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

VLCC forward freight stays 2x Atlantic

4 min read
16:40UTC

Lloyd's List assessed the TD3C Gulf-China VLCC 4Q26 forward freight near $181,163/day, roughly twice the US Gulf-China equivalent, a curve that refuses to price the clean Hormuz reopening the flat crude already booked.

ConflictAssessed
Key takeaway

Fourth-quarter Gulf VLCC freight at twice the Atlantic rate rejects the reopening the crude screen booked.

Lloyd's List assessed TD3C, the Baltic Exchange benchmark route for Very Large Crude Carriers from the Middle East Gulf to China, at a spot $412,888/day on 16 June, with the 4Q26 forward freight agreement near $181,163/day, roughly twice the US Gulf-China equivalent at $86,314/day 1. The dollar figures are assessed during a notional Hormuz closure rather than struck on actual fixtures; the load-bearing signal is the 2x MEG-to-Atlantic relationship, not the precise print.

A forward freight agreement is the freight market pricing the cost of moving a cargo months ahead, and this one is not decaying. The 4Q26 curve at twice the Atlantic basin is the shipping desk's own statement that it does not believe the Gulf disruption is over, even as flat crude prints three-month lows. The freight market priced the routing story more honestly than the crude screen, which front-ran a clean reopening the tonne-miles do not support.

The same physical scramble shows up closer to Europe. The Med Aframax bid that took TD19 to WS228 is the non-Hormuz sourcing scramble in the Mediterranean, paid for in the same tonne-miles. Crude flat price and forward freight are pricing two different futures: one a resolution, the other a sustained disruption. When they disagree this far, the freight curve is usually carrying the cargo the screen forgot.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Shipping companies that carry oil in giant supertankers charge different prices depending on the route. The most important route for bringing Gulf oil to Asia is the Middle East to China run, priced on a benchmark called TD3C. A separate market lets traders buy and sell contracts for future shipping capacity on this route, called freight forward agreements (FFAs). Right now, the price for a supertanker on the Middle East-to-China route in the fourth quarter of 2026 is about twice what the same type of ship costs on the US-to-China route. That gap tells us the shipping market still expects the Middle East route to be disrupted or expensive well into late 2026, even though crude oil prices have fallen sharply on news of a potential peace deal. The crude oil price and the shipping market are giving opposite signals about how soon things will return to normal.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The 4Q26 FFA MEG premium over the Atlantic basin reflects two compounding structural factors: first, the Hormuz disruption has reoriented the global VLCC fleet toward longer voyages via Cape of Good Hope, reducing effective global VLCC supply and raising per-voyage freight costs on all routes; second, the MEG-China route is structurally more exposed to Hormuz than the US Gulf-China route, which loads from Houston, Corpus Christi, or offshore Gulf of Mexico without Hormuz transit.

The PGSA navigation-services toll represents a third, newer cost input embedded in the MEG route economics: any MEG-loading VLCC that transits the Strait of Hormuz now faces a toll of up to $2 million per vessel in yuan or stablecoins, adding approximately $0.50-0.70 per barrel on a 2 million-barrel VLCC cargo as a freight input that did not exist before May 2026.

First Reported In

Update #9 · Russia cliff landed while screens sold Iran

Lloyd's List· 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.