TRAFEED

512 Days of Hormuz Transit Data | What a 91.6% Drop Looks Like

Published2026-08-27Ryuta Hamamoto

I aggregated 512 days of daily transit counts for the Strait of Hormuz. Before the closure, 84.8 vessels a day; after, 7.1. The collapse took three days. And the partial recovery that appeared in June had disappeared again by August.

512 Days of Hormuz Transit Data | What a 91.6% Drop Looks Like
Share

Hello, this is Ryuta Hamamoto from TIMEWELL.

When I wrote about the CIA director's Moscow trip recently, I added a few lines noting that the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed: three transits on 23 August against a normal rate of around 85 a day.

What nagged at me while writing was how that figure of three came about. Did traffic stop suddenly, or thin out gradually? And what became of the reopening that was expected in April?

The daily data is public, so I aggregated 512 days of it. The conclusion first: traffic collapsed in three days and has not recovered since.

How I counted, and what is not being counted

The data is IMF PortWatch's daily chokepoint transit series. PortWatch is run jointly by the IMF and Oxford's Environmental Change Institute, counting transits from AIS signals. I took it from a site that redistributes it as a daily CSV.

Coverage is 512 days, 30 March 2025 to 23 August 2026, with three fields: total, tankers, cargo ships.

The limitation first. PortWatch counts only vessels broadcasting AIS, which is not a minor footnote here. GPS jamming, AIS spoofing and deliberate switch-offs are reported in this area. On the same date, another indicator showed 73 tankers had gone dark out of 171 screened. Actual transits may exceed what appears here.

I still think the data is worth using, because the same measurement runs across the whole period. Understated in absolute terms, it still lets you compare before and after on one ruler.

As a cross-check, my aggregate for 23 August 2026 is three vessels (one tanker, two cargo), matching the tracker's own display.

Replace siloed classification work with AI.

METI's FY2024 data shows 52% of foreign exchange law violations stem from classification errors. Download the TRAFEED product catalog covering features and rollout.

The collapse took three days

First, when it stopped.

Traffic collapsed in three days (22 Feb – 9 Mar 2026)

On 22 February 2026, 127 vessels transited — the highest single day in the 512. Then 57 on 28 February, 20 on 1 March, 4 on 2 March, and zero on 4 March.

From 127 to 4 in effectively three days.

I had imagined something more gradual. Shipping runs on contracts and voyage plans, so I assumed traffic would coast for weeks after any policy change. It did not. The moment danger is confirmed, ships stop at once. Seeing it in the data changed my sense of how fast maritime decision-making moves.

There were 12 days of zero transits in total, scattered up to 23 July 2026.

Down 91.6%, and not recovering

Now before and after.

Period Days Daily average
Before closure (30 Mar 2025 – 19 Feb 2026) 327 84.8 vessels
After closure (1 Mar – 23 Aug 2026) 176 7.1 vessels

A 91.6% decline. But those two figures alone hide the most important part. Break it out by month and the picture changes.

Average daily transits through the Strait of Hormuz, by month

After falling to 3.2 in March, traffic reached 7.1 in April, 3.9 in May, and 12.9 in June — coinciding with reports of reopening under a ceasefire framework. Read alone, that looks like recovery.

Then July at 10.2 and August at 4.9. Falling again.

That reversal is the part I consider most important. Coverage moves whenever a reopening agreement is announced, but whether ships actually sailed is a separate question. In the data, the slight June recovery is back at March and May levels by August. The trailing 30-day average is 4.9, with a minimum of one vessel in a day.

Laying the months out also surfaced something else. Traffic was already falling before the closure. From 89.4 in October 2025 to 67.4 in November and 55.5 in December, then 58.5 in January 2026 — nearly 40% off. February recovered to 78.3, and then the collapse came.

So the sequence was not "normal one day, closed the next" but already thinning, then a final blow. That first stage only shows up when daily data is smoothed into months.

Tankers fell further

Splitting by vessel type sharpens it again.

Tankers fell further than cargo ships

Tankers went from an average of 47.6 a day before to 2.9 after, down 93.8%. Cargo ships went from 37.2 to 4.2, down 88.8%.

Five points apart, but the consequence is not small. Tankers outnumbered cargo ships before the closure; afterwards cargo ships outnumber tankers. The order flipped.

I have no data that establishes why, though the difference in risk appetite is easy to imagine. War risk premiums for a VLCC are reported at 40 times normal, around $10 million per voyage. With hull values and cargo values an order of magnitude higher, tankers turn conservative faster. Oil flow stops first.

For Japan that is the sore point. Most of its imported crude has historically come through this strait. What stops first is what matters most.

Where did the stopped ships go?

Traffic falling does not mean the ships vanished. Other indicators from the same date show where they went.

1,078 vessels are stranded inside the Persian Gulf. With 127 transiting, that is roughly eight times as many ships sitting still.

Among operators, eight of the nine identified had chosen to reroute, with zero suspending service. So the response is not waiting but going around. A Cape of Good Hope routing adds thousands of nautical miles and roughly two weeks between Asia and Europe — freight and lead time, directly.

Insurance has moved as noted: war risk cover at 40 times normal. Brent sits at $86.29, which looks calm relative to the depth of the crisis. That surprised me too. But reading it as "limited impact" would be premature: price is absorbed first by rerouting and inventory, and shows up as cost later.

The AIS point matters again here. Of 6,975 vessels tracked, 171 were screened and 73 tankers had gone dark. Where those ships are is not knowable from this figure. It is, though, the basis for my caveat at the top. What gets counted is only what chose to be countable.

What to take into practice

Interpretation from here.

First, treat "expected reopening" and actual transits as different things. June's 12.9 was a slight recovery against considerable coverage, and by August it was gone. Running supply chain plans off headlines gets you whipsawed. Keep one indicator of volume actually moved.

Second, learn from the fact that there was a first stage. Between November 2025 and January 2026 traffic was already 40% down. Whether you noticed then is the difference. The crisis showed up in the numbers before it showed up in the news.

Third, recognise that supply chain problems and export control problems are continuous. When shipping is constrained, alternative routes, alternative sources and inventory builds all start moving. New counterparties mean new due diligence. And it is precisely in an emergency that people want to skip the check.

Fourth, rerouting arrives later as cost. Eight of nine operators reroute, zero suspend. Logistics has not stopped. But not stopping is not the same as no impact. Cape routing days and fuel, higher premiums, demurrage on 1,078 waiting ships — these land in procurement prices months later. I would not read today's calm oil price as reassurance.

That is why running screening and classification in peacetime pays. TRAFEED supports classification against METI criteria and counterparty screening, with final classification resting with your own export control officer. To place your own company first, start with our three-minute export compliance check.

In summary

  • 512 days, 30 March 2025 to 23 August 2026, IMF PortWatch AIS basis
  • 327 days before closure averaged 84.8 vessels/day; 176 days after averaged 7.1. Down 91.6%
  • The collapse took three days: 127 on 22 Feb → 20 on 1 Mar → 4 on 2 Mar → 0 on 4 Mar
  • 12 days of zero transits
  • June recovered to 12.9, then July 10.2 and August 4.9. No recovery
  • Traffic was already 40% down before the closure (Oct 2025: 89.4 → Dec: 55.5)
  • Tankers down 93.8%, cargo down 88.8%. After closure, cargo ships outnumber tankers
  • 1,078 vessels stranded in the Gulf, roughly eight times the 127 transiting. Eight of nine operators reroute; none suspended
  • War risk premiums at 40x normal; Brent relatively calm at $86.29
  • AIS-broadcasting vessels only. 73 of 171 screened tankers had gone dark. Actual transits may exceed these figures

What stayed with me is that 127 to zero took three days. Supply chain planning assumes gradual substitution; in practice the switch in judgement was instantaneous.

Recovery, meanwhile, has taken five months and has not arrived. Three days to break, years to rebuild. That asymmetry is what shipping and procurement teams are living with right now.

If you want to talk through counterparty checks or building an export control programme as supply chains shift, talk to us directly.


Source: IMF PortWatch, "Daily Chokepoint Transit Calls and Trade Volume Estimates" (AIS-broadcasting vessels only), redistributed as a daily CSV at https://straits.live/data/transits.csv . 512 days (30 March 2025 – 23 August 2026) retrieved and aggregated on 27 August 2026. Insurance and dark-vessel figures are that site's display on the same date.

This article was produced with the help of AI. A human verified the primary sources and edited the text before publication.

52% of FY2024 export-control violations stem from classification errors. Is your team covered?

METI FY2024 data shows over half of violations stem from classification. Start with a free 5-question light check (~2 min, no email), then continue to the full 10-question report.

Share this article if you found it useful

Share

Newsletter

Get the latest AI and DX insights delivered weekly

Your email will only be used for newsletter delivery.

Free download

Recommended materials

Economic Security Management Guidelines (1st Edition): 44-Item Self-Check Worksheet (2026)

A fill-in worksheet built from the appendix checklist of the Economic Security Management Guidelines (1st Edition), published by METI's Trade and Economic Security Bureau on 23 January 2026. All 44 items are transcribed from the original text and laid out in its three-column form: check item, Y/N, and the structures (organisation, internal rules) and track record behind your answer. The breakdown follows the original: 5 items on principles executives should keep in mind, 13 on securing autonomy, 13 on securing indispensability, and 13 on strengthening governance, with the 8 items the original phrases as "it is also useful to" badged separately. Opens with a plain-language primer on what economic security, autonomy, indispensability, governance and duty of care actually mean. Includes METI-published survey data showing that 70.7% of 3,007 manufacturers had heard the term but had no concrete image of it, and that the share expecting lost revenue to outweigh the cost of action rises from 22.3% over one to three years to 31.9% over four to ten. As METI states explicitly, the guidelines are not an obligation imposed on companies and are not premised on transactions with any specific country, company, or person. This worksheet was produced by TIMEWELL and was not prepared or endorsed by METI. Final decisions should rest with your legal and compliance leadership and the latest publications of the relevant authorities.

Event Organiser's Migration & Data-Rescue Checklist (fill-in, 2026)

A fill-in worksheet for event organisers whose ticketing service has shut down. PassMarket closed on June 30, 2026, and its ticket management tool is announced as available until August 31, 2026 (planned). The sheet covers what to rescue before that deadline (attendee records, survey responses, revenue and payout records, event page copy, ticket configuration), an inventory of the channels through which you can still reach attendees, a formula and worksheet for calculating the effective cost of a new platform yourself, and the steps to launch a first event on it. Anything the official announcement does not state — when in-service messaging stops, the export specification for attendee lists and survey data, the timing of payouts — is marked "to be confirmed" rather than asserted. It does not rank providers; it supplies the formula and the checklist.

China-Related Transactions Export-Control Screening Sheet (fill-in / Export Control Law & Dual-Use Regulations, critical minerals, Control List, 2026)

A fill-in working sheet for companies trading with China: screen a single transaction against China's export-control regime (the Export Control Law and the Dual-Use Items Export Control Regulations), the controls on critical minerals (gallium/germanium/graphite/antimony/tungsten etc./rare earths/helium), and the four counterparty-list systems (Control List, Watch List, Unreliable Entity List, countermeasure lists). A procedure for "what to check before the deal," not a roster of "who is listed." With a plain-language intro, based on MOFCOM announcements. Listing is a regulatory category, not a judgment about any company (including the Japanese firms on the Japan-directed lists); controls change continually, so verify current announcements and consult your officer. Match counterparties using the original simplified-Chinese wording.

Talk with us about export-control operations

Share your screening, classification, or compliance workflow. We will map where TRAFEED can help—via our contact form (no cold booking).

Related Articles