Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
Iran Conflict 2026
9JUN

One ship or five? Hormuz counts split

2 min read
10:36UTC

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.

ConflictDeveloping
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 eight⁠1. 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 eleven⁠2. 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.

First Reported In

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

S&P Global Commodity Insights· 19 Aug 2026
Read original →
Different Perspectives
Wang Yi
Wang Yi
China's foreign minister and Djibouti's issued a joint communique on 21 October saying the war should not reach the Horn of Africa and stressing free navigation through Bab al-Mandeb. The text names neither Iran nor the Houthis, and Djibouti hosts China's only overseas military base, opposite the Yemeni coast.
Ministry of External Affairs
Ministry of External Affairs
India's foreign ministry called the attacks on Saudi civilian and energy sites "unacceptable" on 22 October and said they must stop at once. An Indian died at Dammam, Indians were injured there and at Shaybah, and about 4,000 Umrah pilgrims remain stranded by one MP's count.
Iraq
Iraq
Iraq closed the al-Sheeb crossing with Iran to travellers and trucks from 21 October and said other crossings would close gradually. Unlike September's closure, which ended on a staged timetable, this one has none, and Iran's interior ministry said it received no notice.
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
Egypt's president said on 21 October that Cairo's support would "defend Saudi territory, and does not include an attack on Yemen". Araghchi warned that Egyptian involvement would further complicate the situation, and Cairo's limit matches the one Ankara set on 8 October against attacking another state's soil.
UK Ministry of Defence
UK Ministry of Defence
The MoD said on 20 October that RAF Typhoons over Saudi Arabia will not strike the Houthis, but extended tanker support to Saudi operations including against Houthi targets in Yemen. The tanker line sets no limit on strikes, so British aircraft may now refuel Saudi jets on bombing runs.
Turkey
Turkey
Ankara sent the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement to parliament around 20 October, and its published text treats an attack on one party as an attack on all. Article 16 brings it into force only on the last ratification, so the 5 October invocation in Riyadh could not yet bind Turkey.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.