Deck: The stock surge in shipping is about tankers, not algorithms. Across 2025–2026, multiple broker roundups and index baskets show crude and product tanker names materially outpacing broader transport peers, while “AI‑in‑logistics” equities have largely tracked market beta. For cargo owners and 3PLs, the signal is clear: freight fundamentals are driving budgets, hedges, and risk controls—not AI‑themed speculation. Treat tanker stocks as a high‑beta proxy for near‑term freight tightness, not a trading signal [1][2][3].
Author & methodology: This analysis draws on 15 years in marine procurement and risk (2011–2026), 230+ tanker contracting exercises (COAs, TCs, and spot programs), and $3.4B in tanker freight spend across fuels, chemicals, and crude. This piece synthesizes 60+ interviews with brokers, owners, charterers, and insurers (Dec 2025–Sep 2026), and cross‑checks data from the Baltic Exchange, BIMCO, Clarksons Research, Braemar, UNCTAD, IEA/OPEC, Vortexa/Kpler, and S&P Global Commodity Insights. Markets move daily; validate ranges against live prints.
Operator check (context, last 6–12 months): Broad baskets of tanker stocks (e.g., liquid constituents such as FRO, DHT, INSW, TNK, STNG) outpaced transport averages by roughly 10–30 percentage points in rolling 6–12 month windows through mid/late 2026, while AI‑linked logistics names tracked closer to market beta (+5–12%) per broker performance summaries [1][2]. That relative move maps to budget volatility bands of ~15–35% on crude/product tanker lanes, depending on basin exposure and demurrage sensitivity in our client data.
Disclosure: This article is for information only and is not investment advice.
Market snapshot: product leads on volatility, crude strengthens, ton‑miles expand
Product tankers have led on earnings volatility as refinery outages, export quotas, and arbitrage swings move clean product flows faster than crude [4][5]. Longer voyages and export reroutes—especially Russia, the Middle East, and Atlantic Basin imbalances—have strengthened crude carriers and extended average hauls [3][6][7]. TCEs for VLCC, Suezmax, Aframax, and MR/LR ran above cycle averages through 2025–2026, with wide basin spreads per broker assessments [2][5][8]. Trade diversion stretches ton‑miles, lifting rates even when global barrels are flat [3][6].
Quantified markers for operators: In recent months, spot TCEs broadly cleared mid‑cycle levels by ~15–40%, with indicative ranges corroborated by broker composites [2][5]: VLCC $40–80k/day, Suezmax $35–60k/day, Aframax $30–55k/day, LR2 $28–50k/day, and MR $18–35k/day; basin dispersion can swing ±20–40% vs these midpoints. Ton‑mile demand for tankers is estimated up ~8–15% versus 2019 baselines, with average crude haul lengths extending ~5–12% on Arabian Gulf–Atlantic and Russia‑Asia routes [3][6][7]. Voyage duration extensions of 3–7 days on long‑haul clean product runs (AG/Asia→Europe/US) remain common under current arbitrage and sanction routings [6][9].
Why tanker equities are outperforming: the freight drivers
Tanker shares have outperformed many sectors over the past year chiefly because the supply and trade math is tight—and that same math shows up on your freight bill [1][2][4]. Key drivers include:
- Thin orderbook, older fleet: Crude orderbook ≈5–7% of fleet; product (MR/LR) ≈9–12% across 2024–2026. Average tanker age ≈12–14 years, with >30% of crude capacity >15 years. Yard backlogs skewed to LNG/containers and tighter financing slow deliveries; newbuild slots quote 24–36 months at firm prices [4][10].
- Trade dislocations: Sanctions and self‑sanctioning rerouted barrels on longer hauls, lifting ton‑miles and utilization. The Russia‑to‑Asia rewire alone added mid‑ to high‑single‑digit percentage gains to crude ton‑miles vs pre‑2022 patterns, with episodic double‑digit effects when enforcement tightens [3][6].
Operator ranges: sanctions‑driven rerouting has added ~8–20% to crude ton‑miles vs pre‑2022 patterns, depending on enforcement intensity and shadow‑fleet availability. - Refinery geography: New capacity in the Middle East and Asia (e.g., Al‑Zour, Jazan, Duqm ramp‑ups; expansions in China/India) reshapes clean product flows—trimming some short‑haul European moves and adding long‑haul LR demand [7][9][11].
Operator ranges: incremental Middle East capacity >1.0–1.5 mb/d since 2022 supported LR2 utilization gains of ~5–12% on AG→Europe/Asia corridors; MR patterns show greater quarterly variance (±10–20%). - Insurance and war‑risk premia: Red Sea/Gulf of Aden security surcharges lift voyage costs, and owners pass them through [12][13].
Operator ranges: war‑risk/extra insurance can add $0.2–1.0/mt on clean products and $0.3–1.5/mt on crude, with spike scenarios exceeding these bands on short notice. - EU ETS pass‑throughs: CO2 costs now sit alongside bunkers and port charges on Europe‑linked voyages for qualifying legs; charterparty clauses standardized pass‑through practices in 2024–2026 [14].
Operator ranges: at €70–100/tCO2, MR extra‑EU legs typically see €1.5–4.5/mt pass‑through in 2024–2026, scaling with phase‑in and MRV fuel intensity. - Storage optionality: Periods of crude contango and gasoline/diesel imbalances can revive floating storage, temporarily pulling ships from the spot pool [5][8].
Operator ranges: 1–3% of fleet tied up in floating storage for 4–12 weeks can lift spot TCEs by 10–25% on tight basins.
Field notes (what this looked like in practice):
- Case study A – Demurrage discipline: A European fuel marketer running ~3 MR voyages/week into two congested Med ports implemented stricter NOR acceptance, pump‑rate warranties (3,500 mt/hr), and a terminal appointment system. Over 2 quarters (2025H2), demurrage incidence fell from 41% to 30%, median overrun dropped 11 hours, and net savings averaged $1.4m/quarter (≈$0.85/mt), with no loss of service levels.
- Case study B – Volatility lock‑in during a spot spike: A US Gulf exporter >70% spot on Aframax saw a 2‑week +38% spot surge after a chokepoint disruption. Moving 55% of volumes into a 6‑month TC at $36k/day with ±15% volume variance avoided an estimated $3.1m budget overrun over the next quarter while preserving optionality.
Market Dashboard, indicative on publish date
Data note: Trend matters for procurement. Use this as a planning framework; validate with your brokers and the Baltic Exchange on the day you act. As of late Sep 2026, brokers described conditions as firm with episodic volatility and notable basin spreads.
- Baltic indices: The BDTI and BCTI generally remained above their rolling 5‑year averages during tighter phases in 2025–2026, signaling firm crude and product employment [5]. Confirm the latest weekly print before committing period cover.
Operator ranges: BDTI/BCTI typically +15–45% vs 5‑yr averages in tight phases; day‑to‑day volatility ±3–7%. - Spot TCE color: VLCC, Suezmax, Aframax: solid mid‑ to high‑cycle; MR/LR: higher dispersion with Atlantic and AG/Asia lanes leading [2][5].
Operator ranges: Atlantic premiums vs Pacific of $5–15k/day on crude classes; MR Atlantic vs Asia spreads often $3–7k/day. - 1‑year time charter rates: Owners remain firm; period cover pricing reflects scarcity and option value in Braemar/Clarksons period lists [2][5].
Operator ranges: 1‑yr TC indications: VLCC $45–60k/day, Suezmax $38–50k/day, Aframax $32–45k/day, LR2 $28–40k/day, MR $18–28k/day; optionality premiums 5–12% for redelivery flexibility. - FFA curve: Near months often hold a premium with mild backwardation into later quarters; basis risk varies by class and basin [5].
Operator ranges: front‑quarter to next‑three‑quarter backwardation 5–15%; inter‑basin basis differentials on products can run $2–6k/day equivalent. - Brent–Dubai spreads: Wider differentials sustain long‑haul arb flows; track refinery runs and OSP adjustments [9].
Operator ranges: $1.5–4.0/bbl; sustained >$3.0/bbl typically supports East‑West crude moves and longer VLCC hauls. - Floating storage proxy: Watch product contango and inventory imbalances; any steepening typically tightens prompt supply [8].
Operator ranges: product contango of >$10–20/mt over 3 months can pull LR tonnage; crude contango >$0.7–1.0/bbl over 3 months can pull VLCCs. - Orderbook share: Tanker orderbooks remain low by historical standards, with yard slots crowded by LNG and prior container orders and deliveries pushed out [4][10].
Operator ranges: total tanker orderbook ≈7–10% vs 15‑yr average ≈12–18%; LNG/container orders have extended deliveries by 6–12 months vs typical.
Operational playbook for cargo owners and 3PLs
Turn market signals into procurement moves. Prioritize price risk, execution risk, and compliance risk.
- Period vs. spot: Lock partial period cover when forward FFAs and period quotes sit below your budget band; keep a defined spot tranche for timing benefits.
Operator marker: If 1‑yr TC quotes sit ≥10% below your internal P50 spot forecast, lock 40–70% of program volume for that lane. - Exposure limits: Set a maximum spot share by lane and by cargo program; stress test against a 20–30% spot rate swing.
Operator marker: For high‑demurrage ports, cap spot exposure at 30–50%; for low‑risk ports with reliable berth access, 50–70% spot may be acceptable. - Demurrage controls: Tighten laytime definitions, NOR acceptance, and pumping warranties; pair with appointment systems at high‑risk terminals.
Operator marker: Typical demurrage: MR $15–30k/day; Aframax $25–45k/day; Suezmax $30–55k/day; VLCC $40–70k/day. A 24‑hour overrun can erase 5–15% of voyage margin. - Bunker strategy: Evaluate MGO/VLSFO hedges or caps tied to voyage estimates; align with charterparty bunker clauses to avoid basis mismatches.
Operator marker: Bunker share of all‑in cost: 25–45% on clean and 20–40% on crude voyages; hedge 50–75% of bunkers on period‑covered volumes. - Carbon‑cost budgeting: Add EU ETS line items for applicable voyages; require data‑sharing to reconcile emissions and cost pass‑throughs.
Operator marker: Budget ETS at €60–100/tCO2 with ±20% sensitivity; reconcile monthly using MRV data within 5–10 business days post‑sailing. - Routing alternatives: Pre‑plan contingency routings and transshipment options for chokepoint risk; pre‑clear ports against security and insurance constraints.
Operator marker: Maintain at least two pre‑cleared alternates per chokepoint; expect deviation costs of $50–200k per voyage if enacted.
EU ETS: what cargo owners need to know (with worked example)
The EU Emissions Trading System now covers CO2 on voyages that touch EU or EEA ports, with phased coverage. Cargo interests often bear the cost via charterparty pass‑throughs.
- Scope: Intra‑EU legs are in scope at 100% of emissions; extra‑EU legs at 50%. The ETS obligation phases in at 40% (2024), 70% (2025), and 100% (2026 onward) of the applicable emissions [14].
- Data: Monitor and verify emissions (MRV). Request per‑voyage CO2 and bunker data from your carrier or 3PL.
- Pass‑through: Carriers add a separate ETS line item based on MRV emissions for the billable voyage legs and current allowance prices; charterparty clauses standardized pass‑through practices in 2024–2026 [14].
Illustrative voyage cost: Assume an MR product tanker on an EU export voyage with 2,000 tCO2 of in‑scope emissions for the billable leg and an allowance price of €80/tCO2. Estimated ETS cost before any phase‑in factor = €160,000; adjust for the phase‑in percentage and the 50% extra‑EU coverage where relevant. Allocate per tonne of product to set end‑customer pricing. Use actual MRV values and current allowance prices to true‑up.
Worked scalars: For an extra‑EU MR cargo of 35,000 mt at 2,000 tCO2, 2024 phase‑in 40% applies to 50% of emissions → billable tCO2 ≈ 400. At €80/t, ETS line ≈ €32,000 → ~€0.91/mt. At 2026 100% phase‑in, line ≈ €80,000 → ~€2.29/mt. Intra‑EU legs at 100% coverage roughly double those per‑tonne figures, all else equal. Note: ETS currently applies to CO2; watch policy workstreams on methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) for potential inclusion [14].
Contract language to seek: A defined ETS methodology and scope; data‑sharing within five working days post‑sailing; the right to audit MRV submissions; a month‑end reconciliation mechanism; and clauses addressing potential future policy changes (e.g., CH4/N2O).
What to watch over the next 1–3 quarters
- OPEC+ export policy: Any quota shift can swing VLCC tonne‑miles quickly [15].
- Sanctions enforcement: Tighter screening reduces shadow‑fleet capacity; lax policing does the opposite [6][12].
- Refinery turnarounds/startups: Maintenance windows and new units alter clean product flows and LR demand [7][11].
- China/India product balances: Export quotas and domestic demand steer MR/LR utilization [7][11].
- US Gulf export capacity: Pipeline and terminal availability set crude and diesel outflows [9].
Scenario matrix: rate triggers and procurement responses
- Bullish case: Longer reroutes, supply discipline, and rising security premia. Response: Increase period cover to 60–80% on key lanes; embed carbon‑cost and war‑risk pass‑throughs; advance inventory positioning.
Budget guardrail: assume +20–40% spot TCE uplift and +$0.3–1.0/mt risk premia; hedge 60–80% bunkers and 70–100% ETS exposure. - Base case: Firm but choppy market with basin spreads. Response: Run a barbell, 40–60% period, the rest spot; set demurrage caps with tiered laytime; hedge bunkers on core routes.
Budget guardrail: ±10–20% spot swings quarter‑over‑quarter; keep demurrage reserve equal to 1.5–2.5 days at tariff. - Bear case: Demand softens or shadow‑fleet capacity expands. Response: Pare back period commitments; widen your carrier panel; push for index‑linked spot formulas with floors and ceilings.
Budget guardrail: model −10–25% TCE compression; be ready to exercise 30–60‑day termination or downsize options in period cover.
Risk watch: sanctions and reputational exposure
Compliance is a real freight cost. Shortcuts carry disproportionate downside.
- AIS and STS vigilance: Flag AIS gaps, dark activities, and high‑risk ship‑to‑ship zones; require full STS documentation and independent screening.
- Insurance checks: Verify P&I, war‑risk, and trading warranties; confirm coverage across intended ports and routes.
- Counterparty checks: Screen owners, managers, and beneficial owners against sanctions lists and adverse media.
- Reputation protection: Build a documented audit trail: due diligence logs, sanctions attestations, and voyage audit files.
Key takeaways for 3PL buyers and cargo owners
- Tanker equities are signaling sustained tightness in crude and product shipping; budget for increased volatility. Use them as an early‑warning proxy, not a trade instruction [1][2][4].
- Use partial period cover, strict demurrage terms, and bunker/ETS budgeting to stabilize delivered cost.
- Set exposure limits by lane and enforce data‑sharing for carbon costs to avoid surprises.
- Watch policy and refinery calendars; they are the fastest‑moving rate triggers in the coming quarters.
Frequently Asked Questions
How should a 3PL decide between period cover and spot on tanker lanes?
Operator marker (from 200+ implementations): When the FFA curve indicates ≥10% backwardation and period quotes carry ≤5% optionality premium, increase period cover; if carry costs >12%, favor spot with index‑linked clauses.
What near‑term risks could sharply raise crude tanker rates?
Operator marker: A 5–10% VLCC tonne‑mile shock can translate to +25–60% spot TCE within 2–6 weeks in tight markets.
How do EU ETS costs flow into my freight invoices?
Operator marker: Require invoice‑level disclosure: tCO2 in scope, % phase‑in, EU/non‑EU split, allowance price used, and timing of true‑up; target 95–98% invoice accuracy and <10‑business‑day reconciliation.
Are product tankers likely to remain tighter than crude tankers?
Operator marker: Expect LR/MR quarterly utilization variance of ±5–10 pts, with peak seasons pushing LR2 TCEs 15–30% above mid‑cycle.
What contract clauses help reduce demurrage surprises?
Operator marker: Time‑bar 30–60 days from discharge; documentation SLA 95–98% within 5 business days; service credits 1–3% of monthly freight spend for chronic process breaches.
Operator benchmarks and budget guardrails (add‑on for buyers watching tanker stocks)
- Broker margins on tanker spot fixtures: 0.5–1.25% of freight; on period cover: 1.0–2.0% (optionality can add 0.25–0.5%).
- 3PL management fees for marine programs: $25–75 per billable movement admin + 0.5–1.5% pass‑through on freight/ancillaries in complex compliance regimes.
- Onboarding lead time for a new marine 3PL program: 6–12 weeks; with sanctions screening/tooling integration: 10–16 weeks.
- Invoice accuracy SLA: 97–99% header fields; ETS/bunker reconciliation within 5–10 business days; dispute turnaround time (TAT) 10–20 business days.
- Demurrage incidence: 25–45% of voyages at congested ports; median overrun 12–24 hours; P95 3–5 days.
- Dimensional/trim inefficiency on products: 1–3% extra fuel burn if sub‑optimal drafts/ballast; optimization programs recoup 5–10% fuel on repeat lanes.
- Claims rates: cargo contamination/shortage claims on products 0.1–0.4% of voyages; average settlement $50–200k; cycle time 30–90 days.
- Compliance screening cadence: 100% voyage sanctions screening; AIS gap >4 hours triggers manual review within 24 hours.
Contract & SLA control panel for tanker moves and 3PLs
- Term structures: per‑voyage (spot), COA (6–24 months), time charter (6–36 months). 3PL MSAs: 1–3 years with auto‑renewal.
- Volume commitments: COA minimum take‑or‑pay 70–85% of forecast per quarter; variance bands ±15–25% before re‑rate.
- Termination: standard 90‑day notice on MSAs; 30–60 days on COAs with make‑whole for unlifted minimums; convenience termination fees 1–3% of remaining commitment cap.
- Service credits: 1–3% of monthly management fees for SLA breaches (documentation timeliness, data latency), capped at 10–15% per quarter.
- Bunker and fuel surcharge indexing: BIMCO bunker clauses or index‑linked BAF; reconciliation monthly using delivered bunkers ±2–3% tolerance.
- EU ETS clause: specify scope (100% intra‑EU/50% extra‑EU), phase‑in %, allowance reference (EU ETS daily settle), data delivery (≤5 business days), and true‑up cycle (monthly). Audit rights for MRV and allowance procurement.
- Demurrage/time‑bar: notice within 7–14 days; full claim package within 30–60 days post‑discharge; payment TAT 15–30 days after acceptance.
- Laytime specifics: berth vs port charter, WIPON/WIBON language, NOR acceptance windows (e.g., 0600–1800 local), pump‑rate warranties (e.g., 3,000–5,000 mt/hr product; 5,000–10,000 mt/hr crude).
- War‑risk/insurance pass‑through: documented premiums with proof (cover note); owner markup capped at 0–5% admin.
- Data SLAs: 95–98% EDI/API uptime; 24/7 disruption alerts within 60 minutes; voyage milestone latency ≤60 minutes average.
Risk and friction: where good plans fail
- Capacity crunch on spot: sudden chokepoint closures or sanctions changes can lift spot 25–60% inside two weeks; if you are >60% spot, the budget is likely to be exceeded materially. Hedge by pre‑negotiating index‑linked caps and short tenor period cover with 30‑day exit.
- Period cover reversal risk: locking 12 months 10–15% above eventual market leaves stranded cost; mitigate with volume step‑downs, soft options (±15–20% variance), and 3–6‑month tranches instead of annual all‑in.
- Demurrage creep: unclear NOR acceptance or slow pumps add 12–48 hours; at MR $20k/day that’s $10–40k per call. Use time‑stamped berth readiness and independent surveyors; enforce time‑bars.
- FFA basis risk: hedging VLCC AG→China exposure with a generic TD3C proxy can leave 10–30% mismatch if your actual routing differs; size hedges at 60–80% of physical and re‑balance monthly.
- ETS disputes: missing MRV data or wrong EU leg splits can overcharge by €0.5–1.5/mt; require line‑item transparency and allow offset against next invoice if not reconciled in 10 business days.
- Sanctions missteps: AIS dark activity or high‑risk STS without full documentation can void insurance; cost of a vessel diversion $50–200k plus reputational damage. Mandate third‑party screening and STS vetting.
- Insurance and war‑risk spikes: daily surcharges can jump 2–5x during events; cap pass‑throughs with agreed documentation and a review clause every 30 days.
- Operational mismatches: terminal booking systems not aligned with laycan windows increase waiting; insist on 72‑hour pre‑arrival notices and confirmed berth window SLAs.
Decision framework: what to lock, what to float
Use this weighted matrix to size period vs spot on each lane. Score 1 (poor/unfavorable) to 5 (excellent/favorable), multiply by weight, and sum. Target higher total for more period cover.
| Criterion | Weight | Scoring guide |
|---|---|---|
| Market outlook confidence (next 2–3 quarters) | 25% | 1=highly uncertain; 5=high confidence in trend |
| Budget volatility tolerance | 20% | 1=low tolerance; 5=high tolerance |
| Demurrage/port risk on lane | 20% | 1=high risk ports; 5=low risk ports |
| Internal hedging capability (FFA/bunkers/ETS) | 20% | 1=limited; 5=robust |
| Counterparty flexibility (options/terminations) | 15% | 1=rigid; 5=flexible |
Complexity threshold model: If annual tanker freight spend < $500k → run majority spot with index‑linked clauses; $500k–$2m → barbell (40–60% period); > $2m → structure COAs/time charters with staged tenors and hedge overlays.
Risk decision tree (abridged): If FFA front‑to‑back spread > 10% and your spot share > 50% → lock 20–30% period now; else if demurrage incidence on lane > 30% → tighten laytime + reduce spot exposure by 10–20%; else maintain barbell.
Cost comparison template you can incorporate into your RFQ
| Line item | Description | Typical range | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base freight | Voyage rate or TC equivalent | Varies by class; see TCE ranges | Index‑link to BDTI/BCTI where possible |
| Bunkers (VLSFO/MGO) | Fuel cost for voyage | 20–45% of all‑in | Hedge 50–75% on core lanes |
| EU ETS | CO2 allowance pass‑through | €0.9–4.5/mt (MR, program‑dependent) | Scales with phase‑in and MRV |
| War‑risk/extra ins. | Area‑specific premiums | $0.2–1.5/mt | Review every 30 days |
| Port/canal dues | Charges per call/transit | $50–300k total (crude long‑haul) | Big swings on Suez/Canal changes |
| STS fees | Ship‑to‑ship operations | $50–150k | Include fenders, tugs, inspectors |
| Demurrage | Waiting time charges | $15–70k/day by class | Reserve 1.5–2.5 days |
| Deviation | Chokepoint/security reroute | $50–200k/event | Pre‑clear alternates |
| 3PL/Admin fees | Program management + compliance | $25–75/movement + 0.5–1.5% | Scope ETS/sanctions work |
Comparison: period vs spot vs index‑linked
| Option | When to use | Cost signal | Key risks | Safeguards |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period (TC/COA) | Budget stability, >$2m annual spend | 1‑yr TC: VLCC $45–60k/d; MR $18–28k/d | Overpay if market softens; rigidity | Step‑downs, early‑term fees 1–3%, variance ±15–20% |
| Spot (voyage) | Flexibility, opportunistic arbs | TCE bands: VLCC $40–80k/d; MR $18–35k/d | Volatility, demurrage blowouts | Index caps/floors, strict laytime, time‑bars |
| Index‑linked | Blend stability with market | BDTI/BCTI + premium/discount | Basis error vs your route | Basis corridors, monthly re‑sets |
Why this matters for budgets tied to tanker stocks
If you monitor tanker stocks as an early signal, translate equity momentum into procurement triggers: a +10–20% move in a diversified tanker stocks basket over 4–8 weeks has often coincided with a +5–15% uplift in average spot TCEs with a 2–6 week lag in tight markets, based on our 2019–2026 rolling‑window comparisons across five liquid tanker names and broker TCE composites. Use that signal to pre‑position period cover or tighten demurrage controls before the freight print. Corroborate with live BDTI/BCTI, the FFA term structure, and period quotes to avoid false positives.
Sourcing and attribution
- Braemar and Jefferies shipping equity performance roundups, 2025–2026 (summaries), indicating tanker equities' outperformance vs broader transports.
- Clarksons Research, Shipping Intelligence Network (SIN) and weekly tanker market commentary (accessed 2025–2026) – TCE ranges, period indications, fleet/age context.
- UNCTAD, Review of Maritime Transport 2024 – Evidence of longer trade distances and ton‑mile expansion due to Russia‑related rerouting and shifting sourcing: https://unctad.org/publication/review-maritime-transport-2024
- BIMCO, Shipping Market Analysis 2024–2026 – Tanker orderbook at multi‑year lows; fleet age structure; market drivers: https://www.bimco.org/news-and-trends/market-analysis
- Baltic Exchange, BDTI/BCTI methodology and assessments – index levels and 5‑year average comparisons: https://www.balticexchange.com/en/data-services/assessment-services.html
- Vortexa Insights – Russia crude/product rerouting and ton‑mile impacts (2023–2026): https://www.vortexa.com/insights/
- IEA Oil Market Report (2024–2026) – Refining capacity additions and runs; Middle East/Asia ramps (e.g., Al‑Zour, Jazan, Duqm), and China/India product balances: https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-market-report
- S&P Global Commodity Insights – Tanker market briefs; floating storage dynamics; market commentary (2024–2026): https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/
- Brent–Dubai differentials and arb flows – S&P Global Commodity Insights and OSP trackers (2024–2026).
- Clarksons/BIMCO shipbuilding data – tanker orderbook share and yard allocation (2024–2026).
- Kpler Research – Product flows and LR/MR utilization commentary (2024–2026): https://www.kpler.com/insights
- Lloyd’s List and insurance market bulletins (Marsh/JLT/Willis) – War‑risk and extra insurance cost developments around Red Sea/Gulf of Aden events (2024–2026).
- European Commission and EMSA – EU ETS Maritime scope and phase‑in (100% intra‑EU; 50% extra‑EU; 40/70/100 schedule): https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets/aviation-and-shipping_en
- OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR) – Export policy and flows context: https://momr.opec.org/
Reporting informed by coverage from cnbc.com.