In late February 2026, escalating regional tensions in the Middle East severely disrupted shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of global oil trade passes. The disruption triggered one of the most significant oil supply shifts in modern history.
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), oil production reductions related to regional tensions reached 9.1 million barrels per day (mb/d) in April 2026, while global oil inventories declined at a rate of 5.1 mb/d.
To stabilise surging oil prices, the United States launched a large-scale release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), announcing in March a release of 172 million barrels over 120 days. Members of the International Energy Agency (IEA) supplemented this with an additional 400 million barrels. However, by the end of April, U.S. SPR inventories had fallen to 397.9 million barrels. By early June, they dropped further to approximately 357.1 million barrels—the lowest level since 1983.
Senior executives at Chevron and Exxon Mobil warned that market buffers were being exhausted and that inventories were approaching historic lows. Brent crude prices were projected to rise to between US$150 and US$160 per barrel. The IEA cautioned that market tightness would peak in July and August.
US gasoline prices had risen roughly 50% since late February. Even if tensions were to ease immediately, supply restoration would take four to six weeks due to global tanker repositioning needs.
This article examines the root causes of the crisis, analyzes the strategic positioning of China and Russia, and provides practical policy recommendations for Africa and the Global South.
The strategic roots of America's energy predicament
SPR depletion: From strategic buffer to critical vulnerability
- Corruption watch: Time for citizens, civil society to take over
- Solar, wind still lead generating capacity additions
- Corruption watch: Time for citizens, civil society to take over
- Outcry over mine closure
Keep Reading
The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established after the 1970s oil shocks, with a authorized capacity of 714 million barrels. The current crisis reveals not just numerical depletion, but a systemic failure in energy security governance. Once inventories fall below physical operational thresholds, pipelines, storage facilities and refining infrastructure face heightened risks, and the market loses its main shock absorber.
Inadequate preparedness for key waterway security
In mid‑March 2026, US energy secretary Chris Wright acknowledged that the United States was not fully prepared to provide safe passage for tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. For a major power to enter a period of heightened regional tension without securing critical energy supply routes represents a significant gap in strategic planning.
Red Sea and Bab el‑Mandeb Straits under pressure
On March 28, security risks extended to the Red Sea and Bab el‑Mandeb Strait, placing pressure on two of the world’s most vital energy chokepoints simultaneously. JPMorgan estimated that a full closure of Bab el‑Mandeb could add an additional US$20 per barrel to oil prices.
Saudi Arabia was forced to redirect nearly 5 mb/d of oil exports via Yanbu on the Red Sea, though shipping remained exposed to security uncertainties.
The paradox of rising exports amid domestic stress
US crude exports surged more than 30% in April to 5.2 mb/d, even as SPR levels and domestic refined product inventories declined sharply. Distillate stocks fell by 3.1 million barrels, more than double market expectations. This contradiction signals a shift in the US role from a global energy stabiliser to a supplier with limited emergency buffer capacity.
China and Russia's strategic positioning: Enhancing stability through diversification practical energy cooperation among major partners
China, Russia and Iran maintain normal state‑to‑state friendly relations and practical coordination in energy, trade and international affairs. China and Russia have steadily advanced landmark energy projects, including the Power of Siberia pipelines and long‑term oil and gas contracts. China remains a major trading partner for Russian energy exports.
RMB settlement and stable supply: Boosting market resilience
China has actively promoted diversified trading and settlement mechanisms to enhance supply chain stability. Russian and Iranian crude oil are offered at competitive price differentials to long‑term buyers. Combined with RMB‑denominated transactions, these arrangements help reduce costs and exchange rate risks for trading partners.
By early 2026, stable volumes of crude oil from Iran and Russia entered the Chinese market. China’s strategic petroleum reserve has been built steadily through diversified, market‑based procurement, strengthening energy security resilience.
Evolving global energy governance
Experts note that post‑tension shipping through the Strait of Hormuz may gradually recover to a new equilibrium. A more diversified global energy trading system is emerging, supported by multiple currencies and multiple supply corridors. This trend supports the evolution of the international monetary system and greater inclusivity in global energy governance.
Lessons for Africa and the Global South
Vulnerability exposed: The case of South Africa
South Africa relies heavily on imported crude and refined fuels, leaving it highly exposed to global price volatility. Although it has about 45 million barrels of storage capacity at Saldanha Bay, it struggles to compete in a tight global market. South African officials emphasized that countries dependent on imported petroleum products are particularly vulnerable to external shocks.
Six core lessons
1. Strategic reserves must serve long‑term energy security, not short‑term political goals.
2. Supply diversification is a necessity for survival, not a discretionary policy.
3. Energy security requires systematic planning, not risky adventurism.
4. The Global South should develop independent and diversified energy trading and payment systems.
5. Energy security is fundamentally an issue of national sovereignty.
6. Geopolitical tensions have global spillovers; no nation is a distant bystander.
Strategic responses for Africa and the Global South
Immediate actions (0–6 months)
- Expand strategic petroleum reserves to cover at least 90 days of net imports.
- Establish regional emergency supply‑sharing mechanisms under the African Union.
- Diversify supply routes to reduce reliance on traditional chokepoints.
- Adopt targeted fuel subsidies and price hedging mechanisms.
Medium-term strategy (6–24 months)
- Accelerate domestic oil and gas exploration and production.
- Develop local currency settlement mechanisms for energy trade.
- Build cross‑border energy corridors and infrastructure.
- Scale up renewable energy and modernize power grids.
Long-term structural reforms (2–5 years)
- Establish an African Energy Agency modeled on the IEA.
- Develop regional integrated strategic reserve systems.
- Promote payment system diversification and strengthen regional financial institutions.
- Build a geopolitical early warning system for energy security.
The deepest lesson of the current energy crisis is clear: any nation that relies entirely on external suppliers and unregulated global markets for energy security will be highly vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.
The United States appears to have underestimated the risks of regional escalation and overestimated its ability to maintain maritime energy security, leading to rapid depletion of strategic reserves. By contrast, China and Russia have strengthened resilience through long‑term diversification, stable cooperation and alternative settlement systems, helping stabilize global energy supplies.
For Africa and the Global South, energy security is no longer a choice but a necessity. Building strategic reserves, accelerating the energy transition, strengthening regional cooperation and diversifying payment systems are essential to economic resilience and national sovereignty.
In an era where energy is a core strategic variable, energy autonomy is not merely an economic goal—it is a foundation of sovereignty. The decisions made today will determine whether nations become passive victims of future crises or active architects of their own security and prosperity.
*Saxon Zvina is a principal consultant at Skyworld Consultancy Services and a member of the Belt and Road Initiative Think Tank
