How Dual Chokepoints Are Splitting Global Oil Flows in Two

Two of the world’s most critical oil chokepoints are simultaneously impaired as of 31 July 2026, a combination without modern precedent outside wartime. The Strait of Hormuz, which carried approximately 20 mb/d before the current disruption, and the Bab-el-Mandeb, where flows have roughly halved from 9.3 mb/d to 4.1 mb/d following Houthi attacks, are not independent risk events. They are interacting failures. Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline bypasses Hormuz at up to 7 mb/d, but those redirected barrels then face Bab-el-Mandeb exposure on their eastward route, making the two disruptions multiplicative rather than additive. The result is a bifurcated market in which Gulf supply reroutes northward toward Europe via Suez while Asia confronts the sharpest refined product squeeze in decades. This analysis maps the physical mechanics of the dual disruption against three distinct price scenarios, from escalation at $140-150/bbl through a base case of $70-94/bbl to a peace-talks retreat below $70, and identifies the observable triggers that shift the market from one state to another.

The mechanics of a market split in two

The bifurcation begins at Hormuz. Before the current conflict, roughly 15 mb/d of crude and 5 mb/d of refined products transited the strait, representing approximately 20% of world oil supply. The closure is not total, but it is profoundly disruptive. Three navigable lanes exist:

• Iranian-side lane: Controlled by Iran, with some vessels paying tolls to the IRGC for passage.
• Omani-side lane: Currently used by US Navy-assisted convoys, providing limited but functional throughput.
• Central lane: The widest channel, now obstructed by mines and effectively unusable for commercial traffic.

When Hormuz closed to routine commercial shipping, Saudi Arabia activated its East-West Pipeline at full 7 mb/d capacity. That activation is a key reason prices have not already reached the $200/bbl levels discussed in early crisis commentary. Yet the pipeline feeds barrels into the Red Sea, where they immediately encounter the impaired Bab-el-Mandeb. The bypass solves one problem and creates exposure to the next.

Combined gross flows at risk under a dual closure sit at approximately 20-22 mb/d, or roughly 20-25% of global oil and gas supply, according to analysis from ORF, Al Jazeera, and ABN AMRO. After all realistic mitigation, Bloomberg estimates the observed net shortfall remains at approximately 9-11 mb/d.

CFR analysis of Red Sea shipping disruption documents how Houthi attacks drove Bab-el-Mandeb oil flows from 9.3 mb/d in 2023 to 4.1 mb/d in 2024, a reduction that directly establishes the quantitative baseline for the current dual-chokepoint supply calculation.

Why vessel size makes rerouting harder than it looks

The physical constraint that limits rerouting speed is vessel class. VLCCs carry approximately 2 million barrels but cannot transit the Suez Canal when laden. Only Suezmax vessels (approximately 1 million barrels) and Aframax vessels (700,000-800,000 barrels) can use that route. The shift from VLCC to smaller vessel classes means more voyages for the same volume, multiplying both freight costs and transit time. This creates a hard volumetric ceiling on how quickly Gulf oil can reach Asia through alternate corridors.

Regional Impact: Asia Faces Product Shortages, Europe Finds Temporary Relief

The regional asymmetry is structural, not accidental. Approximately 80% of Gulf exports normally flow eastward to Asia, meaning the region bears the overwhelming share of volume displacement when both chokepoints are impaired.

Europe’s near-term protection exists because Suezmax and Aframax vessels are rerouting Gulf oil northward through Suez toward Mediterranean markets. That buffer, however, is conditional: it disappears under a full-volume-loss escalation scenario, and it depends on vessel availability that is already strained. The four regional groupings break down along clear lines:

• Asia: Most exposed. Bears the dominant share of crude displacement and faces the most acute refined product shortage, projected to persist through at least mid-2027.
• Europe: Relatively protected near-term via Suez rerouting, but vulnerable if escalation removes remaining flows.
• North America and Australia: Face elevated global price levels rather than direct supply shortfalls, owing to domestic production capacity.
• Africa: Structurally vulnerable due to limited domestic refining capacity and reliance on product imports, similar in kind to Asia’s exposure though smaller in scale.

Dallas Fed modelling finds that a Hormuz-only closure in Q2 2026 would already produce approximately $98/bbl WTI and a 2.9 percentage-point drag on global real GDP growth. The current dual-chokepoint situation represents a materially worse starting point than that modelled scenario.

The asymmetry matters because crude oil and refined product markets are partially decoupling. European crude access and Asian product shortages can co-exist within the same price scenario, with very different implications depending on where in the supply chain a position is held.

What the refined product gap reveals that crude benchmarks hide

Brent headlines track the geopolitical risk premium on crude. The sharper and more immediate economic pain sits in the product markets, and a reader watching only crude is measuring the wrong signal.

Of the approximately 20 mb/d that transited Hormuz pre-disruption, roughly 5 mb/d was refined products, not crude. Closure removes a material slice of Asia’s direct product supply in addition to crude feedstock.

That product gap is being widened by compounding factors on the supply side.

The compounding factors magnifying Asia’s product squeeze

Ukrainian strikes on Russian refining infrastructure have substantially reduced Russia’s processing throughput. India and China have curtailed product exports, worsening the supply gap across other parts of Asia. Sustained Red Sea disruption has layered additional freight cost onto an already strained product balance.

Each factor is independently significant. Together they make a rapid normalisation of Asian product markets implausible even on a peace settlement, with shortage conditions projected to persist through at least mid-2027.

The LNG market provides a parallel signal. Asian LNG spot prices are approximately $5/MMBtu above the European TTF benchmark, with TTF sitting at roughly $17/MMBtu at the time of analysis. That cross-fuel premium illustrates how energy product tightness in Asia extends well beyond oil.

Original source analysis indicates that equivalent refined product values in parts of Asia, when converted to a crude-equivalent basis, imply prices exceeding $150/bbl. That figure has not been independently confirmed by a public institutional dataset but is directionally consistent with reported crack-spread widening. Investors tracking only the Brent spot price are seeing one signal in a multi-signal system. The Asian product crack spread and the LNG cross-fuel premium are early-warning indicators that will lead crude in any scenario resolution.

Analysing Future Oil Prices: Scenarios and Market Movers

The price outlook resolves into three distinct states, each defined not by a number on a screen but by a physical or geopolitical condition on the ground.

The $120-130/bbl level represents the damage-onset boundary. Above that threshold, economic harm becomes material. The conflict-period high of approximately $119/bbl in early March approached but did not cross it. Oil was trading at approximately $84-85/bbl at the time of analysis.

The peace scenario carries its own volatility signature. Prices swung from above $97/bbl in early June to $67.04 on 2 July during a period of Iran-related talks, a roughly $30/bbl move driven primarily by de-escalation signals rather than supply fundamentals.

Escalation triggers to monitor:

1. Direct strikes on key Gulf export terminals
2. Attacks on the Saudi East-West Pipeline or desalination infrastructure
3. Verified physical interdiction at Bab-el-Mandeb beyond current harassment levels

De-escalation triggers to monitor:

1. Formal structured negotiations with explicit maritime security provisions
2. Verified de-mining or escort agreements at Hormuz
3. Credible US envoy engagement producing a ceasefire framework

The three-scenario structure is only useful if paired with these observable state-switch triggers. Without them, investors are choosing a scenario by preference rather than by evidence.

China’s Influence on Supply and the Role of Sanctioned Oil

China is not simply a victim of this supply crisis. It is an active participant whose decisions will partly determine which scenario materialises.

The country’s exposure runs along three dimensions:

• As Iranian crude buyer: Iranian oil represents China’s largest single trade relationship, meaning the crisis directly damages Chinese refinery economics.
• As refinery-throughput bellwether: Product shortages are translating into direct domestic economic harm, creating pressure to secure supply through any available channel.
• As diplomatic actor: China has a concrete economic incentive, distinct from Western diplomatic pressures, to push Iran toward negotiations.

The shadow fleet discount provides a market-observable proxy for Chinese buying behaviour. Shadow fleet crude from Iran and Russia trades at roughly $2-10/bbl below Brent or Middle East benchmarks, depending on vessel, grade, and origin. A narrowing of that discount would signal rising demand for sanctioned barrels or reduced supply of them, either of which carries implications for crude pricing and scenario-transition timing.

House Select Committee reporting on shadow fleet operations provides granular documentation of how sanctioned crude from Iran and Russia reaches Chinese refineries via vessels operating outside Western maritime norms, establishing the institutional evidence base for treating shadow fleet discount movements as a market-observable proxy for Chinese buying behaviour.

According to Brookings, some vessels are already paying IRGC transit tolls at Hormuz. This practice illustrates the fracture in free-navigation norms and frames formalised transit fees as a logical, though not guaranteed, element of any eventual settlement.

China’s incentive structure is the least-discussed but potentially most consequential variable in the scenario-transition timeline.

Translating scenario analysis into observable investment signals

The framework built in the preceding sections resolves into a specific set of positioning considerations and monitoring signals.

The crude-product decoupling thesis is central: a credible peace signal can simultaneously be bearish on Brent (as risk premium deflates rapidly) and bullish on Asian middle-distillate cracks (if the refined product supply system lags normalisation through mid-2027). That separation allows structurally distinct positions within the same macro event.

The crude and copper divergence visible in mid-2026 commodity markets reflects a broader pattern in which geopolitical supply shocks and structural demand shifts can simultaneously push different commodity classes in opposite directions, a dynamic that complicates macro positioning when energy and industrial metals are treated as a unified risk block.

A race-to-export dynamic also warrants attention. The moment a credible peace agreement is announced, a large volume of vessels waiting to transit the straits will move simultaneously, creating a short, sharp supply surge that could push crude prices below equilibrium before product markets catch up.

Observable monitoring signals, ordered by scenario-switching significance:

1. Hormuz lane status: de-mining operations or formalised escort agreements
2. Formal negotiation announcements with explicit maritime security provisions
3. Shadow fleet discount movement (narrowing or widening relative to Brent)
4. Asian middle-distillate crack spreads as the leading product-market indicator

This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Investors should conduct their own research and consult with financial professionals before making investment decisions. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Financial projections and scenario analyses are subject to market conditions and various risk factors.

The dual-chokepoint framework as a standing analytical lens

The core insight this crisis establishes is structural: the Hormuz-Bab-el-Mandeb interaction is multiplicative, not additive, because Saudi Arabia’s primary bypass feeds directly into the impaired second chokepoint. That interaction pattern will persist as long as both corridors carry material global flows.

Three principles anchor the framework going forward:

• Multiplicative versus additive disruption logic: Assess chokepoint risks in combination, not isolation, particularly where bypass infrastructure creates secondary exposure.
• Crude-product decoupling as a structural feature: Crude benchmarks and refined product markets can move in opposite directions under the same geopolitical catalyst. Monitoring one without the other produces an incomplete signal.
• Observable triggers over calendar-based assumptions: Scenario transitions are driven by specific physical and diplomatic events, not by the passage of time.

The framework cannot resolve exact timing, specific equity selections, or probability weighting across scenarios. Those remain matters of proprietary modelling and individual risk appetite. What the framework provides is the decision architecture: a structured method for interpreting new information as it arrives and assigning it to a scenario state rather than reacting to headlines in isolation. The article’s value is not the price forecast. It is the map.

—