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

One ship or five? Hormuz counts split

2 min read
16:40UTC

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.

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 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.

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
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.