US President Donald Trump told the United Nations General Assembly that oil movement through the Strait of Hormuz is near record-high levels since the conflict with Iran began, but independent maritime intelligence finds a markedly weaker picture, with implications for global oil supply and market uncertainty.
At the UN, Mr Trump said:
“We’re taking 22, 25, 30, 32 and 37 ships out, respectively, every single day, every single night.”Those figures, presented as evidence that trade through the critical waterway has recovered, contrast with data from maritime intelligence firm Kpler, which estimates total daily crossings ranged between 9 and 24 ships last week — a level far below the pre-war average of around 140 crossings a day.
What the numbers show
Kpler's data also gives a direct measure of oil throughput: an average of 8.1 million barrels per day of crude passed through the strait last week, compared with a pre-war average of 13.5 million barrels per day. That gap highlights how maritime traffic and crude flows remain disrupted despite optimistic public statements from political leaders.
| Measure | President Trump's figures | Kpler estimate | Pre-war average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daily ships (examples) | 22, 25, 30, 32, 37 | 9–24 | ~140 |
| Crude oil per day | — | 8.1 million barrels | 13.5 million barrels |
Why it matters for markets and the UK
Disagreement over baseline shipping and throughput is not academic. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s busiest chokepoints for oil and gas. Variability in reported traffic feeds directly into market perceptions of supply tightness — and thus into price volatility. For UK businesses and consumers, higher oil prices translate into higher fuel bills, increased costs for transport-reliant sectors and domestic inflationary pressure that can erode real wages.
Traders, policy-makers and corporate risk managers rely on independent surveillance and shipping intelligence to gauge the physical availability of crude. When political statements diverge from private data, uncertainty rises, potentially amplifying short-term market swings. That in turn can affect investment decisions in energy-intensive industries and the hedging costs for companies importing fuel or petrochemical feedstocks.
Short-term effects and the medium-term outlook
In the short term, markets respond to both hard data and signals from political actors. A public assertion of near-normal flows from a major world leader can calm nerves, but if the assertion is inconsistent with independent monitoring, the calming effect may be temporary. Persistent lower throughput — as Kpler's figures suggest — means the global crude balance remains tighter than before the conflict, supporting upward pressure on prices until flows reliably recover.
- Immediate risk: Price spikes if perception of constrained supply persists.
- Business impact: Higher operating costs for logistics, manufacturing and transport, potentially prompting price rises for consumers.
- Policy response: Governments and firms may need to assess strategic reserves and supply diversification if disruptions continue.
For the UK, which imports refined products and depends on stable global markets for energy-intensive supply chains, the key question is whether a durable restoration of traffic to pre-war levels is achievable — and on what timeline. Until independent monitoring and transparent reporting converge with political rhetoric, market participants will have to rely on conservative assumptions when planning for fuel procurement and risk management.
Whatever the immediate truth of the differing figures, the episode underlines a broader point for businesses: geopolitical claims and intelligence-derived facts can point in different directions, and firms must factor that divergence into budgeting, hedging and contingency planning.
