6JUL

One ship or five? Hormuz counts split

2 min read

09:40UTC

S&P Global logged a single vessel through Hormuz on 16 August and called it a record low. Kpler counted five the same day, and only one of the two has published what it counts.

← Back to Hormuz tanker rebound is no LNG relief Jump to analysis ↓

EconomicDeveloping

Key takeaway

Two providers gave the same day counts of one and five; only Kpler discloses its universe.

S&P Global Commodity Insights counted one vessel crossing the Strait of Hormuz on 16 August, described the figure as a record low, and put the previous day at eight ¹. Our own record already carried a different number for that date. Kpler, which tracks commodity vessels, meaning tankers and bulk carriers rather than all shipping, counted five crossings in the same water on the same day .

Kpler's later readings continue the series. It put 18 August at six crossings, against nine on 17 August and a ten-day daily average of eleven ². That is 45 per cent below its own average, an arithmetic step we have taken on Kpler's two published figures rather than a percentage Kpler states.

One and five are not the same count of the same strait on the same day. The S&P Global page would not open on four separate fetch routes, so the vessel universe behind its figure cannot be laid against Kpler's. Of the names attached to Hormuz numbers this week, only Kpler has published what it counts. Windward is not a third tally at all: it measures how many ships have stopped transmitting, which is the mechanism rather than the count.

The divergence has a precedent two months old. US Central Command (CENTCOM, the American military command covering the Middle East) counted 55 merchant ships through the strait on 22 June against Kpler's 12, a 43-ship gap our energy desk traced to vessels hugging the Omani shoreline with their transponders switched off . June's version sat between a navy and a commercial tracker, an easy difference to explain away. This week's sits between two commercial providers selling to the same customers.

A war-risk underwriter prices a Hormuz voyage against the number of movements that actually occur. Hand that underwriter two incompatible denominators and the premium drifts towards the worst plausible reading rather than the measured one. The charterer pays that difference, and pays it whether the true figure is one ship or five.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Companies that track ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz publish daily counts so traders and insurers can judge how risky the route is. On 16 August, S&P Global Commodity Insights said only one ship crossed, calling it a record low. But another firm's count for the same day gave a different number, and neither company explains exactly how it counts ships or which vessels it includes. That disagreement matters because these counts get used to set the cost of shipping and insuring cargo through the strait. If the real number is unclear, nobody outside the tracking firms can be certain how dangerous the route currently is.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Commodity data providers compete commercially on the accuracy of their vessel counts, which gives each an incentive to keep its underlying methodology proprietary rather than publish it for cross-checking. That commercial secrecy is what makes today's divergence between S&P Global's figure and the existing commodity-vessel count for 16 August unresolvable from public information.

Vessels that go AIS-dark, turning off their tracking transponders, are invisible to any counting method built on that signal , so every tracker's number understates true crossings by an amount neither firm can quantify.

What could happen next?

Risk
Traders and insurers who rely on a single provider's Hormuz transit count risk misjudging how open the strait actually is, since S&P Global's figure and the existing commodity-vessel count for 16 August do not agree.

Sources:S&P Global Commodity Insights·S&P Global Commodity Insights

Mentions:S&P Global Platts →Strait of Hormuz →Windward →Kpler →Oman →CENTCOM (US Central Command) →

First Reported In

Update #172 · The strait nobody can count, insure or pay

S&P Global Commodity Insights· 19 Aug 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Five ships crossed Hormuz in a day

S&P Global's one-ship count for 16 August diverges from the commodity-vessel count already reported for that date.

Occurred 16 Aug 2026

Read story →

This Event

One ship or five? Hormuz counts split

Underwriters, charterers and governments are all pricing a chokepoint whose traffic nobody can independently verify.

Different Perspectives

Cross-border power traders

The France-Germany day-ahead spread flipped from a EUR 17.20 German premium on 1 August to a EUR 4.15 French premium on 3 August, the same day French curtailment peaked. They cannot yet attribute the flip to curtailment alone, since a like-for-like overnight comparison shows French nuclear output rising while wind fell and demand returned on the weekday step.

EDF

River-cooling limits took 7.6 GW, 12 per cent of its fleet, offline on 3 August, the highest curtailment since the heatwave began, with an easing forecast to 4.3 GW on 4 August and 3 GW after. It manages the cut as a recurring seasonal constraint, expecting it to lift with river temperature, not repair.

Gasunie

TTF, the Dutch hub it operates, drifted to roughly EUR 55 to 58 per MWh across the window, staying inside its recent range through both the German spark reversal and the French curtailment. It reads a flat hub price as evidence that neither event this window carried enough weight to move the fuel leg on its own.

German gas-fired generators

Record German solar of 18,761 MW on 2 August pushed the clean spark spread to minus 18.48 EUR/MWh, a loss-making day, before it returned to plus 16.20 on 3 August. They now price dispatch against post-solar residual load rather than wind alone, since the sign flipped inside 48 hours on unchanged fuel and carbon costs.

European Commission (DG Energy)

Its implementing-measures register logged transposition notices from only Portugal and Slovakia against Wednesday's Article 94 deadline for Directive (EU) 2024/1788, with 25 states silent. It expects the register to fill only gradually, since filing routinely lags legislating and any infringement track against non-notifying states runs on a slower clock than the deadline itself.

Spain's LNG terminal operators

Spain's 9,145 GWh terminal inventory is the largest single stock in the EU LNG network, an option value that can reroute cargoes wherever the winter strip pays best rather than a cavern gas obligation tied to a fixed date. That flexibility matters more as Germany's cavern shortfall pushes more of the winter security question onto import infrastructure.