Tanker Resumes Persian Gulf Course After U-Turn Near Hormuz
0h ago|4 min readStandard
Fazen Markets Editorial Desk
Collective editorial team · methodology
strait-of-hormuzoil-tanker
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.
An oil supertanker traveling in the Persian Gulf resumed its course toward the Strait of Hormuz on 19 June 2026 after executing a brief U-turn. The vessel’s sudden reversal and subsequent resumption of its voyage highlight the heightened state of alert for maritime traffic transiting the world’s most critical oil chokepoint. Vessel tracking data confirmed the maneuver, which occurred against a backdrop of elevated regional tensions. Bloomberg first reported the incident based on shipping data and analytics.
Maritime incidents near the Strait of Hormuz directly threaten global energy supply chains. The strait is a narrow passage between Oman and Iran, through which 21 million barrels of oil flowed daily in 2023, representing about 21% of global petroleum liquids consumption. The last major disruption occurred in 2019 when multiple tankers were attacked, spiking Brent crude prices by over 15% in a single month.
The current macro backdrop features Brent crude trading near $85 per barrel with a sustained geopolitical risk premium estimated at $5-$8. This premium is a direct function of instability in key shipping lanes. Global economic growth projections for 2026 remain muted, leaving markets highly sensitive to any supply-side shocks that could reignite inflationary pressures.
The immediate catalyst for heightened vigilance is a prolonged period of bilateral tensions involving regional state actors and international naval forces. Any anomalous vessel movement, such as an unexpected U-turn, is immediately scrutinized by oil traders and risk analysts for potential conflict signals.
Brent crude futures for August delivery were trading at $84.72 per barrel at the time of the incident, showing minimal immediate price reaction. The relative stability suggests the market viewed the vessel’s movement as a precautionary measure rather than a direct threat. The July contract had settled at $84.51 the previous session.
The daily volume of oil transiting the Strait of Hormuz is approximately 21 million barrels. Any significant closure could remove over 20% of global supply from the market almost instantly. For context, the entire European Union consumed roughly 14.5 million barrels per day in 2023.
The geopolitical risk premium embedded in oil prices is currently estimated by analysts at $5-$8 per barrel. This is below the $10-$15 premium observed during the peak of the 2019 tanker attacks but remains a significant component of the forward curve. Front-month Brent futures volatility registered 28.5 on the day, slightly above its 20-day average of 26.8.
War risk insurance premiums for vessels operating in the Persian Gulf have risen 35% year-to-date. These costs are directly passed through to energy consumers, adding an estimated $0.50-$1.00 per barrel to transported oil.
The immediate market impact was muted, but the incident reinforces the persistent risk to energy logistics. Integrated oil majors like Shell (SHEL) and TotalEnergies (TTE) maintain diversified supply routes, offering some insulation. Pure-play shippers with high exposure to the region, such as Frontline (FRO) and Euronav (EURN), face direct operational and insurance cost pressures that can compress margins.
A counter-argument exists that global oil inventories and strategic petroleum reserves are at adequate levels to weather a short-term disruption. The International Energy Agency member countries hold over 4.1 billion barrels in emergency stockpiles. This capacity could mitigate the price impact of a brief closure, though not a prolonged one.
Trading flow data indicates continued speculative long positions in oil futures, particularly from macro hedge funds betting on persistent volatility. Options markets show elevated demand for short-dated call options on Brent, reflecting a hedging strategy against sudden price spikes. Defense sector ETFs like ITA saw minor upticks in volume, a common reaction to regional friction.
The next significant catalyst for regional risk is the 25 June expiry of the UN embargo on Iranian missile-related activities. Any escalation in rhetoric or enforcement actions around this date could heighten naval activity. The next OPEC+ meeting on 1 July will also be scrutinized for any commentary on geopolitical supply risks.
Key levels for Brent crude remain the psychological $80 support and the 200-day moving average near $82.50. A sustained break above $87 would likely require a tangible supply disruption, not merely a risk event. Traders will monitor vessel tracking data for any cluster of ships deviating from standard routes, a potential early warning signal.
The US Naval Forces Central Command continues to issue maritime advisories. Any change in the alert level or a formal warning to commercial shipping would represent a significant escalation, warranting an immediate reassessment of oil price risk.
A single vessel altering course typically has no direct impact on prices unless it is part of a broader pattern of disruptions. The market reaction is contingent on whether the action is attributed to a navigational issue or a security threat. Sustained higher insurance premiums and longer voyage times from rerouted traffic are the more common, longer-term inflationary effects on oil prices.
The 2019 incidents involved physical attacks and vessel seizures, causing immediate and sustained supply fears. The event described involved no attack, seizure, or confirmed threat, making it a minor operational alert. The 2019 crisis lifted Brent by over $10 per barrel; this incident resulted in no appreciable price movement, highlighting the difference in market perception between actual damage and precautionary maneuvers.
The geopolitical risk premium in oil prices has fluctuated significantly. It exceeded $25 per barrel during the First Gulf War in 1990 and ranged between $10-$15 during the peak of the 2019 attacks. The current premium of $5-$8 reflects a market that is accustomed to regional tensions but believes major state actors have a strong incentive to avoid a full-scale blockade that would cripple global energy markets.
Single-ship movements are noise unless they signal a broader pattern of regional maritime insecurity.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. CFD trading carries high risk of capital loss.
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.