17th April 2026
In both the United Kingdom and the United States, political leaders have recently suggested that major companies in oil and fertiliser markets may be engaging in price gouging. The accusation is powerful as it implies that corporations are exploiting global instability to inflate profits at the expense of households and farmers.
But how much of this claim is grounded in evidence and how much is political positioning?
The reality is more nuanced than either side of the debate often admits. While there are legitimate reasons to scrutinise certain industries, particularly fertiliser, most of the recent price increases can be explained by structural and geopolitical forces rather than outright manipulation.
The Core Driver: Supply Shocks, Not Strategy
The most important factor behind rising prices is not corporate behaviour but disruption to global supply. Energy and fertiliser markets are unusually sensitive to geopolitical events, and recent tensions in key shipping and production regions have had outsized effects.
Oil markets, for example, are highly responsive to perceived risks in supply routes. Even the threat of disruption in critical chokepoints can send prices sharply higher. Fertiliser markets are even more vulnerable because they depend heavily on natural gas and a small number of exporting regions. When these inputs or routes are constrained, prices rise quickly and often dramatically.
In other words, a large share of current price increases would likely have occurred even in a perfectly competitive market. This is a crucial starting point: high prices alone are not evidence of wrongdoing.
Where Concerns Become More Serious: Market Concentration
That said, not all markets are equally competitive. The fertiliser industry, particularly in North America, is highly concentrated. A small number of firms dominate key segments such as potash and phosphate. This creates conditions in which coordination—explicit or implicit and becomes more plausible.
Regulators in the United States have taken these concerns seriously enough to launch investigations into whether companies have restricted supply or aligned pricing strategies. These investigations are ongoing, and no conclusions have been reached. However, the mere existence of such probes reflects a key point: in concentrated markets, unusually high profits and synchronised pricing patterns deserve scrutiny.
There are also patterns that raise eyebrows. In some cases, fertiliser prices have risen far faster than historical norms, and there are claims still unproven that production decisions may have amplified shortages. Whether these patterns reflect strategic behaviour or simply the dynamics of a tight market remains an open question.
Oil Markets: A Different Story
Oil presents a contrasting case. Although dominated by large players, it is still a global market with multiple producers and relatively transparent pricing benchmarks. Price movements tend to track supply risks, inventory levels, and geopolitical developments closely.
When prices spike in oil, it is usually because the market expects scarcity—not because firms are secretly coordinating. Higher profits in this context often reflect higher prices rather than manipulation. While opportunistic behaviour cannot be ruled out entirely, the evidence for systematic price gouging in oil is significantly weaker than in fertiliser.
The Political Dimension
If the economic picture is mixed, the political incentives are clearer. High energy and input costs are deeply unpopular, and governments face pressure to respond. Blaming corporations can be an effective way to signal action without immediately confronting more difficult structural issues, such as energy dependence, supply chain vulnerability, or regulatory gaps.
In the United Kingdom, for instance, accusations of profiteering have in some cases preceded the presentation of concrete evidence. Regulators have been asked to investigate, but findings are still pending. This sequence—political claim first, evidence later—is not unusual in periods of economic stress.
However, dismissing all such claims as mere deflection would also be too simplistic. Governments are responding to genuine public concern, and in some sectors—again, notably fertiliser—there are real competition issues that justify investigation.
Distinguishing Price Spikes from Price Gouging
At the heart of the debate is a subtle but important distinction - the difference between normal profit expansion and true price gouging.
Economists typically look for several indicators of gouging
Prices rising significantly more than input costs
Profit margins expanding well beyond historical norms
Evidence of restricted supply or coordinated behaviour
Lack of competitive pressure due to market concentration
Absent these factors, high prices are usually attributed to supply and demand dynamics rather than manipulation.
A Mixed Verdict
So are governments in the UK and US simply deflecting blame? Partly—but not entirely.
Most of the recent increases in oil and fertiliser prices are best explained by geopolitical shocks and structural constraints. These forces would have driven prices upward regardless of corporate behaviour. At the same time, certain markets—especially fertiliser are concentrated enough to warrant serious scrutiny, and ongoing investigations may yet reveal problematic practices.
The most accurate conclusion is therefore an uncomfortable one: both narratives contain elements of truth. Governments are using strong rhetoric in a politically charged environment, but they are not operating in a vacuum. In at least some sectors, there are legitimate questions about how markets are functioning under stress.
For anyone trying to make sense of it all, the key is to resist simple explanations. Not every price surge is a scandal but not every market outcome is beyond question either.
This pattern shows up again and again, across countries, time periods, and political parties. It's not new, and it's not specific to one ideology. When commodity prices spike especially oil, fuel, or food inputs—accusations of "price gouging" or "profiteering" almost always follow.
Fertilizer Prices
UK: sharp jump in March, then volatile but still elevated
Prices rose strongly through February and March as tensions escalated
By early April, most fertilisers were 20-40% higher than pre-conflict February levels
Examples (UK spot prices, early April vs pre-crisis):
Ammonium nitrate: ~+30% vs February
Urea: +35-40% vs February
Phosphates (DAP/TSP): +7-12% vs February
However, week-to-week movement in April has stabilised slightly:
Some products flat or even marginally down week-on-week
Others still ticking up slowly (1–2% weekly moves)
The big jump already happened in March
The market is now high but pausing / consolidating, not collapsing
🇺🇸 USA: more explosive short-term spike
The US has seen more dramatic month-on-month increases, especially in nitrogen fertilisers:
Urea: +35% in a single month (March)
Anhydrous ammonia: +20% month-on-month
UAN solutions: +17–20% month-on-month
In absolute terms:
Urea surged to $800+/ton (highest since 2022)
Anhydrous ammonia moved back above $1,000/ton
Recent reporting confirms:
Prices have "surged" since late February, particularly for key US crops inputs
The US experienced a faster and steeper spike
Especially in nitrogen-based fertilisers tied closely to natural gas
Global context (important for both UK & US)
Across both markets, the same global shock is driving prices:
Fertiliser prices rose 26% in a single month (March) globally
Urea prices +50% since the start of the conflict
Supply disruptions:
Strait of Hormuz (major fertiliser route)
Reduced natural gas flows (key input)
Export restrictions (e.g. China)
The key takeaway (last 2 months)
Prices have surged
UK: roughly +20–40% vs February
US: often +20–35% in just one month
The spike was concentrated in March
Driven by war-related supply shocks
Especially in nitrogen fertilisers (urea, ammonia)
Early April shows stabilisation but at high levels
Prices are no longer exploding weekly.
But they remain far above pre-crisis levels.
A Closer Look
Historical examples
1970s Oil Crisis
Oil prices quadrupled after OPEC embargo
US politicians from both parties accused oil majors of profiteering
Windfall taxes were introduced
Investigations found high profits, but largely tied to global price shifts—not clear collusion
2008 Global Financial Crisis
Oil hit $147/barrel
Food and fertiliser prices surged
US Congress held hearings accusing oil firms and commodity traders
Result: no definitive proof of widespread gouging, but increased scrutiny of speculation
COVID-19 Pandemic (2020–2022)
Supply chains broke down
Energy and fertiliser prices surged post-lockdowns
Both Republicans and Democrats in the US accused companies of profiteering
UK politicians made similar claims about fuel retailers
Outcome:
Some isolated cases of excessive margins
But most price rises traced to supply bottlenecks and demand rebounds
Russian invasion of Ukraine
Fertiliser and energy prices surged globally
Western governments again accused firms of “war profiteering”
EU and UK introduced windfall taxes on energy companies
Again:
No broad proof of cartel behaviour
But very high profits triggered political backlash
Do all parties do this? Pretty much, yes.
In the US:
Democrats often emphasise corporate greed and market power
Republicans sometimes frame it as market dysfunction or regulatory failure
But both have accused oil companies at different times
In the UK:
Labour has historically pushed profiteering narratives more strongly
Conservatives have also criticised fuel retailers and energy firms during crises
The common factor isn’t ideology it’s being in power during a price spike.