Kazakhstan’s Energy Minister Yerlan Akkenzhenov said international partners are urging the country to increase oil exports as concerns grow over disruptions to energy supplies linked to tensions around the Strait of Hormuz.
According to Akkenzhenov, buyers are seeking the maximum possible increase in Kazakh oil shipments due to uncertainty surrounding one of the world’s most important energy transit routes. However, he noted that Kazakhstan faces infrastructure and production constraints that limit how quickly exports can be expanded.
To support higher output, Kazakhstan has postponed planned maintenance work at the Kashagan Oil Field until 2027. The country is also considering increasing crude shipments through the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Pipeline, potentially raising volumes from 1.5 million tons to 2.2 million tons annually and beyond.
The development comes as global energy markets remain sensitive to geopolitical tensions involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for international oil and gas exports.
Why It Matters
Kazakhstan’s growing importance highlights how global energy markets are seeking alternative supply sources amid rising geopolitical risks in the Middle East.
Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could affect a significant share of global oil shipments, prompting importers to diversify supply chains and reduce dependence on vulnerable routes. Kazakhstan, one of the world’s major oil producers, is increasingly viewed as a reliable alternative supplier.
The decision to delay maintenance at Kashagan signals that Kazakhstan is prioritizing production stability and export capacity at a time when energy security has become a major concern for consuming nations.
The move could also strengthen Kazakhstan’s strategic position in global energy markets, giving it greater influence as countries seek dependable suppliers outside conflict affected regions.
Key Stakeholders
Kazakhstan – Seeking to expand exports while balancing OPEC+ commitments.
Yerlan Akkenzhenov – Overseeing the country’s energy strategy.
Kashagan Oil Field – One of the world’s largest oil fields and a key source of future production growth.
OPEC+ members monitoring compliance with production agreements.
Energy importing countries seeking alternative crude supplies.
Oil traders and global energy markets responding to supply risks.
Countries along the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Pipeline route that facilitate exports to international markets.
Future Outlook
Kazakhstan is likely to face increasing pressure from international buyers if instability around the Strait of Hormuz persists. While production constraints may limit immediate gains, the postponement of Kashagan maintenance suggests authorities are positioning the country to maximize output over the coming years.
The expansion of exports through the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan pipeline could become increasingly important as energy consumers seek routes that bypass geopolitical hotspots. This would further enhance Kazakhstan’s role in global energy diversification efforts.
However, Kazakhstan must also balance market demand with its commitments under the OPEC+ framework. Any significant increase in production could attract scrutiny from fellow producers seeking to maintain supply discipline and price stability.
If Middle East tensions remain elevated, Kazakhstan is likely to emerge as one of the key beneficiaries of the global search for secure and reliable oil supplies.
Oil shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz have quietly increased in recent weeks, but traders say the movement reflects a fragmented and opaque energy market rather than a full recovery in global supply flows.
More than four months into the ongoing conflict involving Iran, tanker traffic remains heavily disrupted, with shipping patterns increasingly shaped by risk, secrecy and shifting political arrangements.
Tanker Traffic Shows Limited but Rising Movement
Shipping data suggests that only a small number of tankers are currently crossing the Strait of Hormuz compared with pre conflict levels.
Monitoring firms including LSEG and Kpler estimate that an average of just a few vessels per day are now passing through the strait, far below normal volumes.
Despite this, analysis of oil stored on tankers in the Gulf indicates that outflows have gradually increased, suggesting more crude is leaving the region than official shipping visibility shows.
Hidden Shipping Patterns and “Dark” Tankers
A growing share of tankers are reportedly turning off tracking systems during transit through the strait, a practice known as going dark.
This involves disabling Automatic Identification System signals, making it harder to track vessel movements in real time.
According to shipping analytics firms such as Vortexa, a large majority of outbound tankers recently used this method, reflecting rising caution among operators.
This has made it significantly harder for markets to accurately assess global supply flows and has increased uncertainty in oil pricing.
Oil Stored on Tankers Shows Gradual Decline
One key indicator of market movement is the volume of oil stored on ships inside the Gulf, often referred to as oil on water.
Estimates from Kpler suggest that volumes have fallen from a peak of around 184 million barrels in March to roughly 148 million barrels more recently.
This decline indicates that more oil is gradually leaving the region, even if it is not fully visible through standard tracking systems.
Analysts estimate that outflows have increased over recent weeks, suggesting a slow and uneven recovery in shipping activity.
Security Risks Continue to Disrupt Shipping
The ongoing conflict involving Iran has significantly disrupted maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil transit routes.
Limited access to the strait has forced producers to reduce output in some cases, while storage constraints have added pressure to supply chains across the Gulf.
Some shipping routes are reportedly being managed through informal arrangements or alternative corridors, while others rely on higher risk transit strategies to avoid detection or confrontation.
Recovery Remains Uncertain
Despite signs of increased movement, analysts warn that the situation is far from a return to normal.
A sustained recovery in oil flows would require consistent shipping access, stable security conditions and sufficient tanker availability to support exports.
Many shipowners remain reluctant to operate in the region due to elevated insurance costs and the risk of vessels being stranded or targeted.
Long Term Structural Change Possible
Industry observers warn that even if diplomatic progress leads to a formal reopening of the strait, the global oil market may not return to previous conditions.
There is growing discussion that Iran could attempt to impose tolls or control systems on shipping through the waterway, which would fundamentally alter global energy logistics.
Such a scenario could force Gulf producers to seek alternative export routes or invest in new infrastructure to reduce dependence on the strait.
Analysis: Market Stability Replaced by Managed Uncertainty
The situation in the Strait of Hormuz highlights a shift from predictable global energy flows to a more fragmented and opaque system.
While oil continues to move out of the Gulf, the lack of transparency in shipping routes is creating uncertainty for traders and pricing benchmarks.
The increased use of stealth navigation and alternative transit arrangements reflects a market adapting to geopolitical risk rather than resolving it.
As long as tensions persist, energy markets are likely to remain volatile, with supply visibility as important as supply itself in determining global prices.
Conclusion
Oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz are slowly increasing, but hidden tanker movements and ongoing conflict mean the global energy market remains deeply uncertain. Without stable political conditions and transparent shipping routes, a full recovery in oil flows is unlikely in the near term, keeping traders cautious and markets volatile.
Global markets are navigating two powerful and competing forces: escalating geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and continued investor enthusiasm for artificial intelligence-related stocks. While concerns over renewed conflict between the United States and Iran have boosted oil prices and supported demand for safe-haven assets, the AI-driven technology rally has continued to push stock markets higher, particularly in Asia.
What Happened
Oil prices rose for a third consecutive session on Wednesday after fresh hostilities emerged in the Gulf region. Brent crude climbed 1% to $94.74 per barrel as hopes for a quick resolution to tensions between Washington and Tehran faded.
The U.S. military reported that Iranian missile attacks targeting Bahrain, Kuwait and other regional locations were either intercepted or failed. The developments came after negotiations aimed at ending the conflict between the United States and Iran stalled despite both sides announcing a tentative agreement last week.
Meanwhile, financial markets showed mixed reactions. U.S. stock futures were largely unchanged, while European futures edged lower. In Asia, however, technology shares continued their strong advance, helping stock indexes in Japan and Taiwan reach record highs.
Why Markets Are Reacting to Middle East Risks
Investors had previously expected the United States and Iran to formalize an agreement that would reduce regional tensions and ease concerns about energy supplies. The lack of progress in negotiations has instead revived fears of a prolonged conflict that could disrupt oil shipments from the Gulf, a critical region for global energy markets.
Higher oil prices typically reflect concerns about potential supply disruptions. The latest military developments prompted traders to unwind some of their earlier bets on a diplomatic breakthrough, contributing to the rise in crude prices.
Currency markets also reflected growing caution. The U.S. dollar strengthened against the Japanese yen, briefly touching the closely watched 160 level before retreating amid concerns that Japanese authorities could intervene to support their currency.
AI Stocks Continue to Defy Market Uncertainty
Despite geopolitical concerns, enthusiasm surrounding artificial intelligence remained a major driver of equity markets. Wall Street indexes posted modest gains on Tuesday, supported by technology shares.
Chipmaker Marvell Technology surged more than 32% after Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang described the company as a potential trillion-dollar business. Investor optimism surrounding AI also helped propel SoftBank Group above Toyota Motor Corporation as Japan’s most valuable listed company.
The AI boom has continued to attract investment even as broader markets grapple with geopolitical uncertainty and concerns about interest rates.
What Comes Next
Investors are now closely watching upcoming U.S. economic data, including services sector activity, private payroll figures and Friday’s employment report. Strong labor market data could reinforce expectations that the Federal Reserve will keep interest rates higher for longer or even consider further increases.
Bond markets remained relatively stable, while traders adjusted expectations from potential rate cuts earlier in the year to the possibility of additional rate hikes. Markets have also priced in the likelihood of monetary tightening in Europe and Japan.
At the same time, developments in the Middle East remain a key risk factor. Any further escalation between the United States and Iran could push oil prices higher and increase volatility across global financial markets, while continued strength in AI-related stocks may help support broader equity markets despite geopolitical headwinds.
The Middle East has been a difficult region to deal with in oil markets. When it comes to energy geographies, the region has proven to be a disproportionately significant part of the world’s energy resources, with export facilities traversing a handful of maritime routes and political situations that have been tense, if not outright volatile, at times. The change in 2025 and into 2026 isn’t the nature of the forces but rather the confluence of overlapping pressures: ongoing sanctions enforcement, multiple theaters of conflict, OPEC+ tensions that are more public than ever in previous years, and disruptions to shipping in the Red Sea, which now seem to have become a semi-permanent part of the shipping route landscape.
There is no background information for commodity traders, market analysts, and energy investors. It’s a real-time, constantly evolving dynamic that can make all the difference in the day-to-day performance of prices, and it’s particularly important when prices are sliding around rapidly, and the stories behind them are changing just as fast.
The Behavior of Prices and the Risk of Middle East Supplies
The area is responsible for about one-third of the world’s crude production. That should make it significant in and of itself. What makes matters worse is that export infrastructure is concentrated in a handful of terminals, pipelines, and maritime corridors where a disproportionately large share of oil is exported. The disruption of any of them (even for a moment) reduces a large supply signal to an extremely short time frame.
Traders who follow crude oil price live data are the first ones to witness this. Real-time feeds are a reflection of more than just the fundamental supply-demand elements, but the market’s real-time assessment of the value of geopolitical risk and how much it “should” be worth at any given moment. A news event, which is a minor detail in a more stable environment, can cause future prices to move $5 or more in less than an hour. The consistent and tough question – and it is a tough one – is, which events actually have physical supply implications and which ones are sentiment-driven moves that die in a session or two?
The Strait of Hormuz
About 20-21 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products go through the Strait of Hormuz, which is about 20% of the world’s oil consumption. No readily available bypasses can be found that can absorb that flow at a similar cost. There are partial alternatives, including the IPSA pipeline and Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, but they would not even come close to filling the deficit should the Hormuz be closed en masse.
It is a strait between Oman and Iran. Geography makes it so that any serious disruption in U.S.-Iran relations or of security conditions in the Gulf in general puts Hormuz back on the market’s agenda. Traders are all familiar with this: when there is a lot of Iranian tension, the futures positioning will always reflect the chokepoint risk, even if there is no incident per se.
Production Outages That Don’t Make the Front Page
The issue of the supply is something that generally doesn’t get the same kind of attention it should get, but the clearest example of this recurring issue is Libya. In recent years, internal political squabbles about how to divide up oil revenues have led to several production shutdowns that have temporarily increased the tightness of the light sweet crude grades refined by European and Asian plants. The disruptions are likely to persist when there is no political agreement, and the pattern is robust. In recent years, Iraq’s export pipeline to the North through Turkey has also been down for extended periods of time. These relatively inconspicuous disruptions can add up and impact medium-term supply dynamics, though not necessarily have the same impact as a more conspicuous incident.
Key Risk Factors Shaping Market Sentiment in 2026
The Middle East is a geopolitical risk that has many variables. It’s a combination of interwoven pressures that work in various ways and to varying effects on the length of the price impact. The issues that currently have the greatest attention of serious analysts are generally of three types:
Export infrastructure and production infrastructure are currently under physical threat to production.
Sanctions regimes and the dynamics of their enforcement.
Disruption of shipping routes and attendant disruption of the trade economics.
Everything is unique, and sometimes they are not in the same direction at the same time. That’s part of what makes the current situation more complicated than any one risk headline implies.
Active Conflict Zones and Exposure to Infrastructure
The latest example of large-scale infrastructure targeting is the 2019 attack on Saudi Aramco’s Abqaiq and Khurais facilities in the country, which was carried out using drones and missiles. The loss in output occurred temporarily, amounting to about 5.7 million bpd, the largest sudden supply shock in modern oil market history. The recovery was quicker than many expected, partly because of the operational robustness of Aramco and partly because the situation was swiftly contained diplomatically. But the event has permanently changed the way markets view the vulnerability of infrastructure in the Gulf, and that repricing has not been complete.
The Persistent Iranian Supply Question
Iran’s petroleum sales have also been sustained in the face of sanctions, largely via Asian markets out of reach to Western sanctions. A full-fledged deal between Tehran and Western governments has yet to be hammered out, as of early 2026. That has left volumes of Iranian supply in a limbo of sorts: they could be rapidly reduced by stepped-up enforcement, and they could be dramatically increased by a change in diplomatic circumstances. Both of these results can have significant price consequences, and even the uncertainty can be a factor in the market without a clear decision.
Infrastructure Concentration Risk
The concentration levels in Saudi Arabia’s export system warrant a more significant focus than is generally found outside of export specialist circles. Abqaiq processes and stabilizes a huge percentage of Saudi crude before it is shipped to export terminals, removing the sulfur from it. That kind of ‘single point of failure’ is not typical in most industrial supply chains. In the case of oil, it’s a structural aspect of the market and one that has been proven, not just thought.
OPEC+ Internal Dynamics
However, OPEC+ compliance has been quite lackluster at times, notably from Iraq and Kazakhstan, which have had a history of overproduction. This gives rise to an everlasting discrepancy between OPEC+ declarations and the actual supply data. For analysts, the bottom line is that it is important not to take production decisions at face value but to also consider the track record of implementation once a deal has been agreed on to see what the real supply impact was.
Non-State Actor Activity and Shipping Friction
Since late 2023, the Houthis have started to attack commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea more frequently, and these attacks have persisted through 2025. What those disruptions drove home is that it’s not necessary to blow a wellhead to impact oil market economics. A round-the-Cape voyage will increase the time in transit by about ten to fourteen days, as well as the fuel costs. During periods of increased Houthi activity, insurance costs for tankers traveling in the Gulf area skyrocketed. Both impacts are not a direct factor in the crude benchmarks, but both impact the effective landed cost of Middle East barrels in destination markets.
How the Market Prices Geopolitical Risk
Knowing the difference is important, as geopolitical events do not affect oil prices in a single manner. Some effects are immediate and visible: a surge in the price of Brent futures within minutes of an incident report. Others come more slowly, via changes in freight rates, changes in the repricing of insurance, and changes in buyer behavior, which may take days or weeks to be reflected in trade flow data. The rate of these impacts varies, and so do their effects.
Then there is the issue of what the market “already” had in place whether there was an event or not. When there is a constant regional tension, there is usually some risk premium in prices. The incremental market move may therefore be less than anticipated when an event then reinforces concerns, the surprise element of the event, which is typically the one that produces the biggest market moves, is already discounted.
Risk Premium in Practice
Geopolitical risk premiums in times of heightened Middle East tension have varied from around $4 to $10 per barrel, depending on the market participants’ views on the probability of actual physical supply disruptions in the case of Brent crude, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. That’s a fairly broad window for economic trading, and it has a tendency to close up very fast when the tension subsides and without a supply event, which is the more common scenario.
The geopolitical risk premium factors analysts may consider are:
The nearness to active conflict, producing fields, or the working export terminals.
Production capacity that would be available to make up for the loss of production elsewhere.
The availability and magnitude of the IEA’s strategic stockpiles to be tapped.
Current tanker market conditions and the viability of an alternative route.
Diplomatic messages sent by governments in the area, including the United States and other great powers
Past examples of similar events, which have had identifiable supply impacts.
It is not easy to give exact weights to these inputs. Part of the reason for the price action to seemingly be different with comparable geopolitical events can be due to different analysts forming different conclusions from the same events.
Historical Supply Disruptions and Price Responses
The following table shows some of the more significant supply events that took place in the Middle East and the approximate market impact. The trend of most entries was that the first price movement has been greater than the actual physical supply effect, at times much greater, and then it has partially retraced to a more stable situation.
Event
Year
Estimated Supply Impact
Approximate Brent Price Reaction
Abqaiq/Khurais Attacks (Saudi Arabia)
2019
~5.7 mb/d temporary loss
~15% intraday spike
Libyan Civil War Output Collapse
2011
~1.4 mb/d reduction
~$20/bbl over several weeks
U.S. Re-imposition of Iran Sanctions
2018
~1-1.5 mb/d reduction
~15% sustained over several months
Iraq-Northern Field Disruptions
2014
Partial northern output loss
~$10/bbl elevated premium
Houthi Red Sea Disruptions
2023-24
Rerouting; limited direct supply loss
Moderate – primarily freight cost impact
Iran Sanctions + Red Sea Friction
2025-26
~0.8-1.2 mb/d constrained Iranian output
Persistent $4-8/bbl risk premium in Brent
The 2025-2026 entry is a more diffuse form of market pressure than those acute events listed above. It is not one particular incident, but rather sanctions enforcement and Iranian volumes kept low and shipping activity in the Red Sea continuing to cause friction in the transport system, which has kept transport costs elevated. The World Economic Outlook from the IMF pointed out that this type of persistent supply constraint is likely to have a longer-lasting impact on medium-term price expectations than acute supply shocks, which markets have historically been able to absorb and turn around in relatively short periods of time. Thus, a slow-burning risk premium can be more ‘sticky’ than a dramatic risk premium.
Broader Market Implications
Crude oil benchmarks are not the only place where supply risk from the Middle East exists. It extends out to related markets in ways that are not always apparent when the world’s focus is on the Brent or WTI headline price.
The second-order victim is likely to be refined product markets. In times of crude supply shortages or increased uncertainty, refinery margins and regional product availability may be affected to a greater extent, and the effects on end consumers may be magnified, especially in regions where there is little local refining or a high concentration of import logistics. The energy crisis of 2022 in Europe was a prime example of how the upstream pressure to supply energy flows through the downstream more quickly than most market players would have thought.
Other segments of the market that are impacted by increased supply risks in the Middle East are:
Tanker freight rates, which can also rise sharply without reference to crude prices during times of major-scale rerouting.
In oil-dependent economies, currency markets can be affected by changes in the prices of the oil that the state supplies, which change expectations of fiscal revenue and sovereign credit risk.
LNG markets with some short-term fuel switching demand in the exposed economies as a result of regional geopolitical pressure.
In agricultural commodity markets, where there is known overlap between energy input costs and food production, processing, and transport economics
Strategic Reserve Releases (SRRs) as a Counterweight
During the IEA’s coordinated strategic reserve release in 2022, it was seen that policy tools are in place to mitigate short-term supply shocks and that they can be implemented on a material scale when political conditions are right. However, there are drawbacks to those processes. During that time, reservoir levels were lowered significantly, and a rebuild takes time. There are also doubts about the effectiveness as a deterrent because, over time, markets will factor in the possibility of a release during the next big disruption event, effectively canceling the effect of a release in advance.
Geopolitical Risk Analysis: What It Does and Doesn’t Accomplish
It’s easy to fall into the temptation, because of the amounts of money potentially involved, of viewing geopolitical risk analysis as a predictive tool. It generally lacks it there. It’s actually helpful for comprehending markets and its actions, as well as for charting structural weaknesses that are price-relevant. What it doesn’t do well is tell you when an event will happen, or how big the market’s reaction will be when it does.
Instead of getting lost in qualifications, the specific limitations should be called out:
Escalation and de-escalation are non-linear and unpredictable to a great extent. Conflict situations that appear to be intractable can be solved in a flash, and stable times can fall apart in an instant. Both directions remain silent and don’t herald themselves.
When demand for a commodity is the same, the market price may be quite different in the two market conditions. There are interactions between the geopolitical trigger and positioning, sentiment and open interest that are not modelable in advance.
Secondary effects (such as freight repricing, product supply shifts and insurance cost changes) happen at varying rates to the initial crude price move, and thus the total impact of the market is more difficult to gauge in real time.
Analytical path dependency can occur when geopolitical narratives set up a framework that later information gets filtered through, without being recognized as such.
All this does not negate the analysis. It’s about calibration and about honesty when the power of explanation runs out, and speculation sets in.
Conclusion
Middle East supply risk is not a succession of shocks that will come and go and be completely addressed but rather a structural state in global oil markets. The combination of production weight, geographic concentration of export infrastructure, and political complexity of the region always comes with a certain level of supply uncertainty as a base case. The level of that uncertainty and the extent to which that uncertainty is priced into securities on a given day are what change.
The hard part for traders, analysts, and energy investors is not recognizing that there is risk – that’s obvious. It’s gaining a good enough sense of what matters most at a given moment, what the big picture supply-demand dynamics are, and at what point a careful study of the facts begins to look like well-informed guesswork. The clear understanding of that boundary is, in fact, probably more valuable than any single analytical framework that can be applied to the boundary.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial advice, investment advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any financial instrument, commodity, or derivative product. Trading in energy markets, including crude oil futures, CFDs, and related instruments, involves substantial risk of loss, including the possible loss of capital invested. Past market behavior and historical price patterns referenced in this article are not reliable indicators of future performance. Geopolitical developments described may not materialize as anticipated or may evolve in ways that differ materially from historical precedent. Readers should conduct their own independent research and consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment or trading decisions. Nothing in this article should be interpreted as a trading signal, directional market recommendation, or endorsement of any specific trading approach.
