The largest oil supply shock on record has been a clarifying event for Latin America. When the Persian Gulf conflict closed the Strait of Hormuz early in 2026, in what the World Bank called the largest oil market shock in history, and Fitch lifted its 2026 average Brent forecast to $87 per barrel from $70, the region did not move as a bloc. It sorted, not according to the old taxonomy of producers versus importers, which no longer predicts much, but to a sharper one, defined by whether an economy turned the oil shock into investment and resilience or whether its existing weaknesses only deepened. The dividing line is not the size of a country’s resources. It is the durability of the institutions sitting on top of them.
That sorting can be mapped. J.P. Morgan’s country-by-country read frames the divide precisely, by who produces, what policy can do, and how each economy is positioned. The structural backdrop sharpens it. Prior to the Hormuz oil shock, regional crude output had fallen from 10.4 million barrels per day in 2010 to 7.8 million in 2022, and the region’s share of global supply from 12 to 9 percent, with oil retreating fastest from Mexico and Venezuela under nationalistic policies and overindebted national oil companies. Yet the region also runs one of the cleanest power systems on earth, in what analysts call a dual-track transition comprising a resilient hydrocarbon sector and a fast-growing clean-energy one coexisting into the 2030s. The 2026 shock hit that split system through three channels.
The first is the windfall-versus-refined-trap divide. Countries with expandable, low-cost crude captured the price spike directly. Brazil, which opened its pre-salt to foreign operators in 2016, lifting a record 4.24 million barrels per day at a pre-salt breakeven1Pre-salt fields are ultra-deepwater reservoirs beneath thick salt layers in the Santos and Campos basins and supply roughly 80 percent of Brazil’s hydrocarbon output. A breakeven is the price per barrel at which a project covers its costs; Petrobras reports an average upstream breakeven near $25 per barrel, so at 2026 prices each barrel carried a wide margin. near $25 a barrel, converted higher prices into royalties and a narrower external deficit and is now read as key to energy security in the Americas; its ethanol fleet also held pump-price inflation to about 5 percent, against roughly 30 percent in the United States. Argentina turned a record 887,000 barrels per day from Vaca Muerta into export revenue and reserve accumulation. Mexico shows the trap: a decade of reversals returning energy to state control left refining underbuilt, and its refined-product imports exceeded its crude export earnings in early 2026 for the first time in at least thirty-six years. A country that imports gasoline and gas pays for the shock at both ends.
The second channel is narrower and almost entirely Brazilian: the fertilizer shock. Brazil buys about 95 percent of its nitrogen abroad and imports its urea almost entirely; roughly 40 percent of it arrives through Hormuz. When the strait closed, urea prices doubled to over $850 per ton before easing. The divide is institutional, not geological. Nitrogen is made from natural gas, and Brazil left its gas costly and its fertilizer industry unbuilt, while Argentina routed cheap Vaca Muerta gas into domestic urea, and now supplies much of its own. Both countries together supply two-thirds of the world’s soybean exports, but only one of them was exposed to the fertilizer blow. Same shock, opposite outcome, decided by what each country did with its gas. While both gained on the crude side, the lesson is that barrel and the input do not net to zero, and for Brazil they pull hardest in opposite directions.
The third channel turns crisis into strategy: the green premium. Sustained high oil prices raise the competitiveness of the region’s already-clean grids, and the benefit is not only growth but stability. That clean base was itself built by rules: competitive auctions and long-term contracts gave developers revenue certainty and cut financing costs in Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. Empirical work across eighteen regional economies finds that higher shares of renewable electricity measurably reduce the pass-through of fossil-fuel price shocks to inflation. Where a clean grid is the norm, the transition and shock-resilience are the same investment.
Read whole, the shock became an economic experiment whereby the same external pressure was applied to economies with comparable geology and dissimilar institutions, and the institutions explained the results. Where energy policy stayed predictable, in Brazil and in Argentina under its investment-stability regime, resources converted into production. Where they did not, comparable resources sat underused: in Mexico’s nationalism, in Colombia’s reversals, where a new government under Abelardo de la Espriella took office on August 7 pledging to undo the outgoing exploration halt, and in Venezuela’s licensing roulette, where an enormous endowment stays stranded behind permits that have repeatedly flipped. The distinction that now matters is between transition-leveragers and shock-takers. Resources are geological facts; investment is a behavioral response to expected rules. The scarce input across the region is not the barrel, and no longer only the capital. It is institutional durability, the one input a government supplies by decision rather than discovery.
That reframes the US and Latin American agenda from volumes to durability, and points to three tasks. First, co-invest in shock-absorbing infrastructure: because renewable-heavy grids demonstrably blunt oil-driven inflation, finance directed at transmission, storage, and interconnection, including the stranded wind of Colombia’s La Guajira, buys macroeconomic stability, not only megawatts. Second, make rules bankable: no board sanctions a thirty-year gas project against a permit measured in months, so durable multi-year licensing, protection for contracts signed in good faith, and standardized frameworks modeled on Argentina’s stability regime are the real infrastructure of energy security; the dormant Antonio Ricaurte pipeline that could carry Venezuelan gas to Colombia waits on exactly this. Third, recognize the prize: the Gulf war has made Latin America’s chokepoint-free Atlantic hydrocarbons, and the lithium and copper the transition needs, more valuable to Washington than at any point in a decade. The countries that turned the 2026 shock into an advantage did it by promising investors a predictable tomorrow and keeping the promise. Out of a genuine crisis, the region’s task is unusually legible, and unusually within its own control: to be remembered not as an exporter of barrels, but as an exporter of stability.
Liliana Diaz is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center.
about the author
stay connected
Sign up for PowerPlay, the Atlantic Council’s bimonthly newsletter keeping you up to date on all facets of the energy transition
related work
our work
The Global Energy Center develops and promotes pragmatic and nonpartisan policy solutions designed to advance global energy security, drive economic opportunity, and foster a sustainable energy future.
Image: A drone view shows pipelines and tanks at Petrobras distribution terminal operated by Transpetro, a Petrobras subsidiary responsible for oil and gas transportation in Sao Sebastiao, in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil, April 17, 2026. REUTERS/Amanda Perobelli