Oil Price Forecast: WTI (CL=F) at $57.8 and Brent (BZ=F) at $61.8 as U.S. Tightens Venezuela Blockade

Oil Price Forecast For WTI (CL=F) and Brent (BZ=F): The Risk Premium Is Back, The Surplus Is Still The Boss

WTI is trading around $57.4–$57.8 and Brent around $61.4–$61.8 after a sharp geopolitical bid, but the forward curve still has to fight 2026 oversupply math that keeps rallies on a tight leash.

WTI (CL=F) $57.42–$57.77 and Brent (BZ=F) $61.42–$61.78: what actually moved the tape today

The price jump was not a “demand is booming” story. It was a sudden repricing of disruption odds. Brent for February pushed about +1.6% to $61.42 in one print and +$1.31 to $61.78 in another update window. WTI for the same month lifted about +1.6% to $57.42 and +$1.25 to $57.77. The move is the market paying up for optionality when supply flows look less reliable, even if the baseline balance sheet is bearish.

Venezuela: the barrel count is small, the signal is huge

The U.S. escalation around Venezuelan crude is the cleanest explanation for why BZ=F and CL=F both caught a bid at the same time. One vessel was reported seized with roughly 1.8 million barrels on board, and the U.S. was described as actively pursuing another tanker, with this being part of a run of actions over roughly two weeks. Venezuela produces around 600,000 barrels per day, and much of that crude is sold into China. In outright global share terms, the market framed Venezuelan crude at roughly ~1% of global supply—but that is the wrong lens for price impact. The right lens is enforcement risk: when shipping becomes contestable, trade finance, insurance, and delivery certainty all reprice instantly.

Why “only 1% of global supply” can still move Brent (BZ=F) and WTI (CL=F)

A marginal barrel can matter more than its share when the market is already sitting in a bearish consensus. If the market is leaning short because of surplus projections, a headline that forces traders to cover risk in the prompt months can lift prices quickly. That is what a tanker interdiction headline does: it increases near-term uncertainty and drags volatility higher. The bigger the positioning skew, the sharper the reflexive bounce.

China factor: sanctions plus the buyer-of-last-resort problem

The trade route detail matters because it defines who absorbs the barrel when enforcement tightens. If Venezuelan flows are concentrated into China, then disruption does not just remove barrels; it forces substitution and rerouting. Substitution is never frictionless. Even when replacement exists, it usually arrives at a different quality, different freight cost, and different timing—exactly the inputs that widen spreads and lift front-month futures.

Russia-Ukraine risk premium: the second lever under the market

The Venezuela shock landed while Russia-Ukraine risks remain unresolved. The market conversation included the possibility of tougher pressure on Russia’s crude exports if negotiations fail to produce progress. Even without a confirmed new policy, crude traders respond to the probability tree: if supply constraints can tighten from more than one direction, the market prices that convexity into BZ=F and CL=F.

The bearish reality check: why the same headlines don’t automatically rebuild a bull market

The reason this looks like a bounce rather than a regime change is simple: the baseline balance sheet keeps screaming surplus. The International Energy Agency projection cited a ~3.84 million barrels per day surplus next year. OPEC and its partners have a more balanced framing for 2026, but the point is that the market has credible models that allow it to say: “even if something breaks, there is slack.” Slack caps rallies.

EIA-style 2026 gravity: the $55 zone is the magnet if disruption headlines cool

The bearish anchor in the data you provided is an outlook that pegs Brent around ~$55 in 1Q26 and then staying near that level. When a market has that kind of published baseline, price spikes tend to fade unless the disruption is sustained and cumulative. In other words, a single seizure can reprice prompt risk, but it does not automatically rewrite the 2026 average.

Where the floor formed: Brent $58.92 and WTI $55.27 were the “stress-test settlements”

You included a key reference point: Brent closing around $58.92 and WTI around $55.27, described as the lowest settlements since early 2021 in that framing. That is the level where oil starts to behave like a macro signal, not just a commodity. Below those zones, the market narrative shifts from “cheap fuel helps demand” to “cheap fuel is warning about growth.”

Demand signal risk: if oil is falling on growth fear, risk assets can wobble first

The macro point in your data matters for oil too: if crude is telegraphing demand destruction, financial conditions can tighten before central banks deliver relief. That is why oil can stay low even when rate-cut odds rise. Your included indicators were not flashing a full recession panic, but they are consistent with growth being “okay, not strong.” A global composite PMI around 52.7 is expansion, but it is not a boom. That is how you get a market that can bounce on geopolitics and then drift lower again on surplus.

What must happen for Brent (BZ=F) to extend above $61–$62 instead of fading

To keep Brent above $61 and push into a sustained higher band, the disruption story has to keep producing repeatable constraints, not one-off headlines. The enforcement path would need to remain active long enough to either reduce physical exports or raise costs enough to tighten effective supply. Without that persistence, the surplus framework reasserts itself and the rally becomes a volatility event, not a trend.

WTI (CL=F) near $57: the U.S. production overhang is the lid

WTI is more exposed to the “record U.S. production” narrative you included. When domestic supply is heavy, WTI rallies can be sold faster because the market assumes barrels can be sourced locally. That keeps CL=F rallies more sensitive to gasoline demand and refinery margins, rather than purely geopolitical moves overseas.

Short-term trading map for CL=F and BZ=F using only your levels

The clean takeaway from your prices is that the market has two bands. The lower band is the “macro warning” zone near WTI $55 and Brent $59. The upper band is the “headline premium” zone near WTI $58 and Brent $62. When tanker headlines intensify, the market pushes toward the upper band. When oversupply and growth concerns dominate, it leans back toward the lower band.

Forecast call: HOLD bias, with a headline-driven upside window that is real but fragile

Based strictly on the data you provided, the dominant force into 2026 is surplus modeling and a Brent path that points toward the mid-$50s. That argues against chasing rallies. At the same time, the U.S.-Venezuela enforcement campaign is a legitimate source of near-term upside shocks that can lift BZ=F above $61 and CL=F above $57 quickly. Netting those together, the correct stance is HOLD for both WTI (CL=F) and Brent (BZ=F): short-term bullish headline risk, medium-term bearish balance-sheet gravity.

That's TradingNEWS