<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Container ship owner-charterer Rickmers Maritime posted a $40.3 million net profit for 2011, reversing a $28.6 million loss in 2010, and said it expects &amp;ldquo;steady performance&amp;rdquo; this year desp</div>

Container ship owner-charterer Rickmers Maritime posted a $40.3 million net profit for 2011, reversing a $28.6 million loss in 2010, and said it expects &ldquo;steady performance&rdquo; this year desp

<div>Container ship owner-charterer Rickmers Maritime posted a $40.3 million net profit for 2011, reversing a $28.6 million loss in 2010, and said it expects &amp;ldquo;steady performance&amp;rdquo; this year despite a &amp;ldquo;challenging&amp;rdquo; charter market.The Singapore-based company said most of its 16 ships are chartered through 2013 and that Rickmers reduced its outstanding bank loans to $621.9 million at the end of 2011 from $670.9 million a year earlier. Rickmers said, however, that CSAV&amp;rsquo;s current $23,888-a-day charter for the Kaethe C. Rickmers is due to expire this month.&amp;ldquo;In view of the weak charter market, there is a risk that she may not...

Container ship owner-charterer Rickmers Maritime posted a $40.3 million net profit for 2011, reversing a $28.6 million loss in 2010, and said it expects &ldquo;steady performance&rdquo; this year despite a &ldquo;challenging&rdquo; charter market. The Singapore-based company said most of its 16 ships are chartered through 2013 and that Rickmers reduced its outstanding bank loans to $621.9 million at the end of 2011 from $670.9 million a year earlier. Rickmers said, however, that CSAV&rsquo;s current $23,888-a-day charter for the Kaethe C. Rickmers is due to expire this month. &ldquo;In view of the weak charter market, there is a risk that she may not immediately secure new employment,&rdquo; Rickmers CEO Thomas Preben Hansen said in a statement. Hansen added that Rickmers &ldquo;is in a more secure position today than in the previous financial crisis, with no outstanding orders for new vessels and no near-term refinancing.&rdquo; He cited Clarkson Research estimates that global container trade will grow 7.7 percent this year while vessel capacity increased 6.7 percent but said macroeconomic risks, overcapacity and fuel prices &ldquo;are affecting the near-term demand for container tonnage, culminating in downward pressure on time-charter rates and vessel values.&rdquo; Rickmers&rsquo; net profit for the fourth quarter dipped 43 percent to $11.3 million, due mainly to a $7.3 million vessel impairment charge. The company announced a 4 percent increase in per unit distributions to unit holders Charter revenue for the quarter was $37.79 million, up 3 percent from a year earlier. Full-year charter revenue rose 2 percent to $149.47 million, due mainly to an increase in an increase in the Kaethe C. Rickmers&rsquo; daily charter rate from $8,288 last March 25. -- Contact Joseph Bonney at jbonney@joc.com . Follow him on Twitter @josephbonney .

Maritime

Forwarding

Rickmers Maritime Swings to $40.3 Million Profit

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The varied strategies employed by ocean carriers to manage war-driven volatility in bunker fuel prices are delaying the completion of some 2026-27 service contract negotiations as the key May 1 date looms.</div>

The varied strategies employed by ocean carriers to manage war-driven volatility in bunker fuel prices are delaying the completion of some 2026-27 service contract negotiations as the key May 1 date looms.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Small to mid-size customers say ocean carriers’ handling of bunker fuel surcharges is complicating the timely completion of their 2026-27 trans-Pacific service contracts due to difficulty in comparing how the liners approach the surcharges. While most annual service contracts on the eastbound trans-Pacific typically start May 1, the carrier customers say any delay could force them to ship under costlier spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates until the annual service agreements are signed. Customers, both beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders, say that some carriers want them to agree to open-ended emergency bunker surcharges with no exit clause stipulating when the surcharges will end. “There is no real indicator as to when this is going to go away and how it is going to go away,” a forwarder who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. Bunker surcharges have become a hot-button issue since the war in the Middle East sent oil prices soaring in early March. The traditional bunker adjustment factor (BAF) found in most service contracts is being changed by some carriers from a quarterly to a monthly reset. More recently, some carriers are also levying emergency fuel surcharges on top of the BAFs. A carrier executive said that while some customers may feel carriers are attempting to force them to accept emergency surcharges or are unilaterally changing the BAF to a monthly reset, he believes there is a growing willingness by liners and their customers to reach a mutually acceptable remedy. “There is a mounting effort by most parties to meet in the middle on the level of surcharges,” the executive said. <h3>Emergency bunker surcharges could increase </h3>In his April newsletter, Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said emergency bunker surcharges (EBS) are likely to remain a key wildcard in the trans-Pac for months to come, and they could add significantly to shippers’ costs. “EBS levels are expected to fluctuate significantly,” Monroe said. “In the near term, the EBS could range from $200 to $600 per FEU, with the potential for spikes beyond that if fuel prices surge further. As a result, total landed freight costs may be far less predictable than the base contract rates suggest.” Bunker fuel prices essentially doubled in key global hubs at the start of the war, and though prices have eased a bit in some locations, they are still well above where they were before the conflict. And with no end in sight to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that has effectively blocked the daily transit of 20% of the world’s oil supplies, the specter of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bunker-fuel-shortages-loom-after-us-counter-blocks-strait-of-hormuz-6204678">bunker fuel shortages loom</a>, something that would add further upward pressure on prices. When bunker fuel prices are stable, the traditional BAF quarterly reset works fine for both carriers and their customers, said Rachel Shames, vice president of pricing and procurement at the forwarder CV International. But with some carriers now adjusting bunker prices monthly while adding seemingly open-ended emergency bunker surcharges to the equation, importers and forwarders are at an obvious disadvantage, Shames said “If the surcharge goes up, it should be able to come down when bunkers come down. It’s gotten very confusing,” she said. The more frequent changes in BAFs and EBSs now make it more difficult for forwarders to price their services to their clients in a timely manner, said Ben Coleman, president of forwarder Teampower Logistics. “You just have to accept that (carriers) will adjust their rates downward if bunker costs come down,” Coleman said. “Our main concern is that we want to remain competitive.” In the past, there was always a way to navigate through surcharges, said John Pace, senior manager for global logistics at Revelyst, an importer of outdoor gear. “You would circumvent those carriers that were penalizing you with higher costs,” Pace said. “But in this particular case, it seems to be widespread among most carriers. There doesn’t seem to be a strategy that allows you to navigate through this.” <h3>Different carriers, different approaches </h3>A trade director at a consumer products company that imports about 6,000 containers per year said his service contract talks are bogged down by the different approaches carriers are taking to surcharges and how they impact base rates. For example, the source said one major carrier is asking for a $300 emergency fuel surcharge on top of the regular BAF that applies on base rates. But the carrier has not made clear under what circumstances it will remove the fuel surcharge or how it was calculated, he said. Meanwhile, a second major liner is passing along fuel expenses on its carrier haulage moves through an “inland fuel surcharge,” the source said. The carrier provides a formula, albeit one he says is complicated, about how it is calculating the new fee. The second carrier is also presenting shippers with a choice on how their BAF will be calculated, either on a trailing three-month or one-month basis. So, shippers themselves can take the bet on whether they want to ride out fuel volatility for a longer period or benefit from a quick dip in oil prices. “It’s gotten really complicated with all these extra fuel costs,” the trade director said. “We were in line to get a good base rate reduction, but now that’s all hidden by the surcharges.” A national importer of home furnishings who is in his third round of service contract negotiations said importers must be diligent and persistent in talks with carriers to protect against unwanted surcharges. “We pushed back on the emergency bunker surcharges, and we did so successfully,” the source said. <h3>Contract extensions possible </h3>With less than two weeks left before most 2025-26 service contracts end and most 2026-27 contracts take effect, some importers are asking carriers to extend their current contracts at least until mid-May while negotiations on new deals continue. But that’s something that must be done on a carrier-by-carrier basis because not all liners are willing to extend the existing contracts, forwarders say. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56cdc0fc-22a5-4ef9-9e3e-11f96f369c70"></dynamic-object></div>If a carrier refuses to extend the existing contract temporarily, importers will have to pay the current spot rate, which was $2,700 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,700 per FEU as of April 21, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Most mid-size importers are currently paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 to the West Coast per their 2025-26 service contracts. ”(Some) carriers are extending (existing contract) rates until mid-May,” Monroe said. An industry consultant who formerly served in logistics roles at big-box retailers said most of the larger retailers have finalized their 2026-27 service contracts or are ready to do so. However, smaller importers say they are meeting resistance from some carriers for escape clauses from emergency fuel surcharges. “The smaller ones, they don’t have any leverage,” the consultant said. “They’re at the mercy of the carriers.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo <a href="bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com ">at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.  Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Small to mid-size customers say ocean carriers’ handling of bunker fuel surcharges is complicating the timely completion of their 2026-27 trans-Pacific service contracts due to difficulty in comparing how the liners approach the surcharges. While most annual service contracts on the eastbound trans-Pacific typically start May 1, the carrier customers say any delay could force them to ship under costlier spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates until the annual service agreements are signed. Customers, both beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders, say that some carriers want them to agree to open-ended emergency bunker surcharges with no exit clause stipulating when the surcharges will end. “There is no real indicator as to when this is going to go away and how it is going to go away,” a forwarder who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. Bunker surcharges have become a hot-button issue since the war in the Middle East sent oil prices soaring in early March. The traditional bunker adjustment factor (BAF) found in most service contracts is being changed by some carriers from a quarterly to a monthly reset. More recently, some carriers are also levying emergency fuel surcharges on top of the BAFs. A carrier executive said that while some customers may feel carriers are attempting to force them to accept emergency surcharges or are unilaterally changing the BAF to a monthly reset, he believes there is a growing willingness by liners and their customers to reach a mutually acceptable remedy. “There is a mounting effort by most parties to meet in the middle on the level of surcharges,” the executive said. Emergency bunker surcharges could increase In his April newsletter, Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said emergency bunker surcharges (EBS) are likely to remain a key wildcard in the trans-Pac for months to come, and they could add significantly to shippers’ costs. “EBS levels are expected to fluctuate significantly,” Monroe said. “In the near term, the EBS could range from $200 to $600 per FEU, with the potential for spikes beyond that if fuel prices surge further. As a result, total landed freight costs may be far less predictable than the base contract rates suggest.” Bunker fuel prices essentially doubled in key global hubs at the start of the war, and though prices have eased a bit in some locations, they are still well above where they were before the conflict. And with no end in sight to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that has effectively blocked the daily transit of 20% of the world’s oil supplies, the specter of bunker fuel shortages loom , something that would add further upward pressure on prices. When bunker fuel prices are stable, the traditional BAF quarterly reset works fine for both carriers and their customers, said Rachel Shames, vice president of pricing and procurement at the forwarder CV International. But with some carriers now adjusting bunker prices monthly while adding seemingly open-ended emergency bunker surcharges to the equation, importers and forwarders are at an obvious disadvantage, Shames said “If the surcharge goes up, it should be able to come down when bunkers come down. It’s gotten very confusing,” she said. The more frequent changes in BAFs and EBSs now make it more difficult for forwarders to price their services to their clients in a timely manner, said Ben Coleman, president of forwarder Teampower Logistics. “You just have to accept that (carriers) will adjust their rates downward if bunker costs come down,” Coleman said. “Our main concern is that we want to remain competitive.” In the past, there was always a way to navigate through surcharges, said John Pace, senior manager for global logistics at Revelyst, an importer of outdoor gear. “You would circumvent those carriers that were penalizing you with higher costs,” Pace said. “But in this particular case, it seems to be widespread among most carriers. There doesn’t seem to be a strategy that allows you to navigate through this.” Different carriers, different approaches A trade director at a consumer products company that imports about 6,000 containers per year said his service contract talks are bogged down by the different approaches carriers are taking to surcharges and how they impact base rates. For example, the source said one major carrier is asking for a $300 emergency fuel surcharge on top of the regular BAF that applies on base rates. But the carrier has not made clear under what circumstances it will remove the fuel surcharge or how it was calculated, he said. Meanwhile, a second major liner is passing along fuel expenses on its carrier haulage moves through an “inland fuel surcharge,” the source said. The carrier provides a formula, albeit one he says is complicated, about how it is calculating the new fee. The second carrier is also presenting shippers with a choice on how their BAF will be calculated, either on a trailing three-month or one-month basis. So, shippers themselves can take the bet on whether they want to ride out fuel volatility for a longer period or benefit from a quick dip in oil prices. “It’s gotten really complicated with all these extra fuel costs,” the trade director said. “We were in line to get a good base rate reduction, but now that’s all hidden by the surcharges.” A national importer of home furnishings who is in his third round of service contract negotiations said importers must be diligent and persistent in talks with carriers to protect against unwanted surcharges. “We pushed back on the emergency bunker surcharges, and we did so successfully,” the source said. Contract extensions possible With less than two weeks left before most 2025-26 service contracts end and most 2026-27 contracts take effect, some importers are asking carriers to extend their current contracts at least until mid-May while negotiations on new deals continue. But that’s something that must be done on a carrier-by-carrier basis because not all liners are willing to extend the existing contracts, forwarders say. If a carrier refuses to extend the existing contract temporarily, importers will have to pay the current spot rate, which was $2,700 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,700 per FEU as of April 21, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Most mid-size importers are currently paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 to the West Coast per their 2025-26 service contracts. ”(Some) carriers are extending (existing contract) rates until mid-May,” Monroe said. An industry consultant who formerly served in logistics roles at big-box retailers said most of the larger retailers have finalized their 2026-27 service contracts or are ready to do so. However, smaller importers say they are meeting resistance from some carriers for escape clauses from emergency fuel surcharges. “The smaller ones, they don’t have any leverage,” the consultant said. “They’re at the mercy of the carriers.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .  Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Trans-Pacific

Container Shipping News

Carriers’ handling of fuel surcharges agitates small, mid-size trans-Pac shippers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Forwarders are juggling a steady stream of distractions while balancing a workforce to meet ever-evolving hot-button topics, conference attendees were told.</div>

Forwarders are juggling a steady stream of distractions while balancing a workforce to meet ever-evolving hot-button topics, conference attendees were told.

<div class="phx-topic">New Orleans — “Buckets of risks” are keeping project cargo stakeholders awake at night, according to panelists at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026. Luke Mace, senior vice president at global freight forwarder GEODIS Project Logistics, told conference participants Tuesday he counted three buckets of risk: people, established risks and newer disruptions. “No matter what we discuss today, the biggest risk to your organization will always be people. Let's not forget that through everything else,” he said. “The second bucket is the more established risks, the ones that we've learned through decades of experience.” Mace said forwarders create tools to help measure what they believe “could” happen on any given project to identify what risks they can take. “And that could be anything from foreign exchange losses to compliance issues and equipment availability,” he said. But it is the third category of “newer disruptions” that is really upending project cargo and breakbulk logistics today. “Right now, that is the Middle East conflict, but that’s just the most recent,” Mace said. “You have had everything from the Baltimore bridge to Ukraine to COVID to union strikes...there are so many things around that are not about moving cargo.” Guillermina del Pino, head of project logistics/Americas at shipper Siemens Energy, told Breakbulk26 that strategies are being adjusted every day. ”I’ve been doing this for 27 years and today you would probably look at the next two to three years as a long-term strategy because we don’t know what will happen in 10 years,” she said. An upside of this volatility is that project cargo shippers are now working more closely with contract managers and legal sales within their companies, del Pino added. <h3>Priorities keep shifting </h3>Mace said managing project cargo logistics today has become a matter of “balancing priorities.” ”Every couple of years there’s a new industry trend,” he said. “Today it’s AI. Before, it was sustainability. Before that, cyber security. Before that, gender diversity. These are all equally important topics.” Mace said that project forwarders invest heavily in these areas, and that investment has to be maintained when the industry moves onto the next topic. “You pivot now to putting more resources into dealing with the current conflicts, and you just keep adding more and more people to your organization,” he said, adding that customers still demand cheap deals from their forwarders, despite them carrying “crazy overheads.” “Sometimes I think it becomes a bit of a distraction, because I tend to spend 90% of my time talking about things that have nothing to do with delivering cargo,” said Mace. “We've become lawyers and finance directors. We've become everything, not only delivering cargo.” Contact Carly Fields on <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com.</a></div>

New Orleans — “Buckets of risks” are keeping project cargo stakeholders awake at night, according to panelists at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026. Luke Mace, senior vice president at global freight forwarder GEODIS Project Logistics, told conference participants Tuesday he counted three buckets of risk: people, established risks and newer disruptions. “No matter what we discuss today, the biggest risk to your organization will always be people. Let's not forget that through everything else,” he said. “The second bucket is the more established risks, the ones that we've learned through decades of experience.” Mace said forwarders create tools to help measure what they believe “could” happen on any given project to identify what risks they can take. “And that could be anything from foreign exchange losses to compliance issues and equipment availability,” he said. But it is the third category of “newer disruptions” that is really upending project cargo and breakbulk logistics today. “Right now, that is the Middle East conflict, but that’s just the most recent,” Mace said. “You have had everything from the Baltimore bridge to Ukraine to COVID to union strikes...there are so many things around that are not about moving cargo.” Guillermina del Pino, head of project logistics/Americas at shipper Siemens Energy, told Breakbulk26 that strategies are being adjusted every day. ”I’ve been doing this for 27 years and today you would probably look at the next two to three years as a long-term strategy because we don’t know what will happen in 10 years,” she said. An upside of this volatility is that project cargo shippers are now working more closely with contract managers and legal sales within their companies, del Pino added. Priorities keep shifting Mace said managing project cargo logistics today has become a matter of “balancing priorities.” ”Every couple of years there’s a new industry trend,” he said. “Today it’s AI. Before, it was sustainability. Before that, cyber security. Before that, gender diversity. These are all equally important topics.” Mace said that project forwarders invest heavily in these areas, and that investment has to be maintained when the industry moves onto the next topic. “You pivot now to putting more resources into dealing with the current conflicts, and you just keep adding more and more people to your organization,” he said, adding that customers still demand cheap deals from their forwarders, despite them carrying “crazy overheads.” “Sometimes I think it becomes a bit of a distraction, because I tend to spend 90% of my time talking about things that have nothing to do with delivering cargo,” said Mace. “We've become lawyers and finance directors. We've become everything, not only delivering cargo.” Contact Carly Fields on carly.fields@spglobal.com.

Breakbulk carriers

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Breakbulk26: Risk ‘buckets’ disrupting project cargo logistics priorities

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The terminal operator and port authority will enter a one-year exclusivity period to explore jointly developing and operating the proposed mega terminal that would increase Vancouver’s capacity by 50%. </div>

The terminal operator and port authority will enter a one-year exclusivity period to explore jointly developing and operating the proposed mega terminal that would increase Vancouver’s capacity by 50%.

<div class="phx-topic">Global Container Terminals (GCT) and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) will explore the possibility of jointly developing and operating the port’s proposed mega terminal, they announced Tuesday. GCT will also pull its request to develop a new berth at its main Vancouver terminal. GCT and the VFPA said in a joint statement they’ve signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for studying the development of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2. The MOU will allow the parties to work exclusively over a one-year period “to share information and negotiate in good faith” toward a final development agreement, they said. First scoped out in 2013, Roberts Bank 2 would provide an additional 2.4 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver, which, by some estimates, would near full capacity by the 2030s. Vancouver has nominal capacity of 5 million TEUs currently. The project, for which the VFPA would fund the below-water work, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/planned-vancouver-mega-container-terminal-wins-environmental-clearance-5217090">received environmental approval back in 2023 after a lengthy review</a>. The MOU also marks the official end of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/vancouver-capacity-needs-spark-conflict-among-port-tenant-5223507">GCT’s own plan to expand Vancouver’s capacity</a> by adding a fourth berth to its Deltaport terminal. GCT had pitched the fourth berth that would add 2 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver as a faster option than building a new terminal. However, GCT said that as part of the Roberts Bank MOU with the port authority, it has permanently withdrawn its application for developing the berth. “Increasing container capacity is essential to meeting future demand, improving supply chain resilience, and maintaining Canada’s global competitiveness,” the joint statement said. “The MOU reflects a shared commitment to strengthen Canada’s trade infrastructure by exploring opportunities for partnership to deliver RBT2 in a coordinated, efficient, and commercially viable manner.” The move by GCT and the VFPA to advance the terminal project comes amid Canada’s broader push to diversify its trade away from the US. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/canada-looks-for-new-container-gateways-for-decoupling-from-us-6122714">Canada’s government has pledged that billions in funds</a> will be made available to trade-related infrastructure projects over the coming years. In the country’s east, the Port of Montreal has started land grading and below-water work on <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dp-world-to-build-big-ship-container-terminal-in-montreal-6077326">its planned Contrecoeur container terminal</a>, which DP World is slated to co-develop and operate. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Global Container Terminals (GCT) and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) will explore the possibility of jointly developing and operating the port’s proposed mega terminal, they announced Tuesday. GCT will also pull its request to develop a new berth at its main Vancouver terminal. GCT and the VFPA said in a joint statement they’ve signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for studying the development of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2. The MOU will allow the parties to work exclusively over a one-year period “to share information and negotiate in good faith” toward a final development agreement, they said. First scoped out in 2013, Roberts Bank 2 would provide an additional 2.4 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver, which, by some estimates, would near full capacity by the 2030s. Vancouver has nominal capacity of 5 million TEUs currently. The project, for which the VFPA would fund the below-water work, received environmental approval back in 2023 after a lengthy review . The MOU also marks the official end of GCT’s own plan to expand Vancouver’s capacity by adding a fourth berth to its Deltaport terminal. GCT had pitched the fourth berth that would add 2 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver as a faster option than building a new terminal. However, GCT said that as part of the Roberts Bank MOU with the port authority, it has permanently withdrawn its application for developing the berth. “Increasing container capacity is essential to meeting future demand, improving supply chain resilience, and maintaining Canada’s global competitiveness,” the joint statement said. “The MOU reflects a shared commitment to strengthen Canada’s trade infrastructure by exploring opportunities for partnership to deliver RBT2 in a coordinated, efficient, and commercially viable manner.” The move by GCT and the VFPA to advance the terminal project comes amid Canada’s broader push to diversify its trade away from the US. Canada’s government has pledged that billions in funds will be made available to trade-related infrastructure projects over the coming years. In the country’s east, the Port of Montreal has started land grading and below-water work on its planned Contrecoeur container terminal , which DP World is slated to co-develop and operate. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

Port infrastructure

North American ports

Marine terminals

GCT, Vancouver port to jointly study Roberts Bank terminal project

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The new surcharges will be introduced immediately on cargo to and from specific locations in the Caribbean and South America before being progressively rolled out in other regions globally.</div>

The new surcharges will be introduced immediately on cargo to and from specific locations in the Caribbean and South America before being progressively rolled out in other regions globally.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd is widening its imposition of emergency bunker fuel surcharges to cover the extra fuel levies it is now being charged by third-party feeder and barge operators to offset oil prices driven higher by the war in the Middle East. The new surcharges, announced by the carrier Tuesday, will be introduced immediately on cargo to and from specific locations in the Caribbean and South America before being progressively rolled out in other regions globally. Hapag said the surcharges, varying between $50 and $150 per TEU, will be applied both as an emergency operations charge at origin and an emergency operations charge at destination. It comes a month after Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said the war <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-adding-40-50-million-per-week-to-hapag-lloyds-costs-ceo-6193532">has raised the carrier’s operating costs by $40 million to $50 million per week</a>. Hapag-Lloyd is thought to be the first carrier to announce such a measure, as other lines including Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM have yet to confirm their own fuel surcharges on feedered cargo. The new charges are in addition to the standard emergency fuel surcharge (EFS) Hapag-Lloyd already charges customers. “We are now facing explicit charges from our third-party feeder operators,” the carrier said in a customer advisory. “As the EFS covers incremental fuel costs within Hapag-Lloyd-operated services, these additional third-party charges require a separate surcharge.” <h3>Bunker prices doubled at key hubs after war began </h3>Cargo at Zarate, Argentina, will attract the lowest surcharge, while cargo at locations including Punta Arenas in Chile, and Caribbean islands such as the US Virgin Islands, Bahamas, Dominica, Saint Lucia and Bonaire will have the highest levy. Hapag-Lloyd said the surcharge will apply to trades not regulated by the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) from April 21, and beginning May 21 for FMC-regulated trades plus Ecuador and Colombia. The FMC requires a 30-day notice period for surcharges implemented on US trades, and has <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-again-rejects-maersk-petition-to-waive-notice-period-for-emergency-fuel-surcharge-6199261">rejected recent requests by ocean carriers to have the waiting period waived</a>. The introduction of the levy comes just weeks after some feeder operators in the Caribbean increased bunker surcharges in response to fuel prices that have been driven higher by the war in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s crude oil supplies typically transit each day. Bunker fuel prices at some of the world’s key hubs approximately doubled in the days after the war began on Feb. 28. Tropical Shipping, which operates 17 feeder ships on services in Latin America, doubled bunker surcharges on April 12 on Caribbean and South American services to $200 for a 20-foot container and $400 for a 40-foot box. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keith.wallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd is widening its imposition of emergency bunker fuel surcharges to cover the extra fuel levies it is now being charged by third-party feeder and barge operators to offset oil prices driven higher by the war in the Middle East. The new surcharges, announced by the carrier Tuesday, will be introduced immediately on cargo to and from specific locations in the Caribbean and South America before being progressively rolled out in other regions globally. Hapag said the surcharges, varying between $50 and $150 per TEU, will be applied both as an emergency operations charge at origin and an emergency operations charge at destination. It comes a month after Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said the war has raised the carrier’s operating costs by $40 million to $50 million per week . Hapag-Lloyd is thought to be the first carrier to announce such a measure, as other lines including Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM have yet to confirm their own fuel surcharges on feedered cargo. The new charges are in addition to the standard emergency fuel surcharge (EFS) Hapag-Lloyd already charges customers. “We are now facing explicit charges from our third-party feeder operators,” the carrier said in a customer advisory. “As the EFS covers incremental fuel costs within Hapag-Lloyd-operated services, these additional third-party charges require a separate surcharge.” Bunker prices doubled at key hubs after war began Cargo at Zarate, Argentina, will attract the lowest surcharge, while cargo at locations including Punta Arenas in Chile, and Caribbean islands such as the US Virgin Islands, Bahamas, Dominica, Saint Lucia and Bonaire will have the highest levy. Hapag-Lloyd said the surcharge will apply to trades not regulated by the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) from April 21, and beginning May 21 for FMC-regulated trades plus Ecuador and Colombia. The FMC requires a 30-day notice period for surcharges implemented on US trades, and has rejected recent requests by ocean carriers to have the waiting period waived . The introduction of the levy comes just weeks after some feeder operators in the Caribbean increased bunker surcharges in response to fuel prices that have been driven higher by the war in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s crude oil supplies typically transit each day. Bunker fuel prices at some of the world’s key hubs approximately doubled in the days after the war began on Feb. 28. Tropical Shipping, which operates 17 feeder ships on services in Latin America, doubled bunker surcharges on April 12 on Caribbean and South American services to $200 for a 20-foot container and $400 for a 40-foot box. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

International ports

Hapag-Lloyd imposes emergency fuel surcharges on third-party feeder cargo

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The war in the Middle East is the latest example of geopolitical conflicts that will mark the shipping landscape for at least the rest of the decade, attendees at Breakbulk26 were told.</div>

The war in the Middle East is the latest example of geopolitical conflicts that will mark the shipping landscape for at least the rest of the decade, attendees at Breakbulk26 were told.

<div class="phx-topic">New Orleans — The ongoing war in the Middle East is the latest example that geopolitical conflicts disrupting shipping will be the norm for the rest of the decade, a geopolitical analyst said Tuesday. José Enrique Sevilla-Macip, an S&amp;P Global senior research analyst, said that while Iran and the US both want to decelerate tensions, boding well for the renewal of a two-week ceasefire by the Wednesday night deadline, there’s little chance of normalization in the Middle East this year. S&amp;P Global expects crude oil prices — which were trading over $98 per barrel Tuesday afternoon — to fall to about $70/b by the end of the year after peaking in the second quarter. “But we are going to have the permanent threat of disruption over there,” Sevilla-Macip told approximately 900 attendees of the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026. “Iran will maintain the capacity to, at any point in time, resume its attacks on shipping or against critical infrastructure in the Gulf space, which we all know what that means.” The Middle East is hardly the only region ripe for continued conflict, with S&amp;P Global expecting the Ukraine-Russia war to last at least another year, Sevilla-Macip said. “What does that mean for [the project cargo] sector? Well, potential large projects for the reconstruction of Ukraine are probably going to remain on hold at least for the next year,” he said. Sevilla-Macip, who is part of S&amp;P Global’s Latin America risk team, pointed to increased tension in recent months between the US and Cuba, and between China and Taiwan. In the meantime, the rerouting of LNG tankers due to the war is creating bottlenecks at the Panama Canal, with overall transits up 16% in March compared with February, said Sevilla-Macip. Worryingly, meteorological forecasts for a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/el-nino-forecast-suggests-risk-of-low-water-levels-along-panama-canal-6202618">strong El Niño/La Niña weather phenomenon</a> this year threaten renewed drought conditions for the canal. Such conditions would force the waterway to again limit the number of transits and the size of vessels, and that, in turn, would drive up the auction price for ad-hoc transits of the waterway. Still, despite geopolitical conflicts and the resulting shipping disruptions, and President Donald Trump’s continued efforts to impose tariffs on US trading partners, global economic growth continues. S&amp;P Global expects global GDP growth of 2.4% in 2026. “Probably we’re going to see some adjustments in the next couple of months if the situation in the Middle East continues, but it’s still going to be growth,” Sevilla-Macip said. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

New Orleans — The ongoing war in the Middle East is the latest example that geopolitical conflicts disrupting shipping will be the norm for the rest of the decade, a geopolitical analyst said Tuesday. José Enrique Sevilla-Macip, an S&P Global senior research analyst, said that while Iran and the US both want to decelerate tensions, boding well for the renewal of a two-week ceasefire by the Wednesday night deadline, there’s little chance of normalization in the Middle East this year. S&P Global expects crude oil prices — which were trading over $98 per barrel Tuesday afternoon — to fall to about $70/b by the end of the year after peaking in the second quarter. “But we are going to have the permanent threat of disruption over there,” Sevilla-Macip told approximately 900 attendees of the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026. “Iran will maintain the capacity to, at any point in time, resume its attacks on shipping or against critical infrastructure in the Gulf space, which we all know what that means.” The Middle East is hardly the only region ripe for continued conflict, with S&P Global expecting the Ukraine-Russia war to last at least another year, Sevilla-Macip said. “What does that mean for [the project cargo] sector? Well, potential large projects for the reconstruction of Ukraine are probably going to remain on hold at least for the next year,” he said. Sevilla-Macip, who is part of S&P Global’s Latin America risk team, pointed to increased tension in recent months between the US and Cuba, and between China and Taiwan. In the meantime, the rerouting of LNG tankers due to the war is creating bottlenecks at the Panama Canal, with overall transits up 16% in March compared with February, said Sevilla-Macip. Worryingly, meteorological forecasts for a strong El Niño/La Niña weather phenomenon this year threaten renewed drought conditions for the canal. Such conditions would force the waterway to again limit the number of transits and the size of vessels, and that, in turn, would drive up the auction price for ad-hoc transits of the waterway. Still, despite geopolitical conflicts and the resulting shipping disruptions, and President Donald Trump’s continued efforts to impose tariffs on US trading partners, global economic growth continues. S&P Global expects global GDP growth of 2.4% in 2026. “Probably we’re going to see some adjustments in the next couple of months if the situation in the Middle East continues, but it’s still going to be growth,” Sevilla-Macip said. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Breakbulk26: Geopolitical disruption to shipping the new norm: analyst

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 SSFTW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SSGFTW895 at checkout to save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 to save 30% 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

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on an annual Gold 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

SPRING SALE: Use code SSGFTW895 and save $600 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 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

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

Carriers’ handling of fuel surcharges agitates small, mid-size trans-Pac shippers

Breakbulk26: Risk ‘buckets’ disrupting project cargo logistics priorities

GCT, Vancouver port to jointly study Roberts Bank terminal project