As the world’s biggest oil companies posted $93 billion in profits in the second quarter of 2026, new analysis by 350.org shows that Indonesian households are paying the price, with Iran war-driven oil shocks imposing billions of dollars on the economy.
New analysis by 350.org shows that elevated oil prices have already imposed an estimated $5 billion on Indonesia since the start of the Iran war and will cost up to over $13bn ($12.44bn – $13.09bn) in total by the end of the year in case of continued escalation. Even in case of a swift normalization of the Strait of Hormuz and the region, higher oil prices would cost the Indonesian people and businesses over $7bn ($7.22bn – $7.6bn) by the end of the year. The figures show the estimated extra amount Indonesian households could collectively pay as a result of fossil fuel dependence.
350.org said that such massive profiteering by oil multinationals on the backs of the nation’s suffering is “unacceptable.” It shows the urgent need for Indonesia to cut its dependence on imported fossil fuels, and instead accelerate the shift to more affordable, homegrown renewable energy.
The group is also calling for a permanent windfall tax on oil, gas, and coal companies to raise critically-needed revenues for climate disaster response and recovery, social protection, and the fast deployment of renewables to help vulnerable communities. The arrival of a strong El Niño on top of record high temperatures have brought droughts, forest fires, and heavy rainfall to various parts of the country.
Sisilia Nurmala Dewi, 350.org Indonesia Manager said, “The double whammy of high energy costs and extreme weather are pushing Indonesian households dangerously over the edge. Meanwhile, the world’s biggest oil companies are profiting with impunity from a crisis they helped create, in boardrooms miles away. This isn’t just unfair — it’s unacceptable. Indonesia has abundant sun and wind to power itself without relying on expensive, volatile fossil fuel imports. We’re calling on the Prabowo government to stop delaying the implementation of a windfall profits tax and to use the money to protect families now. Our leaders must make polluters pay their fair share and speed up the shift to renewables, so we’re never held hostage by global oil markets again.”
Notes To the Editor
- 350.org’s analysis is based on oil and gas pricing scenarios of the International Monetary Fund’s April 2026 World Economic Outlook as well as pricing outlook of Goldman Sachs and consumption data of Indonesia as well as reduced demand due to higher prices and rationing measures.
- The analysis takes a deliberately conservative approach in estimating total losses due to higher prices.
- It does not include wider knock-on effects such as higher food and fertiliser costs, broader inflation, or reduced economic output.
- It compares rising prices against the price level in the week before the Iran war, e.g. Brent crude at USD 72 per barrel, a price that was already above levels seen in the preceding weeks and months of 2026 and likely already reflected market fears of disruption in the Middle East. This means the true economic impact is plausibly even higher.
- Reduced demand resulting from higher prices and rationing is already accounted for.
- For gas, estimates are based on Goldman Sachs forecasts (which for baseline are rather slightly below IMFs scenario) – weighted and adjustment based real-world observations/data and assuming a high correlation between European and Asian gas prices.
- Figures may vary slightly due to rounding, including converting units such as cubic meters into energy (EJ and MWh).
BASELINE SCENARIO
| Component | Formula | Data used | Result |
| Additional oil cost, month 1 | Oil use × 30 × $20 | 1.633 mb/d × 30 × $20 | $0.98bn |
| Additional oil cost, month 2 | Oil use × 30 × $23 × contracted demand | 1.633 mb/d × 30 × $30 × 0.98 | $1.44bn |
| Additional oil cost, month 3 | Oil use × 30 × $35 × contracted demand | 1.633 mb/d × 30 × $35 × 0.98 | $1.68bn |
| Additional oil cost, month 4 | Oil use × 30 × $13 × contracted demand | 1.633 mb/d × 30 × $13 × 0.98 | $0.62bn |
| Additional oil cost, month 5 | Oil use × 30 × $8 × contracted demand | 1.633 mb/d × 30 × $8 × 0.98 | $0.38bn |
| TOTAL | $0.98bn + $1.44bn + $1.68bn + $0.62bn + $0.38bn | $5.10bn | |
| Projected additional oil costs, baseline scenario | Oil use × 156 days × $10 × reduced demand | 1.633 mb/d × 156 × $10 × 0.98 | $2.50bn |
| Gross Total | Occurred and projected additional costs | $5.10bn + $2.50bn | $7.6bn |
| Downward uncertainty | 0.95 × $7.6bn – $7.6bn | $7.22bn – $7.6bn |
ADVERSE SCENARIO
| Component | Formula | Data used | Result |
| Additional oil cost, month 1 | Oil use × 30 × $20 | 1.633 mb/d × 30 × $20 | $0.98bn |
| Additional oil cost, month 2 | Oil use × 30 × $23 × contracted demand | 1.633 mb/d × 30 × $30 × 0.98 | $1.44bn |
| Additional oil cost, month 3 | Oil use × 30 × $35 × contracted demand | 1.633 mb/d × 30 × $35 × 0.98 | $1.68bn |
| Additional oil cost, month 4 | Oil use × 30 × $13 × contracted demand | 1.633 mb/d × 30 × $13 × 0.98 | $0.62bn |
| Additional oil cost, month 5 | Oil use × 30 × $8 × contracted demand | 1.633 mb/d × 30 × $8 × 0.98 | $0.38bn |
| TOTAL | $0.98bn + $1.44bn + $1.68bn + $0.62bn + $0.38bn | $5.10bn | |
| Projected additional oil costs, baseline scenario | Oil use × 156 days × $10 × reduced demand | 1.633 mb/d × 156 × $32 × 0.98 | $7.99bn |
| Gross Total | Occurred and projected additional costs | $5.10bn + $7.99bn | $13.09bn |
| Downward uncertainty | 0.95 × $13.09bn – $13.09bn | $12.44bn – $13.09bn |
Leave A Comment