Generic Hero BannerGeneric Hero Banner
Latest market news

Baltimore bridge collapses after ship collision: Update

  • Market: Coal, Freight, Oil products
  • 26/03/24

Adds details on coal terminals and exports at Baltimore

A bridge across a major trading waterway in the US city of Baltimore, Maryland, has completely collapsed after being hit by a container ship early today, Tuesday.

The Francis Scott Key bridge, which was carrying road traffic at the time, was hit at 01.30 local time (05:30 GMT) by the 2015-built 116,851dwt container vessel Dali, on route from Baltimore to Colombo, Sri Lanka. It was travelling outbound from Baltimore, according to the Baltimore City Fire Department, which is co-ordinating rescue efforts.

The bridge collapsed into the river after the vessel hit one of its support columns, probably blocking the Patapsco river waterway. The Dali is sailing under the Singapore flag, is owned by Grace Ocean and managed by Synergy Marine Group. The fire department said at least seven people — all travelling on the bridge — are missing in the water. No casualties have been reported on the vessel. US governor Wes Moore has declared a state of emergency in the state of Maryland.

The port of Baltimore handled 52.3mn t of ocean-going cargo last year, a record high, and is a major exporter of coal and automobiles. Ship tracker Marine Traffic shows several coastguard ships and tug boats near where the incident occurred, but no significant vessel queues yet. Baltimore port operations will be affected by the collapse, as a number of its terminals are upriver from the bridge. The port authority has yet to reply to a request for comment.

The bridge collapse will have a particularly large effect on coal exports. The Port of Baltimore loaded 2.4mn t of coal in February, up from 2.1mn t a year earlier, according to analytics firm Kpler, mostly exports to India and China, and two of the US Atlantic coast's five coal terminals are in Baltimore. Railroad CSX's Curtis Bay Coal Piers and coal producer Consol Energy's Consol Marine Terminal, which have a combined 30.8mn t of export capacity, are upstream of the bridge, meaning ships will not be able to serve them — or others — until the route reopens. Both terminals take thermal and coking coal from Northern and Central Appalachia. Curtis Bay, which has throughput capacity of around 14mn short tons (st), is only served by CSX. Consol's facility, which has capacity of roughly 20mn (st), is served by CSX and Norfolk Southern, the other major eastern US railroad.

The other three eastern US coal export terminals are at Hampton Roads, Virginia, which will mean increased costs to ship coal to them.

A large northern Appalachian coal supplier said it is assessing the situation.

"[We] don't know for how long it will be blocked," the supplier said, suggesting existing shipments will be delayed. The supplier said there was no update on a potential force majeure following the collapse.

A number of other terminals and vessels may be blocked now. The JY River, the Klara Oldendorff, the Phatra Naree and a number of other vessels are in the estuary, including Trafigura-owned bitumen tanker Palanca Rio. The dry bulk Console Marine Terminal (CNX) and Curtis Bay Terminal (CSX) and a number of containership and other terminals including Rukert, Seagrit, Amports, Dundalk and Sparrows Point are probably blocked too.

Companies including Consol Energy, Peabody and Xcoal use Baltimore's terminals to export coal, according to market participants. If the port is blocked for a significant time, Atlantic Panamax rates could be pushed down further — rates fell last week as demand from Brazilian agricultural exporters dropped because of heavy rains. The Panamax rate on the route from the US Atlantic coast to northwest Europe fell from the local maximum $16.40/t on 19 March to $15.30/t on 25 March.


Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
18/06/25

Banks increased fossil fuel financing in 2024: Report

Banks increased fossil fuel financing in 2024: Report

London, 18 June (Argus) — Banks "significantly increased" their fossil fuel financing in 2024, reversing a trend of steadily declining fossil fuel financing since 2021, a report from a group of non-profit organisations found this week. The 65 biggest banks globally committed $869bn in 2024 to "companies conducting business in fossil fuels", the report — Banking on Climate Chaos — found. Those banks committed $429bn last year to companies expanding fossil fuel production and infrastructure. The report assesses lending and underwriting in 2024 from the world's top 65 banks to more than 2,700 fossil fuel companies. Figures are not directly comparable year-on-year, as the previous report, which assessed 2023, covered financing from 60 banks. The 60 biggest banks globally committed $705bn in 2023 to companies with fossil fuel business, last year's report found. Those banks committed $347bn in 2023 to companies with fossil fuel expansion plans. Of the five banks providing the most fossil fuel finance in 2024, four were US banks — JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. The 65 banks assessed in this year's report have committed $7.9 trillion in fossil fuel financing since 2016, when the Paris climate agreement took effect, the report found. Finance is at the core of climate negotiations like UN Cop summits. Developed countries are typically called upon at such events to provide more public climate finance to developing nations, but the focus is also shifting to private finance, as overseas development finance looks set to drop . But fossil fuel financing banks are increasingly facing the risk of targeted and more complex climate-related litigation, according to a recent report by the London School of Economics' centre for economic transition expertise (Cetex). Climate litigation is not currently adequately accounted for in financial risk assessment, with case filing and decisions negatively impacting carbon financiers, it said. "While early climate cases primarily targeted governments and big-emitting ‘carbon majors', cases against other firms have proliferated quickly," Cetex said. The report also showed that, based on a review of disclosures from 20 banks supervised by the European Central Bank, many banks across Europe recognise litigation risks as material in the context of climate and environmental factors but tend to not be specific about the risks incurred. By Georgia Gratton and Caroline Varin Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Find out more
News

AWRP tanker insurance to jump in Mideast Gulf


18/06/25
News
18/06/25

AWRP tanker insurance to jump in Mideast Gulf

London, 18 June (Argus) — Additional War Risk Premiums (AWRP) in the Mideast Gulf could be set to rise sharply in the coming days in the wake of the Iran-Israel conflict, potentially pushing up freight rates, sources indicated to Argus , as the number of underwriters willing to commit at current levels appears to be shrinking. Offers from underwriters in line with last-done levels are becoming increasingly scarce, sources told Argus , with a number of underwriters now offering at significantly higher premiums. The situation is extremely fluid and even the higher offer levels are expected to climb in the coming days, sources said. One source suggested that tomorrow would be a trigger point to revise AWRP rates upwards for all oil and gas cargoes seeking Mideast Gulf cover and the new level would require "a massive uplift". AWRP cover protects a vessel against any physical loss or damage incurred from war related activities such as missile, drone or mine attacks, as well as capture, seizure or detainment. Although vessels are still able to secure AWRP in line with the standard 0.125pc for the Mideast Gulf before the conflict, participants have indicated that some offers are now at or above 0.2-0.4pc of the insured value of the vessel — hull and machinery value. Offers vary widely depending on the specifics of the vessel or providing insurer but several sources have indicated that some offers are at least 50pc higher than early last week. One source stressed that protection and indemnity (P&I) clubs have not yet made a definitive statement on insurance but there is increased alertness. P&I clubs provide marine protection and indemnity insurance for about 90pc of the world's oceangoing tonnage and are key determiners of the overall policies around marine insurance. AWRP in the Black Sea for a Russian crude cargo on a Suezmax tanker peaked at 1.5pc of the insured value of the ship according to Argus assessments, (around $800,000) in 2022 and 2023 as a result of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Argus estimated that the insured value of a very large crude carrier (VLCC) at around $90mn, and a 0.4pc AWRP would equate to around $360,000. A shipowner could receive up to 50pc of this back as part of a no claims bonus but it remains a substantial extra cost faced by crude exporters from the Mideast Gulf. The Mideast Gulf to Asia-Pacific VLCC rate already jumped to the equivalent of $2.14/bl for Murban crude ($16.35/t or WS70) on 17 June from $1.34/bl ($10.28/t or WS44) on 12 June before the first missile strike on Iran. VLCC tankers carrying crude from the Mideast Gulf is the single largest crude trade in the world and since the start of the current conflict between Israel and Iran the cost of freight has bounced almost to a 2025-high from close to a 2025-low. A higher AWRP would most likely be passed on to charterers, leading to further gains in the spot freight market. There is also the likelihood that some insurers could cease offering cover citing inherent risks. But, higher AWRPs are also an opportunity for insurers to generate higher revenues, albeit with significant risks. By John Ollett, George-Maher Bonnett, and Rithika Krishna Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

LNG as a marine fuel demand could rise by 2035: Panel


17/06/25
News
17/06/25

LNG as a marine fuel demand could rise by 2035: Panel

New York, 17 June (Argus) — Demand for LNG as a marine fuel will increase within the next 10 years if supply is boosted by exports from the US and Russia, according to Danish bunker supplier Monjasa. An increase in US and Russian LNG exports would make it a more viable option in the marine fuel market compared with conventional bunker fuel, Monjasa chief executive, Anders Østergaard said today at the Marine Money convention in New York. "If more Russian and more American LNG would come into the global markets, then I truly believe — and we've seen that before the war between Russia and Ukraine — that the price of LNG would beat the price of both fuel oil and diesel oil," Østergaard said. Conventional marine fuels, such as high-sulphur fuel oil and very low-sulphur fuel oil, will remain the dominant fuels in the bunker market in the next 10 years like it is today, according to Østergaard. Demand for other potential alternative marine fuels, like ammonia and methanol, are not likely to pick up by 2035 because the cost to use those fuels is not competitive unless regulations to use those fuels are changed, he said. There is currently not much US LNG in the global market because of restrictions on export permits put in place during former US president Joe Biden's administration. President Donald Trump lifted the ban earlier this year and has been approving export licenses for proposed LNG terminals. The EU has relied less on Russian gas and oil imports since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and it is proposing to phase out all gas and oil imports by January 2028. By Luis Gronda Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Two oil tankers collide off UAE coast: Update


17/06/25
News
17/06/25

Two oil tankers collide off UAE coast: Update

Adds fire, details on both tankers throughout Dubai, 17 June (Argus) — Two oil tankers have collided off the coast of the UAE, the country's national guard said today, with at least one seemingly on fire as a result. The collision occurred early today, 17 June, in the Sea of Oman, around 24 nautical miles off the port of Khor Fakkan on the UAE's east coast, according to the national guard. It identified one of the vessels as the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged Adalynn , a Suezmax-class tanker that had departed Fujairah heading for the Suez Canal, according to MarineTraffic data. Unverified video on social media shows the Adalynn on fire. The national guard said 24 crew members were removed and brought ashore at Khor Fakkan. Adalynn was, under a previous name, under US sanctions from March 2022 to September 2023, accused of being used for illicit shipments in support of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Shipping company Frontline said its very large crude carrier (VLCC) Front Eagle was the other tanker. Frontline said there was a fire on the Front Eagle's deck, which was quickly extinguished. All its crew are safe, Frontline said. Tracking data show the tanker had departed Khor Fakkan and was bound for Zhoushan, China. MarineTraffic data show both tankers are stationary. The incident comes a day after the UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said it had received multiple reports of "increasing electronic interference" in the Mideast Gulf and strait of Hormuz. The interference is probably linked to the latest escalation between Israel and Iran, triggered by Israeli air and missile strikes on several Iranian military and nuclear sites on 13 June. The two sides have since exchanged missile fire with growing intensity, and critical infrastructure was hit over the weekend. By Nader Itayim, Elshan Aliyev and Ben Winkley Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

UN Bonn climate talks delayed by agenda disagreements


17/06/25
News
17/06/25

UN Bonn climate talks delayed by agenda disagreements

Edinburgh, 17 June (Argus) — The start of UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany, has been delayed as a result of agenda disagreements over finance and trade measures. The Bonn technical negotiations — halfway-point talks before the UN Cop 30 conference in Brazil — were scheduled to begin on 16 June, but the plenary was suspended as parties failed to agree on an agenda. The opening meeting is due to restart later today. Bolivia — acting on behalf of the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries (LMDC) negotiating group — proposed two additional items to the provisional agenda. The LMDC group also includes countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Vietnam. The group's first proposed agenda item seeks to add a line on the implementation of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement relating to the provision of climate finance to developing countries from developed nations. The EU opposed the agenda item as proposed by the LMDC, and asked for references to Article 9.2 and 9.3, which relate to the provision of finance by "other parties" and sources of finance. The LMDC rejected this counterproposal. Finance remains a central issue in climate negotiations. At Cop 29 last year, almost 200 countries agreed on a new goal to provide $300bn/yr in climate finance to developing nations by 2035. The Cop 29 finance outcome was significantly lower than the trillions of dollars sought by developing countries, which expressed frustration at the time. But the Cop 29 text also called on "all actors… to enable the scaling up of financing to developing country parties for climate action from all public and private sources to at least $1.3 trillion/yr by 2035". Consultations on a roadmap to achieve that level will take place in Bonn. The second agenda item proposed by the LMDC relates to "promoting international co-operation and addressing the concerns with climate change related trade-restrictive unilateral measures" — namely the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). The CBAM was a point of contention during the Cop 28 and 29 talks, with countries such as China and Brazil raising concerns about its impact on developing countries. The mechanism aims to create a level playing field by imposing an effective carbon price on imports to the EU in sectors covered by the bloc's emissions trading system (ETS). This is to prevent EU-based firms from moving carbon-intensive production to non-EU jurisdictions with lower carbon costs, and to avoid EU products being replaced by more carbon-intensive imports. The European Commission expects the CBAM, when fully phased in, to capture more than half of the emissions covered by the bloc's ETS. The scheme's full implementation starts on 1 January 2026, but its impact is already starting to be felt . Six emissions-intensive industries are included under CBAM's scope at present — cement, fertilizers, iron and steel, aluminium, electricity and hydrogen. By Caroline Varin Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Generic Hero Banner

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more