Current Position
Last week’s assessment described the Strait of Hormuz as “operationally constrained rather than securely open.” That description now needs to be extended, because a second chokepoint has entered the picture.
On 20 July, Yemen’s Houthi movement announced a maritime blockade of Saudi Arabia, targeting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea shipping lane that Saudi Arabia has been relying on as its workaround to the constrained Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia has been exporting a substantial share of its crude (reportedly in the order of 4.5 million barrels per day) from Red Sea ports, most of it moving south through Bab el-Mandeb. Independent estimates suggest as much as 2.5 million barrels per day of that flow is now at risk. Combined with the roughly one-tenth of global oil shipments already disrupted by the Hormuz situation, close to a sixth of the world’s seaborne crude supply is now sitting inside two simultaneously contested waterways.
This has occurred alongside a fresh escalation between the United States and Iran, including strikes on Iranian military and logistics sites, Iranian retaliation against bases in several Gulf states, an attack on infrastructure in Kuwait, and a tanker strike inside the Strait of Hormuz itself – all within the same week the Houthi blockade was declared. Oil markets have responded accordingly: Brent crude has moved back above US$88 per barrel, up more than 10% over the month and around 27% higher than a year ago, reversing the moderation noted in last week’s update.
Why This Matters More Than the Headline Barrel Count
The reason this development is more concerning than a simple percentage figure suggests is that it removes the safety valve. Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea route was precisely the mechanism that had kept the Hormuz disruption from becoming a full global supply shock. A credible, sustained blockade (as opposed to a symbolic declaration) would close off the alternative at the same time as the primary route remains impaired.
It is not yet clear whether the Houthis intend to enforce this at the intensity seen during their 2023–2025 campaign, when over 100 vessels were targeted in the Red Sea and southern approaches. That is the detail that will determine whether this remains a market-moving threat or becomes an actual physical supply interruption. Shipping insurers and vessel operators tend to react to the first confirmed strike on a tanker rather than to the announcement alone – that is usually the point at which routing decisions, and prices, move sharply.
Implications for Refined Fuel, Not Just Crude
As before, the more immediate risk to Australia sits in refined product markets rather than crude prices alone. Global diesel and petrol inventories remain tight and refining margins elevated. A second chokepoint affecting both crude and product tankers compounds the freight, insurance and scheduling pressures already present in the system. Retail price effects from a genuine Red Sea closure would likely show up faster than the usual multi-week lag, given how little slack currently exists in the system – the United States has already seen retail petrol reach US$4 per gallon twice since the war began, each time within weeks of a fresh escalation.
Australia’s Position, Updated
The domestic picture described last week is unchanged in its fundamentals but now carries an added layer of risk. The temporary fuel-excise concession steps down from 16 cents per litre to full restoration on 2 August 2026, regardless of what happens in the Middle East. That means Australian councils and motorists are facing a known, scheduled cost increase at the bowser in the same window that a second, unscheduled international supply shock may be developing. Distinguishing between the two (domestic tax policy versus imported market disruption) will matter for budgeting and for public communication.
Implications for Councils
The emergence of a second contested chokepoint reinforces, rather than changes, the direction councils should already be taking — but it raises the urgency:
- Treat the next two weeks as a genuine risk window. The period between now and 2 August combines the final stage of excise withdrawal with an active, unresolved shipping threat in two straits simultaneously. Fuel budget and cash-flow modelling should reflect both factors, not just the excise change.
- Revisit fuel contingency protocols now, not if a shortage appears. Confirm which services are designated essential-use priorities for fuel allocation, and check that this is understood operationally, not just documented in a plan.
- Stress-test capital works and contractor costs against a further diesel and bitumen price movement, given that refined product markets remain the more exposed layer of this crisis.
- Maintain close contact with fuel suppliers on contract terms and delivery reliability, particularly for any council with regional or remote depots more exposed to distribution disruption than metropolitan areas.
- Continue the fleet electrification and depot energy work already underway. A second simultaneous chokepoint is a further demonstration that dependence on imported liquid fuel is a structural exposure, not a one-off event tied to a single conflict. Investment in charging infrastructure, solar generation and battery storage should continue to be framed to councillors as financial resilience, not only emissions reduction.
Conclusion
A week ago, the assessment was that Australia had weathered the Hormuz disruption reasonably well but remained exposed rather than secure. The Houthi blockade declaration against Saudi Arabia does not change that underlying exposure, but it does mean the risk is no longer confined to a single waterway. Councils that were already treating fuel security as an ongoing resilience issue rather than a resolved crisis are well placed to respond. Those that assumed the worst had passed should revisit that assumption this week.
This update should be read alongside the 16 July 2026 post, “Fuel Crisis Update: Australia and Its Neighbours.” Given how quickly this situation is moving, figures and developments should be checked against current reporting before being used in council papers or public statements.
0 Comments