Strait of Hormuz Toll Rejection Urged by IMO
1h ago|9 min read1Deep Dive
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
Strait of HormuzIMOmaritime security
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has called on the international community to reject any attempt by Iran to impose tolls on commercial passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the IMO chief said in an interview with Al Jazeera on April 12, 2026 (Al Jazeera, Apr 12, 2026). The Strait remains one of the world’s most consequential chokepoints: approximately 20–21 million barrels per day (b/d) of crude and oil products transited the channel in pre-pandemic years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA, 2019). Any institutionalisation of tolls would not be a mere commercial surcharge but an instrument of state leverage with direct implications for global energy security, insurance regimes and shipping costs. The IMO’s public rebuke elevates the issue from bilateral Gulf diplomacy to a multilateral maritime governance question, inviting responses from flag states, trading houses and insurers. Market participants should treat the statement as a policy shock that could prompt re-evaluation of route risk premia, contingency logistics and strategic petroleum reserve strategies, even though immediate physical blockades remain unlikely.
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow maritime corridor between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman that has been central to global energy trade for decades. Historically, the channel has facilitated roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of global oil shipments; the U.S. EIA estimated about 21.2 million b/d transited in 2019 (U.S. EIA, 2019). Its geographic characteristics — a chokepoint less than 50 nautical miles wide at its narrowest — make it uniquely vulnerable to disruptions that can quickly reverberate through seaborne oil markets and regional security calculations. Operating rules for transit are governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and customarily coordinated through multilateral institutions; the IMO’s intervention signals concern over an erosion of these norms.
Regional tensions have periodically translated into spikes in commercial risk for vessels. Between 2019 and 2021, state-linked actions, seizures and reported attacks on tankers in the Gulf region prompted insurers and charterers to pay elevated war-risk premiums and reroute vessels where feasible (Lloyd's List, 2019–2021). While many of the highest-profile incidents involved direct state or proxy action rather than formal imposition of tolls, the precedent of coercive measures reinforces why institutional rejection of tolling is significant: tolls, if enforced, would effectively convert maritime passage into a rent-seeking lever with legal, commercial and security consequences. The IMO’s public stance is therefore as much about preserving the legal basis for unimpeded transit as it is about immediate market mechanics.
A refusal to accept tolls can be enforced through diplomatic channels, port state measures and coordinated naval presence, but each tool carries trade-offs. Naval escort operations raise escalation risk and cost, port-state controls create administrative friction for international shipping, and broad commercial boycotts can fracture supply chains. The IMO lacks an enforcement arm in the military sense; its power rests on normative authority and member-state cooperation. The chief’s statement aims to catalyse that cooperation before unilateral tolling becomes normalized, but translating rhetoric into coherent, binding measures will be complex and time-consuming.
Quantifying the economic exposure of a hypothetical toll requires data on current flows, alternate capacity and inventory buffers. Using U.S. EIA baseline transit estimates of roughly 20–21 million b/d (U.S. EIA, 2019) and IEA characterisations that suggest the Hormuz corridor accounts for approximately 30% of seaborne traded crude and oil products at various points (IEA, 2020), the economic magnitude is non-trivial for refiners and trading hubs in Asia and Europe. For perspective, a 1% increase in shipping and insurance costs applied to 20 million b/d equates to the equivalent of tens of millions of dollars per day in additional freight and premium charges. This is before considering second-order effects such as futures repricing and inventory drawdowns.
Infrastructure outside the Strait provides partial mitigation but is limited. The Saudi East-West pipeline (Petroline) has a nameplate capacity near 5 million b/d (Aramco disclosures), and the UAE’s Habshan–Fujairah pipeline can move up to about 1.5 million b/d (ADNOC, 2024). These routes can reroute a portion of Gulf output away from Hormuz but cannot fully substitute for the full throughput that transits the Strait. Strategic petroleum reserves (SPRs) in consuming economies are also a shock absorber: OECD SPRs totalled about 1.2 billion barrels as of end-2024, but their drawdown is a blunt tool that imposes fiscal and political choices (IEA, 2024).
Insurance and freight markets rapidly internalise perceived risk shifts. During the 2019–2020 Gulf escalation, war-risk premiums for vessels transiting the Strait rose by more than 50% in short windows, according to market reports from Lloyd’s List and Marsh. Freight forwards and spot tanker rates also widened, with VLCC and Suezmax spot spreads reflecting re-routing and idle tonnage dynamics. Commodity derivatives priced-in these supply uncertainties: Brent futures experienced intraday moves of 3–5% on headline risk during previous episodes, demonstrating the sensitivity of paper markets to physical and policy developments.
Energy producers, major trading houses and shipping insurers stand to see the most immediate impacts if tolls are pursued or even credibly threatened. Integrated supermajors with diversified logistics chains — for example, those with access to pipeline bypasses or downstream terminals in Asia — will have more levers to manage cost pass-through than independent producers reliant on spot tanker capacity. Insurers and protection-and-indemnity clubs could face underwriting pressure if tolling morphs into an enforcement mechanism that materially increases sovereign risk; premiums and capacity reallocation would follow. Financially, a sustained premium on Gulf transits would benefit alternative logistics providers and pipeline owners while penalising asset-light exporters.
For commodity traders, the principal effect will be heightened basis risk and increased value of locality-insensitive storage. Infrastructure constraints mean that differential pricing between Gulf output and non-Gulf supplies could widen, creating arbitrage opportunities for traders with storage and chartering capabilities. State-owned enterprises in Gulf countries may also recalibrate export strategies, accelerating investments in bunkering hubs outside the Strait or in longer-term off-take arrangements with consuming countries. The net result would be a gradual reconfiguration of global crude flow patterns that favors larger, vertically integrated counterparties and vertically diversified logistics.
Broader macroeconomic transmission is plausible but moderated by buffers. A transitory shock could push Brent crude up materially in the short run — historically, headline disruptions in the Gulf have produced 5–15% spikes in Brent on tight days — but sustained price elevation would require continued enforcement of tolls, which would likely trigger countermeasures and supply reallocation. Consumer inflation sensitivity to oil price moves remains significant: a 10% sustained rise in Brent has historically added several tenths of a percent to headline CPI in advanced economies over a 6–12 month horizon, complicating central bank calculations and fiscal balances for energy-importing states.
The probability of a full, permanent toll regime remains uncertain and politically fraught. Iran’s leverage arises partly from geography and partly from asymmetries in the international system that make unilateral coercion tempting when diplomatic avenues appear blocked. However, the institutional and military pushback from trading states, combined with insurance market adjustments and commercial rerouting, raises the economic cost of any attempt to monetise passage. A measured risk profile therefore suggests a high likelihood of episodic coercive measures and low-to-moderate likelihood of a durable, legally enforced toll that survives coordinated opposition.
Operational risks for shippers include interdiction, seizure, inspection delays and unpredictable premium volatility. These translate into quantifiable costs — longer voyage times, higher bunker consumption and surged insurance premiums — that hit spot-export margins and can create temporary dislocations in refinery feedstock availability. The reputational and legal risk for flag states and charterers who acquiesce to toll payments is also non-trivial, raising questions about compliance with sanctions regimes and potential secondary sanctions. From a capital allocation standpoint, shipping companies may accelerate investment in building flexibility — e.g., more diversified flagging, longer-contracted charters, and investment in security measures — that reduce exposure to single-route dependency.
Strategic risk for global governance centers on precedent: normalising tolls could encourage similar practices in other chokepoints, eroding existing norms and prompting a decentralized proliferation of state-imposed maritime fees. That would structurally increase trade friction and raise the effective cost of globalisation. The IMO’s call is therefore a pre-emptive attempt to preserve predictable rules of the road lest incremental rent extraction becomes an accepted instrument of power projection.
Near term, expect heightened diplomatic activity and an uptick in public statements from major trading partners and maritime stakeholders. The IMO’s position increases the political salience of the issue and makes tacit commercial accommodation less likely to be a durable strategy for shipping firms. Markets will likely price headline risk via higher spot freight and insurance premiums in the short run; however, unless concrete tolling measures are enacted and enforced, commodity futures should stabilise as inventories and alternative routes absorb the shock. Watch for shipping re-routings to Fujairah and expanded pipeline usage as immediate mitigation steps; both are tangible options that have been ramped up in the past decade (ADNOC, Aramco disclosures).
Medium term, the economic calculus will drive private and state investment in bypass capacity. If tensions persist, expect accelerated capex on pipeline throughput, storage expansions in non-Gulf hubs, and bilateral long-term offtakes that reduce reliance on the Hormuz corridor. This is already visible in recent pipeline and storage deals and is consistent with the strategic playbooks of regional producers. Over several years the market could shift to a structurally higher-cost routing equilibrium with winners including pipeline operators and integrated traders with storage and chartering flexibility, and losers including smaller exports and spot-dependent refiners.
Policy coordination will matter. Implementation of effective measures to negate tolls will require synchronized diplomatic, legal and commercial responses across flag states, insurers and port authorities. The IMO’s declaration is a necessary first step to build consensus; the challenge now is converting consensus into durable practice without raising the temperature of military confrontation. Expect iterative, calibrated measures rather than single, decisive actions: sanctions targeting entities facilitating de facto toll collection, enhanced port-state inspections, and coordinated naval presence under multinational mandates.
From the standpoint of investors and allocators, the market often overweights headline sovereignty actions and underweights the speed and scale of commercial adaptation. A contrarian view is that while toll rhetoric elevates short-term volatility, it simultaneously accelerates investment in redundancy that reduces long-run marginal exposure to single chokepoints. For example, the combined nameplate capacity of alternative pipeline routes such as Saudi Petroline (~5.0 million b/d) and UAE Habshan–Fujairah (~1.5 million b/d) — assuming incremental optimization and commercial prioritisation — could materially blunt a persistent toll’s economic punch. Moreover, trading firms with flexible storage and chartering capabilities are poised to capture basis spreads created by the reconfiguration of flows.
That said, the transition is uneven and creates differentiated opportunities and risks across subsectors: insurers and short-cycle service providers will face immediate margin pressure, pipelines and integrated operators may garner durable value, and regional security providers could see sustained demand for naval escort contracts. Investors should therefore frame the event as a catalyst for structural realignment in logistics rather than a single, transitory commodity shock. For ongoing thematic research, see our work on Maritime chokepoints and Energy geopolitics for modelling scenarios and stress-case P&L impact analyses.
Q: What immediate actions can trading houses take to mitigate exposure?
A: Practical immediate steps include re-prioritising term shipments to utilise pipeline bypasses, chartering longer-duration tonnage to secure capacity, and securing additional short-term storage in refineries or third-party hubs. Traders can also negotiate clause adjustments in freight contracts for war-risk surcharges and accelerate hedges in forwards to lock in margins under elevated basis volatility. Historically, traders that combined logistical agility with secured storage have captured basis arbitrage during regional disruptions (e.g., 2019 Gulf events).
Q: How does this compare historically to other chokepoint crises, such as Bab el-Mandeb or the Suez transit blockage?
A: The Suez blockage in March 2021 primarily caused transit-time and congestion effects with downstream inventory stress that resolved within weeks through re-routing and modal adjustments. Bab el-Mandeb incidents have typically involved state instability and piracy risk that raised premiums and rerouting. Hormuz differs because it connects directly to some of the world’s largest producing fields; therefore, disruptions have more immediate commodity price implications. Historically, Hormuz-related incidents have produced larger price spikes than Suez delays, but market adaptations (pipelines, storage draws) have limited long-term structural damage when responses are timely.
The IMO’s explicit rejection of tolls in the Strait of Hormuz elevates the dispute into multilateral maritime governance and increases incentives for commercial and infrastructural adaptation that will reshape regional oil logistics. Short-term market volatility is likely, but medium-term outcomes point toward accelerated investment in bypass capacity and a redistribution of logistical premiums away from single-route dependency.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Sponsored
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.