The Economist issued a briefing in late March titled: ‘Hormuz is not the only weak spot for global trade’.1 It argues that while the Strait of Hormuz is dominating headlines at the moment, it is only one of several critical chokepoints underpinning global trade. A small number of narrow maritime corridors – including Hormuz, the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, and the Strait of Malacca – carry a disproportionate share of the world’s energy and goods.
What is changing, the briefing suggests, is the exposure of these weak spots: geopolitical tension, conflict, climate pressures and infrastructure constraints are all increasing the likelihood of disruption to routes. As a result, global trade is becoming more vulnerable. The piece raises questions about how resilient the whole system really is, especially when multiple pressure points are tested at once.
Recent market commentary from Sparta agrees that the current crude market is being shaped by simultaneous geopolitical pressures across multiple regions, rather than a single dominant disruption.2 Crucially, many of these disruptions do not fully halt supply, but they do reroute flows, increase costs, and impact logistics. The system continues to function, but under immense pressure. At the same time, market dynamics are becoming more distorted. US crude (WTI) is emerging as the marginal barrel able to clear into both European and Asian markets, while other regional grades struggle with weak margins and high freight costs. With tight vessel availability, high transport costs, and ongoing geopolitical escalation, the market is caught between supply disruption and demand pressure.
This distortion of the global shipping system places much strain on the oil and gas sector, in which about 60% of internationally traded oil moves by sea, and 40% of internationally traded gas moves as LNG by ship. With all these weak spots in play, we need to build resilience in other places. There are plenty of areas we can work on strengthening, in order to bolster the energy system.
Much of the world’s energy infrastructure was not designed for today’s environmental, operational, or geopolitical conditions, as outlined by the keynote article in this issue, written by API (p.8). The latest edition of API Standard 2RD creates a framework that allows older and newer systems to be evaluated consistently, supporting safer life extension and more informed decision making across ageing offshore assets.
Sentinel Subsea (p.39) addresses the increasing complexity of managing integrity in ageing subsea wells, where traditional inspection methods can be costly and intermittent. The article presents a shift toward continuous, passive monitoring systems that detect leaks or failures early without requiring active intervention.
And, in a constrained world, resilience sometimes comes from extracting more from what already exists. Odfjell Technology (p.23) highlights the growing importance of well intervention and remedial operations in maximising production from existing assets.
Of course, every system has an eventual end point, and it matters how we manage that. Elemental Energies (p.18) examines the accelerating pace of decommissioning across global offshore basins, driven by ageing assets, operator exit strategies, and tightening supply chains. KBR (p.12) reframes decommissioning as a waste management challenge, rather than purely an engineering one. With costs rising and availability tightening, the sector is entering a pivotal phase where collaboration, early planning, and new commercial models will be essential to deliver decommissioning efficiently.
