Why Are Oil Prices Still Rising? Only Nine Ships Pass Through the Strait of Hormuz in a Day

Pubblicato 2026-08-21Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-08-21

Introduzione

Oil prices have been rising for several consecutive days, so short-term profit-taking is not surprising. However, there are currently few signals that could lower the risk premium: negotiations have not resumed, the number of transits through the Strait remains low, and major Gulf supplies have not returned to normal levels. Compared to new verbal statements, the actual number of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz each day will more directly determine how much supply premium USOILUSDT can retain next.

Summary

The U.S.-Iran conflict has yet to turn towards a ceasefire, and supply from Gulf oil producers continues to be constrained. Brent and WTI have risen by more than 7% and 8% respectively over the last five trading days. The daily number of vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz remains far below pre-war levels, with physical flow becoming the main driver pushing oil prices higher.

International oil prices saw little change in early trading on Friday, but the direction for the week was already clear. Reuters data showed that as of early morning Singapore time on August 21, Brent crude futures were trading at $93.82 per barrel, while WTI crude futures were at $86.78 per barrel. In the previous trading session, they had risen by 2.4% and 2.3% respectively.

Extending the timeframe to the preceding five rising trading days, Brent gained more than 7% cumulatively, and WTI rose over 8%, both reaching highs last seen on July 24. Friday's sideways movement seemed more like a digestion of the previous days' gains and did not alter the pattern of oil prices rising for the second consecutive week.

The Market Is Trading on Missing Supply

Behind this rally, the U.S.-Iran war remains the most immediate cause. Previous peace arrangements have expired, and the two sides have not resumed negotiations. U.S. President Trump has again threatened economic retaliation against countries supporting Iran, and the UAE this week also suspended financial and economic dealings with Iran. With no signals of de-escalation, supply from major oil producers like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, and Kuwait thus continues to be affected.

War news can change daily, but what oil prices are truly sensitive to is whether this news changes actual loadings, shipping, and export volumes. The current answer still leans towards constrained supply. Since the U.S. and Israel launched military strikes against Iran on February 28, Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on energy facilities in the Middle East have disrupted global oil and gas transportation.

Nine Ships a Day, Still Far From Pre-War Levels

Only nine ships passed through the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, unchanged from the previous day and well below pre-war levels. Before the war, the volume of oil transported via this waterway accounted for about one-fifth of global consumption. As long as traffic volumes do not recover significantly, the market cannot treat this supply as having been restored.

This explains why oil prices continue to rise even as the conflict is deadlocked. Deadlock does not mean the risk has stopped; on the contrary, it implies that constrained supply could last longer. Refiners and traders need to pay higher costs for alternative sources, detoured transportation, and delivery uncertainties, with near-month contracts reflecting this tension first.

Oil prices have risen for several consecutive days, so short-term profit-taking is not surprising. However, there are currently few signals that could lower the risk premium: negotiations have not resumed, Strait traffic remains low, and major Gulf supply has not returned to normal rhythm. Compared to new verbal statements, the actual daily number of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz will more directly determine how much supply premium USOILUSDT can retain going forward.

Letture associate

Perspective: Value Investing in U.S. Stocks Is Not the Same as Fundamental Investing

The article challenges the notion that value investing in US stocks is equivalent to fundamental investing. It uses the astronomical analogy of Henrietta Leavitt separating a star's apparent brightness from its intrinsic luminosity to illustrate a key investment framework: an observed valuation multiple (like brightness) conflates two things—the actual quality of a business and the premium the market is willing to pay for its future (its "distance" or duration). The author argues that the popular narrative of "fundamentals are dead"—fueled by momentum and concentration in mega-cap tech—is flawed. While recognizing factors like winner-take-all dynamics and AI scale advantages, the piece warns against confusing broad thematic truths (e.g., "AI is big") with justified valuations for specific companies. It introduces a 2x2 matrix categorizing stocks based on whether they *looked* cheap/expensive at a point in time versus whether they *were* actually cheap/expensive in hindsight (e.g., expensive-looking Meta in 2022 was actually cheap). The core formula presented is: Forward Return ≈ Fundamental Growth × Change in Valuation Multiple. Over short periods, multiple changes drive returns, making markets seem narrative-driven. Over the long term, fundamental growth dominates. The article concludes that markets may be becoming *less* efficient due to complex, long-duration business models, narrative cycles, and private market dynamics, creating more opportunities for investors who can disentangle real quality from market sentiment.

marsbit20 min fa

Perspective: Value Investing in U.S. Stocks Is Not the Same as Fundamental Investing

marsbit20 min fa

Wallet Connection Prompts Are a Sign of a Fake AML Check Website

Fake anti-money laundering (AML) verification sites are stealing from cryptocurrency investors. These websites trick users into connecting their wallets and signing transactions, which is unnecessary for a basic wallet check, as discovered by Malwarebytes. Legitimate wallet verification only requires a public address to analyze transaction history for links to hacks, thefts, or sanctioned entities. The fraudulent sites, some copying brands like AMLBot, mimic this process. After a user initiates a scan, they are prompted to connect their wallet, shown fake progress bars, and sometimes asked to pay a small "fee." Eventually, a false "clean, low risk" verdict is given to download a report. Connecting a wallet reveals the public address and assets, allowing scammers to craft targeted transactions for the victim to approve, which can drain funds. Malwarebytes warns that any AML checker requesting wallet connection instead of just a public address is a major red flag. The report details that the same malicious template is repackaged under different names. It also mentions a $500 scam kit advertised on cybercrime forums that creates fake token presales, scans visitor wallets for valuable assets, and attempts to steal secret recovery phrases by offering a bonus. The article advises users who connected only a wallet to revoke the site's permissions. Those who signed suspicious transactions should check activity and move funds to a new wallet if compromised. Anyone who entered a recovery phrase or private key should assume the wallet is breached.

cryptonews.ru20 min fa

Wallet Connection Prompts Are a Sign of a Fake AML Check Website

cryptonews.ru20 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片