Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The writer is CEO of Mitsui OSK Lines

Energy security is often framed as a question of production: how much oil, gas or liquefied natural gas can the world produce, and where does it come from? But supply is only as secure as the routes that carry it. Energy security ultimately depends on whether those supplies can move safely, reliably and at scale.

Recent tensions in the Strait of Hormuz illustrate the point. One of the world’s most important maritime arteries does not need to be formally closed for global trade to stall.

In practice, it becomes commercially unusable well before that point — when insurers withdraw coverage, electronic interference increases, risks become impossible to price and shipowners can no longer guarantee the safety of crews or cargo.

Global supply chains depend on predictability — the assurance that ships can pass not once but repeatedly and safely. Without that confidence, the system stops functioning.

For shipping companies — particularly operators of LNG, oil and chemical carriers — this is critical. These cargoes cannot move on the basis of hope alone. A single successful transit does not mean a route is secure. And the implications of this extend far beyond the Gulf.

From a shipowner’s perspective, three principles must remain non-negotiable. The first is crew safety. Seafarers are the backbone of global trade, and no cargo — however strategically important — justifies exposing them to unacceptable risk.

Second, shipping cannot function without reliable insurance. This is often misunderstood outside the industry. Insurance is not simply a financial instrument; it is part of the operating system that allows global commerce to function. If war-risk cover becomes unavailable or prohibitively expensive, ships will not sail — regardless of naval presence in the region.

Third, strategic judgment must remain with company leadership. Captains and crews should never be forced to make geopolitical decisions on the bridge. If a shipping company cannot provide a clear framework of safety and accountability, it should not ask its people to proceed.

This is not simply a commercial challenge. It is a collective policy problem. Shipping markets respond quickly to signals from major operators. When large carriers resume transits, others tend to follow.

When they pause operations, the entire market takes notice — from charterers and energy importers to financial markets. Alignment between governments, naval authorities, insurers and the shipping industry is therefore essential.

When critical shipping routes come under pressure, co-ordinated signals from these economies can help stabilise expectations and restore market confidence.

Three priorities stand out. First, the creation of credible maritime safety corridors. These require practical systems supported by shared maritime awareness, clear transit procedures and close co-ordination between naval forces and commercial shipping.

Security risks do not arise only at sea; congestion in ports and anchorages can also create vulnerabilities. Maritime security therefore extends from port entry to final departure.

Second, governments should explore credible insurance backstops. During periods of geopolitical tension, commercial insurers may retreat or impose prohibitive premiums. If energy supplies are to continue flowing through contested waters, sovereign-backed insurance frameworks may be required.

Third, governments and industry should establish shared “go/no-go” criteria for resuming normal traffic. For ship operators, those conditions would include available insurance coverage, sustained reductions in threat indicators, manageable navigational risks and effective security arrangements.

Global logistics networks are often praised for their resilience, but resilience should not be mistaken for limitless flexibility. Shipping can reroute and absorb shocks — up to a point.

Beyond that, uncertainty turns into paralysis. And when paralysis occurs at a strategic chokepoint, the consequences extend far beyond the maritime sector. Energy prices, food supply chains, industrial production and financial markets all feel the impact.

This is why the starting point for real energy security is not production alone, but something more fundamental: secure sea lanes.