Blog

When the Strait of Hormuz Closed: Energy Security, Economic Shock, and the Decisions Ahead

Jan Gunash · Co-Founder & CGO · April 13, 2026

The best questions are not always the comfortable ones. Like: when a ceasefire drops oil prices 14% in a single day, what does that tell us about what energy prices are actually measuring? And when the data shows that some countries sailed through the worst energy crisis in history while others rationed jet fuel and closed airports, what exactly made the difference?

These are not rhetorical questions. The answers are sitting in the data from the past six weeks, and they tell a story about energy security, renewables, and the long-range planning assumptions of the whole global energy system that deserves more attention than the ceasefire headlines are giving it.

A Two-Week Truce and a Permanent Lesson

On April 8, a tentative US-Iran ceasefire was announced and oil markets recorded their biggest single-day drop since 2020. Brent crude fell 13%, WTI fell more than 16%. Global stock markets surged. The relief was real and immediate (source: CNN / CNBC).

But the numbers underneath that relief tell a more complicated story. Even after the drop, Brent settled at around $94 a barrel, still far above the roughly $70 per barrel pre-conflict level (source: Renewable Matter). As of April 10, WTI was trading back above $100, pricing in what analysts are calling a permanent war premium (source: Financial Content). As of the day the ceasefire was announced, 187 tankers laden with 172 million barrels of crude remained trapped inside the Gulf (source: CNN). Only four ships transited the Strait on the day of the announcement. Infrastructure damage at Ras Laffan and across Gulf energy facilities means that even if the Strait fully reopens, full operational capacity could take months if not years to restore, with total rebuilding costs estimated to exceed $25 billion (source: Renewable Matter / Rystad Energy).

The ceasefire changes the price. It does not change the problem.

How Long the Runway Actually Was

One of the most revealing data points of the entire crisis was how quickly the world's emergency buffers ran out of road. The IEA launched the largest emergency oil reserve release in its 52-year history on March 11, with all 32 member countries releasing 400 million barrels (source: Al Jazeera Centre for Studies). That figure sounds substantial. Against the actual scale of the disruption it was not.

At global consumption of around 105 million barrels per day, 400 million barrels covers roughly four days of total demand. Against the 20 million barrels per day that normally transit Hormuz, it amounted to about 20 days of normal flows (source: Al Jazeera). The IEA estimated that only 3.5 to 5.5 million barrels per day could be redirected through Saudi and Emirati pipelines that bypass the Strait entirely, leaving a net daily shortfall of roughly 14.5 to 16.5 million barrels (source: LSE Business Review). Macquarie analysts estimated the full 400 million barrel release amounted to about 16 days of normal Gulf transit volume (source: The Hilltop).

The economically manageable window was never six months. Analysis from the LSE and Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas suggests the realistic window before political and macroeconomic costs became unbearable for vulnerable importers was closer to one to three months. That is not because the world physically runs out of oil. It is because a short closure is an oil shock, but a long closure becomes a broader inflation and growth shock, as diesel, jet fuel, shipping insurance, and food prices compound the initial disruption. Japan and South Korea, which source 95% and 68% of their crude from the Middle East respectively, held LNG reserves of roughly two to four weeks at stable demand levels (source: Atlas Institute / Kpler). South Korea's strategic petroleum reserve covered approximately 200 days of supply at normal consumption, but that figure assumed normal replenishment, which the closure made impossible (source: Atlas Institute).

The crisis exposed something that strategic reserve frameworks were not designed to handle: not a temporary supply shock, but a sustained chokepoint closure that accumulates costs faster than reserves can be replenished.

The Countries That Were Different

The most instructive data point of the crisis was not in the countries that struggled. It was in the ones that did not struggle as much.

Pakistan entered the crisis in a structurally different position from its regional peers. Since 2018, a consumer-led rooftop solar boom had grown the country's installed solar capacity from under 1 gigawatt to more than 51 gigawatts by early 2026, one of the fastest energy transitions on record (source: Renewables First / CREA). Fossil fuel imports fell 40% between 2022 and 2024. The country had avoided more than $12 billion in oil and gas imports since 2021, and is projected to save a further $6.3 billion by the end of 2026 at current elevated prices (source: Renewables First / CREA). Solar had cut LNG demand enough for contracted cargoes to be diverted and for the government to renegotiate LNG terms. Despite the Hormuz closure, Pakistan avoided the load-shedding and rationing that hit other Asian economies.

The contrast with neighbouring countries was stark. China, India, and South Korea all increased their LNG imports over the same period Pakistan was reducing them. South Asia overall is exposed to a $107 billion LNG bet now under severe stress (source: Global Energy Monitor). Qatar and the UAE account for 99% of Pakistan's LNG imports, 72% of Bangladesh's, and 53% of India's (source: CNBC / Kpler). The crisis hit those dependencies hard.

Europe told a parallel story. Zero Carbon Analytics found that the 406 gigawatts of new solar capacity deployed across the EU between 2022 and 2025, following the Russian gas crisis, had saved European countries approximately 58 billion euros in coal and gas imports. Countries with above-average wind and solar shares in their electricity mix now have below-average household power prices (source: Energy Tracker Asia). Britain generated record wind and solar output in March 2026, saving close to £1 billion in gas imports in a single month at crisis prices (source: Carbon Brief).

The pattern is consistent. Countries that invested in domestic renewable generation before the crisis had more runway, lower costs, and fewer emergency measures to enact during it. Countries that continued expanding LNG dependency had less of all three. As Jan Rosenow, energy professor at Oxford, put it during the crisis: the sun and wind do not care what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz (source: NPR).

The 2050 Vision the Data Is Already Telling

Against this backdrop, the EIA released its Annual Energy Outlook 2026 this week, projecting possible energy futures through 2050. The findings deserve serious attention because they reflect what the official data currently implies about where the system is heading.

To meet demand, the U.S. will need to increase electricity generation capacity by 50% to 90% by 2050, with natural gas, solar, and wind projected to generate 80% of electricity, up from 60% today (source: EIA AEO 2026). Natural gas production, consumption, and exports are all projected to grow significantly. U.S. LNG export volumes are projected to more than double from 15 billion cubic feet per day in 2025 to over 30 billion cubic feet per day by 2050 (source: EIA). Electric vehicles and data centers will account for up to 80% of electricity demand growth.

The EIA outlook projects a future where fossil fuels remain dominant in the energy mix for decades, even as renewables grow. It also models a case that explicitly includes higher data center power demand. The outlook does not assume the kind of clean energy acceleration that net zero requires.

Resources for the Future published a report this week titled simply: "Global Energy Outlook 2026: How the World Lost the Goal of 1.5°C." A decade after Paris, the conclusion among serious long-range modellers is that the stretch goal is no longer achievable under current trajectories (source: Resources for the Future).

The Data Underneath All of It

The ceasefire, the reserve arithmetic, Pakistan's solar story, and the EIA's 2050 vision are different expressions of the same underlying reality. The global energy system is caught between two trajectories that are both real and simultaneously insufficient.

Renewable deployment is genuinely accelerating. The insulating effect of that deployment, for the countries that moved fastest, was visible and measurable during the worst energy crisis in recorded history. The sun and wind do not require shipping insurance. They do not transit chokepoints. They do not need strategic reserves replenished by tankers that cannot leave port. Every gigawatt of domestic renewable capacity that was installed before this crisis was, in retrospect, exactly the kind of energy security investment that reserve frameworks, diplomatic hedges, and LNG contracts could not replicate.

But the EIA's long-range data is clear that fossil fuel dependency is not being unwound quickly enough for the energy security lesson of this crisis to translate into structural change at the pace and scale required. The runway provided by emergency reserves was measured in days to weeks, not months.

The runway provided by domestic renewable energy was, in Pakistan's case, measured in avoided billion-dollar import bills and uninterrupted electricity supply.

That gap is not an accident. It is a planning choice that has been made, repeatedly, in favour of the system that already exists.

The Path Forward

The lesson of the past six weeks is not complicated. It is just uncomfortable. Energy security and climate action are not competing priorities. They are the same priority, and the countries that treated them as such before the crisis hit are the ones with the least explaining to do now.

The data systems that should make this case clearly to planners, investors, and governments need to get better at capturing not just what is being built, but what is being avoided, what exposures are accumulating, and what a future disruption would cost in days of runway rather than barrels of reserves. That accounting exists for Pakistan's solar story. It needs to exist everywhere.

Sources:

Want to contribute your thoughts or findings in data and AI with climate, energy, or nature? Message Jan Gunash on LinkedIn or send an email to jgunash@projectcoeus.com.