<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Maersk has shifted its call at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) on the India/Middle East–Mediterranean ME2 service to the PSA-operated BMCT after increasing vessel capacity on the loop to an average of 10,000 TEU.</div>

Maersk has shifted its call at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) on the India/Middle East–Mediterranean ME2 service to the PSA-operated BMCT after increasing vessel capacity on the loop to an average of 10,000 TEU.

3679969_FI.jpg

<div>Maersk is shifting its call at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) on a weekly service linking India, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean from one terminal to another in an effort to increase efficiency and speed the inland flow of goods to and from India’s busiest public container port. Following the expiration of its existing agreement with DP World’s Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal (NSICT), Maersk’s ME2 loop on Thursday began calling at PSA International’s Bharat Mumbai Container Terminals (BMCT), JNPT’s newest private operator. The shift from NSICT to BMCT follows the ME2’s merger with the former ME3 service, which...

Maersk is shifting its call at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) on a weekly service linking India, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean from one terminal to another in an effort to increase efficiency and speed the inland flow of goods to and from India’s busiest public container port. Following the expiration of its existing agreement with DP World’s Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal (NSICT), Maersk’s ME2 loop on Thursday began calling at PSA International’s Bharat Mumbai Container Terminals (BMCT), JNPT’s newest private operator. The shift from NSICT to BMCT follows the ME2’s merger with the former ME3 service, which called at APM Terminals Mumbai, and the deployment of seven 10,000 TEU vessels on the string. BMCT officials said they expect “close to 5,000 TEU export-import moves on the inaugural sailing” of the ME2. The full port rotation of the ME2 is JNPT, Salalah, Jeddah, Port Tangier, Port Said, Algeciras, Valencia, Genoa, Port Said, Port Tangier, Jeddah, Jebel Ali, Mundra, and back to JNPT. “BMCT is the only JNPT facility currently in a position to accommodate a service of this scale,” a terminal official at JNPT, who asked not to be identified, told JOC.com. “BMCT has sufficient quay cranes and spare capacity for the expected move-count peaks.” Maersk and PSA Mumbai were not available to comment on the new berthing arrangement. With the addition of the ME2, BMCT now has eight weekly long-haul weekly sailings. The terminal handled 933,154 TEU in fiscal year 2020/21, which ended Mar. 31, a 15.4 percent increase from the previous 12 months, according to a JOC.com analysis of Indian port data. From April through July, BMCT’s throughput jumped 43 percent year over year to 339,251 TEU. BMCT’s gross crane moves per hour, a measure of productivity, averaged 44.33 in April through June, compared with 43.65 moves per hour at APM Terminals Mumbai and 39.3 moves per hour at NSICT. The terminal also saw its average vessel turn times improve to 20.16 hours in June, up from 23.52 hours in June 2020. Singapore-based PSA International has planned the development of BMCT over two phases, the first of which began operations in early 2018. On the land side, the terminal’s rail infrastructure is capable of servicing double-stacked intermodal trains with capacities of up to 360 TEU. The second phase, which will bring the terminal’s total annual handling capacity to 4.8 million TEU, is scheduled to open at the end of 2022. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Container lines

PSA picks up Maersk call in India

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The $4.2 billion acquisition announced last week does nothing to alter the market’s weak fundamentals, notably soft demand and vessel oversupply, writes analyst John McCauley.</div>

The $4.2 billion acquisition announced last week does nothing to alter the market’s weak fundamentals, notably soft demand and vessel oversupply, writes analyst John McCauley.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The ink has barely dried on the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-bolsters-fleet-with-42-billion-deal-to-acquire-zim-6170540">Hapag-Lloyd tie up with Zim Integrated Shipping Services</a> and there is a view that the enlargement of the container shipping oligopoly will have some far-reaching effect and potentially stem the tide of red ink in carriers’ results. Indeed, in the longer term, this should bring about significant cost savings for the combined HL/Zim entity through procurement and agent network rationalization. However, adding another name or moving one slot higher in the rankings of the biggest carriers will not change the underlying issues facing the industry. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6174595_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Let’s start with demand. Global container freight demand is up and forecast to maintain that performance, which is good overall. However, prospects for the two key trade lanes — the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe — are poor. TP is dire, and without any structural change in the trade, I can see us heading back to $500 rates sooner than later. Asia-Europe is benefiting from the China and China + shift to non-US markets, but the fundamentals in European economies indicate this demand surge will be short-lived. The biggest problem is oversupply. With over 30% of the existing global fleet on order, oversupply is a self-inflicted wound. Surely, common sense prevailed in certain boardrooms to foresee the need to better deploy the extraordinary cash piles most carriers possess (although the piles are starting to shrink). In some cases, we can see that using cash flow to mop up charter tonnage in key segments, particularly Panamax and post-Panamax, was a smart move to increase fleet flexibility, but also to keep charter rates high and potential push out bottom feeders as rates drop and margins erode. However — and the following comments assume there will be no full reopening of the Red Sea and Suez Canal — the continued desire to add new tonnage alongside the bloated order book seems nonsensical. This will leave very few options for carriers should demand continue to soften. Bear in mind that even without Red Sea resumption, schedule slippages, blank sailings and other current tactics will seem like trying to ride a wake board in a tsunami. Anchoring up will solve some immediate supply problems, but only layups will actually take tonnage out of service for an extensive period. Those who remember 2009 and the Eastern Anchorage in Singapore with multiple vessels moored together will get the picture. The compounding oversupply issue is that the trades benefiting from increased demand are not predominantly the trades that suit new tonnage coming out of the shipyards. If a magic wand could be waved, you would order 5,000 and 8,000-TEU ships, and not any bigger. Ordering 14,000-TEU-plus, even with the best intentions of dual-fuel to help the planet, will only exacerbate oversupply. <h3>Strong argument for scrapping </h3>The other supply reduction strategy is scrapping. There is a strong argument for scrapping, particularly older vessels that will come up against regulatory requirements that will prove costlier to implement than the return the vessels will derive. Granted, many will have reached their full depreciation, so are essentially running on operating expenses only. The temptation will be to keep them going, particularly those in the desirable 5,000 to 8,000-TEU range. Two other factors suggest large scale scrapping is unlikely. The first is that while scrap yards have capacity, they need reservations well in advance given that most vessels in line for scrapping are usually part of a homogeneous order for multiple vessels rather than one-offs. Second, scrapping regulations have become tighter, which will make it more costly to scrap. Scrap prices are also weak, although container vessel scrap prices are at a small premium above dry and wet vessels. Even the E-class Maersk vessels and their (near) equivalents that are at or near 20 years old would still seem a bizarre candidate for scrapping So where does all that leave carriers? Some will hope that the US recovers, and global trade rebalances and tactical supply constraints will suffice. Combined with that will be the knowledge that carriers have about three years of free cash flow cover to ride out the downturn. Others will review their order book and see how they can delay or even withdraw from purchase and delivery. However, the favorable financing terms on offer will make this unlikely. Most will hope a smaller competitor or two will go bust, but that would not stem the vessel glut. And some will look at their playbook and go the acquisition route. But hope is never a good strategy, and a combination of layups and scrapping seems the only viable solution. So the question for this (failed) oligopolistic market is: “Who blinks first?” John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>. </div>

The ink has barely dried on the Hapag-Lloyd tie up with Zim Integrated Shipping Services and there is a view that the enlargement of the container shipping oligopoly will have some far-reaching effect and potentially stem the tide of red ink in carriers’ results. Indeed, in the longer term, this should bring about significant cost savings for the combined HL/Zim entity through procurement and agent network rationalization. However, adding another name or moving one slot higher in the rankings of the biggest carriers will not change the underlying issues facing the industry. Let’s start with demand. Global container freight demand is up and forecast to maintain that performance, which is good overall. However, prospects for the two key trade lanes — the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe — are poor. TP is dire, and without any structural change in the trade, I can see us heading back to $500 rates sooner than later. Asia-Europe is benefiting from the China and China + shift to non-US markets, but the fundamentals in European economies indicate this demand surge will be short-lived. The biggest problem is oversupply. With over 30% of the existing global fleet on order, oversupply is a self-inflicted wound. Surely, common sense prevailed in certain boardrooms to foresee the need to better deploy the extraordinary cash piles most carriers possess (although the piles are starting to shrink). In some cases, we can see that using cash flow to mop up charter tonnage in key segments, particularly Panamax and post-Panamax, was a smart move to increase fleet flexibility, but also to keep charter rates high and potential push out bottom feeders as rates drop and margins erode. However — and the following comments assume there will be no full reopening of the Red Sea and Suez Canal — the continued desire to add new tonnage alongside the bloated order book seems nonsensical. This will leave very few options for carriers should demand continue to soften. Bear in mind that even without Red Sea resumption, schedule slippages, blank sailings and other current tactics will seem like trying to ride a wake board in a tsunami. Anchoring up will solve some immediate supply problems, but only layups will actually take tonnage out of service for an extensive period. Those who remember 2009 and the Eastern Anchorage in Singapore with multiple vessels moored together will get the picture. The compounding oversupply issue is that the trades benefiting from increased demand are not predominantly the trades that suit new tonnage coming out of the shipyards. If a magic wand could be waved, you would order 5,000 and 8,000-TEU ships, and not any bigger. Ordering 14,000-TEU-plus, even with the best intentions of dual-fuel to help the planet, will only exacerbate oversupply. Strong argument for scrapping The other supply reduction strategy is scrapping. There is a strong argument for scrapping, particularly older vessels that will come up against regulatory requirements that will prove costlier to implement than the return the vessels will derive. Granted, many will have reached their full depreciation, so are essentially running on operating expenses only. The temptation will be to keep them going, particularly those in the desirable 5,000 to 8,000-TEU range. Two other factors suggest large scale scrapping is unlikely. The first is that while scrap yards have capacity, they need reservations well in advance given that most vessels in line for scrapping are usually part of a homogeneous order for multiple vessels rather than one-offs. Second, scrapping regulations have become tighter, which will make it more costly to scrap. Scrap prices are also weak, although container vessel scrap prices are at a small premium above dry and wet vessels. Even the E-class Maersk vessels and their (near) equivalents that are at or near 20 years old would still seem a bizarre candidate for scrapping So where does all that leave carriers? Some will hope that the US recovers, and global trade rebalances and tactical supply constraints will suffice. Combined with that will be the knowledge that carriers have about three years of free cash flow cover to ride out the downturn. Others will review their order book and see how they can delay or even withdraw from purchase and delivery. However, the favorable financing terms on offer will make this unlikely. Most will hope a smaller competitor or two will go bust, but that would not stem the vessel glut. And some will look at their playbook and go the acquisition route. But hope is never a good strategy, and a combination of layups and scrapping seems the only viable solution. So the question for this (failed) oligopolistic market is: “Who blinks first?” John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Hapag-Lloyd's deal for Zim won’t fix challenges facing container shipping

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A record number of wind farm installations in 2025 has set the tone for accelerated year-over-year demand growth for wind components, according to the Global Wind Energy Council. </div>

A record number of wind farm installations in 2025 has set the tone for accelerated year-over-year demand growth for wind components, according to the Global Wind Energy Council.

<div class="phx-topic">Global wind capacity is forecast to exceed 2 terawatts by 2030, building on a record year for new wind energy installations in 2025, according to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Wind farm installations provide regular cargo for the breakbulk and project cargo industry. In its latest forecast, GWEC raised its full-year global wind installation forecast for last year by 8.8% to 150 gigawatts. Ben Backwell, GWEC CEO, said in a statement that is up from 94 GW just four years ago, “driven largely by Asia’s fast-growing economies." GWEC is an international trade association for the wind power industry. China was the runaway leader, with total installation thought to exceed 100 GW in 2025. By 2030, Asia-Pacific countries, excluding China, will account for 12% of installations, said GWEC. India set a record of 6.3 GW installed in 2025, while Europe installed 22.5 GW, a year-on-year increase of 5 GW. The US installed more than 7 GW. Wind component shipper and manufacturer Siemens Gamesa said in a year-end report that its installations now totaled 119 GWs onshore consisting of more than 61,000 turbines, and 31 GW offshore consisting of more than 5,100 turbines. A spokesperson for the multipurpose and heavy-lift vessel operator Chipolbrok told the Journal of Commerce the company is seeing increasing demand for shipping of complete wind turbines. However, demand is highly dependent on the routes and destinations that they call. For example, in parts of Europe, there is an investment backlog for renewables projects as economic uncertainty is making investors jittery. “This is currently leading to a decline in demand for offshore installations,” Chipolbrok said. <h3>Europe still a stronghold for wind </h3>Siemens Gamesa aims to install about 500 offshore turbines per year in fiscal 2026 and 2027. Offshore remains a promising market, with the EU and UK as a stronghold for the company with 37 GW already installed and a high commitment to renewables given the EU’s 300-GW target by 2050. Colin Charnock, group CEO of freight forwarder Trans Global Projects (TGP), told the Journal of Commerce TGP is “continuing to strengthen its capability for the power sector.” That includes the opening of TGP Finland by the third quarter of 2026, which will enhance the forwarder’s presence in a region with significant activity in grid expansion, offshore wind and heavy industrial power projects. “This development supports our long‑term plan to be positioned close to strategic corridors where large‑scale energy projects are planned or underway,” Charnock said. Asian markets, especially Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, also bring opportunities, Siemens Gamesa said, with those countries combined having committed to build 100 GW of offshore wind capacity between now and 2040. Onshore, the company noted that excluding China, the global onshore market is expected to grow from about 40 to 45 GW today to 65 GW in 2030. <h3>Turbine orders fell in 2025 </h3>Still, S&amp;P Global Energy’s Wind Turbine Order Tracker published earlier this month reported a contraction in global wind turbine orders last year, driven by a pullback in key markets. Firm global wind turbine orders last year totaled approximately 140 GW, a 20% decline from 2024. Another 60 MW of “non-firm orders” brings the total to 200 GW. Hwei Ling Lee, associate analyst for clean energy technologies and supply chains at S&amp;P Global Energy, explained that S&amp;P Global’s dataset reports volumes of wind turbine orders secured, whereas GWEC reports actual installations of wind capacity. “Since turbines are typically installed 12 to 18 months after an order is placed, orders for wind turbines secured in 2025 will mostly be installed in 2026 and 2027,” Lee said. “This makes the order data a more forward-looking view of market activity.” The drop in orders in 2025 could translate into a slower installation rate in 2026, but “it may not be as pronounced as the decline in orders might suggest,” Lee added. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Contact Felicity Landon on felicity@felicitylandon.com. </div>

Global wind capacity is forecast to exceed 2 terawatts by 2030, building on a record year for new wind energy installations in 2025, according to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Wind farm installations provide regular cargo for the breakbulk and project cargo industry. In its latest forecast, GWEC raised its full-year global wind installation forecast for last year by 8.8% to 150 gigawatts. Ben Backwell, GWEC CEO, said in a statement that is up from 94 GW just four years ago, “driven largely by Asia’s fast-growing economies." GWEC is an international trade association for the wind power industry. China was the runaway leader, with total installation thought to exceed 100 GW in 2025. By 2030, Asia-Pacific countries, excluding China, will account for 12% of installations, said GWEC. India set a record of 6.3 GW installed in 2025, while Europe installed 22.5 GW, a year-on-year increase of 5 GW. The US installed more than 7 GW. Wind component shipper and manufacturer Siemens Gamesa said in a year-end report that its installations now totaled 119 GWs onshore consisting of more than 61,000 turbines, and 31 GW offshore consisting of more than 5,100 turbines. A spokesperson for the multipurpose and heavy-lift vessel operator Chipolbrok told the Journal of Commerce the company is seeing increasing demand for shipping of complete wind turbines. However, demand is highly dependent on the routes and destinations that they call. For example, in parts of Europe, there is an investment backlog for renewables projects as economic uncertainty is making investors jittery. “This is currently leading to a decline in demand for offshore installations,” Chipolbrok said. Europe still a stronghold for wind Siemens Gamesa aims to install about 500 offshore turbines per year in fiscal 2026 and 2027. Offshore remains a promising market, with the EU and UK as a stronghold for the company with 37 GW already installed and a high commitment to renewables given the EU’s 300-GW target by 2050. Colin Charnock, group CEO of freight forwarder Trans Global Projects (TGP), told the Journal of Commerce TGP is “continuing to strengthen its capability for the power sector.” That includes the opening of TGP Finland by the third quarter of 2026, which will enhance the forwarder’s presence in a region with significant activity in grid expansion, offshore wind and heavy industrial power projects. “This development supports our long‑term plan to be positioned close to strategic corridors where large‑scale energy projects are planned or underway,” Charnock said. Asian markets, especially Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, also bring opportunities, Siemens Gamesa said, with those countries combined having committed to build 100 GW of offshore wind capacity between now and 2040. Onshore, the company noted that excluding China, the global onshore market is expected to grow from about 40 to 45 GW today to 65 GW in 2030. Turbine orders fell in 2025 Still, S&P Global Energy’s Wind Turbine Order Tracker published earlier this month reported a contraction in global wind turbine orders last year, driven by a pullback in key markets. Firm global wind turbine orders last year totaled approximately 140 GW, a 20% decline from 2024. Another 60 MW of “non-firm orders” brings the total to 200 GW. Hwei Ling Lee, associate analyst for clean energy technologies and supply chains at S&P Global Energy, explained that S&P Global’s dataset reports volumes of wind turbine orders secured, whereas GWEC reports actual installations of wind capacity. “Since turbines are typically installed 12 to 18 months after an order is placed, orders for wind turbines secured in 2025 will mostly be installed in 2026 and 2027,” Lee said. “This makes the order data a more forward-looking view of market activity.” The drop in orders in 2025 could translate into a slower installation rate in 2026, but “it may not be as pronounced as the decline in orders might suggest,” Lee added. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Contact Felicity Landon on felicity@felicitylandon.com.

Energy projects

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Asia to dominate global wind cargo market through end of the decade

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">In the wake of several successful appeals that crimped Donald Trump’s executive order banning new projects, wind developers are racing against the clock to complete work as quickly as possible.</div>

In the wake of several successful appeals that crimped Donald Trump’s executive order banning new projects, wind developers are racing against the clock to complete work as quickly as possible.

<div class="phx-topic">The Trump administration has begun taking steps to reverse a sweep of recent court victories for US offshore wind projects as developers rush to complete work on the five projects the courts have allowed to resume. The offshore wind industry is a key driver of project cargo such as turbine blades and other oversize components with complex transport requirements. These projects also call for significant amounts of port space and specialized heavy-lift vessels for installation. But US offshore wind projects have come under attack by President Donald Trump, who issued an executive order banning new wind power projects upon taking office in January 2025. Then, on Dec. 22, the administration’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued stop-work orders on five East Coast offshore wind projects that are fully permitted and over halfway complete. Those are Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) by Dominion Energy, Empire Wind 1 by Equinor, Revolution Wind by Ørsted and Global Infrastructure Partners’ Skyborn Renewables, Sunrise Wind by Ørsted, and Vineyard Wind 1 by Iberdrola subsidiary Avangrid Inc. and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. In a series of rulings issued in January and early February, federal district courts granted preliminary injunctions allowing all five projects to restart construction. However, on Feb. 11, US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Bloomberg Television the federal government would “absolutely” appeal the courts’ decisions allowing construction to resume on the five existing projects, adding, “There will be further discussion on this.” The administration contends offshore wind turbines pose a national security risk because of radar interference. In a separate move on Feb. 17, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson filed a notice to appeal a Dec. 8 ruling by a Massachusetts federal district court striking down the administration’s federal permitting ban on new wind energy projects. Projects are racing against the clock to complete work as quickly as possible before any future court rulings come down against them. “This constant political jockeying undoubtedly injects new levels of uncertainty into the industry as a whole and the industries that support it,” Abby Watson, president of Groundwire Group, a US consulting firm, told the Journal of Commerce. <h3>No ‘wiggle room’ for project schedules </h3>Absent any federal pushback, US offshore wind projects still face significant challenges stemming from the scarcity of resources needed for project construction. Watson cited the limited number of highly specialized installation vessels available for building these projects globally. “Fierce competition has these vessels booked up years in advance, and with utilization rates this high, projects can’t afford to build a lot of wiggle room into their schedules,” she said. Transporting and storing massive offshore wind components presents additional concerns, as space at East Coast ports comes at a premium, Watson said. “Unexpected delays in clearing out huge storage and laydown areas are bound to cause a major headache for logistics managers and port operators,” she said. In a statement to the Journal of Commerce, the Oceantic Network, a nonprofit trade group, called for bipartisan permitting reform, saying it was crucial to offshore wind project development. “It can unlock billions of dollars of investment and port/vessel activity to advance shared national priorities like shipyard revitalization, steel and port investments, and domestic energy dominance,” the group said. US offshore wind projects have resulted in $5 billion in port redevelopment and $2 billion in vessel builds and retrofits, according to the Oceantic Network. “There are hundreds of vessels operating on each of the five projects under construction today, and billions of dollars of equipment and components that can resume transit either from the factory to a staging port, or from port to construction site,” it said. Multiple offshore wind project cargo shippers declined requests from the Journal of Commerce to comment for this story, citing the ongoing litigation. <h3>Delays, tariffs pile on costs </h3>US offshore wind projects are grappling with mounting costs from the double whammy of federal stop-work orders and import tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. According to court filings, individual project costs from work shutdowns range from $1 million to $5 million per day. According to Dominion Energy’s latest Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind update, the project’s budget has risen to $11.5 billion because of an additional $365 million in costs related to tariffs and the federal government’s order to halt work. In recent remarks on the 810-megawatt Empire Wind project off the coast of Long Island, New York, developer Equinor also cited the one-two punch of tariffs and work shutdowns in driving up the project’s cost by $500 million to $7.5 billion. Equinor CEO Anders Opedal called the federal stop-work orders “unlawful” during the company’s Feb. 4 fourth-quarter earnings call. “We are moving forward with a strong belief that we will have a good case in the court,” Opedal said. With work stoppages lifted, project developers are reporting various stages of progress. Dominion spokesperson Jeremy Slayton told the Journal of Commerce that the 2.6-gigawatt project is over 70% complete and should begin generating power by the end of March. The project is set for completion by February 2027. In Ørsted’s Feb. 6 earnings call, company executives said the 704-MW Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut is set to begin producing power “within weeks” and should be fully operational in the second half of 2026. Ørsted’s other project, the 924-MW Sunrise Wind farm, is on track to begin generating power by October, executives said. On the 806-MW Vineyard Wind 1 farm, court filings show the $4.5 billion project is 95% complete and has been generating power for over a year. Empire Wind is over 60% complete, but future work stoppages could put the wind farm in jeopardy. According to a Jan. 6 court filing by Empire Wind, “if allowed to stand, the suspension order substantially threatens cancellation of a project that is fully and duly permitted under the law and has been in active construction for over a year and a half at a cost of billions of dollars.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>.</div>

The Trump administration has begun taking steps to reverse a sweep of recent court victories for US offshore wind projects as developers rush to complete work on the five projects the courts have allowed to resume. The offshore wind industry is a key driver of project cargo such as turbine blades and other oversize components with complex transport requirements. These projects also call for significant amounts of port space and specialized heavy-lift vessels for installation. But US offshore wind projects have come under attack by President Donald Trump, who issued an executive order banning new wind power projects upon taking office in January 2025. Then, on Dec. 22, the administration’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued stop-work orders on five East Coast offshore wind projects that are fully permitted and over halfway complete. Those are Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) by Dominion Energy, Empire Wind 1 by Equinor, Revolution Wind by Ørsted and Global Infrastructure Partners’ Skyborn Renewables, Sunrise Wind by Ørsted, and Vineyard Wind 1 by Iberdrola subsidiary Avangrid Inc. and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. In a series of rulings issued in January and early February, federal district courts granted preliminary injunctions allowing all five projects to restart construction. However, on Feb. 11, US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Bloomberg Television the federal government would “absolutely” appeal the courts’ decisions allowing construction to resume on the five existing projects, adding, “There will be further discussion on this.” The administration contends offshore wind turbines pose a national security risk because of radar interference. In a separate move on Feb. 17, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson filed a notice to appeal a Dec. 8 ruling by a Massachusetts federal district court striking down the administration’s federal permitting ban on new wind energy projects. Projects are racing against the clock to complete work as quickly as possible before any future court rulings come down against them. “This constant political jockeying undoubtedly injects new levels of uncertainty into the industry as a whole and the industries that support it,” Abby Watson, president of Groundwire Group, a US consulting firm, told the Journal of Commerce. No ‘wiggle room’ for project schedules Absent any federal pushback, US offshore wind projects still face significant challenges stemming from the scarcity of resources needed for project construction. Watson cited the limited number of highly specialized installation vessels available for building these projects globally. “Fierce competition has these vessels booked up years in advance, and with utilization rates this high, projects can’t afford to build a lot of wiggle room into their schedules,” she said. Transporting and storing massive offshore wind components presents additional concerns, as space at East Coast ports comes at a premium, Watson said. “Unexpected delays in clearing out huge storage and laydown areas are bound to cause a major headache for logistics managers and port operators,” she said. In a statement to the Journal of Commerce, the Oceantic Network, a nonprofit trade group, called for bipartisan permitting reform, saying it was crucial to offshore wind project development. “It can unlock billions of dollars of investment and port/vessel activity to advance shared national priorities like shipyard revitalization, steel and port investments, and domestic energy dominance,” the group said. US offshore wind projects have resulted in $5 billion in port redevelopment and $2 billion in vessel builds and retrofits, according to the Oceantic Network. “There are hundreds of vessels operating on each of the five projects under construction today, and billions of dollars of equipment and components that can resume transit either from the factory to a staging port, or from port to construction site,” it said. Multiple offshore wind project cargo shippers declined requests from the Journal of Commerce to comment for this story, citing the ongoing litigation. Delays, tariffs pile on costs US offshore wind projects are grappling with mounting costs from the double whammy of federal stop-work orders and import tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. According to court filings, individual project costs from work shutdowns range from $1 million to $5 million per day. According to Dominion Energy’s latest Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind update, the project’s budget has risen to $11.5 billion because of an additional $365 million in costs related to tariffs and the federal government’s order to halt work. In recent remarks on the 810-megawatt Empire Wind project off the coast of Long Island, New York, developer Equinor also cited the one-two punch of tariffs and work shutdowns in driving up the project’s cost by $500 million to $7.5 billion. Equinor CEO Anders Opedal called the federal stop-work orders “unlawful” during the company’s Feb. 4 fourth-quarter earnings call. “We are moving forward with a strong belief that we will have a good case in the court,” Opedal said. With work stoppages lifted, project developers are reporting various stages of progress. Dominion spokesperson Jeremy Slayton told the Journal of Commerce that the 2.6-gigawatt project is over 70% complete and should begin generating power by the end of March. The project is set for completion by February 2027. In Ørsted’s Feb. 6 earnings call, company executives said the 704-MW Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut is set to begin producing power “within weeks” and should be fully operational in the second half of 2026. Ørsted’s other project, the 924-MW Sunrise Wind farm, is on track to begin generating power by October, executives said. On the 806-MW Vineyard Wind 1 farm, court filings show the $4.5 billion project is 95% complete and has been generating power for over a year. Empire Wind is over 60% complete, but future work stoppages could put the wind farm in jeopardy. According to a Jan. 6 court filing by Empire Wind, “if allowed to stand, the suspension order substantially threatens cancellation of a project that is fully and duly permitted under the law and has been in active construction for over a year and a half at a cost of billions of dollars.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Heavy-haul transport

Trump administration seeks to undo court rulings favoring offshore wind projects

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Gold Star has a network of 20 China-centric liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa.</div>

Gold Star has a network of 20 China-centric liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd will likely use its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/zim-deal-to-strengthen-hapag-lloyds-market-share-across-key-trade-lanes-6171044">$4.2 billion takeover of Zim Integrated Shipping Services</a> as the springboard for a significant expansion of its intra-Asia business through Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate Gold Star Line. Hapag’s existing intra-Asia coverage is limited to a series of slot charters with other shipping lines. It also utilizes intra-Asia services established by its Gemini Cooperation partner Maersk, which had several regional carriers including MCC and Sealand Asia before being consolidated within Maersk. By comparison, Gold Star has a network of 20 liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa. But they are also China-centric, linking ports such as Shanghai and Ningbo to specific Southeast Asia countries including Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand while also connecting China with India, Africa and the Middle East. There is no or very little coverage to markets such as Japan, Taiwan or within the Southeast Asia region. “I definitely see huge advantages for Hapag-Lloyd from Gold Star Line,” Capt. Igal Dafni told the Journal of Commerce. Dafni was managing director of Gold Star Line in the early 2000s before joining CNC Line and helping to drive CMA CGM’s purchase of the Taiwan-based intra-Asia carrier in 2007. Dafni is now president and CEO of IRIS Shipping Line, a domestic carrier in the Philippines. The gaps in Gold Star’s extended Asia and regional coverage give Hapag-Lloyd tremendous scope to expand its Asia network to those countries either through new services or adding ports on existing Gold Star services, Dafni said Friday. He said Gold Star’s network growth was restricted partly due to parent company Zim’s trade priorities and Israeli ownership. “There is very little activity in Japan or South Korea, for example, because those countries have never been a big market for Zim,” Dafni said. “There are also countries Gold Star definitely can’t call at such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Bangladesh.” Those restrictions will end under Hapag-Lloyd’s ownership. Alphaliner, in its newsletter this week, said Hapag-Lloyd’s takeover of Gold Star Line will help the German carrier to “enlarge its Asian footprint.” <h3>Improved connectivity, faster transits expected </h3>Aside from new services, Dafni said growth would probably also come from significant cost savings through the elimination of costly feeders and slot charters. Drawing a comparison with CMA CGM’s takeover of CNC Line, he pointed out that the French carrier’s intra-Asia network was similarly as insubstantial as Hapag-Lloyd’s is now. CNC’s total liftings were 400,000 TEUs a year at the time of the CMA CGM takeover, but that doubled to at least 1 million TEUs within a few years after CMA CGM expanded coverage and services. Dafni expected a similar level of growth for Hapag’s intra-Asia and wider regional volumes once Gold Star Line was under the carrier’s control. Gold Star’s extensive intra-Asia services will feed cargo into Hapag’s mainline hub-and-spoke Gemini Cooperation network with Maersk, offering Southeast Asia and regional exporters improved connectivity with more destinations and faster transit times. Similarly, import volumes via the Gemini network will increase volumes from the main Asia hubs to neighboring countries. “Feedering will shift from being a cost for Hapag-Lloyd to becoming a profit and revenue generator as third-party cargo shifts to its Asia services,” Dafni said. Hapag-Lloyd and Gold Star Line said it was premature to comment on what would happen to Gold Star under new ownership. The Zim deal “includes Gold Star Line, but no decision has yet been made about what will happen to the brand. It is simply too early to talk about it,” a Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. A senior source close to Gold Star Line said it was “too early to evaluate the impact.” “We are still learning about the deal and waiting for the relevant approvals,” the source said. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

Hapag-Lloyd will likely use its $4.2 billion takeover of Zim Integrated Shipping Services as the springboard for a significant expansion of its intra-Asia business through Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate Gold Star Line. Hapag’s existing intra-Asia coverage is limited to a series of slot charters with other shipping lines. It also utilizes intra-Asia services established by its Gemini Cooperation partner Maersk, which had several regional carriers including MCC and Sealand Asia before being consolidated within Maersk. By comparison, Gold Star has a network of 20 liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa. But they are also China-centric, linking ports such as Shanghai and Ningbo to specific Southeast Asia countries including Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand while also connecting China with India, Africa and the Middle East. There is no or very little coverage to markets such as Japan, Taiwan or within the Southeast Asia region. “I definitely see huge advantages for Hapag-Lloyd from Gold Star Line,” Capt. Igal Dafni told the Journal of Commerce. Dafni was managing director of Gold Star Line in the early 2000s before joining CNC Line and helping to drive CMA CGM’s purchase of the Taiwan-based intra-Asia carrier in 2007. Dafni is now president and CEO of IRIS Shipping Line, a domestic carrier in the Philippines. The gaps in Gold Star’s extended Asia and regional coverage give Hapag-Lloyd tremendous scope to expand its Asia network to those countries either through new services or adding ports on existing Gold Star services, Dafni said Friday. He said Gold Star’s network growth was restricted partly due to parent company Zim’s trade priorities and Israeli ownership. “There is very little activity in Japan or South Korea, for example, because those countries have never been a big market for Zim,” Dafni said. “There are also countries Gold Star definitely can’t call at such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Bangladesh.” Those restrictions will end under Hapag-Lloyd’s ownership. Alphaliner, in its newsletter this week, said Hapag-Lloyd’s takeover of Gold Star Line will help the German carrier to “enlarge its Asian footprint.” Improved connectivity, faster transits expected Aside from new services, Dafni said growth would probably also come from significant cost savings through the elimination of costly feeders and slot charters. Drawing a comparison with CMA CGM’s takeover of CNC Line, he pointed out that the French carrier’s intra-Asia network was similarly as insubstantial as Hapag-Lloyd’s is now. CNC’s total liftings were 400,000 TEUs a year at the time of the CMA CGM takeover, but that doubled to at least 1 million TEUs within a few years after CMA CGM expanded coverage and services. Dafni expected a similar level of growth for Hapag’s intra-Asia and wider regional volumes once Gold Star Line was under the carrier’s control. Gold Star’s extensive intra-Asia services will feed cargo into Hapag’s mainline hub-and-spoke Gemini Cooperation network with Maersk, offering Southeast Asia and regional exporters improved connectivity with more destinations and faster transit times. Similarly, import volumes via the Gemini network will increase volumes from the main Asia hubs to neighboring countries. “Feedering will shift from being a cost for Hapag-Lloyd to becoming a profit and revenue generator as third-party cargo shifts to its Asia services,” Dafni said. Hapag-Lloyd and Gold Star Line said it was premature to comment on what would happen to Gold Star under new ownership. The Zim deal “includes Gold Star Line, but no decision has yet been made about what will happen to the brand. It is simply too early to talk about it,” a Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. A senior source close to Gold Star Line said it was “too early to evaluate the impact.” “We are still learning about the deal and waiting for the relevant approvals,” the source said. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

International ports

Hapag-Lloyd set to grow its intra-Asia network through Zim’s Gold Star Line

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Retailers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, while carriers hold out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend. </div>

Retailers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, while carriers hold out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend.

<div class="phx-topic">Neither ocean carriers nor US importers are in a rush to sign contracts for the 2026–27 service year in a trans-Pacific market where spot rates to the West Coast have fallen more than 20% since early January and, many believe, have room to slide further. Multiple sources who spoke to the Journal of Commerce this week said carriers are in no hurry to ink deals with their customers, holding out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend on the trans-Pacific. And shippers are biding their time, happy to watch rates continue to fall before they’ll put pen to paper on service contracts, most of which begin May 1. The levels and direction of spot rates impact service contracting, as it’s a barometer of the degree to which carriers can effectively match supply to demand. Long-term contract rates generally allow shippers to lock in lower prices than they could find in the spot market, leading shippers to watch the latter closely ahead of and during service contract negotiations. The Journal of Commerce spoke with three ocean carriers, three retailers, three forwarders, two consultants, and an industry analyst for this story. “No one will sign now,” one carrier executive said. “Most shippers will wait until [TPM26] to see if rates have dropped further.” In past years leading up to the Journal of Commerce’s Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach in the first week of March, at least one or two of the half-dozen largest retailers had already signed their service contracts. Those initial contracts then set the floor for contract rates, with the remaining large, midsize and smaller importers signing for somewhat higher rates in March and through April. TPM26 will be held March 1–4. “No major big-box retailers have signed as of yet,” a source with a top 20 US retailer said. “We’re running two to three weeks late.” A second carrier executive said while a couple of carriers could be “close” to signing a big-box account, most customers are holding out to see how much further the market falls. <h3>Shippers’ market </h3>The signals, at least now, favor the importers. In addition to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/soft-demand-in-eastbound-trans-pacific-overwhelms-carriers-gri-attempt-6109240">softer demand</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pre-lunar-new-year-demand-to-give-trans-pac-market-first-test-of-2026-6149869">falling spot rates</a>, no significant surge in imports is projected in March, when the factories in Asia that closed for the Lunar New Year holiday that began Feb. 17 return to full production. Indeed, retailers and direct importers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, forcing carriers to reduce their contract tenders, said Bob Fredman, principal at the consulting firm SF Global Logistics who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers. “That’s what smart shippers should do,” Fredman said. “It doesn’t make much sense to get too far in front of the [big retailers].” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56cdc0fc-22a5-4ef9-9e3e-11f96f369c70"></dynamic-object></div>A national furniture importer said he circulated his “boilerplate” tender to his core carrier partners but is not pressuring them to finalize a contract because he anticipates rates will move lower in March. “As a mid-size importer, why not wait? I want to get more clarity as to where the market is,” the source said. As of Feb. 19, the market from Asia to the West Coast was at $1,600 per FEU, down 23% since early January and 42% lower year over year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The East Coast spot rate of $2,400 was down 21% so far this year and 39% lower year over year. According to online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, Asia-West Coast rates were at $1.356 per FEU as of Feb. 19, down from $2,289 per FEU on Jan. 4 and almost 60% lower year over year. A second top 20 retailer said carriers and their customers are holding back from signing service contracts to see what the negotiating environment looks like after TPM26 in terms of spot rates and forecasts for demand in the second quarter. “We are pretty much completed with our tenders. I suspect we will be completed within the next couple of weeks,” the source said. “Demand right now leading up to Q2 is soft. Carriers are holding back to see if demand picks up after Chinese New Year.” <h3>Carriers ‘failed’ to balance supply and demand </h3>But the slower-than-usual finalizing of contracts by the largest big-box retailers does not mean that medium to smaller retailers will sign later than usual, said Jason Cook, CEO of forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “After TPM there will be a rapid succession of completions for the big-box retailers,” Cook said. “Then the midsize and smaller importers will get serious in round two...” Unlike in past years when importers were anxious to lock in volume allotments, known as minimum quantity commitments (MQCs), because vessel space was tight, capacity is readily available this year, and it is the carriers who are edgy. The second top 20 retailer source said her preliminary discussions with carriers have been “colorful.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e5c8a2a0-9aa5-4787-bbed-bf4b7a9f9677"></dynamic-object></div>A major reason why there was no capacity shortage in the trans-Pacific leading into the Lunar New Year was that carriers did not respond quickly enough to the market conditions by managing vessel space, said Destine Ozuygur, senior analyst for liner network performance at Xeneta. According to data from Xeneta’s eeSea, carriers had 1.19 million TEUs of actual capacity on the Asia-West Coast trade lane in January, with that expected to rise to 1.26 million TEUs in February and 1.4 million TEUs in March. “Given the current slump in rates on the trans-Pacific and the absence of a strong Lunar New Year surge, it appears the carriers failed to balance supply against demand,” Ozuygur said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Neither ocean carriers nor US importers are in a rush to sign contracts for the 2026–27 service year in a trans-Pacific market where spot rates to the West Coast have fallen more than 20% since early January and, many believe, have room to slide further. Multiple sources who spoke to the Journal of Commerce this week said carriers are in no hurry to ink deals with their customers, holding out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend on the trans-Pacific. And shippers are biding their time, happy to watch rates continue to fall before they’ll put pen to paper on service contracts, most of which begin May 1. The levels and direction of spot rates impact service contracting, as it’s a barometer of the degree to which carriers can effectively match supply to demand. Long-term contract rates generally allow shippers to lock in lower prices than they could find in the spot market, leading shippers to watch the latter closely ahead of and during service contract negotiations. The Journal of Commerce spoke with three ocean carriers, three retailers, three forwarders, two consultants, and an industry analyst for this story. “No one will sign now,” one carrier executive said. “Most shippers will wait until [TPM26] to see if rates have dropped further.” In past years leading up to the Journal of Commerce’s Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach in the first week of March, at least one or two of the half-dozen largest retailers had already signed their service contracts. Those initial contracts then set the floor for contract rates, with the remaining large, midsize and smaller importers signing for somewhat higher rates in March and through April. TPM26 will be held March 1–4. “No major big-box retailers have signed as of yet,” a source with a top 20 US retailer said. “We’re running two to three weeks late.” A second carrier executive said while a couple of carriers could be “close” to signing a big-box account, most customers are holding out to see how much further the market falls. Shippers’ market The signals, at least now, favor the importers. In addition to softer demand and falling spot rates , no significant surge in imports is projected in March, when the factories in Asia that closed for the Lunar New Year holiday that began Feb. 17 return to full production. Indeed, retailers and direct importers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, forcing carriers to reduce their contract tenders, said Bob Fredman, principal at the consulting firm SF Global Logistics who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers. “That’s what smart shippers should do,” Fredman said. “It doesn’t make much sense to get too far in front of the [big retailers].” A national furniture importer said he circulated his “boilerplate” tender to his core carrier partners but is not pressuring them to finalize a contract because he anticipates rates will move lower in March. “As a mid-size importer, why not wait? I want to get more clarity as to where the market is,” the source said. As of Feb. 19, the market from Asia to the West Coast was at $1,600 per FEU, down 23% since early January and 42% lower year over year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The East Coast spot rate of $2,400 was down 21% so far this year and 39% lower year over year. According to online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, Asia-West Coast rates were at $1.356 per FEU as of Feb. 19, down from $2,289 per FEU on Jan. 4 and almost 60% lower year over year. A second top 20 retailer said carriers and their customers are holding back from signing service contracts to see what the negotiating environment looks like after TPM26 in terms of spot rates and forecasts for demand in the second quarter. “We are pretty much completed with our tenders. I suspect we will be completed within the next couple of weeks,” the source said. “Demand right now leading up to Q2 is soft. Carriers are holding back to see if demand picks up after Chinese New Year.” Carriers ‘failed’ to balance supply and demand But the slower-than-usual finalizing of contracts by the largest big-box retailers does not mean that medium to smaller retailers will sign later than usual, said Jason Cook, CEO of forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “After TPM there will be a rapid succession of completions for the big-box retailers,” Cook said. “Then the midsize and smaller importers will get serious in round two...” Unlike in past years when importers were anxious to lock in volume allotments, known as minimum quantity commitments (MQCs), because vessel space was tight, capacity is readily available this year, and it is the carriers who are edgy. The second top 20 retailer source said her preliminary discussions with carriers have been “colorful.” A major reason why there was no capacity shortage in the trans-Pacific leading into the Lunar New Year was that carriers did not respond quickly enough to the market conditions by managing vessel space, said Destine Ozuygur, senior analyst for liner network performance at Xeneta. According to data from Xeneta’s eeSea, carriers had 1.19 million TEUs of actual capacity on the Asia-West Coast trade lane in January, with that expected to rise to 1.26 million TEUs in February and 1.4 million TEUs in March. “Given the current slump in rates on the trans-Pacific and the absence of a strong Lunar New Year surge, it appears the carriers failed to balance supply against demand,” Ozuygur said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Trans-Pacific carriers, importers slow-walking service contract negotiations

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Use code FTW25 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%: Use code FTW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The latest container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage includes the movement of containerized cargo handled by marine terminals and container ports, depots, container lines, drayage, consignees, importers and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers. The Journal of Commerce's container shipping news includes news from the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South America trades, and intra-Asia trades.

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce is the industry’s source for maritime news and analysis about ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, global shipping ports, shipping technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage tracks the movement of containerized cargo — from origin to destination — handled by marine terminals in the US and abroad, depots, container ports, container lines, drayage, consignees and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers, as well as pricing, capacity, volume and reliability on the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South American and intra-Asia trades.

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Hapag-Lloyd's deal for Zim won’t fix challenges facing container shipping

Asia to dominate global wind cargo market through end of the decade

Trump administration seeks to undo court rulings favoring offshore wind projects