Connect with us
DNV Decarbonization Insight Series August 2026 - What maritime professionals should know about AI Training

Analysis

Infospectrum: Containership owners feast in the newbuilding market

Owners return to newbuilding market to capitalise on global requirements for additional capacity driven by surge in demand and record profitability.

Admin

Published

on

Infospectrum Logo with Clarity from Complexity

Neil Dekker of shipping and commodity sector due diligence, credit reporting and risk management consultancy firm Infospectrum on 16 August published an article titled ‘Containership owners feast in the newbuilding market’; the article has been shared with Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times:

Driven by an unexpected surge in demand and record profitability in the last 12 months, owners have returned to the newbuilding market to capitalise on the global requirements for additional capacity.

While war chests have evidently been sufficiently strengthened to prompt a sharp increase in tonnage acquisitions and newbuilding orders, it would be wrong to dismiss the prospect of any future risks down the line for investors.

The container market is ‘white-hot’ at the moment, which is heavily ironic given concerns expressed by some during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. When global demand for consumer goods kicked back into gear from July 2020, containerised spot market freight rates started creeping upwards, and since the end of last year, they have consistently surpassed previous records on all major global liner trade lanes. Driven by this hugely positive uptick in 4Q 2020, all major global and smaller regional liner operators booked strong net profits in 2020, with independent tonnage providers massively benefitting from improved daily charter hire rates. For the top nine liner operators (excluding MSC), combined net results totalled just under USD 12bn. An interesting development for a sector whose operators have characteristically prioritised market share over profitability.

Liner operators have historically been creatures of habit, and usually start talking to shipyards to place new orders once they return to profitability. The two tables below follow this well-beaten path, with relatively few orders placed in 2019 (a poor year for operators), and little activity between January and November 2020, corresponding with the initial negative impact of the pandemic, and the clear desire to rein in capital expenditure.

Sources: Clarksons, various industry sources

Sources: Clarksons, various industry sources

Sources: Clarksons, various industry sources

Sources: Clarksons, various industry sources

However, the container sector was less affected by the pandemic than others, since global demand for consumer goods (led by US households) came back with a vengeance after the initial national lockdowns. This, together with growing supply chain issues, lack of empty containers, and port congestion, led to a severe lack of capacity in major trade lanes. Vessel asset prices have in some cases doubled since mid-2020, and daily time charter rates for all containership sizes significantly increased by the close of 2020. This has seen many shipowners commission newbuildings to increase their market capacity to supplement what they could also acquire in the second-hand market to meet demand. While latter forays into the second-hand markets, particularly from MSC and Wan Hai have been significant, this is relatively small fry compared to the newbuilding commitments made in the last 12 months. It is very clear that improved, and in some cases record profits, have driven owners to commit to sizeable commissioned orders.

Late 2020 saw a significant number of orders for ULCVs of 24,000 TEU placed by Ocean Network Express and MSC, with the turn of the year in 2021 seeing the market literally move into overdrive, at a pace not seen since 2006/2007. Gorging on their profits from the elevated freight markets, Evergreen, MSC, Wan Hai, CMA CGM, HMM, Hapag-Lloyd and, most recently, COSCO have each placed a series of orders with major Chinese and South Korean shipyards for vessels ranging in size from 3,000 TEU to 23,500 TEU. Haifa-based Zim, has also come back to the market after many years to commit to multi-year charters of a total of 20 7,000 TEU and 15,000 TEU newibuilding boxships, long-term leased from Canada-based tonnage provider Seaspan. The latter company has been on an immense ordering spree since December 2020, with 55 containerships booked with major shipyards; All the Seaspan new orders are understood to be backed by long-term charters to a number of liner operators in addition to Zim.

The need for additional capacity has meant that new players or old stalwarts have returned to the market with speculative plays for smaller tonnage of below 4,000 TEU; these include Briese Schiffahrts, Vega Reederei, Tsakos Shipping & Trading, and Capital Maritime & Trading, as well as newer and small Chinese liner operators (such as China United Lines) eager to enter the larger global liner trade routes.

Reported 1Q 2021 net profits for many liner operators have reached never-seen-before levels, fueling the orderbook fire. Collective net profits for eight of the leading liner operators have reached about USD 10.5bn for this period. Furthermore, AP Moller-Maersk separately disclosed the EBIT of its “Ocean” division (effectively Maersk) which totalled USD 2.7bn. The industry’s number two liner operator, MSC, provides no financial visibility for public disclosure. Relatively few liner operators have provided financial results for 2Q 2021, however, the recent positive trend continues, with Maersk booking EBIT of USD 3.6bn, and HMM, Ocean Network Express and Hapag-Lloyd, racking up additional total net profit figures of USD 4.6bn between them.

While order prices are not always disclosed, based on publicly disclosed information and third-party data newbuilding containership orders had an estimated combined total value in the region of USD 7.5bn in 2020 (with around USD 6.2bn reflecting orders placed in 4Q 2020), and about USD 23bn year-to-date (mid-August) in 2021. Liner operators have committed about USD 14.9bn of the 2021 total on a direct basis, with the rest from independent tonnage providers. The current year has seen more orders placed than at any time since the global recession of 2008. To put this activity into perspective, the previous record year (2011) saw total industry investment of about USD 17.4bn. Maersk appears to be somewhat of an exception in that, to date, it has focused on small tonnage with specialised fuel requirements. However, we understand from industry sources that the company is currently talking to shipyards about the possibility of placing a sizeable order for larger tonnage.

Sources: Clarksons, various industry sources

Sources: Clarksons, various industry sources

The new and rapidly changing regulatory framework around fuel emissions control is also a factor that cannot be ignored in the current newbuilding race. However, in developing their tonnage capacity, liner executives appear to be focusing on scrubber technologies and essentially have the main eye on increasing capacity to take advantage of the market.

The newbuilding order boom has clear ramifications for the container sector, some positive and some less so, presenting potential risks.

Positive

  • Proof that the container sector is in strong shape
  • Liner operators are endeavouring to meet near/mid-term and future capacity requirements of the market
  • A substantial boost for the shipbuilding sector
  • New entrants and established ship owners who have been reticent to move into containerships are making a new entry to the sector
  • Re-investment in the sub-4,000 TEU vessel sizes that has been lacking for years
  • Re-ignited investor confidence lays the path for an added source of capital for the sector

Negative (or potential risks)

  • Investment in significant numbers of new vessels at a time where uncertainty around new and rapidly changing regulatory requirements on fuel emissions could later result in unexpected retrofitting requirements, or even curtailment of originally anticipated operating life
  • Will the global markets still be able to comfortably absorb this level of new tonnage in 2023/2024 when the vessels are delivered? The jury is out concerning future levels of demand
  • Are the current widespread and significant supply chain challenges temporarily masking the genuine requirement for new capacity?
  • When the freight markets find a new equilibrium, revenue and profitability may not be enough to finance the record levels of debt
  • Liner operators continue to grow their fleet sizes, increasing their individual exposures to the bunker market, where prices have been following an upward trajectory.
  • What will the operating economics of vessels be in 2023/2024 when they are delivered?
  • The newbuilding market does not operate in isolation. Liner operators are all exposed to increasing charter rates and bunker costs
  • Speculative tonnage ordered by independent tonnage providers will always carry inherent risk based on future unknown charter market dynamics and hire rates
  • Increased ordering by major liner operators for small tonnage of below 4,000 TEU could lead to a reduced requirement for such tonnage from independent tonnage providers

It would be wrong to dismiss any future risks down the line for investors since firstly, the consensus industry view is that the current positive market dynamics (for owners) will likely last for the near-to-mid term at least, and liner operators should be able to continue to grow their war chests. However, liner shipping will always be cyclical and when the bubble bursts, the congestion and capacity issues which have plagued (but equally driven the industry all year), will dissipate.

Then, the re-balancing to a “new normality” will come, and the need for renewed risk assessment will be required. At that time, the owner who placed orders at the height of the market, may well not be able to fix ships at the record levels of today. In 2023/2024, when the newbuildings recently/still being ordered are delivered, liner operators are likely to utilise void sailings/idling of vessels as their core weapon to manage capacity at the supply/demand level should cargo flows reduce or normalise. This will mean a much-reduced requirement from the liquid charter market. And if the last ordering boom of 2007/2008 taught maritime executives anything, it created years of overcapacity and cascade/deployment issues. A recurrence not beyond the realms of possibility. Finally, there is the repayment of debt, and owners would be wise to use these good times to pay down as much debt as possible.

 

Photo credit and source: Infospectrum
Published: 18 August, 2021

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Alkagesta highlights key insights on European choke point pressures in August

Update covers dual supply crisis currently shaping global bunker markets — a stalled Strait of Hormuz peace process and Rhine water levels at a 140-year record low — and the implications for Singapore.

Admin

Published

on

By

Alkagesta

Malta-based global commodity trading house Alkagesta recently shared latest market insight examining the dual supply crisis gripping global energy markets as diplomatic efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz stall and Rhine water levels fall to record lows, creating what the company describes as a “state of emergency” for European inland fuel distribution.

In an article published on Alkagesta Market Insights on 11 August, the company’s trading and market intelligence teams outlined how the convergence of two simultaneous logistical crises is tightening prompt fuel availability across Singapore, Northwest Europe, and the Mediterranean:

Strait of Hormuz transits fell to a near-one-month low of 13 ships on August 9 following an attack on an ADNOC-linked tanker, as both the US and Iran demand war reparations before any reopening agreement can be reached. Simultaneously, Rhine water levels at the Kaub chokepoint fell to 16 cm on August 10 — the lowest since records began in 1880 — with forecasts pointing to a further drop to just 4 cm by August 14, effectively halting barge traffic and trapping fuel oil stocks at the ARA hub.

The supply picture across both key hubs has deteriorated sharply. In Singapore, Middle Eastern fuel oil imports nearly tripled week-over-week to 328,878 mt by July 29 — the highest volume since March — providing some relief as onshore commercial heavy distillate stocks rose to a five-week high of 19.58 million barrels by August 5. However, July bunker fuel sales are estimated to have fallen 3.7% month-over-month to 4.44 million mt, with elevated premiums redirecting prompt demand toward alternative ports including Zhoushan and Port Klang.

In Europe, the VLSFO market remains acutely undersupplied as refiners continue to prioritize high-margin diesel over low-sulfur blending components, while the Rhine crisis has forced barges to operate at just 15–20% of normal capacity — with freight rates from Rotterdam to Karlsruhe rising more than 400% in two months.

Alkagesta’s strategic outlook points to a potential total breakdown in Rhine-linked inland distribution by mid-August, a VLSFO Hi-5 spread likely to remain above $200/mt through Q3, and a global crude market that analysts warn requires an additional 2.1 million b/d for 18 months to rebuild depleted inventories.

Note: The full article can be read here.

 

Photo credit: Alkagesta
Published: 17 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Integr8 Fuels: Why bunker markets could be lower than we thought

Marine fuel prices could prove lower than previously anticipated as easing refinery margins and improving bunker market fundamentals outweigh a still-uncertain crude oil outlook, says Integr8 Fuels.

Admin

Published

on

By

6 5

By Steve Christy, Expert Contributor, Integr8 Fuels

29 July 2026

We have just seen one false dawn, is there another to come? 

Last month, we wrote about how close we were to the expected lows in Brent and Rotterdam bunker prices, but not yet Singapore. Given what has happened since, a month is not only a long time in politics, but also a very long time in the bunker market. 

There was a resumption of attacks in the Arabian Gulf region on 13 July, followed by targeted Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea oil infrastructure and shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb region, the gateway between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. As a result, Brent futures fell to lows of around $70/bbl in late June and early July before surging to a high of $100/bbl on 23 July. Over the same period, Singapore VLSFO fell to $635/mt before climbing to $865/mt, a swing of $230/mt in just 16 days. 

Jul 2026 Graph 01 1024x613 1

Prices at the start of this week fell sharply after a halt in Arabian Gulf attacks over the weekend, with front month Brent was down to intra-day lows of $84/bbl, and Singapore VLSFO $750/mt.  However, at the time of writing there has been a ‘surprise’ attack by Iran, and retaliatory action by the US, with prices rising again.  It looks like we could be at another false dawn. 

The obvious questions are: will there be a return to peace negotiations, and are we close to the end of the war and free-flowing traffic through the strait of Hormuz (and also the Bab el-Mandeb)? The obvious answer is, we don’t know; there are only a few people that are likely to know the answer to this. All we can do is plan for every eventuality. 

Low stocks, higher bunker prices, and a strong Singapore VLSFO premium: it’s a challenge 

For those of us in the bunker market, the point we made last month about Singapore VLSFO trading at a strong premium to crude still holds, albeit slightly less pronounced. The loss of supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, together with the added uncertainty surrounding Saudi product exports from the Jizan and Rabigh refineries on the Red Sea, has sustained this premium. 

These developments are likely to keep the Singapore VLSFO premium to crude at elevated levels until there is greater confidence that Middle East crude and product supplies are returning to more normal trading patterns. Amid all the price volatility, this Singapore VLSFO premium remains a key indicator to watch. 

Backwardation in Brent futures illustrates market psychology 

One month ago, backwardation in Brent futures (front month minus second month) had fallen from $7/bbl to virtually nothing, reflecting the market’s belief that an end to the war was little more than a negotiating step away. It wasn’t. The resumption of attacks, coupled with Houthi involvement in the Red Sea, sent prices sharply higher again, with backwardation in the Brent futures market returning to almost $6/bbl. 

Jul 2026 Graph 02 1024x572 1

The halt in attacks over the past weekend has taken steam out of the market, with prices and backwardation falling sharply. Where we go from here depends if there is again a belief peace is on the horizon, or if this is another false dawn. The past month highlights how impossible it is to predict an ending to the war, and how fragile any expectations of peace can be. 

We cannot ignore the price, but still must look to the future

It is impossible to write a report and not highlight the turmoil of the current market and what is happening. However, we still must look beyond this, to see where we could end up. 

In an earlier report, we suggested the run-up to the US mid-term elections in November may be a backstop to the war. However, even this is not guaranteed. There are many dynamic elements to the economy and voter intentions, but one feature that will always crop up in the US is the gasoline price. This has risen from $3/gallon before the war to over $4/gallon for the past four months. 

Jul 2026 Graph 03 1024x570 1

If it comes to it, will Republican voters want to see a resolution to the war and a return to $3 gasoline prices ahead of the elections? 

We have a change of heart on how low bunker prices can go

We don’t know exact timings, but in any planning, we must look at what happens when the war does finally end and prices fall, whenever that may be. In past reports we have highlighted the view that Brent crude prices are unlikely to fall back to pre-war levels in the $60s, and Singapore VLSFO unlikely to go back in to the $400s. This may be the point at which these views change.

Previous thinking was based on a relatively short war, where there would be a large loss of oil supply and a massive stock-draw. In this case, tighter stock levels would be sufficient to keep prices higher than their pre-war levels once we returned to ‘normality’. This would mean Brent futures in the $70s (and not in the $60s), and Singapore VLSFO in the $500s, and not the $400s.

A number of mainstream analysts also held this view, although there were some that were lower and some higher.

Given the war has already gone on for much longer than almost everyone expected, this thinking must change. Yes, global stocks have been drawn down at a rapid rate, but this is slowing. Higher pricing and inflationary blows have had a major impact on global oil demand, with current indications that total oil demand in the second quarter of this year was some 4 million b/d lower than year earlier levels.

The graph below shows this sharp drop in demand and even if the war comes to an end relatively soon, and demand gets back towards some normality, a structural loss of more than 1 million b/d in global oil demand is still expected to have taken place because of the extended period of conflict.

If the war goes on for even longer, structural losses in global oil demand are likely to be even greater.

Jul 2026 Graph 04 1024x579 1

Source: US EIA

It’s a hard road, but we can get there

This means that once the war does end, market psychology will be looking at a rapid increase in oil supplies going into a global market which is much lower in demand.  This opens the way for prices to easily return to their pre-war levels of Brent in the $60s and Singapore VLSFO in the $400s. 

Now we just need those at the centre of negotiations to get us there.

 

Photo credit and source: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 30 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Quality

FOBAS report warns of growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

LR’s latest FOBAS Fuel Quality Report reveals that the biggest fuel quality risks are no longer confined to off-specification fuels, with some compliant fuels creating operational challenges.

Admin

Published

on

By

New FOBAS report warns growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

Classification society Lloyd’s Register (LR) on Tuesday (14 July) warned that ship operators are facing a growing risk from fuels that appear compliant under routine ISO 8217 testing but still present operational risks once onboard.

According to LR’s latest Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) Fuel Quality Report, covering the first half of 2026, off-specification fuels remain a persistent challenge. 

However, some of the most disruptive cases now involve fuels that pass routine compliance testing but show poor stability or compatibility, or contain non-conventional blend components that are only identified through more detailed investigative analysis.

Several incidents investigated highlighted this trend. In March and April, a number of vessels reported operational difficulties after bunkering fuel in a major bunkering hub. Further forensic analysis found that many of the fuels contained elevated concentrations of Estonian shale oil, in some cases estimated to be around 10-15%.

While shale oil is recognised within ISO 8217 as an acceptable blend component, FOBAS investigations found that higher concentrations can be associated with fuel instability and operational issues affecting filters, separators and fuel pumps.

The report also shows that fuel quality variability remains stubbornly high. Off-specification cases remained elevated throughout the first six months of 2026, suggesting that quality issues are no longer isolated events but a more persistent feature of today’s marine fuel supply chain.

The most common recurring issues included sulphur exceedances, excessive water content, sediment and stability problems, elevated catalytic fines, sodium contamination and low flash point distillate fuels.

At the same time, biofuels (especially FAME blends) are continuing to grow without being a primary source of quality issues. Where issues occurred in blended fuels, they were generally associated with the conventional VLSFO component rather than the FAME fraction.

The report concluded that operators will need to adopt a more proactive approach to fuel management as marine fuels become more diverse and fuel quality risks become harder to identify through routine compliance testing alone.

Greater emphasis on fuel stability, compatibility and understanding fuel composition will be critical to reducing operational disruption and maintaining vessel performance.

Murray Kirkwood, Fuel Specialist Consultant, Lloyd’s Register, said: “The findings from our latest report show that fuel quality risk is evolving. The challenge is no longer simply identifying fuels that fail specification. Increasingly, operators are encountering fuels that meet the required limits but still create operational difficulties once they are stored, handled and used onboard.

“As fuel blending becomes more complex, the distinction that matters is increasingly not between on-spec and off-spec fuel, but between fuels that are operationally resilient and fuels that are operationally fragile. Understanding that difference is becoming essential for shipowners and operators.”

The latest findings reinforced FOBAS’ long-standing view that effective fuel management increasingly depends on understanding fuel behaviour rather than relying solely on pass-or-fail specification testing.

By combining routine fuel quality monitoring with forensic investigation of operational incidents, FOBAS provides shipowners with a clearer understanding of emerging fuel quality risks as the industry continues its transition to a more diverse and complex fuel landscape.

Note: The FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel Quality Report H1 2026 is available at FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel quality reports | LR

 

Photo credit: Lloyd’s Register
Published: 15 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending