How did navigation crises redraw the map of influence in oil and gas trade? | economy

The crises in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz are no longer merely fleeting disturbances in maritime trade routes. Rather, they have revealed that global energy security is not only determined by the size of production or reserves, but also by who owns ships capable of transporting oil and gas, who builds them, and who finances them and manages their risks.

In moments of geopolitical tension, tanker owners transform from mere carriers of crude and gas to an influential party in the cost of energy, because the reluctance of ships to enter risk areas, the rise in insurance premiums, and the rerouting of sea routes are all factors that raise the cost of shipping even if the price of the barrel itself does not change.

Below are 5 questions and answers that explain who owns the fleet of oil and gas tankers, who makes them, and how maritime crises distribute their gains between shipowners, insurance companies, and marine services companies.

1- Who owns the tanker fleet?

The ownership map shows that influence is not concentrated only in countries that produce oil and gas, but also in countries that possess marine capital, operational expertise, and financing and leasing networks. China, Japan, Greece and Singapore represent major centers of oil and gas tanker ownership, while South Korea is more strongly present in manufacturing and shipbuilding.

VesselsValue data until January 2025 shows that China leads the world’s ship-owning countries in terms of the total value of the maritime fleet, with a value of about $255.2 billion, followed by Japan with $231.4 billion, then Greece with about $188.1 billion, the United States with about $116.4 billion, and Singapore with about $107.2 billion.

But the map of influence differs when focusing on oil and gas tankers. In the oil tanker category, Greece leads with a fleet value of about $71.3 billion, followed by Japan with about $53.6 billion, then China with about $48 billion, Singapore with about $25.7 billion, and South Korea with about $12.4 billion. This reflects the continued historical weight of Greece in the ownership and operation of oil tankers, despite the fact that China leads the global commercial fleet as a whole.

In the field of liquefied natural gas tankers, Japan stands out in first place with a value of approximately $40.9 billion, followed by Greece with about $32.4 billion, then China with about $26.9 billion, South Korea with about $17.2 billion, and Norway with about $13.6 billion. This indicates that ownership of liquefied gas tankers is highly concentrated among Asian and European powers, linked to long-term contracts in gas and energy trade.

In liquefied petroleum gas tankers, Japan also leads with a value of about $15.1 billion, followed by Singapore with about $14 billion, then China with $9 billion, Greece with about $7 billion, and Britain with about $5.3 billion.

These numbers reflect that Greece maintains a clear weight in the tanker market, despite the rise of China. Japan not only has a large fleet, but also has a sensitive position in the gas tanker sector, and this comes in light of its heavy dependence on marine energy imports. As for Singapore, despite its small geographical area, it has turned into a center of ownership, management, financing and maritime services.

2- What are the largest owning or operating companies?

As for oil tanker operating companies, Front Line tops the list with revenues of $1.77 billion during the last 12 months, followed by CMB Tech with revenues of $1.30 billion, then Tikai Tankers with $1.04 billion, Scorpio Tankers with $889.5 million, and Tsakos Energy Navigation with $764.9 million.

Scorpio Tankers is prominent in transporting petroleum products, as it operates 93 tankers, including 37 long-range (LR2) tankers, 42 medium-range (MR) tankers, and 14 Handymax tankers. As for Tsakos Energy Navigation, it represents one of the most prominent Greek models in the sector, with revenues amounting to $764.9 million during the last 12 months. It owns 63 tankers, including tankers for crude oil, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas, in addition to shuttle tankers, as well as 25 Ice-Class ships designed to operate in frozen ports, with plans to add new ships between 2026 and 2028.

Here the difference between the “owning country” and the “operating company” appears. The company may be registered in a country, the ship flies the flag of another country such as Panama, financing is from a third financial center, insurance is from London or Europe, and construction is in South Korea or China. Therefore, real influence in the tanker market is distributed between ownership, operation, financing, insurance, and shipbuilding.

4- Who manufactures oil and gas tankers?

The oil and gas tanker industry is concentrated in East Asia, especially China, South Korea and Japan. China has advanced strongly in the construction of commercial ships and tankers, benefiting from huge industrial capacity, government support, and local supply chains. As for South Korea, it is an advanced center for building liquefied natural gas carriers and high-tech ships, due to its experience in cold storage systems and advanced marine propulsion.

Japan maintains an important role, albeit less extensive than China and South Korea, through historical companies specializing in shipbuilding and fleet management. Thus, influence is divided between a Greek, Japanese, or Chinese owner, and a ship that may be built in South Korea, financed by Singapore or London, and insured through international marine insurance companies.

5- Have crises made owners among the biggest beneficiaries?

Maritime crises raised shipping and insurance rates, lengthened voyages or reduced the actual supply of available carriers. The attached data indicate that shipping disruptions have actually taken about 7% of the global tanker fleet out of circulation, due to bottlenecks, lengthy trips, and avoiding danger zones.

In the Strait of Hormuz, shipping rates on the Arabian Gulf-East Asia line jumped from about 100 points on the Worldscale index to more than 500 points. This means that a giant oil tanker carrying about 260,000 tons could generate millions of dollars per trip, even if the price of crude oil itself does not change.

Marine insurance companies also benefited, as war risk premiums for crossing Gulf waters rose from levels of approximately 0.15% to 0.25% of the ship’s value, to about 1.5%, and in some cases to higher levels. For a $100 million tanker, this increase could mean an insurance cost of approximately $1.5 million per trip.

Energy affairs expert Lori Haitian believes that the beneficiaries of the rise in shipping fees were not necessarily all tanker owners, as the crisis actually began with the rise in ship insurance premiums from the first days of the war, which prompted a number of tankers to hesitate to enter the Strait of Hormuz, or to leave it before the issuance of subsequent Iranian threats.

Haitian pointed out, during her talk to Al Jazeera Net, that the large increase in the cost of insurance created a dispute over who would bear the increase, whether in insurance or transportation fees, before the complete closure of the strait led to the cessation of ship movement, which deprived the transportation companies themselves from continuing their activity.

The spokeswoman confirms that the transportation of oil and gas depends on specialized marine shipping companies, as many producing countries do not have their own fleets, and rely on international transportation companies or oil trading companies that contract for shipping services.

The energy expert explains that the maritime transport industry represents an essential link in the energy supply chain, so any disturbance in the Strait of Hormuz not only raises the cost of transportation and insurance, but also forces tankers to search for alternative routes or markets to ensure their continued operation, while the cessation of navigation disrupts the access of oil from producers to global markets.