<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The biggest shipping fraud in maritime history prompted a political science professor to trade the t</div>

The biggest shipping fraud in maritime history prompted a political science professor to trade the t

<div>The biggest shipping fraud in maritime history prompted a political science professor to trade the tweedy trappings of academia for the dark dealings of international intrigue.The fraud involved a supertanker intentionally sunk in 1980 off the coast of Senegal, and the masterminds - an American, Dutchman and Greek - that escaped with millions of dollars before their arrests.Initial news reports of the shipping fraud caught the attention of Arthur Jay Klingoffer, a professor at the Camden campus of Rutgers University.Mr. Klingoffer, who specializes in oil policy and African studies, decided to follow the trail to Washington, London and Amsterdam, the...

The biggest shipping fraud in maritime history prompted a political science professor to trade the tweedy trappings of academia for the dark dealings of international intrigue. The fraud involved a supertanker intentionally sunk in 1980 off the coast of Senegal, and the masterminds - an American, Dutchman and Greek - that escaped with millions of dollars before their arrests.Initial news reports of the shipping fraud caught the attention of Arthur Jay Klingoffer, a professor at the Camden campus of Rutgers University. Mr. Klingoffer, who specializes in oil policy and African studies, decided to follow the trail to Washington, London and Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He spent 18 months, including a year in Great Britain, researching the mysterious tale by interviewing shipping brokers, oil and insurance executives, Scotland Yard officials and secret sources. The result is his new book - Fraud of the Century: The Case of the Mysterious SupertankerSalem - which will be released later this month by Routledge & Kegan Paul of London. I've written other books, but they're more scholarly. This is geared to the general public. It's a mystery and oh, yes, I think I know what happened, the 46-year-old Cherry Hill resident said in a recent interview at his campus office. It took investigators from five countries several years to track down the reason the Salem slipped to the bottom of the sea in January 1980. By the time they finished, the Guiness Book of Records listed the swindle as the biggest shipping fraud in the 20th century. And the probe continues. The plot began when the conspirators arranged to get a $32 million contract to ship oil to South Africa, which faced an oil embargo because of its apartheid policies and was forced to make deals with anyone to bring in oil, Mr. Klingoffer said. These defrauders got the contract even though none of them had very good credentials. They didn't have the ship or the oil but they got the contract, he said. The conspirators managed to get a ship with Greek officers, a Tunisian crew and a Liberian flag. A phony oil shipping deal was made with Pontoil, a Swiss oil company, which sold the cargo to Shell Oil Co. while the ship was at sea. Both companies, which were innocent victims of the fraud, thought the ship was heading for France, Mr. Klingoffer said. The conspirators diverted the ship to South Africa, unloaded the oil and got paid, he said. They filled the ship with sea water to disguise the fact it was empty because Shell thought it was going to France. But if the ship went to France, the crew would have been arrested. Therefore, they had to decide to sink the ship and cover it up as an accident, Mr. Klingoffer said. The crew, which was in on the deal, was rescued and brought to Senegal. They claimed explosives hit the ship, but they were found in well- equipped lifeboats with food, drink, passports and money, Mr. Klingoffer said. The lifeboats and other mysterious clues prompted investigations. Maritime insurance companies in London were especially concerned, Mr. Klingoffer said. The IRS acted right away, he said with a laugh. The major losers in the deal were South Africa, which had to pay $30.5 million in litigation following the fraud, and Shell, which lost $16 million. It's very hard to put a complete figure on it, Mr. Klingoffer said. Mr. Klingoffer said the American and Greek arrested in the case were convicted and that the Dutchman is awaiting trial. The American, Frederick Soudan, was sentenced to 35 years in prison in 1985 and escaped from a federal prison in Texas last year, he said, adding that Mr. Soudan remains at large. Mr. Klingoffer, who is now writing another book on the South African oil embargo, says the fraud showed the faults in the fragile security of oil policies. Such faults can translate into millions of dollars in losses to companies and countries. This is an extreme example, he said, But you have to deal with possible (defrauders). You have to close the loopholes in the system.

Maritime

BOOK BRINGS SHIP-SINKING FRAUD TO SURFACE

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the carrier’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the industry manages its fast-growing order book, Vincent Clerc says. </div>

But the carrier’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the industry manages its fast-growing order book, Vincent Clerc says.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk’s monthly bunker fuel bill has doubled to $500 million since the war in the Middle East began — and those costs are being recovered “in full” from the carrier’s customers via surcharges and revised bunker formulas, CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. But Maersk’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the container shipping industry manages growing excess capacity, Clerc told analysts during the carrier’s first-quarter earnings call. “Our concern is a softening of the demand environment and insufficient capacity management across the industry, which will lead to an erosion of the recovery of costs on the short-term market, which could, depending on how much it will erode, quickly get you into a not-so-pleasant place in the second half of the year,” he said. Maersk handled 3.2 million FEUs in the first quarter as volume increased 9% year over year. Average load rates were down 14% at $2,081 per FEU, but higher sequentially compared to the fourth quarter of 2025. Despite the robust volume across Maersk’s ocean, logistics and terminals segments, the group’s key Q1 financial metrics were negative due to an oversupplied market that pushed rates lower. Revenue was down 2.6% year over year at $13 billion; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 33% to $1.8 billion; and EBIT of $340 million was down 73%. First-quarter net profit of $100 million was down sharply from the $1.2 billion recorded in Q1 2025. <h3>’Limited’ financial hit from war in Q1 </h3>Maersk has so far been able to manage the cost impact of the energy shock, but Clerc told analysts that the bunker fuel price increase was unprecedented in terms of size, the speed at which it unfolded, and the dislocations it created in the market. “There is limited financial impact from the conflict in the first quarter, given the accounting effects of delayed recognitions of both revenue and costs," he said. “The increased cost that will flow through the (profit and loss) in Q2 and beyond are being recovered through higher spot rates and the successful implementation of commercial levers with our contracted customers, most notably surcharges and bunker formulas. ”This is about $500 million of extra cost per month, which we are recovering in full today, even in an oversupplied market overall, despite heavy disruptions to energy markets,” Clerc added. Bunker prices in the first quarter were actually down 16% year over year, with the sharply higher prices seen in March after the war began not enough to overwhelm the far lower costs of January and February. Operating costs were up 0.6%, but offset by the strong volume growth and unit cost that fell 7.1% in the first quarter. Maersk’s Logistics and Services segment reported revenue up 8.7% year over year at $3.8 billion, although the EBIT margin of 4.6% remained short of the 6% target. In the terminals segment, revenue increased 6.7% year over year to $1.3 billion, driven by higher revenue per move and greater volume, especially in North America. Volume handled by the terminals rose 4% to 3.4 million FEUs. <h3>Overcapacity hangs over industry </h3>Maersk left its financial forecast for the year unchanged, but the wide range between upper and lower EBIT expectation — minus $1.5 billion to $1 billion — underlined the extreme uncertainty the carrier is seeing in global container shipping markets, particularly around overcapacity. The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12 million TEUs, 36% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="65404dbe-8b60-43eb-9f13-4179bde44e2b"></dynamic-object></div>Clerc believes the high energy costs will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. ”We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” Global long-haul networks were currently sailing at 16-17 knots; Clerc said at the current price of bunker fuel, it would be “quite economical” to reduce speed to 14.5-15 knots. "Another thing that would be extremely positive from a fuel cost perspective is reopening the Red Sea,” he said. “When you're sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you're going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than you will taking the long route (around southern Africa).” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk’s monthly bunker fuel bill has doubled to $500 million since the war in the Middle East began — and those costs are being recovered “in full” from the carrier’s customers via surcharges and revised bunker formulas, CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. But Maersk’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the container shipping industry manages growing excess capacity, Clerc told analysts during the carrier’s first-quarter earnings call. “Our concern is a softening of the demand environment and insufficient capacity management across the industry, which will lead to an erosion of the recovery of costs on the short-term market, which could, depending on how much it will erode, quickly get you into a not-so-pleasant place in the second half of the year,” he said. Maersk handled 3.2 million FEUs in the first quarter as volume increased 9% year over year. Average load rates were down 14% at $2,081 per FEU, but higher sequentially compared to the fourth quarter of 2025. Despite the robust volume across Maersk’s ocean, logistics and terminals segments, the group’s key Q1 financial metrics were negative due to an oversupplied market that pushed rates lower. Revenue was down 2.6% year over year at $13 billion; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 33% to $1.8 billion; and EBIT of $340 million was down 73%. First-quarter net profit of $100 million was down sharply from the $1.2 billion recorded in Q1 2025. ’Limited’ financial hit from war in Q1 Maersk has so far been able to manage the cost impact of the energy shock, but Clerc told analysts that the bunker fuel price increase was unprecedented in terms of size, the speed at which it unfolded, and the dislocations it created in the market. “There is limited financial impact from the conflict in the first quarter, given the accounting effects of delayed recognitions of both revenue and costs," he said. “The increased cost that will flow through the (profit and loss) in Q2 and beyond are being recovered through higher spot rates and the successful implementation of commercial levers with our contracted customers, most notably surcharges and bunker formulas. ”This is about $500 million of extra cost per month, which we are recovering in full today, even in an oversupplied market overall, despite heavy disruptions to energy markets,” Clerc added. Bunker prices in the first quarter were actually down 16% year over year, with the sharply higher prices seen in March after the war began not enough to overwhelm the far lower costs of January and February. Operating costs were up 0.6%, but offset by the strong volume growth and unit cost that fell 7.1% in the first quarter. Maersk’s Logistics and Services segment reported revenue up 8.7% year over year at $3.8 billion, although the EBIT margin of 4.6% remained short of the 6% target. In the terminals segment, revenue increased 6.7% year over year to $1.3 billion, driven by higher revenue per move and greater volume, especially in North America. Volume handled by the terminals rose 4% to 3.4 million FEUs. Overcapacity hangs over industry Maersk left its financial forecast for the year unchanged, but the wide range between upper and lower EBIT expectation — minus $1.5 billion to $1 billion — underlined the extreme uncertainty the carrier is seeing in global container shipping markets, particularly around overcapacity. The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12 million TEUs, 36% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Clerc believes the high energy costs will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. ”We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” Global long-haul networks were currently sailing at 16-17 knots; Clerc said at the current price of bunker fuel, it would be “quite economical” to reduce speed to 14.5-15 knots. "Another thing that would be extremely positive from a fuel cost perspective is reopening the Red Sea,” he said. “When you're sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you're going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than you will taking the long route (around southern Africa).” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Container Shipping News

Maersk passing $500 million monthly fuel bill to customers ‘in full’: CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Sarah McCoy, who recently led the renegotiation of the lease for the Virginia International Gateway terminal, will lead the sixth-largest port in the US by volume. </div>

Sarah McCoy, who recently led the renegotiation of the lease for the Virginia International Gateway terminal, will lead the sixth-largest port in the US by volume.

<div class="phx-topic">A 12-year veteran of the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) who led the renegotiation of the lease at one of the most advanced marine terminals in the country, has officially taken the reins of the sixth-largest US container port by volume. Sarah McCoy on Wednesday was named CEO of the Port of Virginia after serving as interim CEO and executive director since January. She replaces Stephen Edwards, who stepped down last November. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6215876_0.1.jpg"></img></div>“We have the infrastructure, people and performance to continue defining the future of American trade, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do,” McCoy said in a statement. “I look forward to putting these advantages to work to attract business to Virginia and continue delivering for our customers and communities across Virginia.” McCoy led VPA’s renegotiation of its lease for the Virginia International Gateway through 2065 with owner Alinda Capital Partners. She was also key in the port’s recent $1.4 billion investment plan that included the late February <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/virginias-deeper-harbor-could-allow-higher-usage-on-ulcvs-6189706">completion of the deepening of Norfolk’s harbor to 55 feet</a>. McCoy was VPA’s general counsel from 2017 to 2022 and then served as chief administrative officer. Laden container volumes through the port in 2025 fell 4.2% year over year, to 2.4 million TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Comparatively, volume through the US East Coast overall increased 3.2%. <a href="mailto:News@joc.com">News@joc.com</a></div>

A 12-year veteran of the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) who led the renegotiation of the lease at one of the most advanced marine terminals in the country, has officially taken the reins of the sixth-largest US container port by volume. Sarah McCoy on Wednesday was named CEO of the Port of Virginia after serving as interim CEO and executive director since January. She replaces Stephen Edwards, who stepped down last November. “We have the infrastructure, people and performance to continue defining the future of American trade, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do,” McCoy said in a statement. “I look forward to putting these advantages to work to attract business to Virginia and continue delivering for our customers and communities across Virginia.” McCoy led VPA’s renegotiation of its lease for the Virginia International Gateway through 2065 with owner Alinda Capital Partners. She was also key in the port’s recent $1.4 billion investment plan that included the late February completion of the deepening of Norfolk’s harbor to 55 feet . McCoy was VPA’s general counsel from 2017 to 2022 and then served as chief administrative officer. Laden container volumes through the port in 2025 fell 4.2% year over year, to 2.4 million TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Comparatively, volume through the US East Coast overall increased 3.2%. News@joc.com

Port News

North American ports

Marine terminals

VPA veteran McCoy tapped as CEO of Port of Virginia

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Local 23 says marine clerk jobs will be eliminated if Husky Terminal uses container-tracking technology within the terminal yard, despite the fact that its use has been widespread at West Coast terminals for decades without jobs being lost. </div>

Local 23 says marine clerk jobs will be eliminated if Husky Terminal uses container-tracking technology within the terminal yard, despite the fact that its use has been widespread at West Coast terminals for decades without jobs being lost.

<div class="phx-topic">A local of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in Tacoma is attempting to block Husky Terminal from installing container-tracking technology on its gantry cranes, saying the move would eliminate union jobs. The complaint from ILWU Local 23 comes despite the fact that the technology has been in widespread use at marine terminals along the West Coast since it was written into a coastwide contract approved in 2002. At issue is the use of what’s known as optical character recognition, or OCRs, which record container numbers as the boxes are lifted off vessels. The numbers are paired with information relayed by radio frequency identification devices (RFDs) that track container movements in the yard. Before computerization, that information was manually inputted by ILWU marine clerks. The Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), which represents terminal operators in negotiating and managing the coastwide collective bargaining agreements, says the use of OCRs and RFDs has significantly enhanced the efficiency of port operations. “West Coast ports have lost substantial market share to competing ports in Canada and on the Gulf and East coasts,” the PMA said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “Failing to keep pace with modern cargo-handling practices not only drives cargo and market share to competing ports, but also puts longshore jobs — as well as jobs throughout the supply chain — at risk.” ILWU Local 23 has been seeking signatures on a petition that claims union jobs at Husky are at risk over the OCR technology. “ILWU Local 23 is raising community awareness that the Port of Tacoma is considering allowing its tenant, Husky Terminal, to install technology on publicly owned port gantry cranes that will eliminate jobs for longshore marine clerks,” Local 23 President Jared Faker said in a statement. <h3>Number of marine clerks at Tacoma has increased </h3>The PMA said the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ilwu-braces-for-technology-5264642">2002 ILWU-PMA contract</a> that was ratified by the union specifically allows the use of computerization in return for management concessions that protect the interests of marine clerks. “Those contract provisions also provide ILWU clerks and other ILWU members with a wide range of job protections, including guaranteed pay,” the PMA said. The number of registered marine clerks in Tacoma has actually increased from 90 in the summer of 2002 to 133 as of December 2025, a gain of 48%, according to the PMA. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

A local of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in Tacoma is attempting to block Husky Terminal from installing container-tracking technology on its gantry cranes, saying the move would eliminate union jobs. The complaint from ILWU Local 23 comes despite the fact that the technology has been in widespread use at marine terminals along the West Coast since it was written into a coastwide contract approved in 2002. At issue is the use of what’s known as optical character recognition, or OCRs, which record container numbers as the boxes are lifted off vessels. The numbers are paired with information relayed by radio frequency identification devices (RFDs) that track container movements in the yard. Before computerization, that information was manually inputted by ILWU marine clerks. The Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), which represents terminal operators in negotiating and managing the coastwide collective bargaining agreements, says the use of OCRs and RFDs has significantly enhanced the efficiency of port operations. “West Coast ports have lost substantial market share to competing ports in Canada and on the Gulf and East coasts,” the PMA said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “Failing to keep pace with modern cargo-handling practices not only drives cargo and market share to competing ports, but also puts longshore jobs — as well as jobs throughout the supply chain — at risk.” ILWU Local 23 has been seeking signatures on a petition that claims union jobs at Husky are at risk over the OCR technology. “ILWU Local 23 is raising community awareness that the Port of Tacoma is considering allowing its tenant, Husky Terminal, to install technology on publicly owned port gantry cranes that will eliminate jobs for longshore marine clerks,” Local 23 President Jared Faker said in a statement. Number of marine clerks at Tacoma has increased The PMA said the 2002 ILWU-PMA contract that was ratified by the union specifically allows the use of computerization in return for management concessions that protect the interests of marine clerks. “Those contract provisions also provide ILWU clerks and other ILWU members with a wide range of job protections, including guaranteed pay,” the PMA said. The number of registered marine clerks in Tacoma has actually increased from 90 in the summer of 2002 to 133 as of December 2025, a gain of 48%, according to the PMA. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Tacoma ILWU local attempting to block Husky technology effort

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The crackdown on more than 150 onshore wind farms marks the latest push by the Trump administration to dismantle the US wind industry. </div>

The crackdown on more than 150 onshore wind farms marks the latest push by the Trump administration to dismantle the US wind industry.

<div class="phx-topic">Wind project cargo activity is facing yet another setback after over 150 onshore wind developments in the US were put on hold by the Trump administration. Citing national security concerns, the Department of Defense <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/04/climate/wind-power-delays-trump-pentagon.html">has stalled approvals for about 165 onshore wind projects</a> located on private lands, the administration’s latest push against wind energy development. The inactivity could have repercussions for the breakbulk sector, as the wind industry represents an important source of project cargo. The lion’s share of those shipments is for the onshore wind industry, which accounted for more than 90% of global wind turbine orders in 2025 despite an 18% year-over-year decline, according to data from S&amp;P Global Energy. John Welch, senior director of heavy-haul operations for Fort Worth, Texas-based Lone Star Transportation, told the Journal of Commerce that cargo transportation for the wind industry depends on a predictable project pipeline, as the moves often call for complex logistics work. “Transporting the major wind components requires significant advance planning, specialized equipment, routing, permitting, escorts, crews, and considerable coordination,” he said. “And that is just the transportation portion.” Welch said national security reviews are important, and that any legitimate concerns should be addressed through the appropriate process. However, “At the same time, delays or uncertainty in project approvals can ripple through the logistics and supply chain, making it more difficult for transportation providers and their customers to plan efficiently and responsibly,” he said. Among the stalled projects are wind farms that were awaiting final signoff, others in mid-negotiation, and projects that typically do not require federal oversight, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/74d8cf6f-aa17-4a24-a621-e26b1bad2e1e?syn-25a6b1a6=1">the Financial Times reported</a>, citing the American Clean Power Association (ACP) and sources close to the matter. Jason Grumet, ACP’s CEO, told the Journal of Commerce that efforts to delay onshore projects contradict calls from senior federal officials for permitting reform while “abusing the current permitting system.”  “The core idea of permitting reform is that America wins when we can modernize all critical infrastructure,” Grumet said. “It’s incoherent to pursue that goal while actively blockading domestic energy production that will help meet our growing energy needs and keeping energy affordable for American families.” <h3>Wind supply chain recalibrates </h3>The crackdown on onshore windfarms marks the latest push by the Trump administration to dismantle the US wind industry. On March 23, French energy giant TotalEnergies signed off on a deal to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/offshore-wind-cancellations-set-up-energy-project-pivot-in-the-us-6192787">accept $1 billion from the US government to cancel its two offshore wind projects</a> — Carolina Long Bay and New York Bight — and instead pivot to developing fossil fuel facilities. And in February, the Trump administration began taking steps to reverse a sweep of court victories allowing construction to resume on five offshore wind projects the administration has tried to stop. The slowdown of US wind farm development over the past couple of years has forced heavy-haul transport specialist Art Espaillat to suspend operations of his onshore wind logistics consultancy, as many of his competitors lowered their rates when project developers pulled back. “It just created a race to the bottom for a lot of companies like mine,” Espaillat told the Journal of Commerce. Espaillat said many of the US wind projects he has worked on over the past six years had already secured agreements with utilities to supply power to the grid, only to reach a standstill because of federal permitting delays. “They’re setting up roadblocks that not a lot of other industries are getting,” he said. With fewer turbines in need of transport, comparably sized data center components have been eating up the available heavy-haul capacity, Espaillat said. But if those stalled wind projects were to pick back up again in another two years, the industry could face a scenario similar to the challenges that played out in 2020 when the global wind industry’s rapid expansion created supply chain bottlenecks for turbines and components. “Developers lost a lot of money because there weren’t enough trucks, not enough ships, and it was too much too fast,” Espaillat said. “Executing in a scenario like that is very expensive and chaotic.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>.</div>

Wind project cargo activity is facing yet another setback after over 150 onshore wind developments in the US were put on hold by the Trump administration. Citing national security concerns, the Department of Defense has stalled approvals for about 165 onshore wind projects located on private lands, the administration’s latest push against wind energy development. The inactivity could have repercussions for the breakbulk sector, as the wind industry represents an important source of project cargo. The lion’s share of those shipments is for the onshore wind industry, which accounted for more than 90% of global wind turbine orders in 2025 despite an 18% year-over-year decline, according to data from S&P Global Energy. John Welch, senior director of heavy-haul operations for Fort Worth, Texas-based Lone Star Transportation, told the Journal of Commerce that cargo transportation for the wind industry depends on a predictable project pipeline, as the moves often call for complex logistics work. “Transporting the major wind components requires significant advance planning, specialized equipment, routing, permitting, escorts, crews, and considerable coordination,” he said. “And that is just the transportation portion.” Welch said national security reviews are important, and that any legitimate concerns should be addressed through the appropriate process. However, “At the same time, delays or uncertainty in project approvals can ripple through the logistics and supply chain, making it more difficult for transportation providers and their customers to plan efficiently and responsibly,” he said. Among the stalled projects are wind farms that were awaiting final signoff, others in mid-negotiation, and projects that typically do not require federal oversight, the Financial Times reported , citing the American Clean Power Association (ACP) and sources close to the matter. Jason Grumet, ACP’s CEO, told the Journal of Commerce that efforts to delay onshore projects contradict calls from senior federal officials for permitting reform while “abusing the current permitting system.”  “The core idea of permitting reform is that America wins when we can modernize all critical infrastructure,” Grumet said. “It’s incoherent to pursue that goal while actively blockading domestic energy production that will help meet our growing energy needs and keeping energy affordable for American families.” Wind supply chain recalibrates The crackdown on onshore windfarms marks the latest push by the Trump administration to dismantle the US wind industry. On March 23, French energy giant TotalEnergies signed off on a deal to accept $1 billion from the US government to cancel its two offshore wind projects — Carolina Long Bay and New York Bight — and instead pivot to developing fossil fuel facilities. And in February, the Trump administration began taking steps to reverse a sweep of court victories allowing construction to resume on five offshore wind projects the administration has tried to stop. The slowdown of US wind farm development over the past couple of years has forced heavy-haul transport specialist Art Espaillat to suspend operations of his onshore wind logistics consultancy, as many of his competitors lowered their rates when project developers pulled back. “It just created a race to the bottom for a lot of companies like mine,” Espaillat told the Journal of Commerce. Espaillat said many of the US wind projects he has worked on over the past six years had already secured agreements with utilities to supply power to the grid, only to reach a standstill because of federal permitting delays. “They’re setting up roadblocks that not a lot of other industries are getting,” he said. With fewer turbines in need of transport, comparably sized data center components have been eating up the available heavy-haul capacity, Espaillat said. But if those stalled wind projects were to pick back up again in another two years, the industry could face a scenario similar to the challenges that played out in 2020 when the global wind industry’s rapid expansion created supply chain bottlenecks for turbines and components. “Developers lost a lot of money because there weren’t enough trucks, not enough ships, and it was too much too fast,” Espaillat said. “Executing in a scenario like that is very expensive and chaotic.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Energy projects

Breakbulk News

US onshore wind halt deals latest blow for project cargo

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Logistics and transportation veterans decried Amazon’s announcement this week that it is offering bundled supply chain services as merely a repackaging of current capabilities; others weren’t as quick to dismiss it. </div>

Logistics and transportation veterans decried Amazon’s announcement this week that it is offering bundled supply chain services as merely a repackaging of current capabilities; others weren’t as quick to dismiss it.

<div class="phx-topic">Amazon’s launch this week of a suite of supply chain services for shippers not currently using its e-commerce seller ecosystem has sparked a healthy debate within the logistics industry about whether the services represent a threat to third-party logistics providers (3PLs). On one side of that debate are mostly transportation and logistics veterans who suggest the announcement is primarily marketing — a neat and more digestible packaging of offerings that Amazon has long provided as individual services, such as warehousing, fulfillment, and brokered and for-hire transportation. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6215654_0.1.jpg"></img></div>On the other side are those who think Amazon’s foray into diversified logistics is taking shape in a way that threatens everyone from integrators such as UPS and FedEx to mom-and-pop forwarders and freight brokers to supply chain software vendors. “I’m laughing at all the ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ over something that is essentially just a marketing ploy,” Eric Williams, CEO of freight brokerage pricing vendor Beagl and a former transportation executive with Target, wrote on X. In a response to a question posted on X about whether Amazon had just “knee-capped” the forwarder Flexport, its CEO Ryan Petersen replied: “No, they’ve had this offering for many years.” One longtime logistics veteran who did not want to be identified described the announcement to the Journal of Commerce as “Groundhog Day,” given that it felt familiar. <h3>‘Execution engine’ </h3>Still, there are certainly watchers of the supply chain space who assert that Amazon’s move is more than just a repackaging of existing capabilities. “Amazon has built a fully integrated execution engine,” Brittain Ladd, a former Amazon executive and prolific analyst of the retail, supply chain and technology space, said in a LinkedIn post. “Not a platform. Not software. An integrated execution engine that also includes robotics and automation.” Ladd said sources within Amazon believe the company will be able to save third-party shippers a sizable percentage over what they might be paying now by using current combinations of transportation, contract logistics, final mile, and software partners. “I don’t care how long a 3PL has done business with a customer,” he said. “When customers learn that Amazon can reduce their costs ... and transition their logistics needs into Amazon’s ecosystem with minimal disruption, they will choose Amazon.” Or will they? This type of offering has been tried by large retailers before. Walmart in the late 2000s toyed with the idea of offering third-party contract logistics services to other shippers, but the idea never gained enough traction to grow into a substantial business unit. More recently, American Eagle Outfitters cut bait on a third-party logistics venture designed to attract other shippers. It’s hard to pinpoint how and why these ventures didn’t succeed, but some part of it is attributable to the reticence of shippers to use competitors as logistics partners. <h3>Competitor tension </h3>Amazon is a different beast than American Eagle and even Walmart, but some of that competitive tension will surely remain. Although Amazon noted in its announcement that retail customers such as Lands’ End and, ironically, American Eagle, are existing users of its supply chain services, it’s hard to imagine retailers that compete directly with Amazon’s e-commerce business engaging in a massive migration to its logistics offering. Some commenters made the link between the announcement Monday of Amazon Supply Chain Services (ASCS) and the wildly successful Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud infrastructure business. Surely, the branding team at Amazon would love for ACSC to become as synonymous with logistics as AWS has become with cloud. In business circles, the much-loved trope is that Amazon takes its biggest cost centers and eventually turns them into revenue drivers. But is logistics like other parts of its business? Amazon has long blended the digital and physical worlds, but the fragmentation of freight transportation across modes is much more challenging than what it has faced in parcel or web hosting or even warehousing and fulfillment. Take, for example, Amazon’s non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO) business. That unit is big enough to be the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/journal-of-commerce-top-25-trans-pacific-nvos-in-2025-6182176">seventh-largest trans-Pacific NVO</a>, according to data from S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, but it is not in any way dominant. <h3>Domestic focus </h3>What’s more, the announcement Monday suggests Amazon’s focus is largely on domestic services — brokerage, drayage, warehousing, final-mile, inventory management, and distribution. Within each of those categories, Amazon will contend with a set of competitors that range from large, diversified, and often well-capitalized players, to the normal cohort of smaller providers. Given the highly fragmented nature of logistics on the whole, and even within each subcategory, this will be a test of whether Amazon’s technological might and huge scale will overpower businesses that focus on people-to-people relationships first and foremost. The not-so-small matter of which shippers might be reluctant to turn over the keys to their supply chains to a company that has become famously dominant in e-commerce, fulfillment and web services overlaps with the fragmentation issue. Competitors in each service category will also be split into ones that cater to many shipper verticals and ones that focus on single verticals. In the announcement, Amazon specifically mentioned automotive, healthcare, electronics, apparel &amp; beauty, and food &amp; beverage, as key verticals it would target. Some of those verticals can be neatly split into manufacturer and retailer segments. Are retailers ready to give Amazon intricate information on their supplier networks or customs information? Or will Amazon find more joy in targeting upstream suppliers within the retail industry, or larger shippers in the industrial sector? <h3>‘Base load’ benefits </h3>Aside from just generating more revenue from its decade of investment in third-party logistics, the benefit to Amazon bundling its services is clear: By providing what one LinkedIn commenter called a “base load“ of third-party cargo across various modes, Amazon could essentially subsidize or even zero out the cost of moving its own freight. That “own” freight could take the form of volume from third-party sellers already on Amazon’s e-commerce platform or its own products that Amazon moves as an outright shipper itself. That’s a target worth chasing for a company with the scale and reach of Amazon. And it would give them yet another lever to distance themselves from competition across the various categories in which it participates. That even includes AWS, where it is competing with Google and Microsoft to collect monetizable logistics industry information. Still... “This is not like AWS,” Dave Ross, chief strategy officer of less-than-truckload carrier Roadrunner and a former equities analyst, wrote on LinkedIn. “There is no ‘move to the cloud’ when it comes to freight. Amazon is adding no new capacity. [It] just wants to be a middleman to replace your current middleman. I’ll take the ‘under’ on its overall impact to the transportation &amp; logistics industry after hype and headlines pass.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Amazon’s launch this week of a suite of supply chain services for shippers not currently using its e-commerce seller ecosystem has sparked a healthy debate within the logistics industry about whether the services represent a threat to third-party logistics providers (3PLs). On one side of that debate are mostly transportation and logistics veterans who suggest the announcement is primarily marketing — a neat and more digestible packaging of offerings that Amazon has long provided as individual services, such as warehousing, fulfillment, and brokered and for-hire transportation. On the other side are those who think Amazon’s foray into diversified logistics is taking shape in a way that threatens everyone from integrators such as UPS and FedEx to mom-and-pop forwarders and freight brokers to supply chain software vendors. “I’m laughing at all the ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ over something that is essentially just a marketing ploy,” Eric Williams, CEO of freight brokerage pricing vendor Beagl and a former transportation executive with Target, wrote on X. In a response to a question posted on X about whether Amazon had just “knee-capped” the forwarder Flexport, its CEO Ryan Petersen replied: “No, they’ve had this offering for many years.” One longtime logistics veteran who did not want to be identified described the announcement to the Journal of Commerce as “Groundhog Day,” given that it felt familiar. ‘Execution engine’ Still, there are certainly watchers of the supply chain space who assert that Amazon’s move is more than just a repackaging of existing capabilities. “Amazon has built a fully integrated execution engine,” Brittain Ladd, a former Amazon executive and prolific analyst of the retail, supply chain and technology space, said in a LinkedIn post. “Not a platform. Not software. An integrated execution engine that also includes robotics and automation.” Ladd said sources within Amazon believe the company will be able to save third-party shippers a sizable percentage over what they might be paying now by using current combinations of transportation, contract logistics, final mile, and software partners. “I don’t care how long a 3PL has done business with a customer,” he said. “When customers learn that Amazon can reduce their costs ... and transition their logistics needs into Amazon’s ecosystem with minimal disruption, they will choose Amazon.” Or will they? This type of offering has been tried by large retailers before. Walmart in the late 2000s toyed with the idea of offering third-party contract logistics services to other shippers, but the idea never gained enough traction to grow into a substantial business unit. More recently, American Eagle Outfitters cut bait on a third-party logistics venture designed to attract other shippers. It’s hard to pinpoint how and why these ventures didn’t succeed, but some part of it is attributable to the reticence of shippers to use competitors as logistics partners. Competitor tension Amazon is a different beast than American Eagle and even Walmart, but some of that competitive tension will surely remain. Although Amazon noted in its announcement that retail customers such as Lands’ End and, ironically, American Eagle, are existing users of its supply chain services, it’s hard to imagine retailers that compete directly with Amazon’s e-commerce business engaging in a massive migration to its logistics offering. Some commenters made the link between the announcement Monday of Amazon Supply Chain Services (ASCS) and the wildly successful Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud infrastructure business. Surely, the branding team at Amazon would love for ACSC to become as synonymous with logistics as AWS has become with cloud. In business circles, the much-loved trope is that Amazon takes its biggest cost centers and eventually turns them into revenue drivers. But is logistics like other parts of its business? Amazon has long blended the digital and physical worlds, but the fragmentation of freight transportation across modes is much more challenging than what it has faced in parcel or web hosting or even warehousing and fulfillment. Take, for example, Amazon’s non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO) business. That unit is big enough to be the seventh-largest trans-Pacific NVO , according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence, but it is not in any way dominant. Domestic focus What’s more, the announcement Monday suggests Amazon’s focus is largely on domestic services — brokerage, drayage, warehousing, final-mile, inventory management, and distribution. Within each of those categories, Amazon will contend with a set of competitors that range from large, diversified, and often well-capitalized players, to the normal cohort of smaller providers. Given the highly fragmented nature of logistics on the whole, and even within each subcategory, this will be a test of whether Amazon’s technological might and huge scale will overpower businesses that focus on people-to-people relationships first and foremost. The not-so-small matter of which shippers might be reluctant to turn over the keys to their supply chains to a company that has become famously dominant in e-commerce, fulfillment and web services overlaps with the fragmentation issue. Competitors in each service category will also be split into ones that cater to many shipper verticals and ones that focus on single verticals. In the announcement, Amazon specifically mentioned automotive, healthcare, electronics, apparel & beauty, and food & beverage, as key verticals it would target. Some of those verticals can be neatly split into manufacturer and retailer segments. Are retailers ready to give Amazon intricate information on their supplier networks or customs information? Or will Amazon find more joy in targeting upstream suppliers within the retail industry, or larger shippers in the industrial sector? ‘Base load’ benefits Aside from just generating more revenue from its decade of investment in third-party logistics, the benefit to Amazon bundling its services is clear: By providing what one LinkedIn commenter called a “base load“ of third-party cargo across various modes, Amazon could essentially subsidize or even zero out the cost of moving its own freight. That “own” freight could take the form of volume from third-party sellers already on Amazon’s e-commerce platform or its own products that Amazon moves as an outright shipper itself. That’s a target worth chasing for a company with the scale and reach of Amazon. And it would give them yet another lever to distance themselves from competition across the various categories in which it participates. That even includes AWS, where it is competing with Google and Microsoft to collect monetizable logistics industry information. Still... “This is not like AWS,” Dave Ross, chief strategy officer of less-than-truckload carrier Roadrunner and a former equities analyst, wrote on LinkedIn. “There is no ‘move to the cloud’ when it comes to freight. Amazon is adding no new capacity. [It] just wants to be a middleman to replace your current middleman. I’ll take the ‘under’ on its overall impact to the transportation & logistics industry after hype and headlines pass.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Amazon’s 3PL foray: marketing ploy or existential threat to 3PLs?

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

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland26

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 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

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

Container Shipping News | 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

Maersk passing $500 million monthly fuel bill to customers ‘in full’: CEO

VPA veteran McCoy tapped as CEO of Port of Virginia

Tacoma ILWU local attempting to block Husky technology effort