Ongoing instability in the Middle East continues to place pressure on global fuel markets and shipping operations. As reported by ShippingWatch, Brent crude oil prices have climbed above the USD 100 mark for the first time since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.
Citing The Wall Street Journal, ShippingWatch reported that Saudi Arabia remains concerned over sustained high oil prices, cautioning that excessive price levels could trigger a global recession or result in shifts in consumer behavior that permanently reduces a reliance on oil.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which sees about one‑fifth of global oil supply move through its waters, has sent crude prices sharply higher, directly inflating bunker fuel costs across key trade lanes. Asian markets, which rely heavily on fuel imports from the Middle East, are particularly exposed. Their bunker costs often exceed those found in Europe or the United States.
As reported by The Loadstar, intra‑Asia freight rates increased by 10% over the final two weeks of March, brought on by rising bunker fuel costs. In its latest assessment, Drewry reported that its Intra-Asia Container Index increased by 28% in the first week of April, standing 29% higher than a year ago.
The Loadstar, citing data from Clarksons, reported that container ship operators have reduced average sailing speeds by approximately 2% to offset rising fuel costs.
Meanwhile, as reported by American Shipper, Hapag‑Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen estimated additional weekly operating costs of up to USD 50 million, which he said are tied to higher bunker prices, increased insurance premiums, and rising container storage fees.
According to a report by gCaptain, Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc noted that carriers are increasingly forced to refuel at alternative ports, often incurring elevated “war zone” premiums. These conditions are prompting carriers to reassess how they source and distribute fuel across their networks.
More recently, the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) rejected requests from several carriers to waive the 30-day notice period to implement emergency fuel surcharges in connection with the Middle East conflict. Laura DiBella, Chairman of the FMC, said in her statement, “In my view, when a carrier seeks special permission to reduce the 30 days’ notice period for a surcharge, the carrier should demonstrate how its increased costs are linked to the dollar amount of the proposed surcharge. An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause.”
Source: ShippingWatch, The Loadstar, Drewry, American Shipper, gCaptain