Rising Oil Prices and Middle East Disruption: What U.S. Resin Buyers Should Watch

Oil prices rose sharply during the first three weeks of September, but the implications for U.S. resin buyers varied by material, supply position and delivery route. Higher crude prices added pressure; they did not establish a uniform increase in resin transaction prices.

Brent crude futures settled at $94.65 per barrel on September 1, reached $108.75 on September 15, and eased to $103.87 on September 18. WTI followed a similar pattern: $90.22, $105.83 and $100.30, respectively. These are reported futures settlements on selected dates, not spot resin prices or a complete daily price series. [1–3]

The Middle East conflict put pressure on both passage through the Strait of Hormuz and Saudi Arabia’s alternative export routes. Reuters reported on September 15 that disrupted loadings at Yanbu and cancellations of some Saudi cargoes had strengthened expectations of demand for U.S. crude as a substitute. Those expectations should not be confused with a confirmed increase in export volumes. Nor does a decline in oil prices on hopes of repairs establish that deliveries have returned to normal. [2]

For polymers, the distinction between disrupted logistics and halted exports matters. ChemOrbis reported on September 17 that Saudi PP and PE exports continued, while congestion, inland rerouting and less predictable deliveries constrained availability for prompt shipment. Its report also described firmer PP and PE markets in Asia and supply pressure on selected PE grades in Europe. A crude pipeline outage does not, by itself, mean all Saudi resin exports have stopped. [10]

U.S. conditions provided a different perspective. In its September 10 release, ResinSmart reported that PE producers were pursuing a 7-cent-per-pound September increase, while pointing to ample supply. That figure was an increase initiative—not a confirmed settlement. The same release described adequate PP availability and no announced September PP increase initiatives at that time. Nylon and polycarbonate faced separate increase proposals. These were the advisory firm’s assessments as of September 10, not verified market-wide outcomes through September 20. [4]

Our interpretation is that U.S. buyers should separate feedstock exposure from trade and freight exposure. The U.S. ethane-to-ethylene production route means a percentage change in crude cannot simply be applied to PE costs. Overseas supply constraints could nevertheless support demand for U.S. resin exports, while diesel and transportation costs could add pressure to delivered prices. These are potential transmission channels, not measured price effects in this review. [5–7]

There are also forces limiting price increases. The IEA’s September outlook anticipated that higher fuel costs and supply constraints would weigh on consumption, particularly in Asia. Meanwhile, Matium’s early-September commentary described ample U.S. PE and PP supply. Cost pressure and weak demand can coexist; an increase request alone does not show which force will determine a settlement. [8–9]

For the week ahead, watch actual delivery commitments, resin contract settlements and relevant feedstock settlements alongside crude prices. Compare quotations on the same resin, grade, origin and delivery basis, with freight and surcharges identified separately. The useful question is how a specific disruption affects the material being purchased—and whether that effect is reflected in an agreed price.