7AUG

Hormuz tankers hit pre-war daily range

2 min read

12:08UTC

Al Jazeera counted 35 tankers exiting the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday 2 July, the first pre-war-typical daily total of the conflict, though its seven-day moving average still trails last year.

← Back to Riyadh names its next targets; Najran is hit Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Thirty-five tankers cleared Hormuz on 2 July, but the seven-day average still trails last year.

Al Jazeera counted 35 tankers exiting the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday 2 July, the first daily total back inside the pre-war-typical range since the conflict began ¹. The broadcaster paired the count with a "has the oil shortage turned into a glut?" framing that moved quickly across trading desks.

Al Jazeera's own seven-day moving average still sits below last year's level, one strong session rather than a durable recovery. The Washington-Tehran arrangement runs on a 60-day interim transit-negotiation window dated from the 17 June memorandum, fragile by both sides' account.

IMF PortWatch put Hormuz transits at roughly a third of pre-crisis levels on its 3 July reading , so the day-count optimism and the underlying seven-day trend pull in opposite directions ². That divergence, not the single session, is what a transit-exposed book prices.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Thirty-five oil tankers left the Strait of Hormuz on 2 July, a chokepoint between Iran and Oman that carries about a fifth of the world's oil. That single-day count looks almost normal. But averaged over the whole week, and according to the IMF's own ship-tracking service, traffic is still running at only about a third of pre-conflict levels. Think of it like a motorway that clears after roadworks: one fast-moving lorry does not mean the jam has gone. Insurers and oil traders watch the weekly average, not the best day, because a single busy day can just mean a backlog of ships was let through together.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

The 60-day US-Iran incident-avoidance understanding, established in Geneva on 21 June, expires around 20 August. The 2 July count sits closer to the start of that window than its expiry, so a single strong day says little about whether transit holds once the informal arrangement lapses.

IMF PortWatch's own early-July baseline already put daily transits at 27 to 43 against an 84 pre-crisis norm, so the 2 July count of 35 sits inside a range PortWatch had already logged, not a new trend; a single Thursday count can just as easily reflect a bunched convoy release as a genuine change in the underlying escort-clearance rate.

What could happen next?

Meaning
A single strong transit day is not yet evidence of durable recovery, since IMF PortWatch's own rolling measure still shows roughly two-thirds of capacity missing.
Immediate · Assessed
Risk
The 60-day Geneva incident-avoidance window closes around 20 August; a transit recovery built on informal Iranian forbearance rather than a legal settlement could reverse abruptly once that window lapses.
Medium term · Reported
Precedent
Kpler and Windward's differing read on daily-versus-averaged transit data will likely recur at every future Hormuz recovery milestone, since neither tracker has adjusted its methodology to the current convoy-bunching pattern.
Short term · Suggested

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources from Qatar and United States

Qatar

United States

Primary parallel: After the 2019 Abqaiq-Khurais drone strikes, Saudi Aramco announced nameplate capacity restored within weeks, a headline figure that outran the slower recovery in actual export blending quality and shipped volumes tracked by data firms for months afterward.

Counter-parallel: The 2021 Ever Given grounding is the cleaner case: once Suez cleared on 29 March, the vessel backlog drained within roughly a week, because no adversarial actor could re-close the canal, unlike Hormuz, where the 21 June Geneva incident-avoidance line runs only 60 days and Iran's underlying legal claim over the strait remains unresolved.

Lloyd's-listed war-risk premiums for Hormuz transits reprice within 24 to 48 hours of a headline transit count, well before crude term contracts adjust. Freight and insurance markets move faster than term pricing because a single strong day changes underwriters' risk assumptions immediately, while term contracts wait for a trend to confirm.

A third of pre-crisis transit volume means the freight market is still pricing scarcity into VLCC day rates for the corridor. A genuine capacity recovery needs several consecutive weeks above the 7-day average before charterers relax war-risk surcharges, not one Thursday print.

Consensus view: Kpler's tanker-tracking desk treats the 3 July IMF PortWatch reading of roughly a third of pre-crisis transits as the harder number, because it averages AIS-derived vessel counts over a rolling window rather than trusting a single Thursday spike.

Counter-view: Windward's maritime-risk analysts argue the 2 July count of 35 matters precisely because it is a single day: convoy bunching after an escort delay can produce one big clearance day inside an otherwise thin week, so treating it as noise understates how fast the queue can drain once Iranian naval checks ease.

Key tension: Whether Hormuz transit data should be read through a smoothing average that hides a genuine step-change, or a daily print that can be inflated by a single convoy release.

Sources:Al Jazeera·IMF PortWatch·IMF PortWatch

Mentions:Strait of Hormuz →Al Jazeera →IMF PortWatch →Kpler →Iran →Abqaiq-Khurais →Saudi Aramco →Geneva →Tehran →Windward →Oman →Washington →

First Reported In

Update #24 · Hormuz tanker rebound is no LNG relief

Al Jazeera· 6 Jul 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Hormuz stand-down has not reopened the strait

The 2 July tanker rebound follows IMF PortWatch's 3 July reading of Hormuz transits still at roughly a third of pre-crisis levels.

Occurred 3 Jul 2026

Read story →

This Event

Hormuz tankers hit pre-war daily range

A transit-exposed desk prices the seven-day trend, and that trend still trails 2025 even as the single-day count returns to range.

Different Perspectives

Shipping and insurance industry

UKMTO counted about 20 US-facilitated Hormuz transits a day to 11 September against only 6 visible on AIS, with traffic still around 90% below the 138-a-day pre-war baseline. War-risk underwriters cannot price hulls they cannot see, or resolve whether the tanker El Gaia hit a mine, as Iran claims, or a missile and drone, as CENTCOM says.

European refiners

European refiners, including Poland's Orlen, absorbed a roughly $26 gap between Dated Brent at $130.80 on 15 September and ICE Brent futures settling at $103.87 on 18 September, a spread that widened from $13.45 on 9 September rather than newly opening. Their futures hedges no longer cover what they now pay for physical barrels.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Aramco zeroed European term customers' October allocations and rerouted roughly 60 million barrels to Asia through Ras Tanura and Sohar, using Red Sea and Gulf terminal capacity built years ago to cut Hormuz exposure. Riyadh reallocated existing supply rather than negotiating a shortfall with Europe.

Qatar

Qatar's energy minister Saad al-Kaabi told Bloomberg at the Qatar Economic Forum on 20 September that Bessent's two-year Hormuz-obsolescence forecast is wrong, and that Doha has deliberately built no bypass pipeline. Qatar's gas exports run through one waterway by choice, not oversight.

Iran (foreign ministry and Majlis)

Iran's foreign ministry and 130 Majlis deputies moved toward NPT withdrawal this week, with lawmaker Hossein-Ali Haji Deligani filing a triple-urgency bill on 20 September that Speaker Qalibaf has not yet scheduled. Tehran treats treaty membership as leverage still on the table, not yet spent.

Russia and China

Moscow and Beijing vetoed the Panel of Experts' renewal, maintaining Resolution 2231 lapsed in October 2025 and the 2025 snapback was never validly triggered, so the sanctions architecture the Panel enforces has no current legal standing. Both governments frame the veto as upholding law, not shielding Tehran.