Oil Under Siege
Brent at $91 tells only part of the story. The real shock runs through ports, insurance markets, shipping routes and supply contracts: the Middle East continues to export energy, but every cargo moves under an implicit threat. This is the new variable that the market has yet to fully price in.
A suspended war wearing down the system
For more than five months, the Middle East has existed in a grey zone: enough violence to paralyse flows, too little clarity to establish a new equilibrium. The provisional truce between Washington and Tehran, which collapsed on 17 June, had offered a glimmer of hope. The latest sequence of attacks has closed it off again.
The United States struck Revolutionary Guards command centres, missile sites, drone infrastructure and coastal surveillance systems. Iran retaliated against American targets and regional allies. Jordan intercepted missiles, Kuwait recorded casualties and damage, while drones set fire to two gas-related units at Egypt's Damietta port. The energy front has expanded well beyond the Iranian coastline.
The risk map now encompasses the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian islands, American bases, Gulf refineries, Saudi facilities, the port of Yanbu, the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb. Each new attack adds a further point of vulnerability to the same logistics chain.
The collapse in exports reveals the fragility
The region routinely exported more than 20 million barrels per day. At end-June, at the peak of the wartime phase, flows had recovered to 13.4 million. This week they have fallen back to approximately 6.2 million: less than a third of the ordinary level.
This figure carries more weight than any single Brent swing. A market can absorb an attack, a damaged vessel or an idle terminal for a few sessions. It becomes far harder to function with an export capacity that is intermittent, subject to permits, insurance constraints, diversions and sudden operational closures.
Hormuz: transit authorisation becomes a tradeable commodity
The case of the LNG tanker Al Areesh offers a clear picture of the new regime. The vessel, operated by QatarEnergy, left the Strait on the night of 29 July following a route designated by Tehran and carrying Iranian authorisation. It was the first transit by a tanker linked to the Qatari group in nearly three weeks.
Twelve commercial vessels were recorded crossing Hormuz the previous day, six inbound and six outbound. The tally remains incomplete: a portion of traffic is sailing with transponders switched off, rendering the physical market an increasingly opaque system.
The diplomatic discussion follows the same trajectory. Oman has tabled a proposal backed by Gulf states that would have granted Iran a formal role in the administration of traffic flows and the collection of voluntary contributions. Tehran has demanded broader control; Washington has rejected the idea of tolls. The political gap remains substantial, while the military reality has already handed Iran a concrete interdiction capability.
- Reduced transits and discretionary authorisations.
- Elevated risk for Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Iraq.
- 'Dark' traffic difficult to measure.
- Blockade threatened by the Houthis against Saudi exports.
- Cargoes from Yanbu exposed to drones, attacks and insurance costs.
- Traffic observed declining with greater recourse to northern routes.
The African detour rewrites the economics of every cargo
For Saudi Arabia's Asian customers, the natural routing from Yanbu passes through Bab el-Mandeb and requires approximately 19 days to reach Taiwan. With the Strait under threat, tankers must head north through Suez, cross the Mediterranean, exit via Gibraltar and circumnavigate Africa. The voyage rises to 48 days.
Fuel costs more than double, from approximately $1.26 million to $2.87 million. The Suez Canal adds roughly another one million dollars. Large tankers, penalised by draught restrictions, may be forced to transit partially laden and complete loading in the Mediterranean.
SUMED offers a land bypass between Ain Sokhna and Sidi Kerir, with a nominal capacity of 2.5 million barrels per day. It is a valuable piece of infrastructure, but its capacity equates to little more than one-third of the approximately 7 million barrels per day exported by Saudi Arabia. The arithmetic of diversion therefore remains unfavourable.
Advantage: short haul, oriented towards key Asian customers
Suez: approx. $1 million additional transit cost
The costliest damage is to confidence
For decades, Gulf producers have sold more than a commodity. They have sold reliability: regular shipments, efficient infrastructure, predictable routing and a privileged relationship with Asian refineries. The war has eroded this advantage.
India's state-owned Mangalore refinery has, for the first time, requested supplies that avoid both the Red Sea and Hormuz. European and Asian LNG importers are weighing discount requests and stronger contractual guarantees from Qatar and the UAE. The Gulf's historic premium thus risks becoming a discount required to offset insecurity, freight costs and insurance.
From this dynamic emerges a less liquid market. Producers may be pushed towards bespoke bilateral agreements, security clauses, designated routes and government-backed guarantees. Benchmark prices will continue to exist, but a growing share of the true cost will migrate off the barrel: into contracts, insurance policies and vessel availability.
Why oil can remain expensive even without a total closure
The market continues to receive crude through pipelines, authorised cargoes and diversions. This limits the more extreme scenarios and explains why Brent, though supported, has not followed a linear trajectory. At the same time, declining inventories and simultaneous pressure on multiple chokepoints are sustaining a persistent geopolitical risk premium.
The decisive variable will not be solely the number of barrels produced. What will matter is the actual pace of loadings, vessel availability, hedging costs, voyage duration and the ability to deliver within contractual timeframes. For Asian refiners, a barrel available in seven weeks is worth less than one available in three.
| Variable | Current situation | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Hormuz | Reduced, selective transit, partly invisible to AIS systems | Persistent risk premium on Gulf crude and LNG |
| Bab el-Mandeb | Houthi pressure and threat to Saudi exports | Reduced effectiveness of the principal alternative route |
| African route | Approximately one additional month and significantly higher costs | Lower tonnage availability and slower deliveries |
| Contracts | Demands for discounts, guarantees and excluded routing | A more fragmented and less transparent physical market |
| Price | Brent around $91 in a volatile session | The barrel prices in war, logistics and future scarcity risk |
The crisis may ease, a ceasefire may reopen the corridors and exports may recover. The market, however, has already absorbed a lesson that is difficult to unlearn: Hormuz can be constrained by relatively inexpensive means, and the alternative route through the Red Sea can be struck at the same time. The Gulf will continue to supply energy to the world, but will have to do so at a higher cost of trust. This, more than the next missile or the next Brent swing, is the change that is here to stay.
Content (text and/or images) produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence, under the editorial responsibility of the newsroom.