This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Rashid Husain Syed

Oil markets are shrugging off war and sanctions, a sign that oversupply now matters more than disruption

Oil producers hoping geopolitics would lift prices are running into a harsh reality. Markets are brushing off wars and sanctions as traders focus instead on expectations of a deep and persistent oil glut.

That shift was evident last week. Despite several geopolitical developments that would once have pushed prices higher, including the U.S. seizure of a Venezuelan crude tanker and fresh Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, oil markets barely reacted, with prices ending the week lower.

Brent crude settled Friday at US$61.12 a barrel and U.S. West Texas Intermediate at US$57.44, capping a weekly drop of more than four per cent.

Instead of responding to disruption headlines, markets were reacting to a different risk. Bearish sentiment, rather than geopolitics, continued to dominate as expectations of a “2026 glut” took centre stage.

At the heart of that outlook is a growing supply overhang. The oil market is grappling with whether sanctioned Russian and Iranian cargoes should still be counted as supply. That uncertainty helps explain why prices have been slow to react to a glut that is already forming on the water, said Carol Ryan, writing for The Wall Street Journal.

The scale of that buildup is significant. There are 1.4 billion barrels of oil “on the water,” 24 per cent higher than the average for this time of year between 2016 and 2024, according to oil analytics firm Vortexa. These figures capture shipments still in transit or cargoes that have yet to find a buyer, a clear sign that supply is running ahead of immediate demand.

Official forecasts have reinforced that view. Last week, the International Energy Agency trimmed its projected 2026 surplus to 3.84 million barrels per day, down from 4.09 million barrels per day projected previously. Even so, the IEA still sees a large oversupply relative to global demand.

Demand growth offers little relief. The IEA expects growth of 830 kb/d (thousand barrels per day) in 2025 and 860 kb/d in 2026, with petrochemical feedstocks accounting for a larger share of incremental demand. That pace remains modest against the volume of supply coming to market.

OPEC, however, has offered a different assessment. In its latest report, the group pointed to a near balance, forecasting demand for OPEC+ crude averaging about 43 million barrels per day in 2026, roughly in line with what it produced in November.

Reflecting that confidence. OPEC+ kept policy steady late in November, pausing planned output hikes for the first quarter of 2026 while more than three million barrels per day of cuts remain in place. Those measures are supportive in theory, but markets have shown little sign of being persuaded.

Recent geopolitical events underline that scepticism. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, including reported hits on facilities such as the Slavneft-YANOS refinery in Yaroslavl, again failed to lift prices. Russia-Ukraine headlines pulled prices down more than strikes lifted them, according to media reports, suggesting traders were more attuned to “peace deal” risk than to supply disruption.

Washington’s move against Venezuelan crude shipments offered another test. The U.S. seizure of a Venezuelan tanker, the first formal seizure under the 2019 sanctions framework, had a muted price impact, writes Marcin Frackiewicz of Oilprice.com.

Venezuela’s exports fell sharply in the days that followed, but markets remained largely unmoved. One explanation is that Venezuela’s output is no longer large enough to tighten global balances the way it once did, and that abundant global supply has reduced the geopolitical premium.

Taken together, the signal is hard to miss. Oil producers, including in Canada, face a reality check in a market that no longer rewards headlines, only discipline and demand.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

From Energy Now

By Margareta Dovgal

Playing politics with pipelines is a time-honored Canadian tradition. Recent events in the House of Commons offered a delightful twist on the genre.

The Conservatives introduced a motion quoting the Liberals’ own pipeline promises laid out in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Alberta, nearly verbatim. The Liberals, true to form, killed it 196–139 with enthusiastic help from the NDP, Bloc, and Greens.

We all knew how this would end. Opposition motions like this never pass; no government, especially not one led by Mark Carney, is going to let the opposition dictate the agenda. There’s not much use feigning outrage that the Liberals voted it down. The more entertaining angle has been watching closely as Liberal MPs twist themselves into pretzels explaining why they had to vote “no” on a motion that cheers on a project they claim to support in principle.

Liberal MP Corey Hogan dismissed the motion as “game-playing” designed to “poke at people”.

And he’s absolutely right to call it a “trap” for the Liberals. But traps only work when you walk into them.

Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty deemed the motion an “immature waste of parliamentary time” and “clearly an insult towards Indigenous Peoples” because it didn’t include every clause of the original agreement. Energy Minister Tim Hodgson decried it as a “cynical ploy to divide us” that “cherry-picked” the MOU.

Yet the prize for the most tortured metaphor goes to the prime minister himself. Defending his vote against his own pipeline promise, Carney lectured the House that “you have to eat the entire meal, not just the appetizer.”

It’s a clever line, and it also reveals the problem. The “meal” Carney is serving is stuffed with conditions. Environmental targets or meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities aren’t unrealistic asks. A crippling industrial carbon price as a precondition might be though.

But the prime minister has already said the quiet part out loud.

​Speaking in the House a few weeks ago, Carney admitted that the agreement creates “necessary conditions, but not sufficient conditions,” before explicitly stating: “We believe the government of British Columbia has to agree.”

​There is the poison pill. Handing a de facto veto to a provincial government that has spent years fighting oil infrastructure is neither constitutionally required nor politically likely. Elevating B.C.’s “agreement” to a condition, which is something the MOU text itself carefully avoids doing, means that Carney has made his own “meal” effectively inedible.

Hodgson’s repeated emphasis that the Liberal caucus supports “the entire MOU, the entire MOU” only reinforces this theory.

This entire episode forces us to ask whether the MOU is a real plan to build a pipeline, or just a national unity play designed to cool down the separatist temperature in Alberta. My sense is that Ottawa knew they had to throw a bone to Premier Danielle Smith because the threat of the sovereignty movement is gaining real traction. But you can’t just create the pretense of negotiation to buy time.

With the MOU getting Smith boo’ed at her own party’s convention by the separatists, it’s debatable whether that bone was even an effective one to throw.

There is a way. The federal government has the jurisdiction. If they really wanted to, they could just do it, provided the duty to consult with and accommodate Indigenous peoples was satisfied. Keep in mind: no reasonable interpretation equates Section 35 of the Charter to a veto.

Instead, the MOU is baked with so many conditions that the Liberals have effectively laid the groundwork for how they’re going to fail.

With overly-hedged, rather cryptic messaging, Liberals have themselves given considerable weight to a cynical theory, that the MOU is a stalling tactic, not a foundation to get more Canadian oil to the markets it’s needed in. Maybe Hodgson is telling the truth, and caucus is unified because the radicals are satisfied that “the entire MOU” ensures that a new oil pipeline will never reach tidewater through BC.

So, hats off to the legislative affairs strategists in the Conservative caucus. The real test of Carney’s political power continues: can he force a caucus that prefers fantasy economics into a mold of economic literacy to deliver on the vision Canadians signed off on? Or will he be hamstrung trying to appease the radicals from within?

Margareta Dovgal is managing director of Resource Works Society.