Blog

Crude Oil (WTI CL=F / Brent BZ=F): Prices Slip Toward $58 WTI and $62 Brent as Supply Glut and Peace Talks Trigger Global Sell-Off

West Texas Intermediate (WTI CL=F) is trading around $58.55 per barrel while Brent BZ=F sits near $62.38, both down sharply from October highs near $70 and $76 respectively. The decline extends the longest monthly losing streak since 2023, driven by rising U.S. output, easing geopolitical risk premiums, and OPEC+’s decision to maintain current quotas through 2026. The global oil market is now entering a decisive phase as peace efforts in Eastern Europe, record U.S. production, and an expected 2026 supply glut reshape the price landscape.

OPEC+ Holds Output Steady Through 2026 as Glut Concerns Deepen

At the 40th OPEC and non-OPEC ministerial meeting, the bloc confirmed that production caps will stay unchanged until end-2026, despite crude prices falling over 15 percent since January. The group—which collectively supplies half of global oil—reaffirmed the 2016 Declaration of Cooperation and authorized its Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee to meet bi-monthly to supervise quota compliance. A new system for measuring maximum sustainable capacity will be implemented to set 2027 baselines, a move meant to calm tensions between the UAE (pushing for higher output rights) and under-producing members like Nigeria and Angola.

While the announcement signaled unity, markets viewed it as insufficient. Brent BZ=F closed the week near $63, with the International Energy Agency projecting a 2026 surplus above 4 million barrels per day, and J.P. Morgan warning of a “persistent glut” that could drag prices into the mid-$40 range. Tank-tracking data already shows floating storage at its highest since 2020, evidence that inventories are swelling faster than consumption.

Russia-Ukraine Peace Efforts and U.S. Shale Output Drive Price Compression

Geopolitical tensions that once supported oil have eased as Washington presses Moscow and Kyiv toward a settlement. A draft 28-point plan would end many sanctions and allow Russian crude to flow freely, potentially returning up to 2 million barrels per day to global supply. At the same time, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports record output of 13.84 million barrels per day, surpassing pre-pandemic highs and deepening oversupply. Together these factors have pushed WTI CL=F down nearly 30 percent from its 2025 peak.

Shale operators are beginning to struggle under the $50–$60 price band. Rig counts are flattening as financing costs above 6 percent curb new drilling. Analysts warn that if prices dip toward $50, output could fall sharply by mid-2026, providing OPEC+ some relief from the current supply surge.

Saudi Arabia and Asia Pricing Cuts Add to Bearish Momentum

Riyadh has signaled its intention to reduce January crude prices for Asian buyers by around $1.50 per barrel, reflecting ample supply and muted regional demand. This would mark the third straight monthly cut in official selling prices, extending discounts to key importers such as China and India. Meanwhile, Petrobras has trimmed capital expenditure targets for 2026 as lower prices threaten profitability. With Bonny Light crude at $78.6 and Mars U.S. at $70.3, the entire oil complex is trading well below levels needed to balance many national budgets.

Market Psychology and Technical Outlook for WTI CL=F

Technically, WTI CL=F remains in a clear downtrend. The daily chart shows a descending channel with prices below the 50- and 100-day exponential moving averages. Momentum indicators have flattened, signaling a potential base around $55.9, the lowest point of the year. Breaking that support could open a path to $50, a level last seen during the 2020 pandemic. Resistance sits at $63 for WTI and $67 for Brent, levels that would require evidence of meaningful inventory drawdowns to be retested

 

U.S. Inventory Data and Macro Factors

The latest EIA inventory report showed a 2.7 million-barrel increase in stocks, extending a multi-month build. Refinery utilization is holding around 88 percent, but exports have slowed amid logistical bottlenecks and soft European demand. On the macro side, the Federal Reserve’s expected December rate cut may provide temporary support through a weaker dollar, though the structural imbalance between supply and demand remains the dominant driver.

China and India: Demand Frontier Facing Headwinds

China’s independent refiners (“teapots”) have resumed higher throughput as Beijing opened 2026 import quotas early, adding near-term buying support. However, national stockpiles have also swelled, suggesting that new purchases are more about inventory rebalancing than true demand growth. India’s imports rose above 5 million tons of Russian crude in November, taking advantage of Urals’ discount but contributing to the global glut. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are competing hard for Asian market share, further pressuring benchmarks.

Outlook for 2026: Balancing Act Between Policy and Physics

OPEC expects oil demand to rise by 1.6 million barrels per day to 106.2 million bpd in 2026, while non-OPEC supply could expand by 1.3 million bpd. The IEA’s own projection of a 4 million bpd surplus contrasts sharply with OPEC’s optimism, creating uncertainty that feeds volatility. Traders are already pricing in a year-end average of $60 for Brent BZ=F and $56 for WTI CL=F, levels that reflect both structural oversupply and weaker geopolitical premiums.

Verdict: HOLD — Short-Term Bearish, Medium-Term Neutral

Crude oil remains under pressure from record U.S. output, looming Russian supply returns, and limited OPEC+ discipline. Support around $55 for WTI and $60 for Brent is critical. If inventories keep rising and peace talks progress, a dip toward $50 WTI is possible before production cuts and seasonal demand rebalance the market. For now, the trend stays bearish short-term, but the market is approaching levels where long-term value buyers may begin to accumulate.

That’s TradingNEWS

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Accenture has started calling its nearly 800,000 employees “reinventors”, as the consultancy overhauls itself to adapt to the explosion of artificial intelligence and advises companies adopting the technology.

The label has already been used by chief executive Julie Sweet and the New York-listed group is pushing to have the term adopted more widely, according to people at the firm.

The term “reinventors” was born from a mammoth reorganisation announced by the consultancy in June, which united its strategy, consulting, creative, technology and operations units into a single business called “Reinvention Services”.

The rollout of the neologism follows a long tradition of corporate jargon to describe employees, including Disney’s “imagineers” and Amazon’s “ninja coders”.

Accenture has said its ambition is to be clients’ “reinvention partner of choice” by helping them to adopt AI tools.

On a September earnings call, Sweet referred to employees as “reinventors” multiple times as she discussed the reorganisation.

She also warned that more staff would be asked to leave if they could not be retrained for the age of AI amid more sluggish demand for consulting projects.

The consultancy has built a trial version of its internal human resources website in which staff are labelled “reinventors” rather than “workers”, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The company has a history of creating its own corporate language. Its name, intended as a derivative of “accent on the future”, was ridiculed when it was adopted in 2001 after the business, Andersen Consulting, broke ties with accounting group Arthur Andersen and was forced to change its name. The rebrand was reported to have cost $100mn.

Accenture’s market capitalisation surged to more than $260bn during a boom in demand for consulting services following the Covid-19 pandemic, but has since fallen to about $150bn as the sector faces a growth slowdown.

“Jargon is used in the consulting world to signal expertise or relevance without having to invest in underlying competencies and knowledge . . .[or make] boring or staid jobs or processes appear to be novel and exciting,” said André Spicer, executive dean and professor of organisational behaviour at the Bayes Business School and author of Business Bullshit. 

He warned that while jargon can occasionally boost an organisation’s image and its confidence internally, it also “increas[es] confusion, undermining trust and fostering a sense of corporate absurdity”.

Big Four accounting firm PwC in 2002 briefly rebranded its consulting division as “Monday” but the name was dropped when IBM bought the unit. PwC pointed out in a statement at the time that its unusual new name is “a real word”, seen by some commentators as a dig at Accenture.

Deborah Cameron, former professor of language and communication at Oxford university, said that using terms for staff that are “so out of step with what most people think your business is” risked attracting “incomprehension or ridicule”.

The term “reinventors might be getting into that territory”, she said. “Will clients, or the public at large, know what they’re supposed to be reinventing? Will employees themselves . . . feel OK saying they’re reinventors, or will they find that obscure, pretentious and silly?”

Accenture declined to comment.