Category Archives: Shipping

Federal Maritime Commission investigating Flags of Convenience

It’s about time for some agency to look at flags of convenience. Some states are abetting sanctioned trade, and quite a few do not have the means or intent to enforce regulations for safety, environmental, and labor standards. It’s increasing risk for marine traffic and for mariners.

The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) may not be the best positioned for this investigation right now. The US government has shown that it may use its powers to punish views of other nations, rather than in the interest of collaboration on mutual goals. And the US has withdrawn from some international agencies and agreements, showing a lack of collaboration. Recently the US State Department has threatened the International Maritime Organization (IMO) over its push to impose greenhouse gas emission controls and standards on international shipping.

These actions reduce the effect of any unilateral action by the US. It’s likely they will be ignored. That is something the current US administration will not like, but it’s inevitable.

Let’s hope the FMC figures out real actions that will help flag states increase compliance with international shipping standards.

Seatrade logo

Barry Parker, New York Correspondent

September 3, 2025

https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/regulations/federal-maritime-commission-investigating-flags-of-convenience

Seatrade logo

Nick Savvides, Europe correspondent

September 4, 2025

https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/regulations/imo-member-states-tire-of-us-threats-over-climate-rules

LNG bunker supply chain emissions

It’s difficult to quantify the emissions load generated by LNG bunkering for oceangoing ships. Rystad Energy has released a study of this from Well to Tank.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is currently an important maritime fuel as the industry tries to transition to a lower carbon footprint. LNG-fuelled ships now account for over 20% of the current order book.

The question is this: how does LNG perform in terms of greenhouse emissions? One needs to consider how it’s produced (Well!), transported, liquefied, stored, and processed for bunkering, as well as the loading process. That’s the study’s focus.

They found 13.9 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule heating value, known as LHV. This broke down into 4.2 gCO23/MJ, for upsteam; 1.3 for transportation and processing; 5.9 for liquefaction; 1.8 for shipping and distribution; and 0.7 for bunkering operations.

The total of 13.9 compares with the FuelEU Maritime figure of 18.5 gCO2e/MJ, which Rystad says is too high.

A key quote from the article:

Rystad’s Vice President Emissions Research, Patrick King, commented: “Our analysis is based on asset-level data that ties specific gas fields to liquefaction facilities. This approach, supported by satellite-detected methane plume data and reported asset information, gives a more accurate picture of the LNG actually used for bunkering, rather than relying on outdated or overly broad averages.”

It seems like the right way to do the analysis.

The study is available from Rystad Energy or asoffered by Rystad

Seatrade logo

Paul Bartlett, Correspondent

September 4, 2025

https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/lng/rystad-releases-findings-on-lng-bunker-supply-chain-emissions

Pacific-Atlantic Rail Link: A Game Changer for China-Brazil Trade

The announcement of an agreement to build a Pacific-Atlantic rail link across South America is important to global commerce. If it actually succeeds, it would allow many goods to skip the Panama Canal in transit from Brazil to the Far East, including China.

The idea seems to be a combined intermodal and bulk rail line from the East Coast of Brazil to Chancay Port in Peru.

China of course imports bulk grain and oilseed cargoes from Brazil. Brazil also is home to some manufacturing which might be cheaper than Chinese manufacturing has become. And Brazil consumes many manufactured goods now as the country develops. China is an ideal source for these.

It’s called the “Two-Ocean Railway”. It should cut the China-Brazil trip to 10 days.

China is already investing $1.3B in Chancay Port in Peru. This railway will create guaranteed demand for the port’s capabilities.

In the light of President Trump’s tariff machinations and his threats surrounding the Panama Canal, it’s wise for the Chinese to create an alternative.

Brazil and China are an ideal trading pair to show comparative advantage at work; each nation produces what it’s best at, and trades for the other goods. The result produces lower costs for both parties, even including transport costs.

Katherine Si, China Correspondent July 15, 2025

https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/ports-logistics/china-and-brazil-plan-pacific-and-atlantic-rail-link