{"id":1053,"date":"2026-10-20T03:33:38","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T03:33:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/regulasshipping.com\/blog\/pgsa-says-it-acted-against-40-ships-on-a-122-vessel-hormuz-list\/"},"modified":"2026-10-20T03:33:38","modified_gmt":"2026-10-20T03:33:38","slug":"pgsa-says-it-acted-against-40-ships-on-a-122-vessel-hormuz-list","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/regulasshipping.com\/blog\/pgsa-says-it-acted-against-40-ships-on-a-122-vessel-hormuz-list\/","title":{"rendered":"PGSA says it acted against 40 ships on a 122-vessel Hormuz list"},"content":{"rendered":"

Iran\u2019s Persian Gulf Strait Authority issued a status message on its Strait of Hormuz Non-Compliance List stating that 122 vessels have been added so far and that it has \u201cdealt with\u201d more than 40 violating vessels in the waterway. Mehr News Agency carried the English read at 06:32 local on Tuesday, 20 October, about 03:02 UTC. Iran International\u2019s Monday evening English carry, timestamped 21:24 UTC on 19 October, printed the same four operating figures against a Monday PGSA statement: 122 listed, more than 40 acted against, 19 vessels in negotiation to avoid listing or to secure removal, two vessels that have accepted removal by fulfilling their obligations, and about 30 vessels that will be added if they fail to respond after warnings. PGSA said it would provide assistance for removal if vessels voluntarily follow up on their violations.<\/p>\n

That is the working primary. It is an Iranian coastal-strait instrument, republished by state media. It is not a UKMTO warning, not a JMIC Update 107, not a U.S., EU or UK sanctions designation, and not a rewrite of Saturday\u2019s dedicated Update 106 piece. Seatrade\u2019s 19 October industry read of the same list, by Middle East correspondent Gary Howard, is the first detailed English composition check against the published names: 122 entries representing 121 unique vessels, because ANGOLA PROSPERITY appears twice, and a conservative count that at least 39 vessels were attacked before they appeared on the list. Treat Seatrade as industry analysis of the roster, not as a second PGSA decree. Stay with the authority\u2019s own four figures for what PGSA says it has done.<\/p>\n

What PGSA actually printed<\/h2>\n

PGSA first published a Non-Compliance List in late August, accusing vessels on the roster of violating Iran\u2019s transit rules for the Strait of Hormuz and threatening listed ships with detention, confiscation or fines. The Tuesday status message does not reprint the legal basis, a coordinate, a boarding standard, or a named hull among the \u201cmore than 40\u201d it says it has dealt with. It does not define \u201cdealt with.\u201d It does not print a detention log, a confiscation order, a fine schedule, or a port of detention. Operators who brief Tuesday as \u201c40 ships have been seized in Hormuz\u201d have over-read the statement. Operators who brief it as a courtesy watch-list with no operational consequence have under-read the published threat language that has sat on the list since August.<\/p>\n

The negotiating and removal figures are the new operator content. Nineteen vessels are, on PGSA\u2019s account, talking to avoid being placed on the list or to be taken off it. Two have \u201caccepted removal by fulfilling their obligations.\u201d About 30 have received warnings and will be added if they do not respond. PGSA says it will assist removal where a vessel voluntarily follows up. The authority has published an email path for removal applications. It has not published criteria for a successful appeal. Seatrade recorded a purported owner application in which the master was pressured into a transit without Iranian approval by the charterer; whether that application succeeded is not confirmed, but it led PGSA to warn that a charterer found to be driving ships through the strait in breach of Iran\u2019s rules could see its entire fleet blacklisted. That is PGSA messaging. It is not a finding that a named charterer has been listed. It is not a U.S. or EU measure.<\/p>\n

Seatrade\u2019s 19 October count of removals since first publication is three, and it is industry colour on the roster rather than a PGSA press line. BLUE STAR I, IMO 9215115, was on the initial August list and has since been removed; the hull has been reported as renamed ELI WAVE under Honduras-based Ocean Star Oil Trading, with no confirmed connection between the ownership change and the removal. India-flag bulk carrier MAHA ROOS appeared on the initial list and was off it by 28 September. Hong Kong-owned bulk carrier XING SHENG appeared on 14 September and was off it by 30 September. Those three names are useful for a DPA only as a reminder that the list moves both ways. They are not a template for how to get a ship off it. PGSA has still not printed the test.<\/p>\n

The list is running behind the attacks<\/h2>\n

Howard\u2019s 19 October reading is that the Non-Compliance List is increasingly a scorecard of ships already attacked rather than an advance warning of who Iran intends to detain. At least 39 vessels were attacked before they appeared on the list, on a conservative count drawn from security sources and the IMO highlighted-incidents board, after setting aside OCEAN MOLICA and RIESCO, which were struck by U.S. forces for allegedly running the U.S. blockade of Iran. Eighteen of the 20 ships added on 15 October had already been struck. The two 15 October exceptions that Seatrade could not tie to a confirmed attack are NV SUNSHINE, which Iran claims to have attacked on 9 October and whose operator has denied an attack \u2014 wrap on the dedicated 10 October IRGC-naming piece, not a rewrite \u2014 and SINGAPORE ENERGY, a VLCC that aborted a 5 October Hormuz transit after being threatened by the IRGC over radio. Of 121 unique vessels on the latest list, 19 have been struck this month, with at least 14 of those added after they were targeted. At least 50 of the 121 have a documented attack in and around Hormuz. Five vessels appear on the list before subsequently being targeted, with a sixth likely; the sequence is unclear for three late-September \/ early-October attacks.<\/p>\n

Names already on this desk sit on that roster. GFS PRIDE, GFS GISELLE, AL MAQAM, ANGOLA PROSPERITY, VALTHERA, PETRO DOLPHIN, GEM NO. 2, OCEAN MOLICA, MARAN GAS MYSTRAS, ST 1, CAPE DAO, KITION M and EVER VICT are among the hulls Seatrade reprints from the published table. ST3 is not on Seatrade\u2019s 19 October reprint of the 122-line list. Do not brief an IMO 114-count naming as a PGSA listing. Do not brief a PGSA listing as an IMO confirmed incident. Dual appearance on both sheets, where it occurs, is two instruments on one hull. It is not a UKMTO naming. UKMTO recently printed that owners and operators increasingly refuse to report incidents to the voluntary scheme; that reporting gap is why a blacklist-versus-attack sequence will not be complete on open sources. Stay conservative. Do not invent a hull that PGSA has not printed.<\/p>\n

PGSA also states, on the list page as republished by industry monitors, that vessels cooperating with listed ships \u2014 ship-to-ship transfers, transshipment and similar \u2014 may themselves be added. That is a secondary-exposure line for STS planners in the Gulf of Oman and off Fujairah, not a finding that a named lightering hull has been added this week. Eagle Intelligence\u2019s public scrape remains behind captcha and behind the official page; as of 17 October that copy sat at 100 rows \/ 99 unique IMOs against a market total already reported at 124 on 16 October and 122 on the Tuesday statement. Lloyd\u2019s List on 16 October had printed an expansion to 124 with further Sinokor VLCC colour on Gulf of Oman STS scrutiny. Hold 122 as the figure PGSA used on 19\u201320 October. Do not brief 124, 122 and 121 as three different crackdowns. They are sequential snapshots of one list that has been edited, duplicated and, in Angola Prosperity\u2019s case, double-entered.<\/p>\n

Operational implications<\/h2>\n

For a master transiting Hormuz or waiting at Fujairah \/ Khor Fakkan, Tuesday is a list-hygiene task, not a new kinetic warning. JMIC Update 106 remains the numbered threat note: Hormuz SEVERE, Arabian Gulf SUBSTANTIAL, Gulf of Oman MODERATE, 153 incidents since 1 March, surface attacks in the Arabian Gulf a strong possibility away from Hormuz, anchorage repositioning, report to UKMTO irrespective of AIS, SOLAS-compliant AIS review. PGSA\u2019s 122-count does not change that scale. It adds a named-hull administrative overlay that can follow a ship after an attack, after a radio threat, or, in a smaller set of cases, before a later strike. A CSO who treats the Non-Compliance List as a targeting feed will brief the wrong instrument. A CSO who ignores it because it is not a UKMTO product will miss a detention, confiscation and fine threat that PGSA has left on the table since August, plus a charterer-fleet warning and an STS-contagion line.<\/p>\n

Dual screening is the legal point, and it cuts both ways. Appearing on the PGSA list is not a U.S., EU or UK sanctions designation. Separately, U.S. authorities have designated PGSA. Parties screening a Hormuz voyage need their own legal advice on both the Iranian measure and any applicable sanctions exposure from dealing with the listing authority. This desk does not treat \u201capply to PGSA for removal\u201d as a compliance recommendation. It treats the published email path and the two-ship \u201cfulfilled obligations\u201d line as facts about how PGSA says the list moves. Whether a given owner can use that path without creating a sanctions issue is a counsel question, not a master\u2019s-pack finding.<\/p>\n

Fujairah and Khor Fakkan congestion on Update 106 \u2014 about 217 at anchor on 18 October \u2014 is the practical meeting point. Listed hulls, unlisted hulls, STS traffic and radio-threat aborts share the same east-coast holding area. A listed ship at that anchorage is not, on the Tuesday statement, subject to a new Iranian boarding power in UAE waters. It is subject to a published threat against future Hormuz passages and to possible listing of ships that work cargo with it. Agents who arrange STS, stores or crew changes against a listed hull should know the hull is listed before the lighter comes alongside. Agents who assume the 15 October additions are a forecast of the next Attack will be using a retrospective scorecard as if it were a notice to mariners.<\/p>\n

Do not recast 19\u201320 October as Update 107, a UKMTO naming, a Hormuz reopen, a U.S. or EU designation of the 122 hulls, a confirmed 40-ship seizure, or a rewrite of dedicated Pride, Giselle, Al Maqam, Ocean Molica, NV Sunshine or ST 3 files. The confirmed facts are PGSA\u2019s status message as carried by Mehr on 20 October and by Iran International on 19 October: 122 vessels on the Non-Compliance List, more than 40 \u201cdealt with,\u201d 19 in negotiation, two accepted removal by fulfilling obligations, about 30 on warning, and assistance offered for voluntary follow-up \u2014 plus Seatrade\u2019s 19 October composition read that the list is running behind the attacks.<\/p>\n

What Operators Should Note<\/h2>\n