Supply Chain Action Points
Read this first — the conclusion, and the moves to make:
- Hedge the VLSFO exposure on all Cape routed energy cargo by 2026-08-10, because the 869 dollar per tonne fuel price, not the distance, sets the size of the reroute tax.
- Add the Cape detour voyage days to refinery feed scheduling now so Chittagong deliveries do not force a higher priced spot bridge purchase.
- Model the annualised Cape tax at your actual lifting count; at 5.4 million per voyage, twelve liftings a year is over 64 million dollars and must be in the budget base.
- Track Bab el Mandeb security and Singapore VLSFO weekly; if the route reopens, revert scheduling and drop the hedge, and if VLSFO passes 900, escalate the bunker buffer.
- Separate the reversible security tax from the fuel driven cost in reporting, so the budget owner sees which part unwinds when the Red Sea normalises.
The Bangladesh Shipping Corporation-operated tanker MT Ninemia abandoned the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb routing because of deteriorating regional security and rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope, adding roughly $5.4 million in additional cost to the voyage, according to reporting carried on 31 July 2026. The vessel was carrying about 100,000 tonnes of Saudi Arabian crude bound for Chittagong for use by the Eastern Refinery. The case illustrates how the Cape diversion, which adds thousands of extra tonnes of bunker consumption per voyage, is compounding for importers now that Singapore VLSFO has risen toward $869 a tonne.
The Analysis
A single crude tanker, the MT Ninemia operated by the Bangladesh Shipping Corporation, dropped the Red Sea and Bab el Mandeb routing because regional security deteriorated and went around the Cape of Good Hope instead. The detour added roughly 5.4 million dollars to that one voyage. The ship was carrying about one hundred thousand tonnes of Saudi crude bound for Chittagong to feed the Eastern Refinery. The report pins the pain on bunker: the Cape swing burns thousands of extra tonnes of fuel per voyage, and Singapore VLSFO has risen toward eight hundred sixty nine dollars a tonne.
That 5.4 million dollar figure looks like a one off tanker story. It is the cleanest possible illustration of a cost that is now baked into every Cape routed energy cargo. I will show you the arithmetic.
Most readers will file this under geopolitical and move on. The number that should stay on your desk is the eight hundred sixty nine dollar VLSFO price, because that is the lever, not the distance.
Start with the fact slice. The MT Ninemia, a Bangladesh Shipping Corporation tanker, abandoned the Red Sea and Bab el Mandeb passage and rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope, adding about 5.4 million dollars to the voyage. Cargo was roughly one hundred thousand tonnes of Saudi crude for Chittagong and the Eastern Refinery. The Cape diversion adds thousands of extra tonnes of bunker consumption per voyage, and Singapore VLSFO has climbed toward eight hundred sixty nine dollars a tonne. Three numbers, and the fuel price is the one the headline buries under the headline grabbing 5.4 million.
The causal chain is security first, fuel second. The reroute happened because Bab el Mandeb became too risky, so the ship took the longer Cape path. That longer path is not just more nautical miles, it is more days steaming, which means more bunker burned. The kicker is the bunker price itself: at eight hundred sixty nine dollars a tonne, every extra tonne of fuel costs almost nine hundred dollars, so the distance and the fuel price compound each other. The 5.4 million is therefore not a flat routing fee, it is the product of extra miles times a high fuel price. If VLSFO were at a softer level, the same detour would cost materially less, even though the miles are identical.
Let us do the layered impact. The direct payer is the crude importer feeding the Eastern Refinery, but the mechanism scales to any energy cargo rerouted via the Cape: LNG, fuel oil, clean products. Spread the 5.4 million over one hundred thousand tonnes and you get about fifty four dollars a tonne of added logistics cost on a single voyage. For a refinery whose crude is worth, say, five hundred to six hundred dollars a tonne, that is roughly a ten percent logistics add before the barrel is even refined, and it lands straight on the refinery margin or the imported product price. The large state or national importer can absorb it into budget, but the smaller independent refiner feels it in competitive margin. The container importer is not directly hit by this tanker case, but should note the same Cape constraint is inflating bunker driven ocean costs across the board.
The transmission timing is open ended and tied to security, not to a billing date. As long as Bab el Mandeb stays risky, every Cape routed energy voyage carries this tax, voyage after voyage, not once. The VLSFO price adds a second clock: fuel is marked to market, so the 5.4 million moves with the Singapore quote. The refinery also faces inventory timing: the Cape detour adds voyage days, so the feedstock arrives later, which can force a draw on storage or a spot purchase to bridge the gap, and that bridge purchase carries its own market price.
Here is the overlooked point, the one the headline skips. Everyone fixates on 5.4 million as a big number. The overlooked lever is the eight hundred sixty nine dollar VLSFO, because that is what turns extra miles into extra millions. A voyage can be rerouted by security, but the cost of that reroute is set by the fuel market, which is a different and partly tradable risk. The second overlooked item is that this is per voyage, indefinitely. Unlike a one time surcharge, the Cape tax repeats on every lifting, so annualised it is not 5.4 million, it is 5.4 million times the number of voyages a year. For a refinery on a steady Saudi liftings program, that is a structural cost, not an incident. The practical move is to hedge the bunker component, not just to lament the route.
Now the counterfactual, because a conclusion you cannot flip is not a conclusion. Suppose Bab el Mandeb reopens and the Cape detour ends. Then the 5.4 million vanishes from this voyage and from every future one, and the only remaining cost is the normal Suez transit fee, a fraction of the detour. In that case the entire logistics add was security driven and fully reversible. Conversely, suppose the Cape stays and VLSFO pushes above nine hundred dollars. Then the per voyage tax grows past 5.4 million and the fifty four dollars a tonne becomes sixty plus, squeezing margins further. The condition that flips the call is Red Sea security and the VLSFO quote, both readable ahead, not the tanker's flag or the cargo's origin.
Let us run a small calculation so the scale is clear. Take the fifty four dollars a tonne added on one hundred thousand tonnes: that is 5.4 million per voyage. If the refinery runs, say, twelve such Saudi liftings a year, the Cape tax is north of sixty four million dollars annually, before any fuel price movement. At eight hundred sixty nine dollars a tonne, if VLSFO rises another thirty one dollars to nine hundred, the same voyage adds roughly another three hundred thousand dollars just on the bunker mark, independent of the miles. That is why the fuel price, not the map, is the number to watch.
The practical read is to treat this as a bunker and security problem, not a routing anecdote. Hedge the VLSFO exposure on Cape routed cargo, build the extra voyage days into refinery feed scheduling, and separate the reversible security tax from the fuel driven cost that moves with the market.
↑ Back to the key points