Here's a familiar scene: war breaks out in the Middle East, oil tankers start avoiding the world's most important shipping lane, and everyone's mind jumps to the same place. 2022. Russia invades Ukraine, energy prices go bananas, inflation spirals, and central banks start hiking rates like they're trying to win a competition. It's the modern economic nightmare.

But is that the movie we're actually watching right now? Or is this a different show with a less terrifying ending? MarketDash put that question—and a few others—to Bridget Payne, head of energy forecasting at Oxford Economics. Her answers are kind of reassuring, in a "the world isn't ending today" sort of way.

This Isn't 2022. Here's Why.

The 2022 energy shock was a supply story with a brutal twist. When Russia turned off the Nord Stream gas pipelines, a massive chunk of supply vanished from the market. Poof. Gone. And there was no clear path to getting it back anytime soon.

"What we are seeing now is largely a delay rather than a loss of supply," Payne said.

That's the crucial distinction. Right now, tankers are pausing trips through the Strait of Hormuz because insurance costs are soaring and captains understandably don't want to sail into a potential warzone. The oil and gas still exist; they're just sitting on ships or in ports, waiting. "As soon as it is safe enough to resume, those volumes can return to market. In other words, supply has largely been delayed rather than curtailed," Payne explained.

Think of it like a traffic jam on the highway versus a bridge collapsing. A jam slows everything down, but eventually, the cars get through. A collapsed bridge means those cars aren't going anywhere. We're in a jam. Global inventories can buffer a delay. They can't magically replace oil that's been blown up.

For this situation to turn into a full-blown inflation shock, Payne says the disruptions would need to last long enough to create actual, physical shortages. So far, we're not there.

The $100-Plus Barrel Scenario

Could oil still rocket past $100 a barrel? Sure. It's possible. But Payne's team doesn't see it as the most likely path.

"Yes, a long but partial disruption could push oil prices into triple digits if it lasted long enough to create shortages," she said. The real trigger would be a full, prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz—a dramatic escalation that blocks the chokepoint entirely.

Even a moderate disruption could grind prices higher over time if it drags on. But Payne points out that everyone with a stake in the global economy—especially the U.S.—has a powerful incentive to keep the oil moving. There's already talk of the U.S. providing military escorts or backstopping insurance for tankers. "Our expectation is that oil will find a way to keep flowing," she said.

Since the conflict began, West Texas Intermediate crude (USO) has rallied about 12% to around $75 a barrel. A move, but not a melt-up.

The World's Oil Safety Net

Another reason the sky isn't falling? The world has a surprisingly large oil safety net. "We estimate that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have at least 3 mbpd of spare production capacity that can be utilised relatively quickly," Payne noted.

On top of that, U.S. shale producers can ramp up relatively fast. They can drill and complete new wells in three to six months if prices give them the signal. Between the Gulf's spare taps and America's shale fields, there's a real buffer against lost Iranian barrels or broader Gulf chaos. Widespread damage to production infrastructure is a scary tail risk, but it's not the central assumption.

Why Hit Pipelines and Ports?

So why are we seeing strikes on energy infrastructure? It seems less about destroying supply and more about sending a costly message. "Strikes on energy infrastructure appear aimed at raising the economic cost of the conflict and increasing pressure on outside powers to respond," Payne explained.

For markets, the line is between messing with transit and messing with production. Slowing tankers is one thing. Blowing up a wellhead or a refinery is another. The first causes delays and higher costs. The second removes oil from the global market for good, or at least for a long, expensive repair job. Payne stresses that serious production damage remains a risk on the edges, not the main forecast.

Gas: Europe's Problem More Than America's

If things get worse, natural gas could tell two very different stories on either side of the Atlantic. Europe is vulnerable. It leans heavily on seaborne liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargoes, many from Qatar. If those shipments get tangled up, Europe will be fighting Asia for every available tanker, and prices will spike.

"The impact is likely to be felt much more in European than US gas prices," Payne said.

The U.S. is in a different boat. Its LNG export terminals are already pretty much maxed out. That means extra global demand can't easily suck more gas out of the domestic U.S. market. So, while European gas prices could soar, the U.S. benchmark—Henry Hub (UNG)—has a built-in ceiling. Less upside pressure.

The Inflation Question (And Your Gas Bill)

Okay, but what does this mean for prices at the pump and for the inflation that the Federal Reserve is watching like a hawk? The first place you'd feel it is transportation. Payne breaks it down: a sustained $10 increase in oil prices would add about 28 cents to the price of a gallon of regular gas in the U.S.

Even with that increase, the view from Oxford Economics is pretty calm. "Our baseline view is that the impact on inflation in the US and Europe will be minor," Payne said.

For this to become a major macroeconomic problem, forcing central banks to shelve their rate-cut plans, we'd need to see those genuine, lasting supply shortages. The kind that come from production being wrecked, not just delayed.

The bottom line? Time is the key variable. A short, sharp disruption, even a bad one, is something the global system can probably stomach. Inventories and spare capacity can cover it. A long, grinding blockage that starts destroying infrastructure? That's a different story altogether. For now, the experts are betting on the less scary version.