Geopolitical tensions are constraining supply flows, reducing availability across key Asian ports, and forcing procurement teams to adapt.
From geopolitical tension to operational constraints
What began as geopolitical tension in the Strait of Hormuz has now translated into tangible operational constraints across key maritime hubs in Asia. Ports such as Singapore, Shanghai, Busan, and Tanjung Pelepas are experiencing reduced flexibility, longer lead times, and increasing supply uncertainty. Similar patterns are emerging in locations like Qingdao, Yantian, Yeosu, Ningbo and others.
Recent trading data from Closelink highlights the scale of this shift. Incomplete lubricant deliveries increased from 9.3% in H2 2025 to 22.5% in March/April 2026, while average surcharge costs more than doubled over the same period. At the same time, base prices for key products such as Cylinder Oil (+9.3%) and System Oil (+5.3%) are rising - even before the full impact of temporary surcharges is reflected.
The central question for ship managers and procurement teams is how to respond effectively, particularly as there is no clear indication of a near-term resolution to the underlying conflict.
Supply chains under pressure
According to the International Energy Agency, shipping flows through the Strait of Hormuz have declined to levels that represent the largest oil-supply disruption on record. While this primarily refers to crude oil, the implications for marine lubricants are more immediate and complex. Lubricants rely on a multi-layered supply chain that extends beyond crude oil to refined inputs such as base oils and additives. Group III base oils sourced from the Middle East are particularly critical, and it is precisely these flows that have become constrained.
Asia appears especially exposed. China and South Korea, both major consumption and distribution hubs, depend heavily on these supply chains. Disruptions in the Middle East have delayed or interrupted shipments, while reduced throughput through Hormuz has tightened the availability of key feedstocks. At the same time, regional refineries are not fully compensating for the shortfall, and reports of tighter customs procedures are further slowing the movement of goods. The result is a structurally tighter supply environment with limited capacity to absorb further disruption.
Pre-emptive buying and its market impact
Supply constraints alone do not explain the current pressure on the market. Buyer behavior has significantly amplified the situation.
Anticipating shortages and further price increases, many procurement teams acted early in the first quarter. Buyers began reviewing their fleet’s onboard stock levels and storage capacities in detail and increased liftings aggressively to secure inventory for the months to come. In some cases, vessels filled tanks to more than 80% of capacity - an approach that is unusual, particularly in liner operations. This pre-emptive buying placed additional pressure on supplier logistics and production capacity. Within a short period, some buyers secured 60–80% of their typical annual volumes.
At the same time, sourcing behavior is shifting. Buyers increasingly move beyond contracted suppliers to secure stock, driving a sharp increase in spot activity. According to Closelink insights, spot trades doubled in March/April compared to non-contractual trades in H2 2025. However, limited stock availability reduced supplier responsiveness, with average offers per enquiry falling from 6.4 to 2.75 over the same period.
Suppliers respond by tightening controls. Large or atypical order volumes are reduced, and contract customers are prioritized over spot buyers. Even within contracts, supply is now more strictly aligned with historical liftings and forecast commitments.
This situation reveals a broader problem: demand forecasting remains inconsistent across the supply chain, whether due to structural limitations or incomplete data. The result is clear: Market elasticity has diminished. What was previously a flexible, demand-driven system has become more rigid and supply-constrained.
What this means for procurement operations
The operational impact of this shift is immediate.
Short-notice deliveries - an inherent evil in tramp shipping - are now rarely available in many listed ports. Procurement teams are increasingly required to plan further ahead, often without reliable visibility on supply availability. Costs are rising across multiple dimensions. Beyond higher product prices, buyers are facing additional charges related to urgency or freight premiums. In some cases, procurement decisions are no longer driven by price competitiveness but by availability. Buyers are lifting product where it can be supplied, rather than where it is most cost-efficient.
This shift also affects sourcing strategies. Vessels operating in impacted regions are being forced to consider alternative products and suppliers, even where long-standing relationships or single-sourcing strategies previously prevailed. Shipping companies with multi-supplier strategies and experience in managing wider product compatibility have greater flexibility, but even they start facing increasing constraints.
As a result, procurement is becoming more operationally demanding.
What to expect in the coming months
In the near term, conditions are unlikely to improve significantly. Suppliers are expected to remain cautious, protecting inventory amid uncertain replenishment timelines. Spot availability will remain limited, short-notice constraints will persist, and pricing pressure is likely to intensify as allocation mechanisms remain in place. Market data supports this outlook. On Closelink, communication between buyers and suppliers shows a clear increase in terms such as “shortage and supply limitation” (+37%), “short notice and urgent lead time” (+32%), and “surcharge and extra charges” (+67%) when comparing H2 2025 with 2026 year-to-date.
Looking further ahead, a deeper structural adjustment is likely.
Allocation and prioritization may become standard practice, with contract customers and larger fleets receiving preferential access. At the same time, spot supplies are expected to remain less available. Supply chains may gradually regionalize as buyers seek alternatives less exposed to Middle Eastern disruptions. Procurement strategies will need to adapt accordingly. The traditional focus on securing the lowest unit price at a specific port is likely to give way to a broader evaluation of confirmed availability, demand forecast, and total cost-to-serve.
Product flexibility will also become increasingly important. Shipowners may need to consider secondary approved suppliers or alternative lubricant grades where technically feasible. This requires not only operational readiness but also internal alignment across technical and procurement teams. Even where supply remains accessible, total procurement costs are expected to rise, driven by higher product prices, increased logistics complexity, and less efficient port selection.
How procurement teams can respond
Leading ship management companies have already begun strengthening their capabilities prior to the current crisis. Efforts were focused on improving stock reporting, consumption tracking, and demand forecasting, often supported by the implementation of new tools and digital solutions.
The market has no other choice but to follow this paradigm, and to follow fast.
First, procurement teams need greater control over future demand. This is critical both for risk management and financial planning. Shifting volumes from key locations such as Shanghai or Busan to alternative ports in Australia or India can result in cost increases of 50–100% for individual deliveries. Without forward visibility, such decisions become difficult to manage. Second, procurement teams are increasingly expected to provide more accurate forecasts to suppliers. This is essential for improving production planning and allocation processes across the supply chain.
Technology plays a key role in enabling these capabilities. Solutions exist today to support demand forecasting, stock monitoring, and procurement planning without increasing administrative workload or reliance on manual processes.
At the same time, suppliers are also evolving. Many are investing in improved stock visibility across their global networks and developing APIs to facilitate according data exchange with customers. The goal is to create a more transparent and responsive supply chain. Chevron’s OnePort platform is one example of this development. By integrating ordering processes with live stock visibility and connecting to procurement platforms, such as Closelink, it enables more efficient communication and decision-making. Similar initiatives are expected to expand across the wider supplier landscape.
A catalyst for structural change
Disruptions of this scale often act as catalysts for change. The maritime industry has seen similar patterns in the past, where external pressure accelerated the adoption of new practices and technologies, like the immediate implementation of online meetings (e.g. through Teams or Zoom) and improved remote work capabilities seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current environment is likely to have a similar effect on procurement. Practices such as fleet-wide stock visibility, structured demand forecasting, and data-driven decision-making are becoming increasingly relevant.
While these capabilities were previously considered improvements, they are now moving toward becoming operational necessities. The return on investment is becoming more visible, particularly in terms of cost control, supply security, and operational stability. Preparing for disruption before it occurs is always preferable. However, when disruption happens, it often provides the momentum needed to implement lasting structural change.
Disclaimer
Some of the factual context presented in this article is supported by publicly available market intelligence and industry reporting from organizations such as the International Energy Agency, ICIS, S&P Global Commodity Insights, and Lubes’n’Greases, as well as maritime insights from Drewry, Clarksons Research, BIMCO, gCaptain, and Splash24/7.
This information has been further enriched by direct customer and supplier conversations conducted in recent weeks, as well as anonymized trading data gathered via the Closelink procurement platform, providing additional real-time insight into current market dynamics.
