<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">DIAMOND SHAMROCK AWARDS PACT TO FLUORIRVINE, Calif. - Fluor Daniel, a subsidiary of Fluor Co</div>

DIAMOND SHAMROCK AWARDS PACT TO FLUORIRVINE, Calif. - Fluor Daniel, a subsidiary of Fluor Co

<div>DIAMOND SHAMROCKAWARDS PACT TO FLUORIRVINE, Calif. - Fluor Daniel, a subsidiary of Fluor Corp., said Monday it was awarded a contract by the Diamond Shamrock Refining &amp; Marketing Co., San Antonio, Texas, to perform engineering and procurement services at Diamond Shamrock's oil refinery in McKee, Texas.The value of the contract was not disclosed. The refinery's No. 1 reformer units will be revamped to increase the capacity to 25,000 barrels a day.PLAINS RESOURCES TO SELLHUGOTON GAS RESERVESOKLAHOMA CITY - Plains Resources Monday announced that it signed an agreement to sell its shallow gas reserves in the Bradshaw area of the Hugoton...

DIAMOND SHAMROCK AWARDS PACT TO FLUORIRVINE, Calif. - Fluor Daniel, a subsidiary of Fluor Corp., said Monday it was awarded a contract by the Diamond Shamrock Refining & Marketing Co., San Antonio, Texas, to perform engineering and procurement services at Diamond Shamrock's oil refinery in McKee, Texas. The value of the contract was not disclosed. The refinery's No. 1 reformer units will be revamped to increase the capacity to 25,000 barrels a day. PLAINS RESOURCES TO SELL HUGOTON GAS RESERVES OKLAHOMA CITY - Plains Resources Monday announced that it signed an agreement to sell its shallow gas reserves in the Bradshaw area of the Hugoton Gas Field for $22 million. Plains will retain all of its deeper exploration rights in the field. The deep rights retained by Plains cover approximately 44,000 gross (31,000 net) acres in Hamilton and Greeley Counties, Kan. Plains stated that proceeds from the sale will be used to acquire and develop other targeted properties, to reduce debt and to participate in new domestic exploration activity. Closing is expected in late June. GPU AGREES TO PAY $50,000 PENALTY FORKED RIVER, N.J. - GPU Nuclear Corp. will pay a $50,000 civil penalty to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for failing to meet NRC electrical equipment standards in the utility's Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The violations, which occurred in 1985 and 1986, carry a maximum $75,000 fine, but the figure was reduced by the NRC because of GPU's prompt steps toward correcting the problems.

ENERGY BRIEFS

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US tariffs are fuel cost-cutting mandates, heaping pressure on cargo owners to push for lower ocean shipping rates even if at the expense of carrier relations. </div>

US tariffs are fuel cost-cutting mandates, heaping pressure on cargo owners to push for lower ocean shipping rates even if at the expense of carrier relations.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">A combination of factors that includes shippers’ hunger to lower costs in the face of the highest US tariffs in decades and a growing supply-demand imbalance are raising the specter of worsening shipper-carrier relations. In the near term, shippers operating under strict cost-cutting mandates could, for example, begin diverting contracted cargo to a lower-priced spot market. In the long term, this dynamic could result in shippers walking away from established carrier and forwarder partnerships in pursuit of marginally lower rates. “The pressure is immense already,” Mark Chadwick, president of the Global Shippers Association, told the Journal of Commerce. “With margins squeezed because of tariffs and nearshoring expenses, many CFOs are pushing their procurement teams to lower other costs, with logistics certainly on the list.” M. Can Fidan, executive vice president at forwarder MTS Logistics, said some shippers are still motivated in part by the record rates seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. “[Some] importers are always looking for lower prices, but I think now they have the appetite to push carriers, or maybe to switch to other carriers, after experiencing what they saw as unfair price increases during COVID-19 from longstanding carrier partners,” Fidan said. Those opportunities to drive down costs may well present themselves; analysts expect new vessel arrivals to tip the market into overcapacity next year, despite factors like Red Sea diversions, port congestion in Asia and Europe, and alliance reshuffling that worked in carriers favor this year. JP Morgan said on Aug. 11 that “steep losses into 2026-27 [are] unavoidable” for Maersk, reflecting a deteriorating freight rate environment for the wider industry. It’s a familiar dynamic in container shipping. One party takes advantage of favorable market forces but in doing so sets themself up for future retaliation when the market at turns against them. “The same bosses who are demanding a 10% reduction in your ocean spend now are the ones who are going to be screaming when you can’t get space on a ship,” Chadwick said. “There are many companies for whom air cargo is not a viable alternative, so if they can’t get access to ocean freight, it could be game over.” Shippers will no doubt recall that, in tight markets over the five-plus years since the beginning of the pandemic, carriers sought to maximize revenue, leaving lower-priced yet contracted cargo behind, improving their profitability but hurting customers’ supply chains in the process. They will remember how carriers aggressively use blank sailings and other capacity-restricting tools to support the market the effect of which for shippers is longer transit times, higher inventory costs and revenue impact. “Even if you tell a customer today, ‘You know this x carrier took care of us during that time,’ they’ll say, ‘Yeah, I know, but they didn’t do it because they love me. They do it because I paid them the highest rate, right? So now, why do I need to support them when they need me?,’” Fidan said. <h3>History, repeated </h3>Shippers, for their part, had the opportunity to turn the tables in 2022 and 2024, when the market collapsed, and they are poised to do it again. Trans-Pacific spot rates have plunged more than 70% to the West Coast and 61% to the East Coast since mid-June, when China cargo was unleashed after the temporary easing of 145% tariffs. There are early signs that cost pressures are leading some shippers to seek out lower spot rates, even when failing to fulfill contracted minimum quantity commitments (MQCs). In other words, market forces may yet again overwhelm relationships, partnerships and any semblance of win-win value creation in the container supply chain. Even some shippers are warning that overly aggressive cost-cutting could come back to bite them when the market tightens. This is seen as inevitable given the current environment, characterized by repeated capacity shocks due to external forces and a consolidated carrier industry ready to take advantage. “It’s important for shippers to avoid the temptation of compromising commitments to their carrier partners in exchange for these relatively small, short-term gains,” Chadwick said. “Given the turmoil in international trade, some shippers won’t have the volume to meet their MQCs and should be up front with the carriers about this, so that they can plan space utilization accordingly. But it’s a different story when that MQC’s missed because the shipper’s chasing an off contract alternative that’s slightly lower cost. “We need to protect the goodwill that we’ve been earning with the carriers, standing by our commitments so that we can expect the same when the market flips again,” he added. <h3>Lessons learned? </h3>But market forces will, as they have many times in the past, exert powerful pressures that undermine partnership. These include the intense margin pressure shippers are under when attempting to mitigate the impact of US tariffs, which are above 18% now on average, up from 2.4% last year and the highest level since the 1930s. Those pressures also include the wave of new vessels currently being delivered to carriers that will result in increasingly attractive rates being shopped to BCOs. “We expect [rates] to continue to decline on a widening demand-supply imbalance,” JP Morgan wrote following Maersk’s Second quarter earnings report on Aug. 7. Chadwick said carriers are already floating “low-ball offers,” and this trend will likely accelerate through the end of 2025 and into 2026 as carriers and forwarders look to maintain volumes. “We know to expect the unexpected, so a lot could happen that could quickly reverse this trend, another reason to stay focused on being good partners to our carriers,” he said. Shippers will try different tactics to get away with shipping under lower spot rates while preserving carrier relationships, an increasingly important priority for them given there are fewer carriers available due to consolidation. They will argue, for example, that manufacturing or other delays prevent them fulfilling MQCs, an excuse carriers may accept to the extent the market is weak, and the carrier itself wants to preserve the relationship with the shipper in the upcoming contract cycle. A question hanging over the market is how much carriers learned over the past five years to maximize their advantage, specifically about limiting capacity in various ways when facing soft market conditions, or whether carriers will return to predatory practices of raiding each other’s cargo base just to fill their ships. “For the next few months, you will see carriers blanking capacity because I do think they realize the party is over and they brought in too much capacity this spring,” said Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of consulting firm 365 Logistics. “But that said, they have been pretty good in reacting, and they will react again, pulling capacity out and creating a stable market. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A combination of factors that includes shippers’ hunger to lower costs in the face of the highest US tariffs in decades and a growing supply-demand imbalance are raising the specter of worsening shipper-carrier relations. In the near term, shippers operating under strict cost-cutting mandates could, for example, begin diverting contracted cargo to a lower-priced spot market. In the long term, this dynamic could result in shippers walking away from established carrier and forwarder partnerships in pursuit of marginally lower rates. “The pressure is immense already,” Mark Chadwick, president of the Global Shippers Association, told the Journal of Commerce. “With margins squeezed because of tariffs and nearshoring expenses, many CFOs are pushing their procurement teams to lower other costs, with logistics certainly on the list.” M. Can Fidan, executive vice president at forwarder MTS Logistics, said some shippers are still motivated in part by the record rates seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. “[Some] importers are always looking for lower prices, but I think now they have the appetite to push carriers, or maybe to switch to other carriers, after experiencing what they saw as unfair price increases during COVID-19 from longstanding carrier partners,” Fidan said. Those opportunities to drive down costs may well present themselves; analysts expect new vessel arrivals to tip the market into overcapacity next year, despite factors like Red Sea diversions, port congestion in Asia and Europe, and alliance reshuffling that worked in carriers favor this year. JP Morgan said on Aug. 11 that “steep losses into 2026-27 [are] unavoidable” for Maersk, reflecting a deteriorating freight rate environment for the wider industry. It’s a familiar dynamic in container shipping. One party takes advantage of favorable market forces but in doing so sets themself up for future retaliation when the market at turns against them. “The same bosses who are demanding a 10% reduction in your ocean spend now are the ones who are going to be screaming when you can’t get space on a ship,” Chadwick said. “There are many companies for whom air cargo is not a viable alternative, so if they can’t get access to ocean freight, it could be game over.” Shippers will no doubt recall that, in tight markets over the five-plus years since the beginning of the pandemic, carriers sought to maximize revenue, leaving lower-priced yet contracted cargo behind, improving their profitability but hurting customers’ supply chains in the process. They will remember how carriers aggressively use blank sailings and other capacity-restricting tools to support the market the effect of which for shippers is longer transit times, higher inventory costs and revenue impact. “Even if you tell a customer today, ‘You know this x carrier took care of us during that time,’ they’ll say, ‘Yeah, I know, but they didn’t do it because they love me. They do it because I paid them the highest rate, right? So now, why do I need to support them when they need me?,’” Fidan said. History, repeated Shippers, for their part, had the opportunity to turn the tables in 2022 and 2024, when the market collapsed, and they are poised to do it again. Trans-Pacific spot rates have plunged more than 70% to the West Coast and 61% to the East Coast since mid-June, when China cargo was unleashed after the temporary easing of 145% tariffs. There are early signs that cost pressures are leading some shippers to seek out lower spot rates, even when failing to fulfill contracted minimum quantity commitments (MQCs). In other words, market forces may yet again overwhelm relationships, partnerships and any semblance of win-win value creation in the container supply chain. Even some shippers are warning that overly aggressive cost-cutting could come back to bite them when the market tightens. This is seen as inevitable given the current environment, characterized by repeated capacity shocks due to external forces and a consolidated carrier industry ready to take advantage. “It’s important for shippers to avoid the temptation of compromising commitments to their carrier partners in exchange for these relatively small, short-term gains,” Chadwick said. “Given the turmoil in international trade, some shippers won’t have the volume to meet their MQCs and should be up front with the carriers about this, so that they can plan space utilization accordingly. But it’s a different story when that MQC’s missed because the shipper’s chasing an off contract alternative that’s slightly lower cost. “We need to protect the goodwill that we’ve been earning with the carriers, standing by our commitments so that we can expect the same when the market flips again,” he added. Lessons learned? But market forces will, as they have many times in the past, exert powerful pressures that undermine partnership. These include the intense margin pressure shippers are under when attempting to mitigate the impact of US tariffs, which are above 18% now on average, up from 2.4% last year and the highest level since the 1930s. Those pressures also include the wave of new vessels currently being delivered to carriers that will result in increasingly attractive rates being shopped to BCOs. “We expect [rates] to continue to decline on a widening demand-supply imbalance,” JP Morgan wrote following Maersk’s Second quarter earnings report on Aug. 7. Chadwick said carriers are already floating “low-ball offers,” and this trend will likely accelerate through the end of 2025 and into 2026 as carriers and forwarders look to maintain volumes. “We know to expect the unexpected, so a lot could happen that could quickly reverse this trend, another reason to stay focused on being good partners to our carriers,” he said. Shippers will try different tactics to get away with shipping under lower spot rates while preserving carrier relationships, an increasingly important priority for them given there are fewer carriers available due to consolidation. They will argue, for example, that manufacturing or other delays prevent them fulfilling MQCs, an excuse carriers may accept to the extent the market is weak, and the carrier itself wants to preserve the relationship with the shipper in the upcoming contract cycle. A question hanging over the market is how much carriers learned over the past five years to maximize their advantage, specifically about limiting capacity in various ways when facing soft market conditions, or whether carriers will return to predatory practices of raiding each other’s cargo base just to fill their ships. “For the next few months, you will see carriers blanking capacity because I do think they realize the party is over and they brought in too much capacity this spring,” said Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of consulting firm 365 Logistics. “But that said, they have been pretty good in reacting, and they will react again, pulling capacity out and creating a stable market. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Maritime

Shipper cost pressures risk further fraying carrier relationships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">OOCL’s newest express shuttle service from China to Mexico joins other carrier services linking the two and underscores the ongoing growth in trade between the two countries. </div>

OOCL’s newest express shuttle service from China to Mexico joins other carrier services linking the two and underscores the ongoing growth in trade between the two countries.

<div class="phx-topic">Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL) later this month will begin offering a trans-Pacific express service to Mexico’s West Coast, adding to the list of new ocean services that have sprung up as China reorients its trade networks. OOCL said Monday that its Trans-Pacific Latin Pacific 8 (TLP8) service will start with an Aug. 20 departure from Shanghai. The TLP8’s Asia rotation covers Shanghai and Qingdao, and the eastbound voyage includes Mexico’s Ensenada and Manzanillo, along with a westbound call at Yokohama. The TLP8 is offering 17-day transit between Qingdao and Ensenada. The Port of Ensenada has one berth capable of handling post-Panamax ships up to 6,000 TEUs in capacity. The TLP8 joins three other OOCL trans-Pacific services that connect Mexico, along with the West Coast of South America, to Asia. OOCL added its last Asia-Mexico-South America service, TLP5, back in May 2024. Last year also saw <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/msc-adds-to-growing-asia-mexico-service-launches-5192264">Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM add new trans-Pacific services between Asia, Mexico and South America</a>. Mexico saw a surge of foreign direct investment last year from China, reaching $710 million, according to Mexico’s economic secretary. Mexico imported $129 billion worth of goods from China in 2024, according to data from the country’s economy secretary, the highest in two decades. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL) later this month will begin offering a trans-Pacific express service to Mexico’s West Coast, adding to the list of new ocean services that have sprung up as China reorients its trade networks. OOCL said Monday that its Trans-Pacific Latin Pacific 8 (TLP8) service will start with an Aug. 20 departure from Shanghai. The TLP8’s Asia rotation covers Shanghai and Qingdao, and the eastbound voyage includes Mexico’s Ensenada and Manzanillo, along with a westbound call at Yokohama. The TLP8 is offering 17-day transit between Qingdao and Ensenada. The Port of Ensenada has one berth capable of handling post-Panamax ships up to 6,000 TEUs in capacity. The TLP8 joins three other OOCL trans-Pacific services that connect Mexico, along with the West Coast of South America, to Asia. OOCL added its last Asia-Mexico-South America service, TLP5, back in May 2024. Last year also saw Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM add new trans-Pacific services between Asia, Mexico and South America . Mexico saw a surge of foreign direct investment last year from China, reaching $710 million, according to Mexico’s economic secretary. Mexico imported $129 billion worth of goods from China in 2024, according to data from the country’s economy secretary, the highest in two decades. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Container lines

OOCL adds service to tap China-to-Mexico trade boom

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The latest data from the Intermodal Association of North America shows how railroads have lost US business to over-the-road trucking, writes analyst Larry Gross. </div>

The latest data from the Intermodal Association of North America shows how railroads have lost US business to over-the-road trucking, writes analyst Larry Gross.

<div class="phx-topic">With the Intermodal Association of North America intermodal numbers for June and Transport Futures’ preliminary second-quarter 2025 truck numbers in our mailbox, we have been able to calculate intermodal market share for the second quarter. It doesn’t look pretty. The market share numbers from IANA are for the US only. We simply have not been able to find a timely source of truckload numbers for Canada or Mexico. We track intermodal loads both originating and terminating within the US and compare these figures to Transport Futures’ estimates for US dry van and reefer truckloads moving 500 miles or further. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6061248_0.1.jpg"></img></div>While we typically concentrate on year-over-year changes in activity, when it comes to calculating market share, we focus on the quarter-over-quarter changes in the seasonally adjusted numbers. We use seasonally adjusted numbers because the truckload and intermodal markets have different seasonal patterns. If we used the raw, unadjusted figures, market share would fluctuate every quarter just due to normal seasonality. Our goal is to wash those seasonal fluctuations out of the equation so as to see the true underlying trend. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="eb51908a-13f3-4845-96d9-06d50831c4d2"></dynamic-object></div>The seasonally adjusted trucking numbers have been relatively flat, gaining just 0.3% from the fourth quarter of 2024 to the first quarter of 2025 and then easing back 0.4% in the second quarter. Looking at the intermodal numbers, intra-US intermodal activity dropped an unadjusted 4.6% from the third quarter to the fourth quarter. This doesn’t sound good, but the decline was less than the normal seasonal drop. Once seasonal adjustments were applied, seasonally adjusted intermodal activity rose 1.2% from the fourth quarter of 2024 to the first quarter of 2025. The story was different in the second quarter. Unadjusted intermodal volume dropped 2.1%. But, in a normal year, the second quarter is always stronger than the first quarter. Therefore, seasonal adjustments magnified the drop, increasing the decline in total US intermodal activity to a seasonally adjusted 7.3%. The resulting market share calculations show a large 0.7% drop in overall intermodal share from the first quarter to the second quarter, the biggest single-quarter decline since the post-pandemic congestion crisis. A big chunk of this decline was due to the large drop in international intermodal activity, surely reflecting the push-pull effects of the tariff mayhem. Intermodal is far more sensitive to changes in international trade flows than trucking is, as trucking is dominated by the domestic US economy. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b44a76a7-5f15-47ca-9bec-f98bcde0376e"></dynamic-object></div>But the intermodal share for the domestic sector (domestic containers and trailers on freight car) also declined in the second quarter, for the second straight quarter. Two consecutive quarters of improvement in the second half of last year had raised hopes that a recovery was underway, but it was not to be. Domestic share dropped to 5.9%, the lowest level since 2011. No doubt the continued soft trucking conditions bear some of the blame. But North American domestic intermodal activity was only 4.2% higher in 2024 than it was in 2015, nine years prior. During this same time frame, US GDP grew 24% and US long-haul trucking increased 19%. In other words, this is a longer-term problem that won’t be solved simply by waiting for the “goldilocks” moment of optimal market conditions. In truth, intermodal market share is probably a bit lower than these figures show. A significant amount of crosstown activity occurs in interchange locations such as Chicago. This has the effect of turning what is in truth a single, long-haul move into two, separately reported, shorter, single railroad moves. We estimate that such double-counting of moves involving rubber-tire crosstown moves has inflated the total North American intermodal load count by at least five percent. All is not lost, however. New services and terminals have been recently announced. These are key to rekindling intermodal growth because the biggest determinant of intermodal competitiveness is the proximity of the intermodal terminal to where the freight originates and terminates. Additionally, there has been strong domestic intermodal growth in non-US markets, including the intra-Mexico and Mexico-US cross-border markets. But the intra-US market accounts for 86% of all North American intermodal activity moving in domestic containers and trailers. As goes the US, so goes North American intermodal. Contact Larry Gross at <a href="mailto:lgross@intermodalindepth.com">lgross@intermodalindepth.com</a>. </div>

With the Intermodal Association of North America intermodal numbers for June and Transport Futures’ preliminary second-quarter 2025 truck numbers in our mailbox, we have been able to calculate intermodal market share for the second quarter. It doesn’t look pretty. The market share numbers from IANA are for the US only. We simply have not been able to find a timely source of truckload numbers for Canada or Mexico. We track intermodal loads both originating and terminating within the US and compare these figures to Transport Futures’ estimates for US dry van and reefer truckloads moving 500 miles or further. While we typically concentrate on year-over-year changes in activity, when it comes to calculating market share, we focus on the quarter-over-quarter changes in the seasonally adjusted numbers. We use seasonally adjusted numbers because the truckload and intermodal markets have different seasonal patterns. If we used the raw, unadjusted figures, market share would fluctuate every quarter just due to normal seasonality. Our goal is to wash those seasonal fluctuations out of the equation so as to see the true underlying trend. The seasonally adjusted trucking numbers have been relatively flat, gaining just 0.3% from the fourth quarter of 2024 to the first quarter of 2025 and then easing back 0.4% in the second quarter. Looking at the intermodal numbers, intra-US intermodal activity dropped an unadjusted 4.6% from the third quarter to the fourth quarter. This doesn’t sound good, but the decline was less than the normal seasonal drop. Once seasonal adjustments were applied, seasonally adjusted intermodal activity rose 1.2% from the fourth quarter of 2024 to the first quarter of 2025. The story was different in the second quarter. Unadjusted intermodal volume dropped 2.1%. But, in a normal year, the second quarter is always stronger than the first quarter. Therefore, seasonal adjustments magnified the drop, increasing the decline in total US intermodal activity to a seasonally adjusted 7.3%. The resulting market share calculations show a large 0.7% drop in overall intermodal share from the first quarter to the second quarter, the biggest single-quarter decline since the post-pandemic congestion crisis. A big chunk of this decline was due to the large drop in international intermodal activity, surely reflecting the push-pull effects of the tariff mayhem. Intermodal is far more sensitive to changes in international trade flows than trucking is, as trucking is dominated by the domestic US economy. But the intermodal share for the domestic sector (domestic containers and trailers on freight car) also declined in the second quarter, for the second straight quarter. Two consecutive quarters of improvement in the second half of last year had raised hopes that a recovery was underway, but it was not to be. Domestic share dropped to 5.9%, the lowest level since 2011. No doubt the continued soft trucking conditions bear some of the blame. But North American domestic intermodal activity was only 4.2% higher in 2024 than it was in 2015, nine years prior. During this same time frame, US GDP grew 24% and US long-haul trucking increased 19%. In other words, this is a longer-term problem that won’t be solved simply by waiting for the “goldilocks” moment of optimal market conditions. In truth, intermodal market share is probably a bit lower than these figures show. A significant amount of crosstown activity occurs in interchange locations such as Chicago. This has the effect of turning what is in truth a single, long-haul move into two, separately reported, shorter, single railroad moves. We estimate that such double-counting of moves involving rubber-tire crosstown moves has inflated the total North American intermodal load count by at least five percent. All is not lost, however. New services and terminals have been recently announced. These are key to rekindling intermodal growth because the biggest determinant of intermodal competitiveness is the proximity of the intermodal terminal to where the freight originates and terminates. Additionally, there has been strong domestic intermodal growth in non-US markets, including the intra-Mexico and Mexico-US cross-border markets. But the intra-US market accounts for 86% of all North American intermodal activity moving in domestic containers and trailers. As goes the US, so goes North American intermodal. Contact Larry Gross at lgross@intermodalindepth.com .

Surface

Rail News

Intermodal providers

North-American rail

US domestic rail intermodal market share shrinks: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Exporters’ proclivity for rate shopping leads to choppiness in a market that is also beholden to vessels being pulled into larger ocean freight markets.</div>

Exporters’ proclivity for rate shopping leads to choppiness in a market that is also beholden to vessels being pulled into larger ocean freight markets.

<div class="phx-topic">Exporters in India are struggling with uneven container line service levels due in part to their own freight buying behavior and a complex sales structure that results in rolled cargo, blanked sailings or even Indian calls being avoided altogether. These struggles come as Indian export container bookings fell 17% week over week in the first week of August, according to data from maritime visibility and data analytics provider Dun &amp; Bradstreet, and as the Trump administration has threatened tariffs as high as 50% on Indian imports from Aug. 27. The tricky service dynamics for exporters pre-date the Trump administration’s recent ratcheting up of trade tensions with India, long touted as a market that could help US importers reduce their reliance on China. But exporters’ tendencies to shop around for rates among carriers, and the effects of a multi-layered sales structure that adds to their ocean freight costs, are long-term hurdles, a range of forwarders have told the Journal of Commerce. “Exporters here are basically not tied to specific carriers, unless they have a commodity that some carriers won’t move,” said Mrigank Singh, founder of Intoglo, an India-based forwarder, giving an example of how Cosco typically won’t move hazmat shipments, while Ocean Network Express embraces those commodities. “That essentially means they are in constant rate-shopping mode,” Singh said. “As one carrier lowers its rates, that then induces a surge of volume, and so the carrier who is in favor in a particular month gets too much volume.” That carrier invariably ends up rolling some cargo, while “out of favor” carriers don’t have enough volume and end up avoiding Indian calls, preferring to collect cargo through transshipment at Colombo instead. Blank sailings aren’t always driven by uneven export demand, noted Sarjak Sheth, chief commercial officer at Sarjak Container Lines. Many are linked to weaker import flows, carriers repositioning vessels to take advantage of high demand on other trade lanes or operational disruptions, he said. But Sheth agreed that exporters, particularly in the current market, tend to book the lowest rate they can find, and that doing so creates surges for certain carriers and lulls for others. “For example, last month all carriers raised rates, but [one carrier] kept India-US pricing slightly lower,” he said. “The result? [That carrier] saw bookings spike to 160% of their allocated capacity. They then had to hike rates sharply, which pushed some of that excess demand back to other carriers.” <h3>Protecting the core </h3>Sheth said most carriers prioritize protecting their “core customers.” He estimates approximately 20% of their top shippers provide 80% of the volume on certain trades, leaving only about 20% of capacity for spot business. “The rates don’t change much for [large-volume shippers] throughout the year once they file a contract,” he said. “This 20% buffer gives carriers some control over volume even in volatile rate environments. While rate-driven cargo shifts do happen, the big volume blocks are often locked in.” Forwarders told the Journal of Commerce that anywhere from 65% to 80% of India export volume to the US moves on contract rates, depending on the state of the market. Shippers understand these dynamics, especially as they relate to which carriers have operational control of sailings and which rely on partners to provide them allocations — which can impact service levels. When a carrier has persistently low rates and a small allocation on sailings operated by service partners, it can be seen to be the less-attractive option, as the likelihood of being rolled increases on heavy demand weeks. Exporters understandably want to avoid being shunted into “roll pools,” where they must wait for a sailing that can accommodate them. Aside from service levels, the structure of the market from a sales perspective also hurts Indian exporters’ bottom lines, the forwarders said. Container lines have struck an upbeat tone about India’s long-term trade potential, pouring additional capacity into the westbound trade lane connecting the US East Coast, with as many as six weekly calls out of Nhava Sheva and Mundra, in the normal course of events, using large-size tonnage. But in recent weeks, the slowing pace of India-US volume growth, along with the larger vessels now serving India-US trades, has put additional pressure on carrier sales teams to fill those ships. Most carriers don’t have the ability to do that, so they rely on a network of selling agents — essentially subcontractors — to fill the ships, an environment that adds pure cost to exporters if all they are doing is securing ocean capacity, Singh said. “What this translates into is the original carrier-direct rate sometimes has one, two and even three layers of margin on it, which means higher costs for the exporter,” he said. Sheth agreed: “The India-US trades do see large ships that are challenging to fill from a single operator’s sales network,” which leads to “layered selling,” he said. Those layers include business won by sales teams at the carrier itself, its master agent, a secondary agent and that secondary agent’s sub-agent. “This can add multiple margins on top of the base rate,” he said. “That definitely inflates the costs for exporters, especially when supply is tight.” <h3>Other trades dictate networks </h3>But Sheth said “it’s not always purely a supply-side problem,” adding that vessel deployment across a carrier’s or alliance’s network is tied directly to cargo demand. For example, a rush of trans-Pacific bookings prior to the planned imposition of steep US tariffs on Chinese goods on July 9 prompted carriers to reposition some of the larger ships that had been serving India trades to China-US services. “At that time, India’s own export demand was gearing up for post-July shipments, as tariffs here weren’t initially as steep, so carriers suddenly had to move India-US cargo on smaller vessels, pushing rates up sharply for US and Latin America,” he explained. “When the tariff news shifted again, demand deflated and the market started to stabilize toward a more balanced supply–demand equation.” Again, this dynamic is far from uniform or universal. When capacity is tight, it can inflate costs for exporters beyond what a base rate increase might suggest. But when capacity is plentiful, it’s not uncommon to see forwarders — even multiple layers deep in that subcontracting chain — offer rates lower than what carriers sold to the forwarders in the first place. The larger ships are also scooping up cargo from transshipment hubs, meaning they are impacted by demand from other markets, such as those in the Middle East or Pakistan, depending on the carrier’s transshipment locale of choice. At the same time, the market is still coming to terms with what higher tariffs on US imports might mean. While many importers will keep shipping even at higher levels, the tariffs will make some industries unviable, a forwarder who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. India’s automotive sector, for instance, is already supplying to plants in Mexico, but it’s unclear how country-of-origin determinations — which the Trump administration <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trumps-vietnam-transshipment-tariff-puzzles-us-trade-community-6041482">has referred to as “transshipment rules”</a> — will impact that model if tariffs on India remain elevated. Indian seafood could also be priced out of the US market if tariffs on India stay higher than 10%, the forwarder said. “Rate chasing, vessel size and layered selling all play a role, but they’re often symptoms of a much more dynamic set of factors: import-export imbalances, tariff-driven demand swings, alliance vessel deployments and carriers’ own customer protection strategies,” Sheth said. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Exporters in India are struggling with uneven container line service levels due in part to their own freight buying behavior and a complex sales structure that results in rolled cargo, blanked sailings or even Indian calls being avoided altogether. These struggles come as Indian export container bookings fell 17% week over week in the first week of August, according to data from maritime visibility and data analytics provider Dun & Bradstreet, and as the Trump administration has threatened tariffs as high as 50% on Indian imports from Aug. 27. The tricky service dynamics for exporters pre-date the Trump administration’s recent ratcheting up of trade tensions with India, long touted as a market that could help US importers reduce their reliance on China. But exporters’ tendencies to shop around for rates among carriers, and the effects of a multi-layered sales structure that adds to their ocean freight costs, are long-term hurdles, a range of forwarders have told the Journal of Commerce. “Exporters here are basically not tied to specific carriers, unless they have a commodity that some carriers won’t move,” said Mrigank Singh, founder of Intoglo, an India-based forwarder, giving an example of how Cosco typically won’t move hazmat shipments, while Ocean Network Express embraces those commodities. “That essentially means they are in constant rate-shopping mode,” Singh said. “As one carrier lowers its rates, that then induces a surge of volume, and so the carrier who is in favor in a particular month gets too much volume.” That carrier invariably ends up rolling some cargo, while “out of favor” carriers don’t have enough volume and end up avoiding Indian calls, preferring to collect cargo through transshipment at Colombo instead. Blank sailings aren’t always driven by uneven export demand, noted Sarjak Sheth, chief commercial officer at Sarjak Container Lines. Many are linked to weaker import flows, carriers repositioning vessels to take advantage of high demand on other trade lanes or operational disruptions, he said. But Sheth agreed that exporters, particularly in the current market, tend to book the lowest rate they can find, and that doing so creates surges for certain carriers and lulls for others. “For example, last month all carriers raised rates, but [one carrier] kept India-US pricing slightly lower,” he said. “The result? [That carrier] saw bookings spike to 160% of their allocated capacity. They then had to hike rates sharply, which pushed some of that excess demand back to other carriers.” Protecting the core Sheth said most carriers prioritize protecting their “core customers.” He estimates approximately 20% of their top shippers provide 80% of the volume on certain trades, leaving only about 20% of capacity for spot business. “The rates don’t change much for [large-volume shippers] throughout the year once they file a contract,” he said. “This 20% buffer gives carriers some control over volume even in volatile rate environments. While rate-driven cargo shifts do happen, the big volume blocks are often locked in.” Forwarders told the Journal of Commerce that anywhere from 65% to 80% of India export volume to the US moves on contract rates, depending on the state of the market. Shippers understand these dynamics, especially as they relate to which carriers have operational control of sailings and which rely on partners to provide them allocations — which can impact service levels. When a carrier has persistently low rates and a small allocation on sailings operated by service partners, it can be seen to be the less-attractive option, as the likelihood of being rolled increases on heavy demand weeks. Exporters understandably want to avoid being shunted into “roll pools,” where they must wait for a sailing that can accommodate them. Aside from service levels, the structure of the market from a sales perspective also hurts Indian exporters’ bottom lines, the forwarders said. Container lines have struck an upbeat tone about India’s long-term trade potential, pouring additional capacity into the westbound trade lane connecting the US East Coast, with as many as six weekly calls out of Nhava Sheva and Mundra, in the normal course of events, using large-size tonnage. But in recent weeks, the slowing pace of India-US volume growth, along with the larger vessels now serving India-US trades, has put additional pressure on carrier sales teams to fill those ships. Most carriers don’t have the ability to do that, so they rely on a network of selling agents — essentially subcontractors — to fill the ships, an environment that adds pure cost to exporters if all they are doing is securing ocean capacity, Singh said. “What this translates into is the original carrier-direct rate sometimes has one, two and even three layers of margin on it, which means higher costs for the exporter,” he said. Sheth agreed: “The India-US trades do see large ships that are challenging to fill from a single operator’s sales network,” which leads to “layered selling,” he said. Those layers include business won by sales teams at the carrier itself, its master agent, a secondary agent and that secondary agent’s sub-agent. “This can add multiple margins on top of the base rate,” he said. “That definitely inflates the costs for exporters, especially when supply is tight.” Other trades dictate networks But Sheth said “it’s not always purely a supply-side problem,” adding that vessel deployment across a carrier’s or alliance’s network is tied directly to cargo demand. For example, a rush of trans-Pacific bookings prior to the planned imposition of steep US tariffs on Chinese goods on July 9 prompted carriers to reposition some of the larger ships that had been serving India trades to China-US services. “At that time, India’s own export demand was gearing up for post-July shipments, as tariffs here weren’t initially as steep, so carriers suddenly had to move India-US cargo on smaller vessels, pushing rates up sharply for US and Latin America,” he explained. “When the tariff news shifted again, demand deflated and the market started to stabilize toward a more balanced supply–demand equation.” Again, this dynamic is far from uniform or universal. When capacity is tight, it can inflate costs for exporters beyond what a base rate increase might suggest. But when capacity is plentiful, it’s not uncommon to see forwarders — even multiple layers deep in that subcontracting chain — offer rates lower than what carriers sold to the forwarders in the first place. The larger ships are also scooping up cargo from transshipment hubs, meaning they are impacted by demand from other markets, such as those in the Middle East or Pakistan, depending on the carrier’s transshipment locale of choice. At the same time, the market is still coming to terms with what higher tariffs on US imports might mean. While many importers will keep shipping even at higher levels, the tariffs will make some industries unviable, a forwarder who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. India’s automotive sector, for instance, is already supplying to plants in Mexico, but it’s unclear how country-of-origin determinations — which the Trump administration has referred to as “transshipment rules” — will impact that model if tariffs on India remain elevated. Indian seafood could also be priced out of the US market if tariffs on India stay higher than 10%, the forwarder said. “Rate chasing, vessel size and layered selling all play a role, but they’re often symptoms of a much more dynamic set of factors: import-export imbalances, tariff-driven demand swings, alliance vessel deployments and carriers’ own customer protection strategies,” Sheth said. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Exporter rate ‘shopping’ exacerbating uneven India ocean service

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Two carriers have taken advantage of favorable market fundamentals that pair a rapidly aging fleet and a low order book. </div>

Two carriers have taken advantage of favorable market fundamentals that pair a rapidly aging fleet and a low order book.

<div class="phx-topic">Strong project cargo demand has led European multipurpose vessel operators JSI and Norden to expand their fleets, collectively adding 12 ships. JSI, formed by Jumbo Maritime, SAL Heavy Lift and Intermarine, is taking delivery of six 500-metric-ton capacity vessels from Germany’s Jüngerhans shipping group that were previously operated by BBC Chartering. Dubbed “mini-monsters” by JSI, the “compact, highly versatile, and exceptionally powerful” ships were originally built for Intermarine between 2006 and 2008 before being sold, the carrier said. The acquisitions were due to a combination of “strategic intent and opportunity” given the growth in the industrial project cargo sector, a JSI spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “We’re seeing growing demand from sectors such as traditional energy, public infrastructure, and industrial projects — particularly in emerging regions like Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa. These cargoes are becoming increasingly relevant, both in terms of volume and value, and play a key role in maintaining healthy utilization across the fleet,” the spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. While the offshore wind sector “remains an important driver, especially for higher lifting capacities, the project cargo market is becoming more balanced,” the spokesperson added. <h3>Suited to complex cargoes </h3>The spokesperson said the “vessels are very well suited to future projects.” Demand in the 500-ton segment is sustained and upward, especially for non-wind power cargoes that do not require the more complex capabilities of larger vessels, the spokesperson said. “The fact that they were originally built for Intermarine gave us complete confidence in their performance and operating profile.” “Given the current shortage in the heavy-lift MPV segment — particularly for well-maintained 500-[metric-ton] class vessels — this was a rare and favorable opportunity that we did not want to miss,” the spokesperson added. The ships, equipped with two 250-metric-ton cranes, have a specialized design that enables them to handle particularly heavy, oversized, and sensitive project cargo — especially in ports with limited draught or insufficient infrastructure, JSI said. Five of the ships will be owned by JSI, while the sixth, Industrial Diamond, is on long-term charter to JSI. JSI took delivery of the first ship, Industrial Dolphin, previously BBC Dolphin, last month. The other vessels, Industrial Destiny, Industrial Dart, Industrial Dawn and Industrial Dream, will arrive by October. The ships will boost the JSI fleet to about 60 ships. Separately, Copenhagen, Denmark-headquartered Norden has added six MPVs to its fleet initially on vessel leases but with purchase options that can be exercised later. They comprise four newbuildings for delivery in 2027 and 2028 and two secondhand ships that were already on charter to Norden. The new lease and purchase option deals are in addition to those agreed in January and May for four 17,500-deadweight-metric-ton multipurpose vessels for delivery at the end of 2026 and in 2027, respectively.  “These new leases highlight our continued focus on strengthening our position and building a core fleet to service our customers in the multipurpose segment, which benefits from favorable supply fundamentals with a rapidly ageing fleet and low order book, coupled with a strong projected demand outlook,” Norden said in a statement. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Strong project cargo demand has led European multipurpose vessel operators JSI and Norden to expand their fleets, collectively adding 12 ships. JSI, formed by Jumbo Maritime, SAL Heavy Lift and Intermarine, is taking delivery of six 500-metric-ton capacity vessels from Germany’s Jüngerhans shipping group that were previously operated by BBC Chartering. Dubbed “mini-monsters” by JSI, the “compact, highly versatile, and exceptionally powerful” ships were originally built for Intermarine between 2006 and 2008 before being sold, the carrier said. The acquisitions were due to a combination of “strategic intent and opportunity” given the growth in the industrial project cargo sector, a JSI spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “We’re seeing growing demand from sectors such as traditional energy, public infrastructure, and industrial projects — particularly in emerging regions like Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa. These cargoes are becoming increasingly relevant, both in terms of volume and value, and play a key role in maintaining healthy utilization across the fleet,” the spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. While the offshore wind sector “remains an important driver, especially for higher lifting capacities, the project cargo market is becoming more balanced,” the spokesperson added. Suited to complex cargoes The spokesperson said the “vessels are very well suited to future projects.” Demand in the 500-ton segment is sustained and upward, especially for non-wind power cargoes that do not require the more complex capabilities of larger vessels, the spokesperson said. “The fact that they were originally built for Intermarine gave us complete confidence in their performance and operating profile.” “Given the current shortage in the heavy-lift MPV segment — particularly for well-maintained 500-[metric-ton] class vessels — this was a rare and favorable opportunity that we did not want to miss,” the spokesperson added. The ships, equipped with two 250-metric-ton cranes, have a specialized design that enables them to handle particularly heavy, oversized, and sensitive project cargo — especially in ports with limited draught or insufficient infrastructure, JSI said. Five of the ships will be owned by JSI, while the sixth, Industrial Diamond, is on long-term charter to JSI. JSI took delivery of the first ship, Industrial Dolphin, previously BBC Dolphin, last month. The other vessels, Industrial Destiny, Industrial Dart, Industrial Dawn and Industrial Dream, will arrive by October. The ships will boost the JSI fleet to about 60 ships. Separately, Copenhagen, Denmark-headquartered Norden has added six MPVs to its fleet initially on vessel leases but with purchase options that can be exercised later. They comprise four newbuildings for delivery in 2027 and 2028 and two secondhand ships that were already on charter to Norden. The new lease and purchase option deals are in addition to those agreed in January and May for four 17,500-deadweight-metric-ton multipurpose vessels for delivery at the end of 2026 and in 2027, respectively.  “These new leases highlight our continued focus on strengthening our position and building a core fleet to service our customers in the multipurpose segment, which benefits from favorable supply fundamentals with a rapidly ageing fleet and low order book, coupled with a strong projected demand outlook,” Norden said in a statement. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Breakbulk News

Project cargo

Strong project cargo demand spurs MPV fleet expansion

Use code TPM26GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STS20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

At SSA Marine Mexico, we firmly believe that business development must go hand in hand with social and environmental well-being. Our vision is not solely focused on operating efficiently, but also on creating a meaningful and positive impact in the communities where we are present. Since 1995, we have reaffirmed this commitment through tangible actions that reflect our core values of responsibility, solidarity, and sustainability. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584535914_Photo%201.jpg" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> A Year of Major Achievements Over the past year, we allocated more than $107,000 USD to the implementation of 60 social and environmental projects, positively impacting over 7,800 people across various regions of Mexico. Each initiative was designed with a holistic approach, addressing key areas that contribute to long-term community development. Education: Laying the Foundation for the Future Education is one of the most powerful tools to promote social mobility and equitable development. At SSA Marine Mexico, we support academic initiatives that inspire and empower the next generation of leaders. One of our most impactful partnerships was with the University of Colima, where we sponsored the “Reto Camp” program. This initiative encourages university students to develop innovative solutions in the fields of sustainability, logistics, and port operations, offering them mentorship, tools, and real-world challenges to solve. In addition, we donated microscopes, school supplies, and educational materials to institutions in underserved communities, helping to improve the learning environment and provide students with the resources they need to succeed. Health and Sports: Promoting Wellness We believe that healthy communities are strong communities. We have supported several local sporting events and provided direct assistance to talented athletes, enabling them to pursue their passions and represent their regions with pride. Beyond sports, we also strengthened our collaboration with critical emergency response organizations such as the Mexican Red Cross and Civil Protection. Our contributions helped enhance their readiness and capabilities in times of crisis, ensuring better outcomes for those affected by emergencies. Supporting Vulnerable Groups: Reaching Those Who Need It Most A core part of our social responsibility efforts is directed toward supporting vulnerable populations. We have contributed to a range of initiatives focused on children, migrants, and at-risk families. These efforts included donations to orphanages and shelters, as well as support for the National Institute of Migration and grassroots organizations dedicated to protecting and empowering people facing adversity. By standing with those in need, we reinforce our commitment to inclusion and social justice, values that are central to our identity as a responsible company. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584944645_Photo%202.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">Culture: Strengthening Community Identity Cultural identity is a key element in building resilient and united communities. At SSA Marine Mexico, we actively participate in the organization and sponsorship of cultural events that celebrate local traditions and foster civic pride. Working alongside port authorities and municipal governments, we helped bring music, art, and heritage to the forefront, creating spaces for community engagement and intercultural dialogue. Environment: Investing in the Planet Our commitment to sustainability goes beyond operations—it’s a philosophy that drives every decision we make. We have partnered with environmental institutions to carry out reforestation campaigns, beach cleanups, and conservation efforts. In collaboration with the Institute for the Environment, we supported initiatives aimed at decarbonization, biodiversity protection, and environmental education. By involving our employees and local volunteers in these actions, we also foster a culture of environmental stewardship throughout our organization and our surrounding communities. Innovation for a Sustainable Future Sustainability is not just about doing good—it’s also about doing things better. In 2024, we invested $22 million USD in the acquisition of 11 state-of-the-art E-RTG cranes. These electric rubber-tired gantry cranes represent a significant technological advancement in port equipment. Seven of them are already operating on clean electric energy, resulting in a reduction of nearly 4,000 tons of CO₂ emissions and improving operational efficiency by 7%. The remaining four cranes are fully compatible with future electrification, underscoring our long-term strategy to modernize our operations in an environmentally responsible way. This investment is part of a broader innovation roadmap that includes digitalization, automation, and cleaner energy sources—all designed to ensure that our ports continue to grow without compromising the health of our planet. Building a Better Tomorrow, Together At SSA Marine Mexico, we understand that sustainability is a shared and ongoing responsibility. True impact requires collaboration across sectors, long-term vision, and unwavering commitment. That is why we continue to work hand-in-hand with local authorities, non-profit organizations, universities, and our own employees to create solutions that are both scalable and sustainable. Our journey is far from over. In the years ahead, we will continue to deepen our community engagement, explore cleaner technologies, and strengthen the social fabric of the regions where we operate. Each initiative, no matter the size, is a step toward building a future where business success goes hand-in-hand with human and environmental prosperity. We are proud of what we have achieved in 2024, but we are even more excited about what lies ahead. SSA Marine Mexico — Moving the World, Caring for People and Planet. LINK: https://www.ssamarine.mx/

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code TPM26GW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 to save 20% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Shipper cost pressures risk further fraying carrier relationships

OOCL adds service to tap China-to-Mexico trade boom

US domestic rail intermodal market share shrinks: analyst