Strait of Hormuz Lets Tankers Through Again: Why the Energy Market Has Not Returned to Stability
The resumption of oil and gas tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has become an important signal for the global energy market. After almost three months of blockage due to the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran, vessels carrying liquefied natural gas and oil have again begun to pass through one of the most important maritime routes. This may reduce tension in the market, but it does not yet mean that risks for prices, logistics and energy supplies have disappeared.
The passage of the first tankers through the Strait of Hormuz is not so much a return to normality as a cautious test of whether the region is ready to at least partially unblock energy movement.The vessels are using a transit route that Iran allowed. This is an important detail, because it shows that the key to stability remains not only in the hands of the market, but also in the political decisions of Tehran, Washington and other participants in the conflict. Several important vessels have already passed through the strait or are moving through it. Among them are the liquefied natural gas tankers Fuwairit, Al Rayyan and Al Hamra, as well as the supertanker Eagle Verona, which is carrying about 2 million barrels of Basra oil to the Chinese port of Ningbo. The routes of these vessels lead to Pakistan, China and India countries for which uninterrupted movement through Hormuz has strategic importance.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most vulnerable points of global energy. About 20% of global oil and liquefied gas supplies usually pass through it. This is not just a sea route on the map. It is a channel on which fuel prices, industrial production, air transport, the energy security of Asian countries and the stability of global exchange quotations depend. That is why the blockage of the strait immediately caused a nervous market reaction. After U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran at the end of February, Tehran began threatening to block the route. Oil prices, which were around $70 per barrel, approached $120 at their peak in March. This showed how quickly political and military tension in the Persian Gulf can turn into a global price problem. The current movement of tankers reduces part of this tension. But the situation remains fragile, because in recent weeks Iran’s position has changed several times. First, Tehran announced the opening of the strait during a ceasefire, which immediately sent prices down. Then it again declared its closure and threatened attacks on vessels. At the same time, the United States maintains a naval blockade and insists on reaching an agreement.
That is why the energy market is reacting less and less to loud statements and more and more to real actions. If tankers pass, prices may decline. If new threats appear or vessels stop again, the market immediately prices the risk into the cost of oil, gas and fuel. Under such conditions, any statement from Tehran or Washington can change the expectations of traders, importers and consumers within hours. Asia remains the most dependent on the Strait of Hormuz. For some countries in the region, supplies through this route reach up to 90%. China, India, Pakistan and other importers cannot calmly ignore disruptions, because this concerns energy for industry, transport, power plants and household consumption. Because of delays, restrictions have already appeared shortened working weeks, calls to save electricity and changes in enterprise work schedules. Europe is also not protected from the consequences. Even if it does not depend on Hormuz as strongly as Asia, the global energy market works as a connected system. If the risk of shortage appears in one place, the price reacts everywhere. Aviation fuel may be especially sensitive. During prolonged disruptions, reserves may last only a few weeks, and this already affects not only airlines, but also logistics, tourism, cargo transport and related sectors.
For Ukraine, this story is not distant. Even if the Ukrainian market is not physically waiting in line for tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, it depends on global quotations for oil, gas and fuel. Any sharp price increase on the international market quickly affects traders’ expectations, purchases, fuel station prices and consumer sentiment. After the escalation in the Middle East, oil rose by 8%, gas by 28%. For Ukraine, this created additional pressure on the fuel market. It is important that the price increase in Ukraine was explained not only by a real change in cost, but also by panic sentiment. This is a typical risk for the fuel market: when there is a threat of a major global shortage, prices can rise even before the shortage actually reaches a specific country.
Such market behavior is understandable, but dangerous for consumers. If fuel station networks quickly react to bad news and raise prices, they should react just as quickly to lower quotations. That is why it is important that falling prices on major exchanges are reflected at Ukrainian fuel stations as well. A separate positive signal is the reaction of Ukrnafta, which began lowering prices after quotations decreased. The Antimonopoly Committee found no evidence of collusion among fuel market participants over price increases. But this does not remove the need to monitor pricing carefully. The fuel market is very sensitive to fear, and fear often costs consumers no less than real supply disruptions.
The resumption of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz may become short-term relief for global prices. But this relief rests on a very thin foundation. If the conflict does not receive a stable political settlement, any new military action, threat or restriction on vessels may push prices up again. The market has already seen how quickly a barrel can rise from $70 to almost $120. That the Strait of Hormuz is working again, but global energy is still living in a high-risk mode. The physical passage of tankers is important because it gives the market a real signal. But as long as the route depends on political decisions and military tension, stability remains conditional. For Ukraine, this means several things. It is necessary to closely monitor global quotations, not allow the fuel market to hide unjustified price jumps behind panic, demand a symmetrical reaction to both price increases and price decreases, and also take into account that even a distant conflict in the Persian Gulf can quickly reach Ukrainian fuel prices. Hormuz has shown the main thing in modern energy, the distance between a crisis on a sea route and a receipt at a fuel station can be very short.
About the Author
Related posts:
Strait of Hormuz and Global Trade: How the Blockade Hits Fertilizers, Aluminum, Helium, and Basic Needs 
The Strait of Hormuz Has Become a Pressure Point: The United States and Iran Have Entered a War of Endurance 
Fuel Prices Rise Without a Shortage: How Panic Spins Up Costs and What Is Really Driving the Market 
Bitcoin and War in the Middle East: Why Crypto Reacts First and Where It Leads
