Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
3SEP

Oil prices a Hormuz reopening that has not happened

4 min read
16:40UTC

Brent crude fell to about $77.22 on 18 June, a pre-war level, while not one tanker resumed transit, insurers kept the strait excluded and the mines stayed live. The market is reading the signature; the water disagrees.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Brent is pricing a reopening that no insurer, mine crew or transit log has yet confirmed on the water.

Brent Crude, the benchmark that sets the price of roughly two-thirds of internationally traded oil, fell to about $77.22 on 18 June, down 6.9 per cent from $82.98 and back to a level last seen before the war 1. Traders treated the signed Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as a completed reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Not one tanker resumed transit.

The physical strait tells a different story from the screen. No Protection and Indemnity (P&I) club, the mutual insurers that cover roughly 90 per cent of ocean-going tonnage, has lifted its Hormuz war-risk exclusion; premiums sit at four to twenty times pre-war levels, and transits run near 6 per cent of baseline . Mine-clearance crews are still working uncleared waters: an IRGC vessel issued a radio warning to a US warship during that work on signing day. None of that has reached the insurance market that decides whether a hull moves.

Brent had touched $87.33 only days earlier and slipped below $90 when the ceasefire first looked probable ; the slide now prices an operational resumption rather than a rising probability of one. If the OFAC waiver never lands, or the 60-day toll-free window lapses into a fee, the gap between paper and water closes upward. Brent at $77 runs several weeks ahead of any operational change in the strait itself.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Financial markets and physical ships operate on different clocks. Traders in London can reprice oil within seconds of reading a news headline. A tanker captain deciding whether to sail through the Strait of Hormuz needs to know the mines have been cleared, that his insurance still covers him, and that an armed vessel will not stop him halfway through. On 18 June, Brent fell 6.9% to $77.22 as traders priced the deal as a completed reopening. Yet BIMCO, the world's largest shipowner association, confirmed no P&I club had lifted its war-risk exclusion. CENTCOM's two carrier groups continued redirecting vessels. Iranian-laid mines remained uncleared. Zero commercial tankers completed a Hormuz transit that day. The price moved; the strait did not.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    If no commercial tanker completes a Hormuz transit by 25 June, Brent is likely to rebound toward $82 to $84 as traders recognise the physical-to-paper gap.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Consequence

    Saudi Arabia's four idle supergiant fields , representing 2 to 2.5 million barrels per day of capacity , will not restart until owners confirm Hormuz is operationally clear, because VLCC loading at Safaniya and Ras Tanura exits via the strait.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Opportunity

    The first commercial VLCC completing a Hormuz transit under P&I cover would be the most significant operational market signal since the conflict began, likely accelerating the Brent decline by a further $3 to $5.

    Short term · Reported
First Reported In

Update #131 · Iran deal's first death tests the text

CNBC· 18 Jun 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
China's foreign ministry
China's foreign ministry
Spokesman Lin Jian rejected Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's 25 August warning that Iranian oil buyers face an "economic D-Day", saying sanctions do not help and that Beijing would safeguard its own rights and interests. China's Iranian crude imports had already halved for unrelated reasons.
Iraq's government and Erbil authorities
Iraq's government and Erbil authorities
Erbil authorities said 10 explosive-laden drones were shot down over the city on 1-2 September with no casualties. Iraq's government condemned the attacks without naming Iran as their source, and neither Washington nor Baghdad confirmed the IRGC's claim to have hit US bases there.
Bahrain Defence Force
Bahrain Defence Force
The General Command said air defences intercepted several Iranian missiles and drones on 1-2 September and called the use of such weapons against civilians and private property a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.
Kuwait's Fire Force and foreign ministry
Kuwait's Fire Force and foreign ministry
KUNA reported a hostile Iranian drone struck a residential complex in Kuwait City on 2 September; Fire Force spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Al-Gharib said losses were confined to property. Kuwait's foreign ministry called the attack a clear breach of its sovereignty.
Jordan's Armed Forces
Jordan's Armed Forces
Petra carried a statement that air defences intercepted eight missiles violating Jordanian airspace early on 31 August and 10 of 13 fired on 1 September. The statement named no target and did not address the IRGC's claim to have struck Camp Titin and killed US personnel.
CENTCOM
CENTCOM
CENTCOM's 1 September target list named IRGC air defence, radar, maritime and mine-laying sites in Iran but no tanker, after Axios reported anonymous officials describing a Trump-approved "tanker for tanker" drone policy. A CENTCOM spokesman declined to confirm the policy and referred questions to policymakers.