Companies engaged in trading commodities like iron ore and grain are resorting to legal threats and contract modifications to influence shipowners to opt for the Suez Canal route, despite its increased danger, in exchange for cost savings and quicker transit times.
Many Western vessel operators have shifted their routes to the Cape of Good Hope due to Houthi attacks in the Red Sea since November.
Michael Bodouroglou, the chair of Allseas Marine, noted that certain firms chartering “dry bulk” ships are requesting the removal of a standard “wartime” clause, compelling shipowners to sail through the Suez Canal even in hazardous conditions.
A maritime attorney disclosed that charterers were consistently informing shipowners that the current conditions off Yemen, marked by over 30 attacks on ships by Iran-backed Houthis, were not dangerous enough to warrant route diversions.
According to news, the lawyer, preferring anonymity, mentioned that charterers were apprehensive about end-customers refusing to pay for delayed cargo delivery. These charterers warned shipowners of potential damages claims for late delivery of diverted goods.
The most severe incident occurred on January 26 when a missile hit the oil products tanker Marlin Luanda, causing a fire that took nearly 19 hours to extinguish. Container ships typically transport manufactured goods in steel boxes, whereas dry bulk vessels carry bulk commodities without boxing them, and the owners of such vessels are often small companies with limited market influence.
Bodouroglou said that in decades in shipping he had never received such requests before the current crisis. He said he would assess conditions before sending any further vessels into the area. Even though Bodouroglou continues to send some ships via the canal, he said it would be unwise to surrender the option of diverting.
The maritime lawyer said charterers were resisting owners’ attempts to avoid the Suez Canal route.
