Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on November 10, 2016
World Oil And Its Seven Biggest Chokepoints
It’s common knowledge that most of the world’s oil is transported internationally by tankers. What might not be so commonly known is the fact that almost half of the crude shipped around the world passes through waters where piracy, the danger of terrorist attacks, or the possibility of local governments shutting down the waterway are all too real.
Using new visualization tech, we can map the seven main chokepoints of the global crude oil routes. The map highlights the fact that four of these chokepoints – the biggest ones, at that – are in politically unstable or otherwise unfavorable regions, which could potentially threaten crude oil supplies around the world.
17 Million bpd Through the Strait of Hormuz.
(Click to enlarge)
The biggest chokepoint for tanker shipments is the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, between Oman and Iran. The Iran-controlled passage is where 17 million barrels of crude pass through on a daily basis. One of the biggest risks with this route is Iran’s threat wielding regarding it.
Four years ago, Tehran threatened to close the passage, and it did so again earlier this year. In neither case, however, did the country act on its threats, but it does not mean that it won’t wave that weapon again, and won’t act on it next time, should the antagonizing between Tehran, Riyadh, and Washington continue.
The strait is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, but is wide and deep enough to handle even the world’s largest tankers. Alternate routes for oil normally going through this strait are several pipelines, but capacity is limited. Most of the oil exports traveling through this strait are bound for Asian markets.
15.2 Million bpd Through the Strait of Malacca.
(Click to enlarge)
Second from the top in terms of millions of barrels shipped is the Strait of Malacca, between Indonesia and Malaysia, where 15.2 million barrels are shipped daily. The place is dangerous geographically, what with the shallow waters. It’s also dangerous because of the sheer number of vessels that pass through it: up to 80,000 annually. Piracy is also rife in the area, causing additional concerns.
Malacca remains the shortest route between the Middle East and the Asian Markets.
4.6 Million bpd Through the Suez Canal.
(Click to enlarge)
The Suez Canal in Egypt is where 4.6 million barrels of crude pass through every day. Egypt is still a politically unstable country following the Arab Spring revolution, and there is the ever-present problem of possible terrorist attacks on the infrastructure. And although it’s possible, it’s highly unlikely that Egypt, no matter how strained its relations with Saudi Arabia get, would close such a lucrative asset: this year, Egypt expects to get some US$5.7 billion in revenue from vessels using the freshly expanded waterway this year.
3.8 Million bpd Through Bab el-Mandeb.
(Click to enlarge)
South of the Suez Canal is Bab el-Mandeb, another passage that accounts for 3.8 million barrels of crude daily. Since it passes between Yemen on the one side, and Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia on the other, shipments via Bab el-Mandeb are under constant threat from pirates and other militant groups operating in the area.
The four waterways above account for a combined 40.6 million barrels of crude every day. The rest of the chokepoints are not exactly in safe waters either, but much safer waters, perhaps except for the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles in Turkey, which account for around 2.9 million bpd of global oil shipments. Due to the nature of the current Turkish government with Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the helm, closing off the straits on a whim or as a demonstration of power to any of his many allies is never off the table.
The rest of the maritime world oil goes through the Danish Straits (3.3 million bpd)—mostly Russian crude for Europe—and the Panama Canal, which is the smallest of the seven, transporting 800,000 bpd on average. Some 4.9 million barrels of crude are also shipped by Cape of Good Hope by those who would rather avoid the chokepoints of Suez and Bab el-Mandeb.
The world this year will consume 95.33 million barrels daily, according to the Energy Information Administration. Of this, 52.6 million barrels will be shipped by sea. Any trouble at any of these chokepoints would easily push up international prices.
6 Comments on "World Oil And Its Seven Biggest Chokepoints"
Anonymous on Thu, 10th Nov 2016 10:01 pm
Typical amerikant bullshit
What might not be so commonly known is the fact that almost half of the crude shipped around the world passes through waters where piracy, the danger of terrorist attacks, or the possibility of local governments shutting down the waterway are all too real.
What is really not commonly known is
Piracy. While it still exists, its nowhere near as big a ‘threat’ as the retards here@OP.com want you to think it is. IoW, the ‘threat’ is overblown, seriously overblown actually.
Terrorist Attacks. Really? Seriously? Just who are these ‘terrorists’ your oil is so afraid of? Instead of the most poorly defined terms ever, name some names. And not AL-CIA-da, or the USlamic state. They all work for the uS empire, and even if they didn’t, have next to no capability to do even insignificant harm to the worlds oil. They just dont. The ‘big’ names in ‘global terrorism’ dont attack oil facilities, Israel, banks, the uS itself, or any of its key allies important assets. The worlds ‘oil’ is as safe from the USlamic state, as Israel is.
local governments. Cut the bullshit. You mean Iran and China. Both are responsible members of the international community that have attacked no one(unlike the uS), least of all oil tankers. They rely on stable trade as much as anyone for their well-being, in oil above all, and have no interest in just arbitrarily trying to sink oil tankers. Much as this article tries to imply otherwise
These ‘local gov’ts’ have no plans, or desire to attack oil tankers in the manner Oil Price retards are suggesting. The fact that they ‘could’ if they wished, is not enough. The US for example, has both the means, and a long record of actually attacking people, including, (especially oil producing countries), yet that small fact, curiously absent from this piece. Both Iran and China ‘could’ attack tankers I suppose, but both have a much better record in the could vs actually did dept, compared to the uS and its allies.
Again, instead of this horseshit ‘local gov’t’ label, name some names. Then we can see if the reality measures to this weak excuse for continued uS military meddling in the affairs of the world.
onlooker on Thu, 10th Nov 2016 11:20 pm
“Then we can see if the reality measures to this weak excuse for continued uS military meddling in the affairs of the world.”
Yep,A. the US empire has always found and made up excuses to go to war and maintain a vast military presence. They have created false flag and staged events as excuse to go to war. They create bogeyman foes like the Soviet Union to justify their meddling and projection of military all around the world. How come we have so many military bases around the world. Oops I forgot we are making the world safe for Democracy. Hehe. Fairy tales. By the way A, you probably have read or heard Noam Chomsky. He spell it out very well. So, I am an American and I am no fool. So far they have not come for me. I just want all you around the world to know that some of us Americans know full well the darkness that lies in the heart of this US empire
makati1 on Thu, 10th Nov 2016 11:57 pm
Onlooker, it seems there are a lot of Americans waking up to reality. Many of them voted for Trump, hoping for a real change and the end of the Empire. But, I am afraid they will be again disappointed.
Davy on Fri, 11th Nov 2016 6:28 am
The reality of oil is it is a global product. It is foundational to modern civilization and the global system. It is capital intensive and requires global distribution. It is a game ender if that movement is disrupted. One side cannot take advantage of this and expect to gain victory. The reason for this is systematic. If you disturb one point in this network the whole system is disrupted. Price is impacted causing immense disruption. The other disruption is supply and the effects of just a few weeks of fuel shortages cause a modern economy. Economies shut down in a matter of a few weeks from even minor fuel shortages. If they shut down long enough the actual damage cannot be repaired.
With this understanding then we see the examples in the article of choke points. These are strategic but they are in no way an advantage to any one player. They are only an advantage to the whole system if they are maintained. We will have only losers if oil is disrupted in any major way. It will be a matter of more or less of a negative impact to players. Some players will lose more than others none are victors in a 20 century reality. If for example the US and Iran come to blows in the Middle East both sides will lose even if one side finds a tactical victory. The same is true in all the other choke points some more important than others but all are system destroyers. This is the dangers of competitive cooperation found as the basis of modern globalism. You create a global system everyone is bound to then you play war games to try to gain advantage. The problem is the only advantage at a point is cooperation. At a point the competition is destructive in any form. We are there so expect any conflict to cause irreparable damage.
Baptised on Fri, 11th Nov 2016 2:30 pm
I agree with everyone’s view above on this article. But in the crazy chance of a WWIII, would it not be a strategy for Iran&Russia to make a pack with China for them to get all surplus oil, by pipelines, trains, trucks. Mine and bomb these choke areas, then destroy all satellites so location means so much more? I am not fear mongering, just thinking out loud.
Shortend on Fri, 11th Nov 2016 7:14 pm
Believe former President Carter stated the US position with
The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf