<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Unocal Corp., Los Angeles, made its first shipments of synthetic crude oilfrom its shale oil</div>

Unocal Corp., Los Angeles, made its first shipments of synthetic crude oilfrom its shale oil

<div>Unocal Corp., Los Angeles, made its first shipments of synthetic crude oilfrom its shale oil project in western Colorado.About 2,000 barrels of shale oil a day are being trucked from the Parachute Creek project, to Lisbon, Utah, and shipped by pipeline to Unocal's Chicago refinery. Shipments started Dec. 23. About 200,000 barrels of raw shale oil are in storage awaiting upgrading into low-sulfur crude.The oil is priced on a reference basis to Wyoming Sweet crude, posted at $13 to $14 a barrel. The company also has a price support agreement with the U.S. Treasury Department that makes up the difference...

Unocal Corp., Los Angeles, made its first shipments of synthetic crude oil from its shale oil project in western Colorado. About 2,000 barrels of shale oil a day are being trucked from the Parachute Creek project, to Lisbon, Utah, and shipped by pipeline to Unocal's Chicago refinery. Shipments started Dec. 23. About 200,000 barrels of raw shale oil are in storage awaiting upgrading into low-sulfur crude.The oil is priced on a reference basis to Wyoming Sweet crude, posted at $13 to $14 a barrel. The company also has a price support agreement with the U.S. Treasury Department that makes up the difference between the posted reference price and an index price, figured at $46 a barrel, a company spokesman said. He declined to discuss the actual cost of production, saying it was proprietary. The plant has a capacity of about 10,000 b/d, the spokesman said. Unocal has been working on extracting oil from shale for about 40 years. Construction on the Parachute plant, though, started in 1980 and was completed in 1983. The past three years have been spent with running tests and making modifications. Unocal says it has spent $750 million on the project. Unocal owns land in the area that contains more than 3 billion barrels of potential synthetic crude oil, the company said in a statement. The Parachute Creek project consists of an underground room and pillar mine, an up-flow retort and an upgrading plant. The shale ore is mined and crushed and then fed into a large, slow-speed pump that pushes rock upward through a retort. The ore is heated to 900 degrees Fahrenheit, causing the kerogen in the rock to decompose, yielding raw shale oil, gas and spent shale rock. The oil is semi-refined where arsenic, sulfur and nitrogen are removed and the paraffin wax content is reduced. The synthetic crude is compatible with other crudes that can be run through a conventional refinery, Unocal says.

UNOCAL SHIPS SYNTHETIC CRUDE COLO. PROJECT PRODUCES 2,000 B/D OF SHALE OIL

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The comments by the US Secretary of State heightens the Trump administration’s involvement a week after the top federal maritime regulator flagged the ship detentions. </div>

The comments by the US Secretary of State heightens the Trump administration’s involvement a week after the top federal maritime regulator flagged the ship detentions.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The Trump administration Thursday escalated its concern over the recent detention of Panama-flagged vessels at Chinese ports, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying the practice, “raise(s) serious concerns about the use of economic tools to undermine the rule of law...” Rubio’s comments come a week after Laura DiBella, chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, said the agency was “closely monitoring” an apparent “surge” in detentions of Panama-flag ships by Chinese port authorities and the effect it could have on US container trade. “Detentions, delays, or other impediments to the movement of vessels undermine the stability of global supply chains, increase costs for businesses and consumers, and erode confidence in the international trading system,” Rubio said in a statement. Like DiBella, Rubio linked the Chinese activity against the vessels to retaliation  for the Panamanian Supreme Court recently nullifying  the operating concessions at Panama’s Balboa and Cristóbal ports held by Panama Ports Company (PPC), which is 90% owned by Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings. Hutchison held the operating concessions at the two ports for 28 years. Striking back after the ruling, Hutchison  filed an international arbitration claim  against the Panamanian government and Panama Maritime Authority (PMA), seeking more than $2 billion in damages. China’s Cosco Shipping Lines earlier this month halted calls at Balboa, redirecting its services to  Manzanillo on the Atlantic side of the canal. Cosco and Hong Kong-based OOCL operate nearly one-fifth of the trans-Pacific capacity that transits the canal, according to data from benchmarking platform Xeneta’s eeSea. Panama’s move against Hutchison came a year after US President Donald Trump threatened to take over the canal if Panama didn’t rid itself of Chinese influence. <a href="mailto:News@joc.com">News@joc.com.</a></div>

The Trump administration Thursday escalated its concern over the recent detention of Panama-flagged vessels at Chinese ports, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying the practice, “raise(s) serious concerns about the use of economic tools to undermine the rule of law...” Rubio’s comments come a week after Laura DiBella, chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, said the agency was “closely monitoring” an apparent “surge” in detentions of Panama-flag ships by Chinese port authorities and the effect it could have on US container trade. “Detentions, delays, or other impediments to the movement of vessels undermine the stability of global supply chains, increase costs for businesses and consumers, and erode confidence in the international trading system,” Rubio said in a statement. Like DiBella, Rubio linked the Chinese activity against the vessels to retaliation  for the Panamanian Supreme Court recently nullifying  the operating concessions at Panama’s Balboa and Cristóbal ports held by Panama Ports Company (PPC), which is 90% owned by Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings. Hutchison held the operating concessions at the two ports for 28 years. Striking back after the ruling, Hutchison  filed an international arbitration claim  against the Panamanian government and Panama Maritime Authority (PMA), seeking more than $2 billion in damages. China’s Cosco Shipping Lines earlier this month halted calls at Balboa, redirecting its services to  Manzanillo on the Atlantic side of the canal. Cosco and Hong Kong-based OOCL operate nearly one-fifth of the trans-Pacific capacity that transits the canal, according to data from benchmarking platform Xeneta’s eeSea. Panama’s move against Hutchison came a year after US President Donald Trump threatened to take over the canal if Panama didn’t rid itself of Chinese influence. News@joc.com.

Port News

Container lines

Trans-Pacific

International ports

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Rubio, in escalation, criticizes China for detaining Panama-flag ships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Kurt Slocombe will guide the Western Canadian port in completing a transload and logistics facility while attempting to create a boom in commodity exports and recover volume share lost during the pandemic. </div>

Kurt Slocombe will guide the Western Canadian port in completing a transload and logistics facility while attempting to create a boom in commodity exports and recover volume share lost during the pandemic.

<div class="phx-topic">The Prince Rupert Port Authority has promoted one of its executives to become the agency’s next president and CEO, it announced Thursday. Kurt Slocombe joined the PRPA in 2019 as vice president of operations, planning and infrastructure. But his ties to Prince Rupert go back to 2007 when he took on management roles at the then newly revamped Fairview Container Terminal. As head of the PRPA, Slocombe will guide the port in completing a transload and logistics facility, channeling a boom in commodity exports, and recovering volume share lost during the pandemic. Slocombe has served as PRPA’s interim president since his predecessor, Shaun Stevenson, left at the end of 2025. “Kurt’s understanding of our operations and long-standing commitment to the Prince Rupert community qualify him to lead the team,” Peter Lantin, chairman of the Prince Rupert Port Authority Board of Directors, said in a statement. Container volumes, including empties, through Prince Rupert jumped 20% year over year in 2025 to 885,797 TEUs. Prince Rupert and Vancouver grew their combined volumes 19.8% year over year in the 2025 fourth quarter, while volumes through US West Coast ports fell 10.1% during the same period, according to a February analysis by Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. “The recovery was led by Prince Rupert, which saw a 46.1% surge in Q4 volume,” Sea-Intelligence said. “The data suggests that the ‘reverse diversion’ trend of 2024 was a temporary risk-mitigation strategy; as US frontloaded demand cooled, shippers returned discretionary cargo to Canadian ports in (the fourth quarter).” <a href="mailto:News@joc.com">News@joc.com.</a></div>

The Prince Rupert Port Authority has promoted one of its executives to become the agency’s next president and CEO, it announced Thursday. Kurt Slocombe joined the PRPA in 2019 as vice president of operations, planning and infrastructure. But his ties to Prince Rupert go back to 2007 when he took on management roles at the then newly revamped Fairview Container Terminal. As head of the PRPA, Slocombe will guide the port in completing a transload and logistics facility, channeling a boom in commodity exports, and recovering volume share lost during the pandemic. Slocombe has served as PRPA’s interim president since his predecessor, Shaun Stevenson, left at the end of 2025. “Kurt’s understanding of our operations and long-standing commitment to the Prince Rupert community qualify him to lead the team,” Peter Lantin, chairman of the Prince Rupert Port Authority Board of Directors, said in a statement. Container volumes, including empties, through Prince Rupert jumped 20% year over year in 2025 to 885,797 TEUs. Prince Rupert and Vancouver grew their combined volumes 19.8% year over year in the 2025 fourth quarter, while volumes through US West Coast ports fell 10.1% during the same period, according to a February analysis by Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. “The recovery was led by Prince Rupert, which saw a 46.1% surge in Q4 volume,” Sea-Intelligence said. “The data suggests that the ‘reverse diversion’ trend of 2024 was a temporary risk-mitigation strategy; as US frontloaded demand cooled, shippers returned discretionary cargo to Canadian ports in (the fourth quarter).” News@joc.com.

North American ports

Marine terminals

Veteran PRPA, Fairview terminal executive to lead Prince Rupert port

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While fuel prices have historically served as a tailwind for modal conversion, in and of itself, it is insufficient to guarantee success, writes Ted Prince.</div>

While fuel prices have historically served as a tailwind for modal conversion, in and of itself, it is insufficient to guarantee success, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">Rising diesel prices have given encouragement to intermodal enthusiasts who view this as preceding inevitable success. Yes, fuel disproportionately increases truck cost-per-mile more than rail; however, this optimism is not new — it has been extant since the fuel crises of 1973 and 1979. While fuel prices have historically served as a tailwind for modal conversion, in and of itself, it is insufficient to guarantee success. Intermodal success ultimately depends less on fuel and more on demand patterns, balance, drayage dynamics and loading characteristics. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6198450_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Microeconomics states that substitute goods are perceived by consumers as similar. They have the same or similar performance characteristics, have the same or similar occasion for use, and they are sold in the same geographic area. Whereas trucks can go anywhere, intermodal cannot, so while truck can always substitute for intermodal, the converse is not true. Intermodal has a lower cost-per-mile than truck; however, it has a higher fixed cost. So a general rule-of-thumb is that intermodal is cheaper for long distances. This threshold frequently varies between 600 and 1,200 miles. Intermodal also results in lower emissions. Unfortunately, this aspect seems less important than in the past. (Most shippers’ sense of green is cost.) Intermodal, like truckload, has been subject to a number of inflationary pressures. And while many are similar, they vary in their materiality to delivered cost. Rather, when considering how intermodal competes with truckload, you need to consider the nature of the cargo, specifically: demand, balance and load configuration. Is volume the same day in and day out throughout the year? If so, it will be very attractive to truck that puts a premium on closely aligning supply and demand. The more asymmetrical the demand, the better it is for intermodal to absorb the surge and withstand the trough. The time frame can be anywhere from seasonal to day-of-the-week. Consider a shipper with 10 loads per week. Are there two loads every weekday or one on Wednesday, two on Thursday and seven on Friday? The latter is much more attractive to intermodal. Loaded vs. empty miles Traffic balance reflects the difference in loaded and empty miles over the portfolio of loads. Markets that are imbalanced command a pricing premium to compensate for evacuation of capacity to or from the next load. The greater the imbalance, the greater the premium charged on the loaded portion. Loaded miles generate revenue; empty miles do not. However, for trucks, empty miles cost almost as much as loaded miles. Traditionally, there is a much wider cost disparity in intermodal loaded and empty cost. This is attributable more to rail pricing. In an extreme case, intermodal can support 100% empty miles. Examples would include Chicago-Boston (load-empty) and Los Angeles-Chicago (empty-load). Although intermodal can withstand empty imbalance more effectively than truck, there is an additional balance issue for the intermodal drayage pickup/delivery. The same truck economics apply, so a drayage round trip with two loads will have a lower cost than one that is empty in one direction. Rail miles are usually greater than truck miles. This extra time and distance increases door-to-door transit times versus a more direct truck route, slowing intermodal shipments. Also, whereas truck is always a straight line, intermodal has three distinct segments. Terminal location and schedules determine the effective rail market area. Having to dray in the opposite direction of the freight is a challenge. (e.g., Cargo from Cedar Rapids trucked east to Chicago to go west to Los Angeles.) The final factor is how the load and customer interface are configured — and its impact on drayage. A 2,000-mile length of haul will entail 72 to 96 hours for a single driver, who may well be sleeping in their truck when hours of service expire. However, a drayage move is only three to five hours. When considered as a percentage of their transaction time, multiple hours spent at the dock may be acceptable to the truck driver but not the intermodal drayman. The same intermodal obstacle applies to multiple stops. And in some cases, the multiple stops may be extended over hundreds of miles. Intermodal’s sweet spot is a single-stop drop-and-hook move. Live loading (“stay with”) is more problematic for the drayage driver, and “first come-first served” is even more dreaded. This reduces the addressable market suitable for conversion. There is no doubt that fuel prices will help intermodal volume; however, the successful operators will be those that recognize intermodal’s strong suits and play to them. Customers looking for truck alternatives will find collaborative ways to make their cargo work for intermodal. That will ensure a growth future. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com.</a></div>

Rising diesel prices have given encouragement to intermodal enthusiasts who view this as preceding inevitable success. Yes, fuel disproportionately increases truck cost-per-mile more than rail; however, this optimism is not new — it has been extant since the fuel crises of 1973 and 1979. While fuel prices have historically served as a tailwind for modal conversion, in and of itself, it is insufficient to guarantee success. Intermodal success ultimately depends less on fuel and more on demand patterns, balance, drayage dynamics and loading characteristics. Microeconomics states that substitute goods are perceived by consumers as similar. They have the same or similar performance characteristics, have the same or similar occasion for use, and they are sold in the same geographic area. Whereas trucks can go anywhere, intermodal cannot, so while truck can always substitute for intermodal, the converse is not true. Intermodal has a lower cost-per-mile than truck; however, it has a higher fixed cost. So a general rule-of-thumb is that intermodal is cheaper for long distances. This threshold frequently varies between 600 and 1,200 miles. Intermodal also results in lower emissions. Unfortunately, this aspect seems less important than in the past. (Most shippers’ sense of green is cost.) Intermodal, like truckload, has been subject to a number of inflationary pressures. And while many are similar, they vary in their materiality to delivered cost. Rather, when considering how intermodal competes with truckload, you need to consider the nature of the cargo, specifically: demand, balance and load configuration. Is volume the same day in and day out throughout the year? If so, it will be very attractive to truck that puts a premium on closely aligning supply and demand. The more asymmetrical the demand, the better it is for intermodal to absorb the surge and withstand the trough. The time frame can be anywhere from seasonal to day-of-the-week. Consider a shipper with 10 loads per week. Are there two loads every weekday or one on Wednesday, two on Thursday and seven on Friday? The latter is much more attractive to intermodal. Loaded vs. empty miles Traffic balance reflects the difference in loaded and empty miles over the portfolio of loads. Markets that are imbalanced command a pricing premium to compensate for evacuation of capacity to or from the next load. The greater the imbalance, the greater the premium charged on the loaded portion. Loaded miles generate revenue; empty miles do not. However, for trucks, empty miles cost almost as much as loaded miles. Traditionally, there is a much wider cost disparity in intermodal loaded and empty cost. This is attributable more to rail pricing. In an extreme case, intermodal can support 100% empty miles. Examples would include Chicago-Boston (load-empty) and Los Angeles-Chicago (empty-load). Although intermodal can withstand empty imbalance more effectively than truck, there is an additional balance issue for the intermodal drayage pickup/delivery. The same truck economics apply, so a drayage round trip with two loads will have a lower cost than one that is empty in one direction. Rail miles are usually greater than truck miles. This extra time and distance increases door-to-door transit times versus a more direct truck route, slowing intermodal shipments. Also, whereas truck is always a straight line, intermodal has three distinct segments. Terminal location and schedules determine the effective rail market area. Having to dray in the opposite direction of the freight is a challenge. (e.g., Cargo from Cedar Rapids trucked east to Chicago to go west to Los Angeles.) The final factor is how the load and customer interface are configured — and its impact on drayage. A 2,000-mile length of haul will entail 72 to 96 hours for a single driver, who may well be sleeping in their truck when hours of service expire. However, a drayage move is only three to five hours. When considered as a percentage of their transaction time, multiple hours spent at the dock may be acceptable to the truck driver but not the intermodal drayman. The same intermodal obstacle applies to multiple stops. And in some cases, the multiple stops may be extended over hundreds of miles. Intermodal’s sweet spot is a single-stop drop-and-hook move. Live loading (“stay with”) is more problematic for the drayage driver, and “first come-first served” is even more dreaded. This reduces the addressable market suitable for conversion. There is no doubt that fuel prices will help intermodal volume; however, the successful operators will be those that recognize intermodal’s strong suits and play to them. Customers looking for truck alternatives will find collaborative ways to make their cargo work for intermodal. That will ensure a growth future. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com.

Truckload

North-American rail

International rail

Surface

Jump in diesel prices alone not enough to boost intermodal fortunes – analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With more than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel imported via the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the war started on Feb. 28, suppliers are feeling the pinch.</div>

With more than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel imported via the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the war started on Feb. 28, suppliers are feeling the pinch.

<div class="phx-topic">Suppliers in the world’s largest bunkering hub of Singapore are under growing stress, with analysts reporting less than a month’s supply remaining and no replenishment in sight from one of its most important fuel supply lines. More than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel is believed to be imported via the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the war in the Middle East started on Feb. 28. Although Singapore remains able to refuel ships, the clock is ticking on the available supply, according to Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&amp;P Global Energy. "If the current supply-demand imbalance persists, we expect a rapid acceleration in stock drawdowns as existing inventories — currently sufficient for about three weeks of typical demand — begin to deplete,” he said. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Katsoulas said the Singapore market was under “significant stress,” with recommended lead times for ocean carriers replenishing very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) currently stretching to more than a week in some cases. “Prompt availability is extremely tight,” he said. “We are seeing reports of suppliers already prioritizing existing term contracts and resisting new tenders for the next (few) months.” The immense scale of Singapore’s bunkering industry underlines the problem facing fuel suppliers in the port should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed. Singapore sold 56.2 million metric tons (mt) of bunker fuel in 2025, up 3.2% year over year, according to data from the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. That was more than five times the bunker sales at the world’s second-largest ship refueling hub of Rotterdam, with sales driven by strong high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) demand as VLSFO sales dropped off. Traders in Singapore have been sourcing oil from areas outside the Middle East, such as Brazil and Russia, according to reports. The US in March issued a 30-day waiver allowing the purchase of previously sanctioned Russian oil and gas, and Singapore is taking advantage of that by increasing imports to support bunker availability. <h3>Fuel prices drop off mid-March highs </h3>The scarcity of supply since Feb. 28 has pushed up bunker fuel prices in Singapore, but prices have declined since the mid-March highs. On April 1, VLSFO in Singapore was selling at $873.50 per metric ton, up 70% since Feb. 27 but far below its March 16 high of $1,119/mt, according to the Ship &amp; Bunker platform. HSFO has followed a similar path, up 60% from Feb. 27 at $695/mt, but down 35% from the March 9 price of $1,073/mt. Bucking the trend is low sulfur marine gas oil (MGO), used by carriers in emission control areas such as the coasts of North America, the Caribbean, the Baltic and North seas, and the Mediterranean. MGO prices in Singapore on April 1 were at $1,836/mt, not far off the March 23 high of $1,940, but 160% above the pre-war price, Ship &amp; Bunker data showed. In Rotterdam, VLSFO was trading at $716.50/mt on April 1, up almost 50% from Feb. 27. HSFO was at $661.50, up 50% since before the war, while MGO was 85% higher at $1,331/mt, Ship &amp; Bunker’s latest pricing showed. Katsoulas said Rotterdam was currently the most stable and well-supplied bunkering point compared to the hubs east of the Suez Canal. “It is shielded from the immediate Middle East disruptions, and as a result, Singapore is trading at a massive $140 to $250 per ton premium over Rotterdam prices,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said bunker fuel in Singapore was available at prices almost double pre-conflict levels, but the prices were trending slowly downwards after the initial spike of 200%. “With no visible end to the crisis, however, carriers are almost certainly drawing up another set of contingency plans,” Sand said in a market update Thursday. “The coming weeks will show whether slow steaming and alternative routing can hold the line, or whether blank sailings become the next lever carriers reach for.” <h3>Emergency surcharge prices rise </h3>One of the contingency plans being aggressively pursued by carriers are emergency bunker fuel surcharges piled on top of existing quarterly fuel cost recovery mechanisms. For instance, Maersk from March 25 has been charging $400 per FEU on long-haul head-haul routes and $600/FEU for reefers, while CMA CGM since March 27 has been charging emergency fuel surcharges of $265/TEU, and $320/TEU for reefers. Ocean Network Express set long-haul head-haul surcharges at $160/TEU, with $210/TEU for reefers, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. has implemented a range of fuel surcharges covering specific regional routes. Maersk this week again asked US maritime regulators to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-again-asks-fmc-to-waive-30-day-review-period-for-emergency-fuel-surcharge-6197792">waive the 30-day notice period</a> required before liners can implement surcharges so it could immediately roll out emergency fuel surcharges on long-haul US trades. The Federal Maritime Commission <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rejects-requests-by-carriers-to-waive-waiting-period-for-middle-east-surcharges-6191881">previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers to waive the notice period</a> and is expected to rule on the second request soon. Rolf Habben Jansen, CEO of Hapag-Lloyd, last week put a price on the Middle East war, telling reporters that the carrier <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-adding-40-50-million-per-week-to-hapag-lloyds-costs-ceo-6193532">was shouldering added operating costs of $40 million to $50 million a week</a>. Most of that was driven by higher bunker fuel prices and rising insurance premiums in the Middle East. “Our intention is not to make a profit (from surcharges),” Habben Jansen told reporters during a media briefing. “We are trying to limit the charges to the extra costs we need to recover. We are trying to ring-fence the problem as much as possible.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Suppliers in the world’s largest bunkering hub of Singapore are under growing stress, with analysts reporting less than a month’s supply remaining and no replenishment in sight from one of its most important fuel supply lines. More than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel is believed to be imported via the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the war in the Middle East started on Feb. 28. Although Singapore remains able to refuel ships, the clock is ticking on the available supply, according to Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&P Global Energy. "If the current supply-demand imbalance persists, we expect a rapid acceleration in stock drawdowns as existing inventories — currently sufficient for about three weeks of typical demand — begin to deplete,” he said. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Katsoulas said the Singapore market was under “significant stress,” with recommended lead times for ocean carriers replenishing very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) currently stretching to more than a week in some cases. “Prompt availability is extremely tight,” he said. “We are seeing reports of suppliers already prioritizing existing term contracts and resisting new tenders for the next (few) months.” The immense scale of Singapore’s bunkering industry underlines the problem facing fuel suppliers in the port should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed. Singapore sold 56.2 million metric tons (mt) of bunker fuel in 2025, up 3.2% year over year, according to data from the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. That was more than five times the bunker sales at the world’s second-largest ship refueling hub of Rotterdam, with sales driven by strong high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) demand as VLSFO sales dropped off. Traders in Singapore have been sourcing oil from areas outside the Middle East, such as Brazil and Russia, according to reports. The US in March issued a 30-day waiver allowing the purchase of previously sanctioned Russian oil and gas, and Singapore is taking advantage of that by increasing imports to support bunker availability. Fuel prices drop off mid-March highs The scarcity of supply since Feb. 28 has pushed up bunker fuel prices in Singapore, but prices have declined since the mid-March highs. On April 1, VLSFO in Singapore was selling at $873.50 per metric ton, up 70% since Feb. 27 but far below its March 16 high of $1,119/mt, according to the Ship & Bunker platform. HSFO has followed a similar path, up 60% from Feb. 27 at $695/mt, but down 35% from the March 9 price of $1,073/mt. Bucking the trend is low sulfur marine gas oil (MGO), used by carriers in emission control areas such as the coasts of North America, the Caribbean, the Baltic and North seas, and the Mediterranean. MGO prices in Singapore on April 1 were at $1,836/mt, not far off the March 23 high of $1,940, but 160% above the pre-war price, Ship & Bunker data showed. In Rotterdam, VLSFO was trading at $716.50/mt on April 1, up almost 50% from Feb. 27. HSFO was at $661.50, up 50% since before the war, while MGO was 85% higher at $1,331/mt, Ship & Bunker’s latest pricing showed. Katsoulas said Rotterdam was currently the most stable and well-supplied bunkering point compared to the hubs east of the Suez Canal. “It is shielded from the immediate Middle East disruptions, and as a result, Singapore is trading at a massive $140 to $250 per ton premium over Rotterdam prices,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said bunker fuel in Singapore was available at prices almost double pre-conflict levels, but the prices were trending slowly downwards after the initial spike of 200%. “With no visible end to the crisis, however, carriers are almost certainly drawing up another set of contingency plans,” Sand said in a market update Thursday. “The coming weeks will show whether slow steaming and alternative routing can hold the line, or whether blank sailings become the next lever carriers reach for.” Emergency surcharge prices rise One of the contingency plans being aggressively pursued by carriers are emergency bunker fuel surcharges piled on top of existing quarterly fuel cost recovery mechanisms. For instance, Maersk from March 25 has been charging $400 per FEU on long-haul head-haul routes and $600/FEU for reefers, while CMA CGM since March 27 has been charging emergency fuel surcharges of $265/TEU, and $320/TEU for reefers. Ocean Network Express set long-haul head-haul surcharges at $160/TEU, with $210/TEU for reefers, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. has implemented a range of fuel surcharges covering specific regional routes. Maersk this week again asked US maritime regulators to waive the 30-day notice period required before liners can implement surcharges so it could immediately roll out emergency fuel surcharges on long-haul US trades. The Federal Maritime Commission previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers to waive the notice period and is expected to rule on the second request soon. Rolf Habben Jansen, CEO of Hapag-Lloyd, last week put a price on the Middle East war, telling reporters that the carrier was shouldering added operating costs of $40 million to $50 million a week . Most of that was driven by higher bunker fuel prices and rising insurance premiums in the Middle East. “Our intention is not to make a profit (from surcharges),” Habben Jansen told reporters during a media briefing. “We are trying to limit the charges to the extra costs we need to recover. We are trying to ring-fence the problem as much as possible.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Singapore bunker supply continues to run down as Middle East war drags on

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier is implementing a second surcharge on US trades to recoup higher operating costs driven by the war in the Middle East, and is asking maritime regulators for permission to levy the fee immediately.</div>

The carrier is implementing a second surcharge on US trades to recoup higher operating costs driven by the war in the Middle East, and is asking maritime regulators for permission to levy the fee immediately.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk is making another attempt to win approval from US maritime regulators to waive a 30-day notice period and permit the carrier to immediately implement an emergency bunker fuel surcharge on long-haul US trades to offset rising costs driven by the war in the Middle East. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is expected to vote soon on Maersk’s new request, a spokesperson for the agency said. That comes as the agency on Wednesday rejected requests from two forwarders for a waiver of the 30-day notice period that is required before liners can implement surcharges. The FMC <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rejects-requests-by-carriers-to-waive-waiting-period-for-middle-east-surcharges-6191881">previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers</a> to waive the notice period. How the FMC votes on Maersk’s latest request for special permission to implement surcharges in the hundreds of dollars per container could prove a test case for other carriers seeking to recoup war-driven energy costs from US shippers and forwarders. The FMC’s four commissioners on March 23 unanimously voted to reject separate requests from Maersk, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim Integrated Shipping Services to waive the notice period, forcing the carriers to wait until this week to implement the initial surcharges. FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said the carriers should have provided data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” In its initial March 11 filing to the FMC, Maersk asked the agency to waive the notice period for the new emergency bunker fuel surcharge so it could take effect March 25, coinciding with the implementation of similar surcharges on non-US trades, rather than April 8. In its latest petition, the carrier said low-sulfur bunker fuel prices jumped 82% on average, to $929 per metric ton, between Feb. 6 and March 9. The war began Feb. 28. “Maersk cannot absorb the full impact of this dramatic increase,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing Maersk, wrote in the filing to the FMC. “Moreover, bunker fuel prices are likely to remain elevated and volatile given the uncertainty of the duration of hostilities and their impact on the price of oil and bunker fuel.” For dry shipments on long-haul trades, Maersk is seeking an emergency fuel surcharge of $200 per TEU for the head-haul and $100 per TEU for the backhaul. Comparatively, Maersk has implemented a $300-per-TEU surcharge for refrigerated shipments on the head-haul of long-haul shipments and $150 for reefer backhaul cargoes. <h3>Holding the line </h3>The FMC on Wednesday rejected two separate requests to waive the 30-day review period for emergency surcharges. The agency denied a request by Turkon Container Transportation and Shipping to immediately impose a fee on all shipments to and from the Middle East of $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU, and $3,500 for refrigerated and special containers. The agency also denied a request by Vanguard Logistics Services, a non-vessel-operating common carrier, to immediately implement a $75 surcharge on shipments to and from the Middle East. In both cases, the FMC said the parties had failed to establish good cause to have the review period waived.The latest round of requests shows that “carriers are making the same fatal error that led to the prior denials — failing to provide their customers and the FMC specific cost information so they can determine their need for immediate imposition of very specific surcharges,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said in a statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk is making another attempt to win approval from US maritime regulators to waive a 30-day notice period and permit the carrier to immediately implement an emergency bunker fuel surcharge on long-haul US trades to offset rising costs driven by the war in the Middle East. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is expected to vote soon on Maersk’s new request, a spokesperson for the agency said. That comes as the agency on Wednesday rejected requests from two forwarders for a waiver of the 30-day notice period that is required before liners can implement surcharges. The FMC previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers to waive the notice period. How the FMC votes on Maersk’s latest request for special permission to implement surcharges in the hundreds of dollars per container could prove a test case for other carriers seeking to recoup war-driven energy costs from US shippers and forwarders. The FMC’s four commissioners on March 23 unanimously voted to reject separate requests from Maersk, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim Integrated Shipping Services to waive the notice period, forcing the carriers to wait until this week to implement the initial surcharges. FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said the carriers should have provided data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” In its initial March 11 filing to the FMC, Maersk asked the agency to waive the notice period for the new emergency bunker fuel surcharge so it could take effect March 25, coinciding with the implementation of similar surcharges on non-US trades, rather than April 8. In its latest petition, the carrier said low-sulfur bunker fuel prices jumped 82% on average, to $929 per metric ton, between Feb. 6 and March 9. The war began Feb. 28. “Maersk cannot absorb the full impact of this dramatic increase,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing Maersk, wrote in the filing to the FMC. “Moreover, bunker fuel prices are likely to remain elevated and volatile given the uncertainty of the duration of hostilities and their impact on the price of oil and bunker fuel.” For dry shipments on long-haul trades, Maersk is seeking an emergency fuel surcharge of $200 per TEU for the head-haul and $100 per TEU for the backhaul. Comparatively, Maersk has implemented a $300-per-TEU surcharge for refrigerated shipments on the head-haul of long-haul shipments and $150 for reefer backhaul cargoes. Holding the line The FMC on Wednesday rejected two separate requests to waive the 30-day review period for emergency surcharges. The agency denied a request by Turkon Container Transportation and Shipping to immediately impose a fee on all shipments to and from the Middle East of $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU, and $3,500 for refrigerated and special containers. The agency also denied a request by Vanguard Logistics Services, a non-vessel-operating common carrier, to immediately implement a $75 surcharge on shipments to and from the Middle East. In both cases, the FMC said the parties had failed to establish good cause to have the review period waived. The latest round of requests shows that “carriers are making the same fatal error that led to the prior denials — failing to provide their customers and the FMC specific cost information so they can determine their need for immediate imposition of very specific surcharges,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said in a statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Maersk again asks FMC to waive 30-day review period for emergency fuel surcharge

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSGFTW895 and save $600 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Rubio, in escalation, criticizes China for detaining Panama-flag ships

Veteran PRPA, Fairview terminal executive to lead Prince Rupert port

Jump in diesel prices alone not enough to boost intermodal fortunes – analyst