Added August 13, 2026
Editor's Note
The Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz sections of this report were originally written based on conditions as of June 17, 2026, when a ceasefire had reopened the strait and oil prices were falling. That ceasefire broke down in July, and the conflict has continued since. We've revised the relevant sections below to reflect current conditions as of this date. The rest of the report's findings, including our marketplace data and regional outlooks, remain unchanged.
In January, Liquidity Services published the 2026 Energy Surplus Asset Market Trends Report, detailing a surplus asset market shaped by capital discipline, non-core divestitures, rising surplus volumes, and a gas-weighted secondary equipment cycle. Six months in, the scorecard is notable: the core structural predictions made are materializing, but the rules of the game have changed fast and are changing again.
The military conflict with Iran, which began on February 28, sent Brent crude from roughly $65/bbl to a peak of $126.41 on April 30 (Britannica 2026). A ceasefire and memorandum of understanding signed June 19 briefly reopened the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic. That agreement collapsed in July. Iran resumed attacks on tankers using routes it had not authorized, the U.S. reimposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports, and fighting continued into August. As of this writing, Iran's Persian Gulf Strait Authority maintains the strait is blocked, negotiations remain deadlocked, and strait traffic sits near three-month lows despite U.S. claims of control over the waterway. Brent has settled in the high $80s, well below the April peak but volatile, rising again over the past week as tensions flared.
For oil and gas operators managing surplus assets, the conditions created by the conflict are not unwinding. They are proving more durable than either side expected in June. Elevated war-risk insurance costs constrained new equipment supply chains, and strong buyer demand for regional, ready-to-deploy assets remain in place because the underlying disruption remains in place. The operator waiting for certainty before bringing assets to market is waiting for a resolution that has already failed once. The operator who moves now is pricing in the world as it actually is, not the world the June ceasefire promised.
