Iran’s Strait of Hormuz Blacklist Expands to Impact Global Shipping
On 23rd August 2026, Iran attached a condition to its Strait of Hormuz blacklist that applies to vessels not yet on it. The Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) published a list of ships accused of disregarding passage requirements, and Seatrade Maritime reproduced the notice and vessel table the following day.
The list named 45 hulls across 46 rows, with one International Maritime Organization (IMO) number appearing twice under different names. The condition attached to the list went further than the vessels on it, stating that a ship engaging in a ship-to-ship transfer or transhipment with a listed vessel could itself be listed.
Global Shipping Impacts
The condition threatens vessels with detention, confiscation, or fines on a later passage. This development has significant implications for global shipping, as it affects not only the vessels directly listed but also those that engage in transfers with listed vessels.
Transfers outside the strait exist to keep a ship out of it. One vessel carries the cargo through the dangerous water, while a second meets it beyond the strait and takes the cargo to the buyer. This separation of physical journeys does not remove the buyer’s dependence on Gulf supply, and it says nothing about whether the receiving vessel has earlier or future exposure there.
Market Reactions
Three days after the announcement, a reported response appeared. On 26th August, Reuters reported that at least three Indian refiners and a global energy major planned to avoid listed vessels, including for transfers at sea. Four sources with direct knowledge cited security concerns. These were reported intentions, establishing neither completed fixtures nor the cost of replacement ships.
One named exchange makes the question concrete. Reuters reported a late-August ship-to-ship transfer of liquefied natural gas between two vessels controlled by the same Greek owner. One of the two appears on the list reproduced by Seatrade. The day the transfer happened is not public.
Cost Implications
A successful delivery can coexist with a cost to the ship’s future employment or to the capital committed along the journey. A charterer could keep paying hire while a prospective restriction reduced a vessel’s sale value. Financing agreements commonly separate contracted income from the market value used for security coverage, and a GasLog Partners filing examined later is cited for the disclosed wording of one such structure.
Under such a structure generally, a large enough decline in appraised value can engage a remedy even where hire is paid in full. What decides whether cash is actually needed is the covenant, the available securities, and the market conditions at the time of sale or refinancing.
Original Article: Shanaka Anslem Perera — Substack