Are the Straits of Hormuz Open?

For months we have heard dramatically different descriptions of what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran says it can close the Strait. The United States says it increasingly controls a safe passage through it. Ship-tracking services report surprisingly little traffic. Meanwhile oil continues to reach world markets and, despite considerable volatility, Brent crude has recently been trading around US$90 a barrel.

So what is actually happening?

Perhaps the most useful question isn't whether the Strait is "open" or "closed".

It is:

How much Middle Eastern oil is actually reaching world markets compared with before the war?

Before the War

The starting point is reasonably clear.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, around 20.9 million barrels of oil per day passed through the Strait of Hormuz in the first half of 2025.

That represented roughly 20% of the world's petroleum consumption and about one quarter of all oil traded by sea.

It explains why predictions of a complete closure of Hormuz produced some frightening forecasts for oil prices.

If 20 million barrels per day suddenly disappeared from world markets, the consequences would be enormous.

But that isn't what happened.

The Initial Collapse

When the US-Iran conflict erupted, traffic through the Strait fell dramatically.

By March, Persian Gulf oil exports had fallen to around 5–6 million barrels per day, according to estimates subsequently reported by Goldman Sachs.

That was an extraordinary disruption.

But since then something important has happened.

The Gulf oil-export system has adapted.

Oil Is Moving Again

By late August, Goldman Sachs estimated that total exports of crude oil and petroleum products from the Persian Gulf had recovered to around:

15–16 million barrels per day.

That is still around 7–8 million barrels below pre-war levels, but it is a remarkable recovery from the March low.

Goldman also estimates that 8–10 million barrels per day may now be passing through Hormuz itself, broadly supporting figures being quoted by US officials.

The United States has reportedly established a protected southern shipping corridor near the Omani side of the Strait. Tankers are being moved through in organised groups, often at night and under US military protection.

Commercial ship trackers see less.

Some estimates based on conventional tracking have put actual Hormuz flows at only 2–6 million barrels per day.

But there is a reason for the discrepancy.

Many tankers are deliberately switching off their AIS tracking systems while making the dangerous passage. These "dark" movements are therefore difficult for normal commercial tracking systems to measure.

So neither figure can be regarded as precise.

But there is now enough evidence to conclude that substantial quantities of oil are again moving through Hormuz.

The Pipelines Around Hormuz

There is another part of the story that receives less attention.

Oil producers have increasingly used routes that bypass Hormuz altogether.

The two most important are Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline to the Red Sea and the UAE pipeline from Abu Dhabi to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman.

The International Energy Agency estimates that these routes potentially provide around 3.5–5.5 million barrels per day of available bypass capacity.

Saudi Arabia's East-West system has considerably greater total capacity, although some of it was already being used before the war. The UAE's Habshan-Fujairah pipeline currently carries roughly 1.8 million barrels per day, and the UAE is already working to expand it.

Iraq is also attempting to increase exports through Türkiye, while other alternative routes are being investigated or expanded.

None of these can replace Hormuz completely.

But collectively they matter.

So How Open Is Hormuz?

This is where terminology becomes important.

If we measure only oil physically passing through the Strait, the answer appears to be:

Oil Flow	Approx. million barrels/day
Pre-war through Hormuz	20.9
March crisis low – Gulf exports	5–6
Current estimated Hormuz traffic	8–10
Current total Gulf exports	15–16

On that basis, the Strait itself is probably carrying only about 40–50% of its former oil volume.

But that doesn't tell us how much Gulf oil is actually reaching the world.

Once pipelines and other alternative routes are included, the figure rises to around 15–16 million barrels per day.

Compared with roughly 21–23 million barrels per day before the conflict, that suggests something like two-thirds to three-quarters of the Gulf's previous oil-export capability has effectively been restored.

That is probably the most meaningful measure.

The Hormuz Oil Flow Meter

Pre-war effective oil flow: 100%

March low: ~25%

Current Strait flow: ~40–50%

Current total Gulf exports, including bypasses: ~65–75%

🟥 March crisis
███░░░░░░░ ~25%

🟧 Strait today
█████░░░░░ ~45%

🟨 Total exports today
███████░░░ ~70%

🟩 Pre-war
██████████ 100%

Last updated: 31 August 2026. Figures are estimates compiled from EIA, IEA, Goldman Sachs, Reuters, Axios and published tanker-tracking data.

The Oil Price Provides Another Clue

There is another useful reality check: the market itself.

Brent crude has recently been trading around US$85–95 a barrel.

That is expensive oil.

But it is hardly the price one might expect if 20% of the world's oil supply had genuinely disappeared.

Markets don't know everything, but millions of buyers, sellers, refiners, producers and traders have enormous financial incentives to discover whether oil is actually available.

The relative stability of oil around this range therefore provides some indirect support for the physical-flow estimates.

The market appears to be saying that there is a serious supply problem — but not a catastrophic one.

Open, Closed — Or Something In Between?

The answer to the headline question is therefore:

Yes and no.

The Strait of Hormuz is certainly not "open" in the normal pre-war sense.

Ships face military threats. Some travel under US protection. Others switch off their tracking systems. Insurance and freight costs have risen dramatically. Iran retains the ability to disrupt traffic.

But neither is Hormuz effectively closed.

Millions of barrels are passing through every day, while several million more bypass the Strait through pipelines and alternative export routes.

Perhaps the best description is that the Strait is partially open, while the Gulf oil-export system has become increasingly successful at routing around the blockade.

If the latest estimates are approximately correct, the world has recovered something approaching 70% of the oil flow that existed before the war.

That may explain something that otherwise looks puzzling.

Six months into a war involving Iran, the United States and Israel — centred on the world's most important oil chokepoint — Brent crude is around US$90 rather than US$150 or US$200.

The oil is getting out.

Not all of it.

Not safely.

And certainly not normally.

But considerably more than the word "closed" would suggest.

Previous Posts on the Iran War

For readers who have been following the story, these earlier Grappy's Soap Box posts trace the changing course of the conflict:

Stop Negotiating. Let Iran Come Begging. — Why continued negotiations risked giving Tehran time and economic breathing space.

Talking Peace, Firing Missiles — The strange reality of a ceasefire accompanied by continuing Iranian attacks and threats to shipping.

The Deal That Isn't A Deal — A look at the US-Iran memorandum and the promise that normal shipping through Hormuz would resume.

Time To Finish The Job — Why the breakdown of that agreement and continuing attacks on shipping changed the strategic equation.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 36 of 2026

     

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• The Surcharge Finally Gets The Boot
• Argentina Is Proving Socialism's Failures Can Be Reversed
• Can AI Write From The Heart
• A Life Lived Well
• What If The COVID Case Numbers Were Wrong?
• Climate, Energy & Prosperity:The Debate That Shapes Our Future
  
• Are The Straits of Hormuz Open?
• Baby Trump Addresses The Spain Invasion

Cartoon of the Day

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Climate, Energy and Prosperity: The Debate That Shapes Our Future

Few issues reach as deeply into modern life as climate change and energy.

Climate change begins as a scientific question: How much is the Earth warming? How much is caused by human activity? What might happen in the decades ahead?

But deciding what we should do about it takes us much further.

It involves engineering, economics, politics, international relations and ethics. It affects electricity prices, transport, industry, agriculture, government spending and ultimately our cost of living.

At the centre of it all is energy.

Energy and the Modern World

Modern civilisation depends upon abundant, reliable and affordable energy. It powers our homes, hospitals, factories, transport and communications. Fossil fuels also provide raw materials for fertilisers, plastics, pharmaceuticals and countless everyday products.

Yet burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases, and governments around the world have committed enormous resources to reducing emissions.

That creates one of the great policy dilemmas of our age:

How do we reduce our environmental impact without undermining the prosperity and technological capacity that make modern civilisation possible?

There are no simple answers.

Beyond "Is Climate Change Real?"

The Earth has warmed since the nineteenth century, and human greenhouse-gas emissions contribute to that warming.

But that does not settle the debate.

How much future warming should we expect? How reliable are climate models? How much damage will warming cause? How much can we adapt? And, most importantly, which policies provide the greatest benefit for their cost?

Those questions deserve open examination.

So do the proposed solutions.

Wind and solar offer low-emission electricity but are weather-dependent. Nuclear provides reliable low-carbon power but brings questions of cost, construction time and waste. Batteries and transmission networks have important roles but substantial costs. Electric vehicles eliminate tailpipe emissions but require considerably more mineral extraction.

Every technology involves trade-offs.

The Economic Question

Energy prices flow through almost everything we buy.

More expensive electricity increases the cost of manufacturing, mining, construction, transport, food and services. Industries that depend upon cheap energy can become uncompetitive or move overseas.

Climate policy therefore cannot be assessed simply by counting tonnes of CO₂ avoided.

We also need to ask:

What does it cost? What does it achieve? And are there better ways of achieving the same objective?

That is particularly important with Net Zero, which potentially involves transforming electricity generation, transport, industry, agriculture and buildings over just a few decades.

The Moral Questions

Climate policy also raises questions that cannot be answered by climate models.

Today's wealthy countries achieved their prosperity using abundant coal, oil and gas. Billions of people in developing nations are still seeking the reliable electricity, clean water, refrigeration, transport, hospitals and industry that we take for granted.

Do wealthy countries have the right to deny poorer countries access to inexpensive energy?

And who should bear the greatest burden of reducing emissions: today's largest emitters, the countries responsible for the greatest historical emissions, or everyone equally?

There is another moral question closer to home.

Governments routinely restrict individual freedom for the common good. But how far should that extend in pursuing climate objectives?

Should governments determine which cars we drive, which appliances we use or which technologies generate our electricity? How much additional cost can reasonably be imposed on today's population to obtain benefits expected decades into the future?

There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

A Continuing Conversation

I have been writing about climate change and energy since Grappy's Soapbox began.

My views have evolved as the evidence, technology and politics have changed—and I expect they will continue to do so.

This page therefore isn't intended to provide the final word.

It is a gateway to the discussion.

Below is a selection of previous posts examining the science, economics, technology and ethics of climate and energy policy. New articles will be added as the debate develops.

---

Explore Climate & Energy

Climate Science & Evidence

Six Charts Put Climate Alarmism into Perspective
A recent look at claims surrounding extreme weather, fires, floods, disease and mortality in their historical context.

The Real Climate Deniers, Those Who Want to Erase the Past
Why historical climate records matter when assessing claims about today's climate.

The Sunlight Shuffle: John Clauser's Revelation Shakes Up Climate Models
Nobel laureate John Clauser's challenge to aspects of climate modelling, particularly the role of clouds and reflected sunlight.

Credo on Climate Change
An early attempt to set out my position in what was already becoming a highly polarised debate.

Is the World Warming … to Climate Change?
One of my earliest examinations of climate change and the evidence surrounding it.

---

Net Zero, Energy & Economics

The Australian Net Zero Cost Clock
An ongoing attempt to make at least some of the costs of Australia's Net Zero policies visible.

Is Net Zero Desirable?
A discussion of whether eliminating fossil fuels is practical—or even desirable—given their role in modern civilisation.

Abundant Energy Drives the Modern World
The relationship between affordable energy, economic development and human prosperity.

Australia's Renewables Obsession
Examining the implications of Australia's rapid transition towards wind and solar generation.

Net Zero Destroys the Economy
Considering the wider economic consequences of expensive energy and Net Zero policies.

---

Renewables, Nuclear & Technology

Is Spain the Canary in the Renewables Coalmine?
What Spain's major blackout might tell us about electricity systems containing large amounts of intermittent generation.

Intermittent Renewables Cause Grid Instability
The engineering challenge of maintaining a stable electricity grid as wind and solar generation increase.

What the Heck Is Thorium?
An early look at thorium reactors and their potential role in low-carbon energy generation.

EVs: Green Dream or Environmental Mirage?
Looking beyond tailpipe emissions to battery production, critical minerals, mining and the broader environmental footprint of electric vehicles.

---

Climate Justice & Who Should Pay?

In 2015 I wrote a five-part series attempting to answer a deceptively simple question:

What would constitute a fair global greenhouse-gas reduction target?

Seeking a Fair GHG Reduction Target — Part 1: The Problem

Part 2: Current Climate Change Measures Are Misleading

Part 3: Misleading Measures — Misleading World Ranking

Part 4: Propositions for Consensus

Part 5: Who Is Responsible?

And two related articles:

Climate Change Theatrics, Again!
Why historical emissions as well as current emissions matter when considering national responsibility.

Is Australia One of the Worst Net Emitters in the OECD?
An examination of how national emissions performance is measured and compared.

---

Where Next?

The climate and energy debate will not stand still.

Technology will change. Climate observations will accumulate. Electricity systems will evolve. Governments will change policy. Some predictions will prove correct and others will not.

This article will evolve with them.

New Climate & Energy posts will be added here, and older posts revisited where new evidence warrants it.

The objective is not to defend a fixed position. It is to keep asking the questions that matter:

What is happening? How serious is it? What can realistically be done? What will it cost? Who should pay? And what unintended consequences might follow?

Last updated: August 2026

What If the COVID Case Numbers Were Wrong?

One of the foundations of the world's response to COVID was the PCR test.

Every evening we watched the number of new "cases". Those numbers drove public fear and helped governments justify lockdowns, border closures, mask mandates, school closures and, eventually, vaccine mandates.

But what if those numbers substantially overstated the number of people actually infected?

A remarkable peer-reviewed German study highlighted recently by Dr John Campbell, titled "PCR Massively Wrong", raises precisely that question.

The German study

The study, published in Frontiers in Epidemiology, analysed PCR and antibody testing data from Germany's ALM consortium of accredited medical laboratories. These laboratories conducted approximately 90% of Germany's SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing during the pandemic.

The researchers compared positive PCR results with subsequent IgG antibody evidence of infection.

Their conclusion was startling.

They estimated that only about 14% — and possibly as few as 10% — of PCR-positive individuals were actually infected, as inferred from the antibody data.

Put another way, their analysis suggests that 86–90% of positive PCR results may not have represented genuine infections as they defined them.

That does not mean researchers have taken individual PCR tests and demonstrated an 86–90% laboratory false-positive rate. The German study uses population-level PCR and antibody data to reach its conclusion, and its assumptions will undoubtedly be challenged.

But even allowing for that qualification, the discrepancy is enormous.

For readers interested in how PCR testing works and the reasoning behind the study, I recommend watching Dr John Campbell's explanation and reading the original peer-reviewed German study.

Why does it matter?

Because PCR-positive "cases" became one of the principal measures by which governments judged the severity of the pandemic.

Rising case numbers were used to justify extraordinary restrictions on normal life.

Businesses were closed. Children were kept out of school. Borders were shut. Families were separated. People were prevented from visiting dying relatives. Governments accumulated enormous debts. Eventually millions of people faced vaccination requirements to work, travel or participate normally in society.

COVID was real, and it undoubtedly killed many people, particularly among the elderly and vulnerable.

But that does not answer a different question:

Was the scale of the threat substantially exaggerated by the way we measured it?

If this German analysis is even approximately correct, that question demands serious investigation.

The COVID story keeps changing

Perhaps the most disturbing legacy of COVID was the insistence that "the science was settled".

It wasn't.

The lab-leak theory moved from being dismissed as a conspiracy theory to a legitimate subject of investigation. Claims about vaccines preventing infection and transmission proved far less durable than originally suggested. Questions about adverse effects continue to emerge. Excess mortality remains a subject of debate.

And now a peer-reviewed study is questioning the reliability of the very "case" numbers that dominated our lives.

This doesn't prove that every pandemic policy was wrong. Nor does one study settle the PCR debate.

But it provides another reason why the COVID years deserve a thorough and independent reassessment.

The COVID story on Grappy's Soap Box

I have followed this evolving story for several years. For readers interested in exploring it further:

The mRNA Story Is Not Finished Yet — Why continuing evidence about the behaviour and persistence of mRNA vaccines deserves investigation.

Pandemic Excess Mortality 2025 — Excess mortality remained elevated years after the pandemic, raising questions that still deserve answers.

On the Grapevine — COVID Archive — A continuing collection of research, reports and videos questioning aspects of the pandemic response, vaccines and excess mortality.

Grapevine 2023 — COVID, Excess Deaths and Origins — Earlier material covering excess deaths, vaccine safety, parliamentary debate and the origins of COVID.

The picture is still incomplete. Some of today's conclusions may themselves be revised as better evidence emerges.

That is how science is supposed to work.

What should never happen again is for legitimate questions to be silenced simply because the answers might be inconvenient.

Five years later, perhaps the most important lesson of COVID is very simple:

Never confuse "the science" with science.

A Life Lived Well

Dolly Parton has left us.

Most celebrities leave behind songs, headlines, and carefully managed images. Dolly left behind results.

In her own county she looked at a 30-plus percent high-school dropout rate and decided that was unacceptable. She pulled the seventh and eighth graders together, made them pick a buddy, and offered $500 to each pair if both graduated. The dropout rate fell to around 6 percent. She handed out the cheques herself.

When Gatlinburg burned in 2016 she didn’t issue a statement and move on. She put $1,000 a month into the hands of hundreds of families who had lost their homes, then topped it up with another $5,000 each when the fund did better than expected. The leftover millions went to the long, unglamorous work of recovery after the cameras left.

She helped get a proper hospital built in Sevier County so her people didn’t have to drive hours for care. She paid for the education of Dollywood workers — full-time, part-time and seasonal. She quietly funded a sanctuary for bald eagles that couldn’t be released. When Hurricane Helene tore through the mountains she wrote a personal cheque for a million dollars and matched it through her companies.

And the Imagination Library — millions of books mailed to children because her own father never learned to read — may be the thing that outlasts everything else.

None of this required a government program, a press release template, or a hashtag campaign. It required someone who remembered where she came from and decided that success carried obligations.

That is rarer than talent.

Rest easy, Dolly.
A life lived well.