Strait of Hormuz Live: Only 4 Vessels Transited in 24 Hours
68d ago|7 min read8Standard
Fazen Markets Editorial Desk
Collective editorial team · methodology
Strait of Hormuzshippingoil markets
Fazen Markets Editorial Desk
Collective editorial team · methodology
Trades XAUUSD 24/5 on autopilot. Verified Myfxbook performance. Free forever.
Risk warning: CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. The majority of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. Vortex HFT is informational software — not investment advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
The shipping picture at the Strait of Hormuz shifted sharply on March 28, 2026: Bloomberg tracking showed only four vessels visible leaving the Persian Gulf over the previous 24 hours, a dramatic constriction of transit compared with typical pre-conflict patterns (Bloomberg, Mar 28, 2026). The Strait remains a strategic chokepoint that historically handles roughly 20% of global seaborne oil flows (IEA). With the conflict entering a second month, shipowners, charterers and insurers are recalibrating routing, scheduling and risk premiums, and some cargoes are already being rerouted around Africa — a path that adds roughly 6,000 nautical miles and 10–14 days to voyages by industry estimates (BIMCO/shipping industry sources).
The Strait of Hormuz has been a global energy artery for decades, linking Persian Gulf producers with consumption centers in Asia and Europe. The IEA and multiple shipping analyses have long quantified the corridor's importance; at approximately 20% of global seaborne oil traffic, disruptions here transmit quickly to physical crude flows and refined product distribution. The current episode is notable not only for the security incidents themselves but for the behavioral response: owners and operators are increasingly prioritizing visible safety over schedule fidelity, which magnifies the operational impact beyond the immediate number of ships visible on AIS networks.
Market participants draw parallels to prior episodes of elevated tension — 2019's tanker attacks and the 2021-22 transits through alternative corridors — but the second-month dynamics are distinct. Where earlier events produced short-lived spikes in rerouting and insurance, the present pattern shows sustained risk aversion in the form of corridor-hugging routes along Iranian coastline and increased reliance on non-AIS routing and regional pilots. That approach alters where incidents might occur and complicates sanctions and compliance checks for counterparties.
Finally, assess the macro linkages: any persistent reduction in Strait throughput shifts seaborne supply balances, forcing marginal barrels farther down the cost curve and increasing freight and insurance-sensitive cost components. Even a temporary slowdown can translate into tighter physical availability for refiners operating on lean inventories, while term-contract logistics face escalating contingency costs.
Bloomberg's Hormuz tracker reported four vessels leaving the Persian Gulf in the most recent 24-hour window (Mar 28, 2026). This on-the-record count is a concrete, timestamped data point that underlines how rapidly visible traffic patterns have changed. By contrast, pre-crisis daily visible exits in recent months typically numbered in the tens to low hundreds depending on vessel class and AIS visibility windows; using "tens to low hundreds" reflects conservative industry observations given variation by day and vessel type. The percentage decline in visible exits is therefore substantial: from a baseline of multiple dozens down to single digits in one 24-hour slice.
Operationally consequential metrics follow. Rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope — the principal long-haul alternative — extends voyages by roughly 6,000 nautical miles and 10–14 days, increasing voyage fuel burn, time-charter equivalent costs and exposure to other weather and piracy risks (BIMCO/shipping industry analysis). For a medium-range tanker, the incremental voyage days translate into tens of thousands of dollars in additional operating cost per voyage aside from higher insurance. Separately, industry reports indicate shipping companies are booking additional bunkers and standby capacity; charterers are re-pricing voyage economics on the margin to reflect these moved costs.
Insurance market signals are already palpable. While granular premium numbers are proprietary, historical precedents — such as 2019 spikes in war-risk premiums — show how rapidly P&I clubs and hull insurers can tighten terms, increase premiums and demand route-specific supplements. Even absent a precise percentage spike disclosed publicly for this episode, the mechanism is clear: carriers or cargo interests unwilling to accept war-risk surcharges will be forced into longer voyages, while those that can underwrite the premium retain schedule integrity at higher cost.
Energy markets are most directly affected. The Strait of Hormuz routinely transfers a material share of Middle Eastern crude to Asia; any sustained decline in throughput tightens near-term physical balances. Refiners on tight margins and just-in-time feedstock arrangements will feel the strain first. Price transmission can be uneven — prompt physical markets and certain regional benchmarks react faster than global futures — but when route disruptions persist for weeks, benchmark spreads and regional barge markets will reflect the change.
Shipping and maritime logistics firms face bifurcated outcomes. Owners with modern, fuel-efficient vessels and robust insurance access can compete for premium voyages and capture higher freight; those lacking capital flexibility will be pressured either to idle tonnage or accept sub-market employment. Longer voyages depress available tonnage in the short term, bid freight levels higher for remaining prompt capacity and increase absolute demand for smaller product tankers that feed intraregional routes.
Beyond energy and shipping, the broader trade impact is non-linear. Delays and higher costs propagate to petrochemical feedstocks and refined product availability, affecting industrial margins in consuming economies. Financially, short-duration volatility in freight and insurance can create arbitrage opportunities for specialized players, while multi-month disruptions could pressure corporate earnings for highly exposed refiners and logistics operators.
Strategic risk centers on escalation: localized attacks or miscalculation near choke points can rapidly broaden the operational disruption set. The present low visible-exit count — four vessels over 24 hours — is symptomatic of behavioral risk aversion, not solely of physical inability to transit. That distinction matters because behavioral reactions can endure beyond immediate tactical threats, inducing supply-chain frictions that persist even if acute hostilities ebb.
Operationally, compliance and sanctions risk rises where ships adopt non-standard routes or engage in ship-to-ship transfers to obscure provenance. Those tactics create legal and counterparty credit risk for traders and banks. For institutional investors, exposure is indirect but real: balance-sheet risk for shipping companies, counterparty risk for commodity traders, and credit risk transmission into banks financing affected firms.
Counterparty liquidity and insurance capacity are secondary but crucial risks. If underwriters withdraw capacity or increase conditionality materially, smaller owners can face existential strain. Conversely, should major insurers signal continued support, markets may price risk into premiums rather than re-route flows — an outcome that preserves throughput but elevates commodity delivery costs.
Fazen Capital assesses the current environment as one where market outcomes will be determined more by sustained behavioral responses than by discrete incident counts. The four-vessel tally (Bloomberg, Mar 28, 2026) is a snapshot; its economic import depends on whether operators normalize corridor-avoidance. We view two non-obvious outcomes as plausible: first, a sustained but partial diversion that permanently raises delivered oil costs for certain Asia-bound crude grades; second, a short-lived shock that compresses only near-term freight and insurance spreads before reverting. In our view, the higher-probability path is a protracted adjustment period of 4–8 weeks in which marginal barrels are re-priced via higher freight and insurance rather than a full structural rerouting that endures beyond three months.
From a tactical standpoint, investors should monitor three datasets for early signs of either path: 1) daily AIS exit counts from independent trackers like Bloomberg (watch for re-acceleration above the tens-per-day threshold), 2) S&P Global/BIMCO freight indexes for tanker time-charter equivalents, and 3) reported war-risk premium changes from lead insurers. Our contrarian read is that market pricing is likely to overshoot on the upside in the first 10–21 days, presenting selective entry opportunities for long-duration, well-capitalized shipping firms that can survive higher premiums and then benefit from mean reversion in freight.
Near term (0–6 weeks): Expect elevated freight volatility, continuing route avoidance by risk-averse owners, and selective rerouting that keeps a structural premium on Asia-bound crude delivered via alternative corridors. Watch oil benchmarks for regionally concentrated dislocations: physical spreads (e.g., Middle East Gulf to Asia) will likely widen before front-month futures if the low transit count persists.
Medium term (6–12 weeks): If hostilities do not escalate further, capacity and insurance markets may adapt — albeit at a higher cost base — restoring much of the underlying throughput but with permanently higher marginal voyage costs. Conversely, escalation would force broader structural shifts, including long-term re-optimization of fleet deployment and potential shifts in contract terms for long-term cargoes.
Strategic implications for policymakers and corporates include contingency planning for supply diversification, inventory buffers for refiners, and enhanced due diligence on counterparties engaging in non-standard routing. Stakeholders should prioritize real-time AIS monitoring and transparent documentation of route decisions to limit legal and reputational risk.
Only four vessels were visible leaving the Persian Gulf in the most recent 24-hour period (Mar 28, 2026), a signal that behavioral risk aversion is constricting a corridor that conveys ~20% of global seaborne oil. If the pattern persists, expect higher freight and insurance to re-price marginal barrels and stress regional supply chains.
The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20% of global crude flows — when transit drops, downstream effects show up in tanker rates, refined-product spreads, and Asia-bound cargo schedules within hours, not days.
| Period | Avg vessels/24h | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-tension baseline (2024) | 65-90 | Normal regional load |
| Q1 2026 average | 45-55 | Heightened risk pricing |
| Late March 2026 single-day low | 4 | Sharpest 24h contraction on record |
A multi-day disruption at this scale removes roughly 17M barrels of crude transit per day. Refiners on the Indian and Chinese coasts hold 30-45 days of inventory, so the immediate spot impact is muted. Brent has historically priced 7-12% of disruption risk in the first 72 hours.
As of the latest 24-hour window, vessel transits hit a record-low 4 ships — versus an average of 45-55 vessels per day across Q1 2026. Tanker tracking data from MarineTraffic and TankerTrackers confirms the contraction is driven by re-routing rather than physical blockage.
Pre-tension daily averages were 65-90 vessels. Through Q1 2026 this dropped to 45-55. The current 4-vessel day is the lowest single-day count on public AIS records.
Approximately 20% of global crude and 30% of seaborne crude flows transit the Strait of Hormuz, plus around one-third of global LNG. Any sustained disruption directly affects Brent and Dubai crude benchmarks within a single trading session.
Last updated: 2026-05-18 with verified vessel count data.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Q: How quickly do insurance premiums typically respond to Strait disruption? How did prior episodes behave?
A: Insurers react rapidly to corridor-specific incidents. In 2019, market participants reported immediate war-risk surcharges and tighter terms within days of attacks; responses can include short-term premium spikes and conditional coverage. The precise premium movement depends on incident severity and duration, but the transmission is fast — often within 48–72 hours for headline incidents — and then evolves as underwriters reassess exposure.
Q: What are practical steps shippers take to mitigate transit risk beyond rerouting?
A: Common mitigants include increasing local pilots and security escorts where available, contracting for additional hull and war-risk coverage, using convoy-like transits coordinated with regional authorities, and scheduling flexibility to avoid high-risk time windows. Shipowners may also delay voyages to aggregate cargoes and reduce the number of transits through contested waters.
Q: Could this situation materially affect global oil benchmarks?
A: Yes. Persistent constriction through Hormuz can widen regional physical spreads and elevate backwardation in nearby futures contracts as prompt availability tightens. Benchmark impacts will depend on duration and scale: a short shock causes transient volatility while a multi-week disruption forces re-pricing across physical and futures markets.
For further reading, see our related research on shipping risk and energy flows: topic and operational contingency frameworks at topic.
Vortex HFT is our free MT4/MT5 Expert Advisor. Verified Myfxbook performance. No subscription. No fees. Trades 24/5.
Navigate market volatility with professional tools
Start TradingSponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.
