UAE can get ~30% through Oman now, and probably ~75% in 3-4 years.
Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar are screwed without the straight. Qatar could probably work a deal with KSA to get all of their oil through its pipes to the Red Sea if need be in 2-3 years, but they'd pay a premium.
If I had to guess, I think this will structurally push KSA and UAE to move out of the straight, and for anyone in the straight to be tied to China and India.
I imagine Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Iran are all going to become Chinese and Indian client states.
North & South America now have a major oil & natural gas surplus. Their total usage is declining and production is increasing.
Meanwhile, the EU, Japan, SK, etc are moving towards renewables & nuclear as fast as they can.
China's probably reached peak fossil fuel imports already.
Yeah, but current EU energy prices are as high as they ever been, so that doesn't help the EU manufacturing industry that in 10 years we'll be fossil fuel free, if they have to close shop in 12 months from the energy price hikes.
This is factually inaccurate.
Ember Energy: European electricity prices and costs - https://ember-energy.org/data/european-electricity-prices-an... (updated daily)
Ember Energy: Wind and solar generated more power than fossil fuels in the EU for the first time in 2025 - https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-gener... - January 22nd, 2026
Bloomberg: How Europe Ditched Russian Fossil Fuels With Spectacular Speed - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/ukraine-n... | https://archive.today/yxGp2 - February 21st, 2023
> But what the past year has shown is that it’s possible to go harder and faster in deploying solar panels and batteries, reducing energy use, and permanently swapping out entrenched sources of fossil fuel.
> Solar installations across Europe increased by a record 40-gigawatts last year, up 35% compared with 2021, just shy of the most optimistic scenario from researchers at BloombergNEF. That jump was driven primarily by consumers who saw cheap solar panels as a way to cut their own energy bills. It essentially pushed the solar rollout ahead by a few years, hitting a level that will be sustained by EU policies.
(Europe has enough wind potential to power the world, their energy constraints are deployment rate of renewables, battery storage, and transmission)
Yes, if you ignore the brief 2022 spike, they're as high as they ever been. Oh wow, you got me on a technicality, you're so clever, bravo, even though that doesn't change the situation of today where plenty of EU manufacturing companies have closed shop or moved jobs and manufacturing abroad since 2022.
From the link you posted, I see that energy today is still roughly 4x higher than it was before the Russian war, at least in my EU country. How competitive do you think EU manufacturing is today versus back then given the current pricing? How long can Eu companies stay in business given these circumstances? How long can EU taxpayers subsidize the energy of private business to make sure they don't go bust or leave before higher inflation kicks in?
Edit to answer your reply below here: No, the EU can't flip its energy producing industry on a dime in response to instantaneous external shocks. All it can do is print money and subsides energy costs for industry at the expense of inflation and higher CoL for the population.
How long it takes for Europe to achieve this outcome is a capital investment and deployment velocity decision. The capital exists, the technology and manufacturing capacity exists. How competitive does Europe want to be from a manufacturing perspective? The answer to that is the speed at which they drive down energy costs using the various technologies I've enumerated.
I've reached out to an Ember contact to inquire if they could communicate this time window and velocity in some fashion on their graphs for Europe ("time to historical energy price levels via energy transition").
It seems very unlikely that with sustained temperatures of -5 to -8°C in the winter months, which seem to get longer again, heating can be achieved with renewables in any way.
Heat pumps were already collapsing and making irritating fan noises at -8° this winter. Converting to heat pumps is expensive and the service costs are expensive, too.
LNG is needed for fertilizer and other chemical products, too and is hard to replace at all.
By all means, try renewables, but these enthusiasm waves leave me skeptical.
Low carbon fertilizer production: Green ammonia production: Process technologies and challenges - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00162... | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2024.131808 - Fuel, Volume 369, 1 August 2024, 131808
Skepticism is important, but the evidence so far proves out we have a long way to go with the "easy" parts of decarbonizing until we have to solve the last "hard" parts. Capital and cashflows saved on fossil fuels from the easy parts can be directed towards the hard parts when that time comes. Enough sunlight hits the Earth every 30 minutes to power humanity for a year; it's a capture, transfer, and orchestration story broadly speaking. We are bound mostly by the laws of physics.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J...
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J...
KSA -> Europe.
UAE -> Wherever it wants.
Gulf -> India and China client states.
This isn't the 1980's where we can surge 100 warships to an area of the world to deny the area or perform escort missions.
If we decided to 10x the Navy budget today and start building ships we'd be a couple decades out since we'd have to start from "train the ship building workforce" first principles to begin with.
Other than air power, the US has been operating off military (reputation) inertia for decades now.
The question is if the US is even capable of building such a thing these days? My bets are on no, since we can't seem to build much of anything at an industrial scale for any cost. But that can turn relatively quickly so long as there is emergency of existential scale and time enough to do it.
May I suggest an alternative mode of freight that pre-dates trucks and can move much larger volumes at a much lower CO2 cost, namely... a transcontinental train line?
(obviously not going to happen, and might even trigger a few PR cycles about a "hyperloop", but if you were going to try to build large-volume freight, that's where I'd start)
Note that it takes about 10000 trucks to carry the 2 million barrels of oil in one typical oil tanker.
Also another argument against trucks: they consume fuel to carry fuel.
Don't feel bad, a pipeline is just a different type of train. The tracks are hollow and the cars are molecular in size.
It is prohibitely expensive to move things using trailers vs. freight.
Also ... hmm ... trailers don't work with unrefined oil ...
Difference is size and cost per unit to move it. We are talking about Middle East light sweet crude oil here, not Alberta’s oil sands or whatnot which does require some processing and heating even before sending it through a pipeline.
North Dakota currently sends a few trainloads of crude oil directly from the fields to refiners 50 miles away from me today. Tanker trucks do routes picking up a few dozen barrels per rig every few days/weeks/months in low producing areas of the country.
No.
If OP meant "fueled by unrefined oil" then sure, but I didn't even consider that to be an option.
The heavier crude grades cannot be (realistically, at least) put into trailers or tanker cars - which is what I thought was being implied here for the Gulf oil sources.
A large industrial diesel engine is about the size of a house and displacement is measured in cubic meters.