With 90% of imported cooking gas running through the Iran‑controlled chokepoint and only 15 days of storage, New Delhi is testing Baltic and Pacific routes
The liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) shortages that India faces as a result of the Middle East conflict have highlighted the need to strengthen the resilience of the nation’s most politically sensitive fuel.
Data from the Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell (PPAC) shows that LPG consumption reached 31.32 million tonnes in 2024-25, while domestic production was 12.79 million tonnes. This means that close to 60% of demand was met by imports, most of which transit through the conflict‑hit Strait of Hormuz.
When flows through this corridor were disrupted, India’s LPG supply chain came under immediate strain. Arrivals fell sharply, March imports dropped to 1.19 million tonnes, a 46% decline, triggering spillovers into the domestic economy.
The government moved swiftly to prioritize household consumption while tightening supplies to industry, even as limited storage, barely 2-3 weeks of demand, narrowed the response window. New Delhi simultaneously invoked emergency measures to maximize refinery LPG output, with domestic production rising by roughly 40% in early March and scrambled for cargoes from alternative suppliers such as the US and Norway.
In this reshuffle, Russia, already India’s largest crude supplier, has emerged as a marginal LPG source. The key constraints, however, are limited volumes and complex logistics.
India’s structural LPG dependence
India’s LPG imports have risen steadily, from 14.81 million tonnes in 2019-20 to 20.67 million tonnes in 2024-25 following the expansion of clean‑cooking access and rising consumption. Over the same period, domestic production has remained broadly flat at around 12-13 million tonnes, even as consumption increased from 26.33 million tonnes to 31.32 million tonnes. As a result, imports have absorbed most of the incremental demand, pushing their share to around two‑thirds of total consumption.
Efforts to diversify supply were already underway before the crisis, most notably through India’s long‑term LPG supply agreement with the US, securing around 2-2.2 million tonnes annually from 2026. However, the current disruption shows that diversification remains partial and depends on freight costs and vessel availability.
The crisis has also exposed a weaker link in India’s LPG chain of limited storage capacity. PPAC’s latest LPG Profile Report puts total LPG tankage at about 1.2 million tonnes, equivalent to roughly 15 days of national demand. Bottling plants on average hold only around six days of stock, so even short‑lived disruptions leave policymakers with little room for maneuver and quickly amplify external shocks.
Russian routes: Ust‑Luga, Vladivostok, and the NSR
Reports suggest that India increasingly secures LPG cargoes from Russia and Japan as well as the US. Given that India consumes 2.6 million tonnes of LPG a month, around 80,000-90,000 tonnes a day, even several alternative cargoes, typically 40,000-60,000 tonnes each, cover only a few days of national demand. Initial Russian and Japanese supplies are therefore strategic hedges, not game‑changers.
But diversifying suppliers is not the same as diversifying routes. That is why Russia and longer‑range corridors such as the Northern Sea Route and the proposed Chennai-Vladivostok maritime corridor have entered the policy debate as they offer route diversity when the Middle East is on fire.
On Russia’s side, the main LPG export gateway is the Baltic port of Ust‑Luga, where the Sibur terminal handles liquefied gas. In 2024-25, industry reports indicated that LPG exports from Ust‑Luga roughly doubled year‑on‑year over January-May 2025 as European buyers retreated and exporters pivoted to Asia, and shipping intelligence noted at least two India‑bound cargoes totaling about 40,000 tonnes once flows resumed.
Indian strategists see two broad corridors for these volumes. A western route runs from the Baltic or Black Sea through the Mediterranean, Suez Canal and Red Sea into the Arabian Sea, bypassing Hormuz but adding exposure at Suez and Bab el‑Mandeb; deliveries to Kochi, Mangaluru, or Jamnagar would take around 40 days or more.
An eastern route departs from Russia’s Far East around Vladivostok, passes through the Sea of Japan, the East and South China seas, and the Strait of Malacca, and then across the Bay of Bengal to India’s east coast, reaching Haldia, Paradip, or Ennore in 12-24 days. This corridor concentrates risk in Malacca, crowded with container traffic and lying under Chinese naval shadow, but it fits India’s broader Indo‑Pacific calculus if eventually anchored in a formal Chennai-Vladivostok link.
Even with record traffic of about 38 million tonnes in 2024, total NSR cargo is still a fraction of the hundreds of millions of tonnes moving through the Suez Canal each year, which is why most analysts see it as a niche supplement rather than a realistic replacement for existing routes.
Yet both capitals are clearly intent on keeping the Vladivostok-Chennai Eastern Maritime Corridor on the table as an option, with Indian ministers describing it as operational and highlighting its early role in carrying crude and other bulk cargoes between Russia’s Far East and India’s east coast.
Security premium, signaling and political calculus
Russia’s role as a swing supplier is about redrawing risk, not replacing the Gulf. India imported around 20.67 million tonnes of LPG in 2024-25, implying an import requirement of 1.7-1.9 million tonnes per month and leaving overseas supplies to meet the bulk of domestic demand. Even under optimistic assumptions, Russia’s incremental export capacity can cover only a small share of this requirement, broadly comparable to the eventual scale of India’s long‑term LPG arrangement with the United States, so alternative suppliers can buffer shocks but not substitute the Gulf.
The value of Russian LPG therefore lies in geography and signaling rather than volume. Cargoes arriving via Ust‑Luga through Suez, or via Vladivostok and Malacca, are by definition non‑Hormuz flows, and even incremental non‑Gulf volumes shift India’s risk calculus when set against the growing share of crude now imported on routes that bypass Hormuz, as highlighted in recent shipping data and official statements on diversification. The question is whether New Delhi will pay a modest route premium for this security, just as it accepts extra miles to tap discounted Russian crude or continue to fall back on crisis‑time improvisation.
There is also a domestic political dimension. LPG is the flagship symbol of the government’s clean‑cooking drive, and a prolonged shortage would be far more electorally damaging than a technical disruption in refinery crude runs. This is why official communications during the crisis have stressed refinery output ramp‑ups and diversified sourcing, amplified by images of VLGCs discharging LPG at Indian ports, alongside repeated assurances that people’s fuel needs will be met.
For policymakers, the strategic choice is how much to invest in tanks at home versus miles at sea, whether to expand LPG storage or pay a premium for Russian and other non‑Hormuz cargoes, since Russia cannot replace the Gulf but, via routes from Ust‑Luga through Suez and from Vladivostok through Malacca, does give New Delhi a way to recast supply risk beyond West Asia.
For Moscow, stepping in as a dependable swing supplier, even at modest volumes, cements its image in India as a long‑term energy partner rather than a crisis‑time outlier.