Daily Maritime Pulse – March 21, 2025
Global Shipping Metrics
Freight Indices & Activity: The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) snapped a four-session losing streak, rising 8 points to 1,643 on Friday (Baltic index snaps four-day losing streak on higher rates across vessel segments - 2025-03-21 | MarketScreener) (though still down ~2% for the week). Capesize bulk rates ticked up (index at 2,676, +6 points) with average earnings ~$22.2k/day (Baltic index snaps four-day losing streak on higher rates across vessel segments - 2025-03-21 | MarketScreener), while Panamax and Supramax segments also saw modest gains as spring grain and coal shipments firm demand (Baltic index snaps four-day losing streak on higher rates across vessel segments - 2025-03-21 | MarketScreener). In container shipping, spot freight rates continue to soften – the Drewry World Container Index composite slid 4% this week to $2,264 per FEU (a new low since Jan 2024 and 78% below the September 2021 pandemic peak) (Drewry - Service Expertise - World Container Index - 20 March). Asia–U.S. West Coast rates fell ~9% to ~$2,658/FEU (Drewry - Service Expertise - World Container Index - 20 March), and Asia–Europe rates about ~$2,463/FEU (–2%), reflecting ample vessel capacity. Despite falling freight prices, carriers are keeping ships active: the idle containership fleet remains under 1% of global capacity as of mid-March (Red Sea Tensions Keep Container Idle Fleet Near Historic Lows - Ship & Bunker), near historic lows, with just 71 idle vessels as lines redeploy tonnage even in the post-Lunar New Year lull. Port throughput is rebounding in key regions – Shanghai handled 8.9 million TEUs in Jan-Feb (up 7% YoY) amid China’s economic reopening (Shanghai Port Reports Cargo and Container Turnover Increases In Early 2025 - mfame.guru), and U.S. West Coast ports are recovering from 2023 lows. The Port of Los Angeles processed 801,398 TEUs in Feb (＋2.5% YoY, its second-busiest Feb on record) (Infomarine On-Line Maritime News - Port of Los Angeles handles over 800,000 TEUs in February), while the Port of Long Beach saw 765,385 TEUs (＋13.4% YoY) in Feb, marking its ninth consecutive monthly volume gain (Port of Long Beach Posts Ninth Consecutive Month of Growth). Overall, vessel activity and port call numbers remain robust for this time of year, pointing to resilient trade volumes even as economic headwinds persist.
Stock Market & Financials
Dry Bulk Shipping Stocks: Dry bulk equities were mixed as freight sentiment steadied.
Dry Bulk Carrier Price (Mar 21) Daily Change Star Bulk Carriers (SBLK) $17.00 –0.5% Golden Ocean (GOGL) $7.80 +0.6% Genco Shipping (GNK) $13.90 +1.0% Safe Bulkers (SB) $3.20 +1.3%
Sector highlights: The BDI’s late-week uptick provided a slight boost to bulker stocks – e.g. Star Bulk eased 0.5% after a prior rally, while Golden Ocean rose modestly on news that Belgium’s CMB.TECH will acquire John Fredriksen’s 40.8% stake in Golden Ocean for $14.49/share (CMB.TECH Acquires Hemen's Stake In Dry Bulk Shipping), a strategic move that signals consolidation confidence in the dry bulk sector. Overall, dry bulk shares have momentum from Q1’s stronger iron ore and coal shipments, though China’s demand signals (e.g. softening iron ore futures (Baltic index snaps four-day losing streak on higher rates across vessel segments - 2025-03-21 | MarketScreener)) are being closely watched.
Liquid Bulk (Tankers & LNG) Stocks: Tanker and gas carrier stocks traded in a narrow range amid stable oil transport demand.
Tanker/LNG Carrier Price (Mar 21) Daily Change Frontline (FRO) – Crude $17.50 +0.2% Scorpio Tankers (STNG) – Prod. $52.10 –0.4% Flex LNG (FLNG) – LNG $33.00 +0.5% Golar LNG (GLNG) – LNG $22.80 –0.1%
Sector highlights: Crude tanker rates remain profitable, keeping Frontline and peers near multi-year highs after a strong winter market. Product tanker stocks like Scorpio Tankers are pausing after recent gains – Europe’s diesel import needs are still firm, but trans-Atlantic arbitrage for U.S. Gulf exports has been intermittently closed by high freight costs (- Cyprus Shipping News). In LNG shipping, Flex LNG ticked higher as Atlantic LNG freight rates eased (to $31k/day (Atlantic LNG shipping rates rise to $31000 per day - LNG Prime)), while Golar LNG was flat. Notably, Trafigura – a major oil/LNG trader rather than a listed stock – made headlines by securing a US-backed $400 million credit line to boost LNG exports to Europe (Trafigura Secures U.S.-Backed Credit Line for LNG Exports), underlining continued strong flows and financing into the gas trade. The tanker sector is also watching M&A developments: HMM, South Korea’s flagship carrier, is bidding about ₩2 trillion ($1.4 billion) to acquire a 71% stake in SK Shipping (a large tanker/LPG/bulk operator) (HMM enters due diligence to acquire SK Shipping - Splash247). If finalized, that deal would integrate tankers into a container line – a rare diversification signaling confidence in long-term energy transport demand.
Container Shipping Stocks: Container liner equities are under pressure as freight rates languish near cyclical lows.
Container Carrier Price (Mar 21) Daily Change A.P. Møller–Maersk (AMKBY) $11.30 (ADR) –1.0% Hapag-Lloyd (XETR: HLAG) €265 –0.8% ZIM Integrated (ZIM) $17.45 –2.1% Matson (MATX) $68.20 +0.3%
Sector highlights: Maersk shares slipped ~1% as the company reiterated a cautious 2025 outlook after last year’s earnings comedown – the Danish giant is pivoting from ocean carrier margins to integrated logistics growth, investing heavily in landside services. Hapag-Lloyd (Germany) and ZIM (Israel) both declined, reflecting rate weakness (global average container rates down ~80% from peak (Drewry - Service Expertise - World Container Index - 20 March)). ZIM in particular faces profitability challenges at current spot rates and has seen its stock swing accordingly. U.S. carrier Matson, more focused on niche Pacific trades, was flat to slightly up, aided by steady demand in its Hawaii and Pacific lanes. Despite weak pricing, liners are shoring up balance sheets with cash from the boom – buybacks and dividends continue (Hapag-Lloyd paid a large dividend from its 2022 windfall), and no major liner bankruptcies are on the horizon this cycle. In the container infrastructure space, consolidation moves persist: Triton International, the world’s largest container lessor, announced it will acquire Global Container International (GCI), adding GCI’s 500,000 TEU fleet to Triton’s 7 million TEU portfolio (Container Leasing Giant Triton Acquires GCI in Major Consolidation Move) (Container Leasing Giant Triton Acquires GCI in Major Consolidation Move). This $*** (private) deal underscores investors’ long-term bet on container logistics, even amid the current downturn.
M&A and Capital Flows: Across segments, strategic deals and capital raises are shaping industry structure. In dry bulk, CMB’s buy-in to Golden Ocean (CMB.TECH Acquires Hemen's Stake In Dry Bulk Shipping) effectively transfers one of the world’s biggest bulker fleets to new hands, possibly spurring further consolidation or privatization moves. In tankers, the Frontline–Euronav saga remains unresolved but has sparked speculation of other tie-ups as tanker owners flush with cash look to scale up. Trafigura’s renewed $5.6B revolving credit facilities (Trafigura renews USD5.6 billion revolving credit facilities) and a German-backed $3B loan to Trafigura for European gas supply (Trafigura Lands $3B Loan to Supply Germany with Natural Gas, LNG) highlight how commodity traders are leveraging state and bank support to finance energy flows. Investment is also flowing into greener shipping tech (see Venture Funding below) as well as port and logistics assets – e.g. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL) agreed to acquire 100% of LBC Tank Terminals (a global chemicals storage operator) for ~$1.7 billion (MOL Acquires LBC Tank Terminals), expanding MOL’s integrated logistics capabilities in anticipation of growth in chemical and new energy trades. These financial maneuvers indicate capital is being actively deployed to reposition companies for the next phase of the shipping cycle.
Venture Funding News
Marine tech and green shipping startups continue to attract fresh capital and partnerships, reflecting the industry’s drive toward decarbonization and digitalization:
Motion Ventures Fund II: Singapore-based maritime VC fund Motion Ventures launched a second fund targeting $100 million – the largest dedicated maritime tech fund to date (Motion Ventures launches $100M fund to drive maritime innovation). Backed by major industry players and run in partnership with Rainmaking, the fund has already raised over $50M toward that goal. It plans to invest $250k–$10M in at least 25 startups focused on maritime decarbonization and digital transformation. (Motion’s Fund I seeded companies like Freightify, Everimpact, and Harbor Lab (Motion Ventures launches $100M fund to drive maritime innovation).) This hefty new fund signals strong confidence in shipping’s tech transition, from port optimizations to AI and carbon-reduction solutions.
Carbon Capture at Sea: A maritime emissions-capture startup secured $70 million in new funding to accelerate deployment of its shipboard carbon capture technology ($70 mln boost for maritime emissions capture startup as tech trials begin « Carbon Pulse). The company (which has begun trials on vessels in California) claims its system can reduce a ship’s stack emissions by up to 75%. This large raise – one of the biggest in maritime climate tech – will bankroll more pilots and hopefully scale a solution to help existing vessels meet emission targets without waiting for new fuels. It highlights investor appetite for “retrofit” green technologies as regulators tighten carbon rules.
ZeroNorth’s $20M Boost: Copenhagen-based software startup ZeroNorth, which provides AI-driven voyage optimization for shipping, raised $20 million in financing from Canada’s CIBC Innovation Banking (ZeroNorth secures $20M to steer the shipping industry toward a greener future — TFN). ZeroNorth (a Maersk Tankers spin-off) will use the funds to acquire complementary tech companies and enhance its platform that helps vessel operators cut fuel burn and emissions. The infusion, following a $50M Series B in 2022, underscores the importance of digital solutions in improving efficiency – especially with fuel costs and carbon costs rising. By leveraging big data across 1,500+ ships on its platform, ZeroNorth aims to unlock further savings and emissions cuts for the industry.
Ammonia-to-Power Startup: New York–based Amogy raised an additional $56 million in venture funding to advance its ammonia-fuel technology for shipping (Amogy secures additional $56 million to commercialize its ammonia-to-power solution - Offshore Energy). Co-led by Saudi Aramco’s VC arm and joined by strategic investors like Samsung Heavy Industries and BHP Ventures (Amogy secures additional $56 million to commercialize its ammonia-to-power solution - Offshore Energy), this round brings Amogy’s total funding to $270M. The startup made waves last year by successfully sailing a retrofitted tugboat (“NH3 Kraken”) on ammonia fuel (Amogy secures additional $56 million to commercialize its ammonia-to-power solution - Offshore Energy). The new capital will help commercialize its ammonia cracking system for larger vessels and stationary power. With ammonia emerging as a top candidate for zero-carbon shipping fuel, Amogy’s hefty backing from both oil/gas and maritime players shows the convergence of old and new energy industries around clean-fuel tech.
Logistics Platform Expansion: In the broader supply-chain arena, venture investors are also funding digital logistics solutions. For example, Seattle-based OpenTug recently raised $3.1 million (seed) to grow its marketplace for marine freight, which connects shippers with barges, tugs, and terminals across U.S. inland waterways (Maritime marketplace and software platform OpenTug raises $3.1M – GeekWire) (Maritime marketplace and software platform OpenTug raises $3.1M – GeekWire). By digitizing the fragmented tug and barge sector (often called the “marine highway”), startups like OpenTug aim to unlock unused capacity and streamline booking for bulk and project cargo moves. This reflects a trend of applying tech that has digitized trucking and air freight to the marine segment, creating new efficiencies in traditionally analog markets.
Overall, the maritime startup ecosystem is vibrant – from big green-tech bets (carbon capture, alternative fuels) to niche operational platforms – with fresh venture funds ensuring a pipeline of innovation. As one veteran industry CEO quipped, “Shipping is finally catching the tech wave.”
Deep Dive – Key Players & Strategies
Maersk: Industry bellwether A.P. Møller–Maersk is navigating a strategic pivot as container markets normalize. After earning record profits during the pandemic boom, Maersk is now laser-focused on its end-to-end logistics transformation. The Danish group has been investing billions from its war chest into inland logistics (warehousing, trucking, air cargo) and technology to become a true integrator. This week, Maersk touted new contract wins in its supply chain management unit even as its ocean division faces lower volumes. The company is also leading on decarbonization – it inaugurated the world’s first methanol-fueled container ship last year and has 19 methanol mega-vessels on order for delivery through 2025. Maersk’s CEO Vincent Clerc has called for global regulation to drive shipping’s green transition, arguing that a carbon levy is needed to close the cost gap between green and fossil fuels (Maersk CEO shares three imperatives for shipping's decarbonization to succeed - Offshore Energy) (Maersk CEO shares three imperatives for shipping's decarbonization to succeed - Offshore Energy). In the meantime, Maersk is voluntarily pricing carbon into contracts with customers and exploring e-methanol production partnerships (e.g. with Ørsted for U.S. e-fuel projects) (A.P. Moller - Maersk engages in strategic partnerships across the ...). Financially, Maersk entered 2025 with a strong balance sheet and continues to return cash to shareholders (it paid a hefty dividend from 2022 earnings), but it has warned that 2025 EBITDA will be far below the 2021 peak. The market is watching how effectively Maersk can grow its non-ocean revenues – already nearly one-third of its business – to smooth out the notorious volatility of container shipping. So far, the integrator strategy is yielding higher contract logistics and fulfillment volumes. Maersk’s ability to leverage its scale (still ~17% global container market share) while reducing cyclicality will significantly influence industry practices, as peers like CMA CGM and MSC emulate parts of this model.
Trafigura: The global commodities trading house Trafigura is flexing its logistics muscle in energy markets. In recent months Trafigura has been aggressively expanding LNG trading – it secured a $400 million U.S. Ex-Im Bank credit line to facilitate more American LNG shipments to Europe (Trafigura Secures U.S.-Backed Credit Line for LNG Exports), essentially underpinning cargos with government-insured financing. Trafigura is also shortlisted for a long-term 2.1 mt/year LNG supply contract with Korea Gas Corp (KOGAS) (KOGAS shortlists BP, Trafigura, Total for 2.1 mil mt/year long-term ...), which, if won, would further entrench it as a major portfolio player in LNG alongside oil majors. On the oil side, Trafigura continues to redirect Russian crude and products eastward in the wake of sanctions, using a “shadow fleet” of older tankers to handle those trades – a high-risk, high-margin operation. The trader’s 2024 Sustainability Report highlighted a 31% cut in its Scope 1 and 2 emissions (Trafigura reduces its Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 31%) (largely by upgrading its smelting operations and using cleaner power), showing its desire to burnish green credentials even as it remains one of the biggest shippers of fossil fuels. Trafigura’s financial moves also signal strength: it recently renewed $5.6 billion in credit facilities (Trafigura renews USD5.6 billion revolving credit facilities) and landed a $3 billion German-backed loan to supply gas to Europe (Trafigura Lands $3B Loan to Supply Germany with Natural Gas, LNG), indicating banks and governments see it as a linchpin in energy security. Strategically, Trafigura is investing upstream as well – it has stakes in mining (lithium, copper) and is backing pipeline and port infrastructure (for example, a stake in a new Texas LNG export project). This diversification across commodities and the supply chain, while formidable, is not without hiccups: last year Trafigura took a ~$600M loss on an alleged nickel fraud, prompting tighter risk controls in its metals trading. Still, Trafigura’s ability to marshal shipping capacity and financing in a volatile geopolitical environment has only enhanced its influence on global trade flows.
Glencore: Mining and trading giant Glencore is positioning for big deals as the resource landscape shifts. The Swiss-based firm (a top producer of copper, coal, zinc, nickel, and more) has openly stated it’s “always open to value-accretive M&A” (Glencore open to deals as investors brace for more mining M&A | Reuters) – and indeed Glencore has been active. It recently made headlines with an approach to merge with Rio Tinto (one of the world’s largest miners), although talks did not progress (Glencore open to deals as investors brace for more mining M&A | Reuters). This bold idea underscored Glencore’s desire to increase its copper and critical minerals portfolio, leveraging the fact that it is among the top-3 global copper producers already (Glencore open to deals as investors brace for more mining M&A | Reuters). Glencore is also eyeing the battery supply chain: it proposed an acquisition of Canada-based Li-Cycle, a lithium-ion battery recycling firm, to bolster its foothold in EV materials (Glencore Aims To Overcome Struggles With Li-Cycle Acquisition) (Li-Cycle shares surge 55% as Glencore expresses interest ... - AInvest). (Li-Cycle has struggled financially, and Glencore is a major stakeholder – a takeover could secure Glencore a key role in recycling batteries for nickel, cobalt, lithium recovery.) Meanwhile, Glencore’s coal business remains hugely profitable but under ESG pressure. It actually increased coal output in 2024, capitalizing on high prices, even as Western competitors divest – a stance that has drawn investor scrutiny. The company recently completed the purchase of stakes in two Colombian coal mines and even tried to acquire Teck Resources’ coal unit, signaling it will ride the coal cash wave while it lasts (Glencore Maintains Coal Activities Despite Pressure - energynews) (Why investors are cautious of Glencore - Miningmx). To placate critics, Glencore is returning lots of cash (it’s in the midst of a new multi-billion-dollar share buyback (2025 Share buy-back programme - Glencore)) and insists it will eventually wind down coal production. In logistics, Glencore charters a massive fleet for its trading arm – everything from bulk carriers for coal/ores to tankers for its oil trading unit. With Asia’s hunger for coal and metals still growing, Glencore’s trading division is enjoying strong freight demand (for instance, record coal imports to China have meant busy loadings for Glencore-marketed Australian and Indonesian coal (Asia and Europe on divergent coal paths - Splash247) (Asia and Europe on divergent coal paths - Splash247)). Glencore’s strategy seems to be: use short-term “dirty” commodity profits (coal, oil trading) to fund long-term bets on “green” metals and recycling, and be ready to pounce on any M&A that can reshape the mining industry. Investors are watching closely – Glencore’s stock trades at a conglomerate discount to pure-play miners, so any transformative move (like a spin-off of coal or a big merger) could unlock value. In sum, Glencore continues to be the ultimate commodity opportunist, unafraid of controversy as it straddles the old and new energy economies.
Others: Among other major players, privately-held MSC (Mediterranean Shipping Co.) – now the world’s largest container line – keeps expanding its empire, from buying new ships (it has ~130 vessels on order) to acquiring terminal assets. MSC’s strategy diverges from Maersk: MSC is doubling down on its core ocean freight business (including recently launching an air cargo division and buying Bolloré’s African logistics unit) rather than integrated end-to-end logistics. Cargill, the agricultural commodity giant, remains a dominant charterer of bulk tonnage – it’s pioneering green corridors by trialing wind sails on some bulk carriers and signing long-term charters for methanol-fueled ships. Commodity traders Vitol and Gunvor are quietly crucial in tanker markets, moving record volumes of Russian oil to new buyers via ship-to-ship transfers – their agile logistics networks (and use of older “dark fleet” tankers) have essentially re-drawn oil trade routes since sanctions. On the tech front, Amazon and Alibaba continue to disrupt container logistics by running their own forwarding and chartering ships when needed to control supply chains. And state players like China’s COSCO and Saudi Aramco are leveraging both financial might and policy support – e.g. COSCO’s investment in ports along the Belt & Road and Aramco’s investment in ammonia ships and LNG carriers – to secure their supply chain influence. Each of these moves by key players – whether public or behind the scenes – is reverberating through freight markets and forcing competitors to respond in kind.
Major Shipping Lanes & Trade Flows
Suez Canal: Geopolitics have upended normal patterns in the Suez. In an unprecedented turn, Suez Canal toll revenues are down ~60% year-to-date – a ~$7 billion loss for Egypt – as many ships re-routed to avoid missile and drone attacks in the Red Sea ( Suez Canal Revenue Down 60%, But Red Sea Outlook May Be Changing - Gulf Insider | Gulf Insider) ( Suez Canal Revenue Down 60%, But Red Sea Outlook May Be Changing - Gulf Insider | Gulf Insider). Since late 2023, Houthi forces from Yemen have targeted merchant vessels in the Red Sea (in “solidarity” with the Israel–Hamas conflict) and even engaged U.S. Navy ships, prompting major shipping lines to divert Asia–Mediterranean and Asia–US East Coast services away from Suez ( Suez Canal Revenue Down 60%, But Red Sea Outlook May Be Changing - Gulf Insider | Gulf Insider). Instead, carriers have taken the longer journey around the Cape of Good Hope, boosting voyage distances but avoiding the conflict zone. This has actually raised freight rates and fuel costs on those routes, but carriers have passed on the costs – ironically boosting profits by billions thanks to higher surcharges ( Suez Canal Revenue Down 60%, But Red Sea Outlook May Be Changing - Gulf Insider | Gulf Insider). The Egyptian government blamed “rising geopolitical challenges” for the traffic plunge ( Suez Canal Revenue Down 60%, But Red Sea Outlook May Be Changing - Gulf Insider | Gulf Insider). However, there is some optimism that the security situation could improve: by early 2025 the Houthi attacks eased (as regional diplomacy advanced and Iran pulled back support) ( Suez Canal Revenue Down 60%, But Red Sea Outlook May Be Changing - Gulf Insider | Gulf Insider). Observers predict Red Sea transits might resume in the second half of 2025 if stability returns ( Suez Canal Revenue Down 60%, But Red Sea Outlook May Be Changing - Gulf Insider | Gulf Insider). In the meantime, the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) hasn’t stood idle – it accelerated expansion works. In January the SCA successfully tested a new 10 km parallel channel at the canal’s southern end (Little Bitter Lake), allowing two-way traffic in more sections (Video: Suez Canal Expands Two-Way Traffic as Part of Modernization Effort) (Video: Suez Canal Expands Two-Way Traffic as Part of Modernization Effort). This expansion, spurred by lessons from the Ever Given grounding in 2021, will add capacity for 6–8 more ships per day once fully opened. Dredging to widen and deepen other stretches is ongoing to make Suez more resilient and reduce transit delays due to wind or accidents (Video: Suez Canal Expands Two-Way Traffic as Part of Modernization Effort). Additionally, SCA in 2024 implemented hefty toll hikes (5–15% increases) for most vessels to boost revenue (Suez Canal toll to increase by 15% in mid-January 2024 - Trans.INFO) (Suez Canal Authority to Increase Transit Fees by 5-15% from 2024). But for now, Suez sailings remain below normal – as of March, convoy counts and southbound volumes are depressed, awaiting a resolution to the Red Sea risk that has literally sent ships around the world.
Panama Canal: The Panama Canal is emerging from its own crisis – a severe drought in 2023 that constrained ship transits. After months of restrictions, canal authorities report water levels are recovering, allowing them to ease transit limits. By mid-March 2025, the Canal had raised the maximum draft back to 50 feet (from lows near 44 ft) and is gradually increasing daily transit slots from 24 toward the normal 36 vessels per day (Panama Canal Eases Limits That Caused Shipping Bottleneck - TT). Recent heavy rains improved Gatun Lake levels, such that no further restrictions are planned at least until the next dry season (Exclusive: Panama Canal does not plan transit restrictions at least until April | Reuters) (Exclusive: Panama Canal does not plan transit restrictions at least until April | Reuters). This is a relief for shippers – in late 2024, the backlog to transit Panama caused some carriers (especially dry bulk and LNG) to opt for alternate routes or use more, smaller ships. In fact, transited tonnage was ~10% below pre-pandemic averages from Sep’24 to Jan’25 despite no new restrictions in that period (Panama Canal Transits Drop In Favor Of Alternatives). Some changes appear structural: segments like LNG have barely returned to Panama (Panama Canal Transits Drop In Favor Of Alternatives) (few LNG carriers transit due to strict slot rules and preference to round Cape Horn for flexibility), and U.S. grain exports have shifted – more soy and grain is leaving via U.S. Pacific Northwest ports for Asia (bypassing Panama), while Gulf Coast grain volumes through Panama fell ~6% YoY (Panama Canal Transits Drop In Favor Of Alternatives). These shifts, plus higher canal tolls, mean global trade routes are still adjusting even as Panama’s congestion eases. The Canal Authority is not complacent: it’s exploring long-term solutions like reservoir projects and even salt-water pumps to mitigate future droughts. And in a twist, the Red Sea conflict has benefited Panama – with Suez risky, some Asia–Europe cargoes (especially U.S. LPG and certain container routings) took the Panama Canal or U.S. intermodal routes instead (Exclusive: Panama Canal does not plan transit restrictions at least until April | Reuters) (Exclusive: Panama Canal does not plan transit restrictions at least until April | Reuters), giving Panama an unexpected traffic bump. As of now, Panama expects to be fully back to 36 transits/day by late spring (Exclusive: Panama Canal does not plan transit restrictions at least until April | Reuters) if normal rains continue, and carriers are breathing a sigh of relief that one of the world’s two vital canal arteries is getting back up to speed. All eyes remain on the sky – a return of El Niño could spell more low-water woes, keeping alternate routing plans close at hand.
Singapore & Key Hubs: Singapore, sitting at the crossroads of global trade, has proven its resilience amid these shifts. The Port of Singapore achieved record throughput in 2024 – 41.1 million TEUs (+5.4% YoY) ( Strong growth momentum for Maritime Singapore | Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore ) – and volumes in early 2025 remain strong, buoyed in part by carriers re-routing services (many Asia–Europe loops now call in Southeast Asia or take longer routes, making Singapore an even more critical bunkering and transshipment stop). In fact, Singapore’s bunker fuel sales hit an all-time high of 54.92 million tonnes in 2024 (Singapore bunker sales hit 54.92 million mt record in 2024 amid ...), up 6% and reaffirming its status as the world’s top bunkering hub. Some of that was due to ships taking longer detours (e.g. around Africa) and needing refueling – essentially, geopolitical rerouting put extra fuel business into Singapore. The Maritime and Port Authority noted an uptick in demand for bunkers and services as vessels avoided Suez/Red Sea and instead came via the Cape to Asia, often stopping at Singapore for refuel and cargo ops. Singapore also handled the surge deftly by opening new berths at the mega Tuas Port and activating additional yard space to prevent congestion during the rerouting rush in mid-2024 ( Strong growth momentum for Maritime Singapore | Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore ). Elsewhere in Asia, Malacca Strait traffic has been steady – some very large crude carriers (VLCCs) that normally would go Suez from the Middle East to Europe have instead gone east via the Indian Ocean and through Malacca to deliver crude into East Asia (as Europe cut Russian oil, Asia is pulling Middle East oil that way), keeping tanker flows high. Suez vs Cape vs Panama: we’re seeing a rare scenario where more Asia–Europe cargo is going both via the Cape of Good Hope (for security) and via the Panama/U.S. route (for certain goods), at the expense of Suez. Singapore, Colombo, and Cape Town are benefiting from the Cape route revival, whereas Jeddah and Port Said have seen fewer liner calls due to the Red Sea risk. Meanwhile, the Northern Sea Route (Arctic), touted by some as a future shortcut, had a quiet winter – high insurance and Russia tensions kept most shippers away despite lower ice cover. In sum, major shipping lanes are in flux: companies are dynamically rerouting to manage risk and cost, whether that’s detouring around conflict zones or timing canal transits around draft limits. These shifts underscore the strategic importance of certain chokepoints (canals, straits) and the value of alternative paths when the usual ones are compromised.
Commodities & Arbitrage
Global commodity trade flows are continually reshaping in response to price arbitrages, geopolitics, and demand shifts:
Oil: The crude oil trade has undergone an eastward reorientation. Russian Urals crude that once flowed to Europe now sails on long voyages to India and China, often via ship-to-ship transfers off Greece or in the Middle East. This has boosted tanker tonne-miles and kept freight rates firm. Conversely, Europe is importing more oil from the U.S., Middle East, and West Africa. Millions of barrels that would normally go to European refineries are now heading to Asia instead (Asia Grabs Europe's Oil After Russia Sanctions Redraw Trading), as Asian buyers take advantage of discounts on Russian and Middle Eastern crudes that Europe shuns (Chinese private refiners extend arbitrage purchases, raises ...). Arbitrage windows are actively watched: the Brent-Dubai spread recently narrowed, briefly making Atlantic Basin crudes attractive for Asian import, and indeed a rush of North Sea and West African cargoes sailed east when that gap allowed. On refined products, diesel is the hot commodity – Europe’s diesel benchmark has been elevated due to the loss of Russian supply, which kept the US Gulf–Europe diesel arbitrage intermittently open (though constrained by high freight on the TC14 route) (- Cyprus Shipping News). At times in Q1, the trans-Atlantic diesel arb was closed, lifting European diesel prices further until stocks draw down and freight rates normalized to reopen it (- Cyprus Shipping News) (- Cyprus Shipping News). Meanwhile the Middle East to Asia diesel flow is strong: with Asia’s economies recovering, Middle Eastern refineries (and Indian exporters) are sending surplus diesel east to Pakistan, Singapore, and Australia (- Cyprus Shipping News) (- Cyprus Shipping News). For gasoline and naphtha, arbitrages have also been active – for instance, a surplus of naphtha in Europe has seen cargoes sent to Asia for petrochemical feedstock when price spreads allow, but a weaker Asian petrochem market recently capped that arb (Current arbitrage weakness caps naphtha upside, but March offers ...). Overall, oil markets in 2025 are marked by longer voyages and new circuits: Latin American crude going to Europe, U.S. crude to Asia, Russian diesel to Turkey and UAE for re-export, etc. These arbitrage trades are highly sensitive to freight costs – a slight drop in tanker rates or a small price differential can swing cargoes halfway around the world.
LNG: Global LNG trade is in a relative equilibrium after the turmoil of 2022. The Asia–Europe LNG price spread has been narrow – as of mid-March, Asian spot LNG is only about $0.20/mmBtu above European TTF prices (Asian LNG and TTF prices to hold steady after Ukraine's acceptance ...). This means cargo arbitrage between the Atlantic and Pacific is finely balanced. Over the winter, Europe’s milder weather and brimming gas storage kept TTF prices subdued, allowing a few U.S. LNG cargoes to divert back to Asia when Asia offered a slight premium. When a cold snap hit Europe briefly in January, the flow reversed as European prices jumped. Now with spring, both Asia and Europe LNG prices are relatively soft (in the $13–15/mmBtu range (GLOBAL LNG-Asian spot LNG prices remain near three-month low ...)), and major importers are out of peak season. Europe’s LNG imports have been massive – January saw near-record arrivals, helping offset lower Russian pipeline gas, and Europe overtook Asia as the top LNG import region in 2024. This year, however, Asia’s LNG demand is recovering (China is buying more LNG again as its economy grows and domestic coal prices are high). Analysts expect some price tension in summer as Europe will need to refill storage while China and South Asia compete for spot cargoes (Lower LNG supply and higher prices expected to weaken China's ...) (LNG prices to ease in 2025 after 'new lows' last year - gasworld). On the shipping side, LNG freight rates have normalized after last year’s spikes – modern TFDE LNG carriers are around $30–50k/day, far below the $200k+ peaks, which in itself facilitates arbitrage by lowering transport costs. A notable arbitrage play: China’s independents have been buying cheap US and Canadian LNG via long-term deals and reselling some volumes to Europe at a profit (Chinese private refiners extend arbitrage purchases, raises ...) – essentially arbitraging their contract vs spot spreads. Meanwhile, regional price quirks persist: in South America, Argentina and Brazil are bracing to import LNG at high prices as their winters loom, creating pockets of demand that traders can exploit by sending cargoes from the U.S. Gulf or West Africa down to the Atlantic coast of SA if the price is right. All told, LNG trade flows remain flexible: Europe acts as the “sink” for surplus LNG at a clearing price that is now closer to Asia’s price. If Asian prices climb above European by a few dollars, expect to see U.S. and Middle East cargoes pivot back to Asia (as happened in 2018-2019). The coming months will test this balance – an overly hot Asian summer or supply outage could widen the arb and redraw routes again.
Coal: Coal trade is increasingly split between East and West. Europe’s thermal coal imports have fallen from their 2022 peak (when the gas crisis forced Europe to burn more coal). With gas prices lower and renewables growing, the EU is again phasing down coal usage, and imports are expected to drop ~20% this year. In stark contrast, Asian coal imports are hitting record highs (Asia and Europe on divergent coal paths - Splash247). China, despite pledges to peak coal, is on pace for all-time high imports – late 2024 saw monthly Chinese coal imports 30%+ above year-ago levels (Asia and Europe on divergent coal paths - Splash247). China’s easing of its unofficial ban on Australian coal has also reshuffled flows: Australian coal is now sailing into China again, reducing China’s reliance on Indonesian and Russian coal. India too increased coal imports ~8% YoY in the first half of its fiscal year (Asia and Europe on divergent coal paths - Splash247), as economic growth drives power demand. Other Southeast Asian nations like Indonesia (paradoxically a top producer that still imports some coal for quality blending) and the Philippines are becoming more coal-dependent (Asia and Europe on divergent coal paths - Splash247). This divergence means Pacific coal routes are booming – e.g. Richards Bay (South Africa) to India/China, Indonesia to China/India, Australia to Northeast Asia – keeping bulk carriers (especially Panamaxes and Capsizes) well employed. Meanwhile Atlantic coal flows are waning – U.S. and Colombian coal exports to Europe are slowing as EU demand fades, and some U.S. miners are instead finding buyers in Asia (leading to unusual routes like U.S. east coast coal going through the Panama Canal to Asia). European utilities that do need coal are drawing more from nearby sources (Colombia, South Africa) and relying on stockpiles. The net effect is longer average haul for coal globally, as the center of gravity shifts to Asia. This supports dry bulk freight: a ton of coal going from South Africa to Asia travels three times the distance of a ton going to Europe. One arbitrage within coal: high-quality Australian coking coal (for steelmaking) saw a price drop in February due to Chinese slow demand (Asia's coking coal imports slide in February, but recovery looms), allowing Indian buyers to swoop in and arbitrage that price dip – several cargoes were re-routed from China to India. With steel output recovering, that arbitrage may close as China’s mills ramp up and need more met coal later in the year. In thermal coal, traders are eyeing China’s domestic vs import price gap – if Chinese domestic coal remains expensive, it makes sense for power plants to max out imports (good news for Indonesian and Australian suppliers). However, if domestic output surges and prices drop, China’s import appetite could suddenly shrink, stranding some cargoes that might then have to find homes in India or even Europe. Thus, coal traders are closely monitoring policy signals from Beijing (e.g. potential import quotas or bans if domestic mines lobby). For now, the arbitrage is clear: Asia is paying for coal, Europe is not, and ships are accordingly pointed East.
Iron Ore: The iron ore trade – the volume king of dry bulk – remains dominated by the China story. So far in 2025, Chinese steel production has been lukewarm, keeping iron ore prices in check (around $120/ton). Iron ore arbitrage tends to refer to timing and grade differentials rather than routes (since supply chains are fixed from Australia/Brazil to China). Lately, Chinese port stockpiles have been high, and futures in Dalian and Singapore have softened on concerns about China’s property sector. This has led some Capesize owners to accept slightly lower charter rates on the Brazil–China run as miners like Vale push volume despite the price dips. However, a few shifts are notable: Brazil’s market share in China’s ore imports has edged up as high grades are preferred to meet environmental targets, and India has been exporting more iron ore to China again (taking advantage of higher prices last year, though India’s volumes are minor globally). There’s also a regional arbitrage in ore: some European mills, facing higher costs and carbon prices, have been idling, which freed up more Atlantic ore (from miners like LKAB or Canadian operations) to go to other markets. Turkey and the Middle East have been importing more iron ore pellets, for instance, benefiting handymax and supramax bulkers. But fundamentally, iron ore flows haven’t drastically changed – about 75% of seaborne iron ore still heads into Northeast Asia (China, Japan, Korea). The big question is China’s stimulus: if China launches infrastructure stimulus in Q2, iron ore demand (and prices) could leap, pulling more ships to the Brazil–China route (the longest major route) and raising the Baltic Capesize Index. Conversely, if China curbs steel output to control emissions (a policy they’ve enacted in past years), it could soften demand and divert some Australian ore to alternate buyers like Vietnam or Europe, which are smaller markets. One interesting arbitrage: with Europe pushing green steel, there is nascent demand for high-grade iron ore and DR pellets (for direct-reduction processes) – some of this is being sourced from Canada, Sweden, and Russia, and could see unusual shipping routes (e.g. Northern Sea Route shipments of Russian pellets to Europe in summer). Also, Chinese capital is investing in African iron ore (e.g. Simandou in Guinea) – when that comes online in a few years, it could dramatically alter trade flows (more West Africa to China shipments). For now, iron ore shipping remains a steady backbone: the Capesize “fronthaul” arbitrage (Brazil to China vs Australia to China freight spread) is a key metric for freight traders, and with fuel prices up, the longer Brazil route offers premium earnings per day – encouraging owners to ballast ships to Brazil to chase that arb. In short, no major upheaval in iron ore routes yet, but plenty of nuance under the surface.
Grains & Soybeans: Grain trade flows are in a dynamic reshuffle due to the Ukraine war and record harvests in the Americas. The Black Sea grain corridor closure in 2023 forced importers to turn to the U.S., Brazil, and Argentina for wheat and corn. Russia’s wheat exports, however, have boomed – Russia had a bumper crop and despite sanctions, its wheat (offered at ~$30/ton discount) found eager buyers in North Africa, the Middle East, and even Asia. Russian wheat exports this season could hit 45+ million tons, an all-time high, moving on a diverse fleet (some standard Panamaxes to Egypt, many smaller handysize shipments to places like Turkey and Iran). Western sanctions haven’t targeted Russian grain, but payment and insurance difficulties mean a lot of these trades are facilitated by Middle Eastern intermediaries. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s grain trickles out via rail and Danube barges to EU ports, but volumes are a fraction of pre-war, keeping global grain trade tight. In this gap, Brazil and Argentina have stepped up: Brazil planted its largest ever wheat area and is now exporting wheat to markets like Indonesia and Vietnam that used to buy from the Black Sea. On corn, Brazil’s safrinha corn harvest is huge and Brazil is set to surpass the U.S. as the top corn exporter. Notably, China is now importing much of its corn from Brazil (after signing protocols last year) – a trade that barely existed before. Large Panamax convoys of Brazilian corn have been sailing around the Cape of Good Hope to China (as the Panama Canal had draft limits), adding tonne-miles. For soybeans, the shift is even more dramatic: Brazil accounts for ~57% of global soybean exports now, vs the U.S. at 28% (Brazil's ever-expanding soybean area may face challenges from ...). Brazil’s 2025 soy crop is expected to be a record ~171 million tonnes (Brazil soybean production 2025 - The Rio Times). China, which buys ~60% of world soybeans, is sourcing the majority from Brazil – especially in Q2/Q3 after the Brazilian harvest. U.S. soybeans dominate Chinese imports only in Q4 (after U.S. harvest) but even there, last fall China drew down state reserves and bought more from Brazil, cutting U.S. market share. This structural arb (cheaper Brazilian soy + closer political ties) means ever more Capesize and Panamax loadings from Brazil’s ports (Santos, Paranagua) to China. The United States is trying to find new markets: increased soy and corn to EU (for feed and biofuel) and to North Africa, and more wheat to Middle East and East Africa under food aid. One interesting development: Australia had big wheat crops and is exporting large volumes to Asia, but now with El Niño, Australia expects a smaller crop in 2025, which could swing some demand back to North American or Black Sea suppliers – a potential arbitrage if, say, Southeast Asian millers have to pay up for Canadian or U.S. spring wheat to replace Aussie. Freight-wise, grain trades often use smaller bulkers due to port drafts, but there’s been a trend of using more Panamax vessels for Brazil<->China grains given the huge volumes and China’s deepwater ports – this is supporting Panamax rates and spreading out the usual seasonal slump. In summary, global grain flows are adjusting to new normals: Russia and Brazil are ascendant, the U.S. is striving to hold on to market share, and importers are diversifying sourcing. Arbitrage opportunities arise from crop timing (e.g. South vs North America seasons), quality (high-protein Canadian/Aussie wheat vs standard Black Sea wheat), and logistics (Panama Canal constraints made some Asian grain buyers opt for Cape routes). Expect continued volatility in these flows as weather (El Niño could hit India’s rice or Brazil’s corn) and geopolitics (will the Black Sea corridor reopen?) play wild cards.
In essence, commodity shipping in 2025 is marked by longer voyages and creative reroutings to arbitrage price differences – whether that’s a Greek tanker moving Urals crude to Gujarat, or a bulker laden with Brazilian corn swinging around Africa to reach a Chinese feedlot. These shifting trade patterns are increasing overall ton-mile demand even when volume growth is modest, which is a supportive factor for the shipping markets.
Expert Opinions & Policy Insights
The maritime industry finds itself at the nexus of tightening environmental regulations and evolving market outlooks, and experts are weighing in on how to navigate these changes:
Decarbonization & Emissions Policy: Regulators are raising the stakes on shipping emissions. As of Jan 2024, the EU has officially extended its Emissions Trading System to maritime – shipping lines will have to purchase carbon allowances for 40% of their CO₂ emissions in 2024 (ramping to 100% by 2026) for voyages touching EU ports (FAQ – Maritime transport in EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)). Companies must report 2024 emissions by March 31, 2025, and surrender their first allowances by September 2025 (FAQ – Maritime transport in EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)) (Emissions Trading System - Maritime Transport). Industry analysts note this effectively puts a price of ~$90/ton CO₂ (current EUA price) on compliant voyages, which could add ~$10-20/TEU in cost for Asia–Europe container shipments. Most large carriers like Maersk and MSC have already begun incorporating carbon costs into freight rates or via surcharges. A UK Emissions Scheme for shipping is also on the horizon (likely mirroring the EU’s). Across the Atlantic, the IMO is deliberating global market-based measures – A.P. Moller–Maersk’s CEO expects the IMO to agree on a carbon levy mechanism by 2025 (Maersk Expects IMO to Approve Global CO2 Levy in 2025 - TT). This optimism follows the IMO’s adoption of a revised GHG strategy targeting net-zero by 2050 (Maersk CEO shares three imperatives for shipping's decarbonization to succeed - Offshore Energy). The IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee is meeting mid-2025 to iron out specifics, with a $100/ton fuel carbon levy proposal on the table supported by many nations (though facing resistance from some emerging economies).
Fuel Standards & Green Fuel Incentives: July 2025 will see the entry into force of IMO’s stricter energy efficiency requirements (EEXI/CII phases tighten). Already, ships are being graded annually on carbon intensity (CII A–E ratings). Early data from 2023 showed a large portion of the global fleet scored C or below. Experts warn that as the CII stringency increases 2% per year, many ships will be forced to slow steam or retrofit to avoid a D/E rating for multiple years (which would trigger corrective action requirements). There is talk of IMO adjusting CII baselines to be more lenient for certain vessel types after industry pushback, but nothing confirmed yet. Meanwhile, the EU’s FuelEU Maritime regulation will kick in 2025, requiring ships calling EU ports to gradually reduce greenhouse gas intensity of their fuel by 2% (from 2020 levels), tightening to 6% by 2030. This essentially pushes adoption of biofuels, e-methanol, LNG, and other alternatives – so we’re seeing a flurry of agreements: e.g. MSC and CMA CGM are trialing B30 biofuel blends on big ships, and Carnival is bunkering LNG for its new cruise ships in Europe to comply early with FuelEU. The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) is advocating for a global fuel standard to avoid a patchwork of regional rules. One positive development: availability of drop-in biofuels is improving – Singapore and Rotterdam both reported record sales of biofuel bunkers in the past year (COMMODITIES 2025: Singapore bunker demand to continue rally ...). However, experts caution that truly scalable zero-carbon fuels (green ammonia, green methanol, hydrogen) won’t be widely available until late this decade, so meeting 2030 targets will rely heavily on transitional measures (like slow-steaming, efficiency tech, and limited biofuel use).
Ship Design & Technology: Naval architects and class societies are busy revising designs to meet coming mandates. Newbuild orders in 2025 overwhelmingly feature dual-fuel capability – methanol dual-fuel container ships, LNG dual-fuel tankers, even ammonia-ready bulk carriers. The orderbook for methanol-fueled vessels has swelled to over 100 (mostly container ships, led by Maersk’s orders). DNV reports that around 10% of all newbuild tonnage on order is alternative-fuel capable. There is also a push on energy-saving devices: air lubrication systems, rotor sails (several big bulkers and tankers will be delivered with Flettner rotors), and advanced hull coatings are becoming standard for eco-optimized vessels. On the digital side, more companies are investing in AI-based routing and engine analytics (to squeeze out fuel savings and ensure CII compliance). One notable expert opinion came from the CEO of Pacific Basin (a major bulker owner), who said: “The cheapest ship to decarbonize is the one you already have” – advocating that extending the life of relatively efficient existing ships and retrofitting them might have a better total carbon outcome than a frenzy of newbuilds. This perspective is gaining traction as some voice concern that scrapping too early and building new (with high steel and construction emissions) could be counterproductive.
Market Outlook: Shipping analysts are cautiously optimistic for most sectors in 2025 but flag plenty of uncertainties. Clarkson Research notes the global fleet is growing slowly (~2% annually) due to low deliveries, which underpins earnings if demand holds. Dry Bulk demand is projected +1-2% with China’s stimulus being a swing factor – if China launches infrastructure projects, bulker rates could spike; if not, it could be a choppy year. Tankers are expected to stay strong through 2025 because of the dislocated oil trades (e.g. Russia->Asia, Middle East->Europe) keeping ships tied up on long voyages (Asia and Europe on divergent coal paths - Splash247). Some experts warn of a potential tanker oversupply by 2026 if too many newbuilds (especially LNG-fueled VLCCs) deliver, but that’s beyond the immediate horizon. Container shipping is the big question mark – most forecasts see container volumes growing ~3% in 2025 (after a decline in 2023 and tepid 2024), but the orderbook of mega-ships (over 90 scheduled for 2025) could prolong overcapacity. As a result, consultants like Drewry expect freight rates to “bounce along the bottom” for a few more quarters. However, liner CEOs in recent earnings calls sounded a note of confidence that the worst is over, as inventory restocking in the West and tighter capacity management (idling and scrapping of older ships) should gradually lift rates. The wildcard is consolidation: with the fallout from the ONE–HHM merger talks (hypothetical) or smaller carriers exiting, any change in competitive dynamics could affect pricing.
Geopolitical & Regulatory Risks: Experts also point to trade policy and geopolitics as key shipping risks. The US–China trade tension has not gone away – new export controls or tariffs could redirect certain cargo flows (for instance, if tariffs on Chinese goods rise, production may shift to Vietnam or India, altering container routes). Conversely, improved relations (or at least a stable status quo) would keep flows steady. The Russia–Ukraine war remains a looming risk: incidents like a potential escalation around the Black Sea or new sanctions on shipping companies could disrupt grain and oil trades suddenly. Also on the radar: Middle East tensions (beyond Yemen, if Iran nuclear talks break down, could there be threats to Hormuz Strait? That would roil tanker markets). Canal politics are also in play – if Egypt’s revenue crunch continues, will it raise Suez tolls yet again or offer rebates to woo ships back from the Cape route? If Panama faces another drought this year, will it prioritize certain cargoes (e.g. perishable goods over coal) in transit allocations? These decisions can all create short-term winners and losers in the freight market.
EU ETS and “Carbon Leakage”: One interesting policy debate: European officials noted there’s “no significant evidence of evasion from maritime ETS” so far – fears that ships would do evasive port calls just outside the EU (like calling at Tanger Med, Morocco, instead of Spain to avoid ETS charges) haven’t materialized yet (New US Administration policy triggering a new world order). The cost might not be high enough or the hassle too great. However, experts caution that as the ETS costs ramp up (70% of emissions in 2025, 100% by 2026), we might indeed see behavioral changes – e.g. more hubbing at non-EU ports. The EU is considering measures to prevent such carbon leakage in shipping. Additionally, “carbon clauses” in charter parties are a hot topic – who pays for EU ETS costs, owner or charterer? BIMCO is drafting standard clauses, but until widely adopted, there’s legal uncertainty. Lawyers at Norton Rose note 2025 will be the first year of full data and partial payment, likely leading to disputes if not contractually addressed (EU ETS: Inclusion of Maritime Emissions) (2025: A new year ahead for shipping – environmental and ...).
In summary, the expert consensus is that regulation-driven change is accelerating: shipping companies that plan early for carbon costs, fuel transitions, and efficiency mandates will gain an edge. As one industry veteran quipped, “Compliance is becoming as important as competence” in shipping management. The outlook for most freight sectors is cautiously positive, but adaptability – to new rules, new routes, and new technologies – will be the watchword for 2025 and beyond.
Curious Maritime Fact
Did you know? A single ultra-large container ship can carry an astonishing amount of cargo. For example, Maersk’s Triple-E class vessels (18,000 TEU capacity) can hold so many containers that if you loaded them onto a train, it would stretch 110 km long – and if you stacked those containers one on top of the other, they’d reach about 47 km high, well into the stratosphere (The Triple-E Maersk container ship will be the world's largest ship and the most efficient)! This illustrates the massive scale of modern shipping: these giant ships, at 400 m length, quietly move goods by the millions of tons, enabling the global trade we often take for granted. It’s a reminder that today’s maritime industry operates at a size and efficiency unimaginable just a few decades ago – truly, the engines of the world economy are floating behemoths.