<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The operator of Portland’s only container terminal is confident that liner services will once again call at Oregon’s only container port.</div>

The operator of Portland’s only container terminal is confident that liner services will once again call at Oregon’s only container port.

<div>The operator of <a>Portland</a>’s only container terminal is confident that liner services will once again call at Oregon’s only container port, but <a>International Container Terminal Services</a> Chief Executive Officer Elvis Ganda said the International Longshore and Warehouse Union must work with management to convince shipping lines productivity levels will return to normal.Ganda’s comments Monday followed an announcement from the weekend that Westwood Shipping Lines, the only remaining container line to call at Terminal 6, <a>pulled out of Portland</a>, taking with it the final 2 percent of the port’s container business. Last year, Hanjin Shipping and Hapag-Lloyd, which had accounted for...

The operator of Portland ’s only container terminal is confident that liner services will once again call at Oregon’s only container port, but International Container Terminal Services Chief Executive Officer Elvis Ganda said the International Longshore and Warehouse Union must work with management to convince shipping lines productivity levels will return to normal. Ganda’s comments Monday followed an announcement from the weekend that Westwood Shipping Lines, the only remaining container line to call at Terminal 6, pulled out of Portland , taking with it the final 2 percent of the port’s container business. Last year, Hanjin Shipping and Hapag-Lloyd, which had accounted for about 98 percent of Portland’s container traffic, ended their services , citing the notoriously poor productivity their vessels had been experiencing during a labor feud between the ILWU and ICTSI that dated to 2012. Although at this moment Terminal 6 has no container business, the goal of the Port of Portland is to reserve the facility for regularly scheduled container line services rather than to turn it over to other types of cargo such as bulk or breakbulk . “We need containers on the Columbia River,” said Bill Wyatt, executive director of the port. “Converting the terminal to other cargo would be pretty hard to swallow,” he said. At the same time, although efforts have been underway for some time now to find replacements for Hanjin and Hapag-Lloyd, Wyatt said: “Until the uncertainty of the labor situation is resolved, there will be limited interest among carriers.” The ILWU is keeping the door open to a future for container services in Portland. “Longshore workers continue to work productively at all Portland terminals, including auto, grain and bulk facilities, and would welcome containers as well,” said ILWU spokesperson Jennifer Sargent Bokaie. The ILWU-ICTSI conflict began in 2012 over a jurisdictional dispute involving the equivalent of two jobs plugging and unplugging reefer containers at Terminal 6. The feud escalated into a non-stop battle between the ILWU and ICTSI over enforcement of the coastwide labor contract. Wyatt stated in a 2014 interview that part of the problem was that over the many years that Portland had run the facility as an operating port, ILWU Local 8 had been allowed to engage in inefficient work practices that existed nowhere else on the coast. When the dispute began in 2012, container lifts per crane plunged by 50 percent and consistently remained at that level for more than two and one-half years, except for one day, Super Bowl Sunday 2014 , when lifts returned to more than 25 per hour, according to port records. The ILWU blamed the poor productivity on defective cargo-handling equipment. Tired of poor productivity, the shipping lines warned the port, the ILWU and ICTSI that if productivity did not return to historical levels, they would discontinue services. Hanjin and Hapag-Lloyd pulled out in the spring of 2015. Westwood, which hung in this past year with its monthly service, did not receive the poor level of service Hanjin and Hapag-Lloyd had received, but its volumes in Portland had been consistently declining, so its service was not sustainable, Wyatt said. Westwood in fact had suspended its service for two months last spring, but when it did return to Portland, the volumes never recovered to previous levels. Wyatt said Westwood’s declining container volumes, and weak freight rates in the trans-Pacific, more than anything else drove Westwood to suspend its monthly service. The ILWU said much the same. “We hope that these market dynamics improve and bring cargo back to Terminal 6,” Sargent Bokaie said. In an advisory last week to its customers, Westwood said “the economics for a single call per month do not justify continuing operations at Terminal 6.” The carrier said it will continue to offer “Portland CY” service using “non-direct call” freight rates. This could be sending a subtle message to the Portland port community that a container terminal that is inefficient will not be tolerated. Ever since Hanjin and Hapag-Lloyd left Portland, most local importers and exporters shifted their freight to the Northwest Seaport Alliance of Seattle and Tacoma. Ocean rates between Asia and Seattle or Tacoma were traditionally lower than to Portland because of the higher volumes and larger ships serving the Washington ports. Container lines that had called in Portland were able to charge premium ocean rates because of the convenience of using the local port, and the ability of shippers to avoid costly overland transportation to Seattle and Tacoma. Wyatt said the ability of lines to charge premium ocean rates had always been a selling point for attracting container services to Portland. Since last year, though, freight rates on all trans-Pacific services have plummeted due to overcapacity in the major east-west trade lanes . Therefore, shippers say, their current all-inclusive rates through Seattle and Tacoma, including the inland move to or from Portland, are no higher than what they were paying from Portland, so shipping through Portland offers them no particular advantages in terms of total transportation costs. This development is one of the obstacles Portland and ICTSI will have to overcome now as they attempt to attract container business back to Terminal 6. Ganda said he is optimistic everything will work out, although it will take some time. The current situation in the trans-Pacific is unsettled, with carrier mergers underway and the major vessel-sharing alliances being realigned , a process that is projected to continue into 2017. “We have to let the dust settle. I’m optimistic,” he said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@ihs.com and follow him on Twitter: @billmongelluzzo .

North American ports

Restoration of container services to Portland hinges on labor

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Hapag-Lloyd said it wants to integrate Zim into the alliance with Maersk, but adding new ports and overlapping coverage means changes to services. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd said it wants to integrate Zim into the alliance with Maersk, but adding new ports and overlapping coverage means changes to services.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd’s acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services raises questions of how much of Zim’s express, port-direct services will survive under Gemini Cooperation’s transshipment model and to what extent the acquisition will force further changes in trans-Pacific networks, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime AnalysisIntegrating Zim’s services into the Gemini network makes more sense than operating Zim as a separate product, Sea-Intelligence said in a report Sunday. Even though Zim offers a premium product based on its transit times and direct service, Sea-Intelligence said a premium, standalone service confuses the messaging for Gemini customers “Operating premium direct strings outside the alliance effectively positions Hapag-Lloyd in competition with its own shared hub-and-spoke infrastructure, which could potentially draw high-yield cargo away from Gemini’s core network.” Sea-Intelligence said. Adding Zim’s current trans-Pacific services would increase Gemini’s port coverage by 28%, Sea-Intelligence said. In particular, Zim’s network would give Gemini more coverage between origin ports in southeast China, South Korea, and Taiwan to US East Coast ports. Yet offering those additional port calls will introduce more complexity into Gemini’s network, Sea-Intelligence said. Offering the same port coverage to the Gemini network will require “careful product design to avoid undermining customer expectations.”Speaking during a briefing last week after the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-bolsters-fleet-with-42-billion-deal-to-acquire-zim-6170540">$4.2 billion acquisition of Zim was announced</a>, Hapag-Lloyd Chief Executive Rolf Habben Jansen said the approximately 100 vessels controlled by Zim will eventually be integrated into services that Hapag-Lloyd offers alongside Maersk under the Gemini banner. He added that the additional capacity could help Gemini gain market share in certain trade lanes. “It’s very likely to assume that indeed, some of the tonnage that Zim deploys on the east-west trades would also phase into Gemini,” Habben Jansen said. “We think that’s actually a good thing that will help Gemini gain a little bit of scale that will help us to bring unit cost further down.” <h3>‘Structural challenge’ for Gemini</h3>Integrating Zim’s current network would also mean Gemini offering a second Asia service to the Port of Baltimore and providing service to Boston. Sea-Intelligence said that while some services with port overlap could be consolidated, servicing smaller ports might require standalone services that won’t affect Gemini’s reliability. “If this market reach is integrated, Gemini faces a structural challenge: servicing these secondary gateways via transshipment hubs can add transit time on the ocean leg, and it may dilute the faster transit times some legacy Zim customers currently value,” Sea-Intelligence said. Along with Gemini’s network, the acquisition of Zim has the potential to reshape other vessel-sharing arrangements, Sea-Intelligence said. For the past two years, Hapag-Lloyd has offered a jointly-operated Asia-US East Coast service with Wan Hai Lines, the AA7. But Sea-Intelligence said the AA7’s large overlap with existing Zim services suggests “Hapag-Lloyd could exit this joint operation over time.” Zim has its own vessel-sharing agreement with Mediterranean Shipping Co. for five services between Asia and the US East and Gulf coasts. Zim and MSC each operate two of the services, while the fifth service is jointly operated. While it would take between six months and a year to dissolve the joint agreement, Sea-Intelligence said the end of the agreement would reduce MSC’s port coverage on Asia-to-US East Coast services by nearly one-third. Sea-Intelligence said it’s likely that MSC will launch a new US East Coast anchor service to compensate for the potential exit of Zim. “If MSC opts not to launch a replacement service, they would be ceding a defined strategic advantage to the potentially expanded Gemini network,” Sea-Intelligence said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Hapag-Lloyd’s acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services raises questions of how much of Zim’s express, port-direct services will survive under Gemini Cooperation’s transshipment model and to what extent the acquisition will force further changes in trans-Pacific networks, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis Integrating Zim’s services into the Gemini network makes more sense than operating Zim as a separate product, Sea-Intelligence said in a report Sunday. Even though Zim offers a premium product based on its transit times and direct service, Sea-Intelligence said a premium, standalone service confuses the messaging for Gemini customers “Operating premium direct strings outside the alliance effectively positions Hapag-Lloyd in competition with its own shared hub-and-spoke infrastructure, which could potentially draw high-yield cargo away from Gemini’s core network.” Sea-Intelligence said. Adding Zim’s current trans-Pacific services would increase Gemini’s port coverage by 28%, Sea-Intelligence said. In particular, Zim’s network would give Gemini more coverage between origin ports in southeast China, South Korea, and Taiwan to US East Coast ports. Yet offering those additional port calls will introduce more complexity into Gemini’s network, Sea-Intelligence said. Offering the same port coverage to the Gemini network will require “careful product design to avoid undermining customer expectations.” Speaking during a briefing last week after the $4.2 billion acquisition of Zim was announced , Hapag-Lloyd Chief Executive Rolf Habben Jansen said the approximately 100 vessels controlled by Zim will eventually be integrated into services that Hapag-Lloyd offers alongside Maersk under the Gemini banner. He added that the additional capacity could help Gemini gain market share in certain trade lanes. “It’s very likely to assume that indeed, some of the tonnage that Zim deploys on the east-west trades would also phase into Gemini,” Habben Jansen said. “We think that’s actually a good thing that will help Gemini gain a little bit of scale that will help us to bring unit cost further down.” ‘Structural challenge’ for Gemini Integrating Zim’s current network would also mean Gemini offering a second Asia service to the Port of Baltimore and providing service to Boston. Sea-Intelligence said that while some services with port overlap could be consolidated, servicing smaller ports might require standalone services that won’t affect Gemini’s reliability. “If this market reach is integrated, Gemini faces a structural challenge: servicing these secondary gateways via transshipment hubs can add transit time on the ocean leg, and it may dilute the faster transit times some legacy Zim customers currently value,” Sea-Intelligence said. Along with Gemini’s network, the acquisition of Zim has the potential to reshape other vessel-sharing arrangements, Sea-Intelligence said. For the past two years, Hapag-Lloyd has offered a jointly-operated Asia-US East Coast service with Wan Hai Lines, the AA7. But Sea-Intelligence said the AA7’s large overlap with existing Zim services suggests “Hapag-Lloyd could exit this joint operation over time.” Zim has its own vessel-sharing agreement with Mediterranean Shipping Co. for five services between Asia and the US East and Gulf coasts. Zim and MSC each operate two of the services, while the fifth service is jointly operated. While it would take between six months and a year to dissolve the joint agreement, Sea-Intelligence said the end of the agreement would reduce MSC’s port coverage on Asia-to-US East Coast services by nearly one-third. Sea-Intelligence said it’s likely that MSC will launch a new US East Coast anchor service to compensate for the potential exit of Zim. “If MSC opts not to launch a replacement service, they would be ceding a defined strategic advantage to the potentially expanded Gemini network,” Sea-Intelligence said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Container lines

Zim acquisition sets up network changes for Gemini: Sea-Intelligence

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

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

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

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

Container Shipping News

Maritime

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

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

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

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

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

Energy projects

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

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

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

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

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

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

Heavy-haul transport

Trump administration seeks to undo court rulings favoring offshore wind projects

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

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

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

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

Port News

International ports

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

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The latest port news from the Journal of Commerce spans the globe from North Carolina and Florida to Shanghai and Singapore. Port news includes port automation, terminal construction projects, the future of decarbonization and net-zero shipping, dredging, port hinterland connectivity, labor, disruption, port congestion and cargo flow.

Marine terminals

Longshore labor

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

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

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

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

Zim acquisition sets up network changes for Gemini: Sea-Intelligence

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

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