Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
European Oil Markets
31JUL

War-risk cover sets a hidden cost floor

2 min read
09:33UTC

Western war-risk insurance has returned to the Gulf at 3 to 4% of hull value against 0.25% before the war, adding roughly a dollar to a dollar fifty a barrel to every VLCC cargo and setting a cost floor flat Brent does not show.

← Back to Insurers shut Bab el-Mandeb to Saudi hullsJump to analysis ↓
EconomicDeveloping
Key takeaway

Returning war-risk cover embeds a dollar-plus-per-barrel cost floor on Gulf cargoes that flat Brent does not show.

Western marine war-risk cover returned to The Gulf shipping corridor at 3 to 4% of hull value by 22 June, against 0.25% before the conflict, twelve to sixteen times the pre-war rate 1. War-risk insurance is the premium underwriters charge to cover a vessel crossing a conflict zone; at these levels the loading alone adds roughly $1 to $1.50 a barrel to the all-in delivered cost of a VLCC cargo. Mine clearance through Hormuz has not officially begun .

The transit counts and the mine-clearance timeline are the Iran desk's beat . A European freight desk carries the insurance loading directly, embedding a premium of a dollar or more a barrel into the delivered cost of every Gulf cargo. The flat Brent screen does not register that floor for eastern buyers, even as the screen treats the crisis as closed.

That embedded cost is part of why the forward freight curve has stayed anchored while the flat price fell: the tanker market is pricing the insurance and the physical risk, not the diplomacy. An insurance market still charging a war-risk multiple of this size is not one that believes the reopening is complete.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Before a commercial tanker can sail, it needs two types of insurance. A hull and machinery policy pays the shipowner for physical damage to or total loss of the vessel. Protection and Indemnity (P&I) insurance pays for liability to third parties: crew injury, fuel spills, and damage to other vessels or port infrastructure. Banks that finance vessels and ports that accept them both require valid certificates for both types. Before the Hormuz conflict, war-risk insurance for Gulf transits cost roughly 0.25% of a vessel's hull value per voyage. On a large crude tanker worth $120 million, that was around $300,000 per crossing. This week, war-risk cover returned to the Gulf corridor at 3-4% of hull value, and P&I clubs have not yet reinstated standard terms for Hormuz transits at all. At 3-4%, the same $120 million tanker now carries $3.6 to $4.8 million in war-risk cost per voyage, translating to roughly $1-1.50 for each of the 2 million barrels on board. This extra cost does not show up in the $73 Brent crude price on the screen, but it is being paid by the buyers of Gulf crude on top of the headline price.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The 3-4% hull rate traces to three specific underwriting inputs that remain unresolved. First, the Lloyd's JWC "Additional Premiums" designation requires 30 consecutive days without a maritime incident in the listed area before a formal delisting review can begin; with 43 vessels still unaccounted for between CENTCOM and Kpler tracking as of 22 June, the JWC cannot start its 30-day incident-free clock because vessel status cannot be confirmed.

Standard P&I, North P&I, Gard, and Steamship Mutual have each issued Gulf withdrawal notices; without P&I cover a tanker cannot legally operate in any port requiring a valid club certificate.

Hull insurance pays for the vessel's physical structure; P&I pays for crew liability, pollution, and third-party damage, and no major bank financing a vessel will waive P&I as a loan covenant condition. A tanker operator who self-insures the hull still cannot satisfy port entry requirements or lender covenants without club membership.

Third, the 2023 Scandinavian Reinsurance Company (RNRC) precedent for Russian crude provides a structural parallel: after Western P&I clubs withdrew from Russian crude cargoes in 2022, Russia moved approximately 40 vessels to RNRC cover within three weeks; however, RNRC's capital reserves were insufficient to cover a catastrophic hull loss event, which is exactly the scenario P&I clubs are pricing at Hormuz.

The same capital-adequacy constraint applies to any non-Lloyd's substitute attempting to cover 270,000-tonne VLCC hull exposure in an active-conflict zone.

Sources:Marine Insight·gCaptain
Mentions:Strait of Hormuz →BIMCO →TD3C →VLCC →London →Iran →Persian Gulf →Dubai →Fujairah →Singapore →Lloyd's Joint War Committee (JWC) →Rotterdam →Brent-WTI →Protection and Indemnity (P&I) →
First Reported In

Update #11 · Crude longs flushed flat into a loaded week

Marine Insight· 26 Jun 2026
Read original →
Causes and effects
Caused by
Dark tankers hug Oman past Hormuz
War-risk cover returned to Hormuz at elevated premiums consistent with the physical mine and permit constraints surfaced by the CENTCOM-Kpler 43-ship gap (ID:4422).
Occurred 22 Jun 2026
Read story →
This Event
War-risk cover sets a hidden cost floor
The insurance loading alone keeps the delivered cost of a Gulf barrel elevated for eastern buyers, a structural floor the flat Brent screen does not reflect.
Led to
Freight has not confirmed the spike
The 22 June war-risk premium reading is the last dated cover level against which the unconfirmed 10-13 July window is judged.
Occurred 13 Jul 2026
Read story →
TD3C hits WS372 as hull cover reaches 5%
The 3-4% hull-cover baseline from late June widened to the 5% norm assessed this week.
Occurred 16 Jul 2026
Read story →
Different Perspectives
Sanctions compliance officer reviewing a Lukoil International GmbH bid
Sanctions compliance officer reviewing a Lukoil International GmbH bid
OFAC's amended FAQ 1224 gives a compliance desk its first published standard: full severance from Lukoil and a US-jurisdiction blocked account for sale proceeds. The conditions name neither ISAB nor Italy, so a Priolo Gargallo-linked bid answers a different question than a Neftochim Burgas or Petrotel Ploiesti one.
Managed-money funds on Brent Last Day
Managed-money funds on Brent Last Day
CFTC data for the week to 21 July showed managed money flipping 74,400 contracts to a net long of 15,665 against 1,410 short on the Brent Last Day contract, code 06765T. A fund that held that short through July has now covered it, and the spent short base raises the bar for the next leg higher.
Saudi crude exporters
Saudi crude exporters
Saudi-linked tanker transits through Bab el-Mandeb fell to about 7.5 a day after the 24 July underwriting withdrawal, pushing more barrels onto the longer route round the Cape or through the Yanbu terminal. Every diverted barrel ties up a ship for longer, and a fleet that turns slower charges more.
Tanker owners on the Bab el-Mandeb route
Tanker owners on the Bab el-Mandeb route
Lloyd's-market syndicates withdrew war-risk cover from Saudi-linked hulls on 24 July, leaving owners of that class of vessel to sail Bab el-Mandeb uninsured or not at all. Tanker transits on the route fell to roughly 7.5 a day, and cover, once withdrawn, does not return on a shipowner's timetable.
Eni
Eni
Eni's board approved second-quarter results on 29 July, swinging refining EBIT to a EUR0.08bn profit from a year-earlier loss even as group profit doubled, and named Red Sea freight cost as a cap on that improvement. A refiner absorbing higher shipping costs on Saudi-linked crude while its numbers improve treats the freight line as a drag, not a crisis.
Asian buyers (India, Japan, China, South Korea)
Asian buyers (India, Japan, China, South Korea)
Asian refiners are absorbing 62% of Yanbu's 3.75m b/d flow, the bulk of Saudi Arabia's rerouted crude now clearing east rather than into the Atlantic basin. That destination split leaves Asian buyers more exposed to any single Yanbu-specific disruption than under the kingdom's normal multi-terminal export pattern.