.

Structural vulnerability: What the crisis teaches us about Europe

The current shock has exposed a structural weakness that existed even before the Iran-Iraq War. While Europe, and Germany in particular, has become less dependent on Russian gas since the Ukraine crisis, it remains highly reliant on crude oil imports from politically unstable regions. Around 60 percent of Germany's energy mix is ​​based on oil and gas. Although the share of renewable energies has grown in recent years, there are no readily scalable alternatives in the areas of mobility, the chemical industry, and parts of the heating sector.

The PCK refinery in Schwedt, which is systemically important for northeastern Germany, was still under Russian ownership until the crisis—under trusteeship—and received significant quantities of oil via the Druzhba pipeline. The cessation of Kazakh oil deliveries via this route in May 2026 is a further symptom of this structural dependency. Alternative transport routes exist, but are not yet sufficiently developed.

Added to this is the question of strategic reserves. The record-breaking release of 400 million barrels by the IEA did stabilize the markets in the short term, but it also clearly demonstrated how limited this buffer is: 400 million barrels correspond to only 20 days of normal Hormuz flow. A significant portion of the reserves has now been depleted—and replenishment is impossible as long as the region remains inaccessible.

Warnings and reassurances: A sober assessment

The warnings from Lasserre, Hottner, Krebber, and Sewing are not simply pessimism. They come from experts who work daily with market data, inventory levels, tanker positions, and futures prices. They are embedded in a comprehensible logic: buffers are shrinking, replacement supplies are depleted, the conflict is not yet over, and the seasonal peak in demand is approaching.

The attempts at reassurance by the wealthy, on the other hand, are defensive in nature: they prevent panic, preserve the credibility of state institutions, and signal to the markets that Germany remains capable of taking action. This function is legitimate. But it cannot disguise the fact that the federal government has simultaneously activated crisis teams, released reserves, and introduced price regulations—measures one does not take if one truly does not anticipate any shortages.

The real question that policymakers must answer is not one of communication, but of strategy: How will Germany survive June if global inventories actually plummet to a minimum? What quota measures are in place? Which sectors will be prioritized? Who will bear the burden of adjustment—industry, consumers, or both? And how will consumers be protected in the price spiral that Hottner considers possible?

Three scenarios for summer 2026

The first scenario is the most favorable: The US and Iran agree to a lasting ceasefire, the Strait of Hormuz is fully reopened, tankers resume their routes, and storage facilities are gradually replenished in the following weeks. In this case, the price of oil would quickly fall to $80 to $85, and supply concerns would subside. However, even in this scenario, it takes weeks for new shipments to reach Europe, and the infrastructure damage in the Gulf takes months to repair.

The second scenario is more realistic given the current state of negotiations: The ceasefire formally holds, but peace talks remain stalled. The Strait of Hormuz remains blocked or only partially navigable for most trade. In this case, global inventories will indeed fall to historic lows in June. Kerstin Hottner's prediction of a significant price increase to potentially $150 would materialize. Demand would be forced to fall by the price—with all the associated economic and social consequences.

The third, most serious scenario would be a renewed escalation: new attacks on energy infrastructure, a breakdown in negotiations, and a further drop in supply of millions of barrels per day. In this case, even $150 per barrel might be a conservative estimate, and Western governments would face a genuine rationing debate—beyond all attempts at reassurance.

The history of oil crises—1973, 1979, 1990, 2022—shows that such turning points have always occurred when governments and markets ignored warning signs for too long. In May 2026, the warning signs are clearly formulated, well-founded, and publicly communicated by leading market players. Whether policymakers take this as an opportunity to address the scenario of physical scarcity more honestly and with greater preparation, or whether they continue to pursue reassurance—that will be the crucial question in the coming weeks.

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

Dmitry Kovalenko

Tel: +49 7348 4088 961

LinkedIn

 

 

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

Konrad Wolfenstein

Email: wolfenstein@xpert.Digital

LinkedIn

 

 

Industry focus areas: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More information here:

• Expert Business Hub

A thematic hub offering insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform covering global and regional economies, innovation and industry-specific trends
• A collection of analyses, insights, and background information from our key areas of focus
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• A hub for companies seeking information on markets, digitalization, and industry innovations