Supply Chain Action Points
Read this first — the conclusion, and the moves to make:
- By 15 August, pull ten consecutive daily transit counts rather than one; if the ten-day mean is above five vessels a day, treat the 95% as a one-day artifact and do not re-price August volume.
- Ask the forwarder which line items the quote carries and their dollar value per 40-foot box, not a percentage; a surcharge expressed as a percentage of an unstated base cannot be checked.
- For cargo into Jeddah or Djibouti, move the booking horizon from fourteen days to twenty-one for August and September, and confirm the named vessel rather than only the slot.
- Count how many boxes a month are actually exposed to a re-quote; under twenty, accept the surcharge and put the effort into the delivery-date clause instead.
- Write the war-risk trigger now with the sixty-day arrangement as the reference date; when it is announced, renegotiate the premium within ten working days rather than at annual renewal.
Kpler data showed just one cargo vessel transiting Bab el-Mandeb on Wednesday, a fall of more than 95%, after Houthi forces struck two Saudi tankers on 5 August in the northern Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Eight ships have now been hit and 29 turned back, while Iran and Oman edge toward a 60-day interim Hormuz transit arrangement.
The Analysis
Kpler counted one cargo vessel through Bab el-Mandeb on Wednesday. Two Saudi tankers were hit on 5 August, one in the northern Red Sea and one in the Gulf of Aden. Eight ships have now been struck, twenty-nine have turned back, Iran and Oman are working toward a sixty-day interim arrangement covering Hormuz transits, and carriers have started adding emergency bunker surcharges this month.
One hull, one day, one percentage. The percentage is carrying more weight than a single count can hold.
Start with the denominator, because the story does not print it. A fall of more than 95% down to a single vessel puts the base at about twenty a day: one divided by five percent is twenty. If the true fall were 99%, the base would be a hundred; at 96%, twenty-five. So the phrase over 95% brackets a base somewhere between twenty and an open-ended number, and the only hard fact in the sentence is the one. That is not a run rate. It is a photograph of one afternoon, and a sample of one has no measurable variance. Anyone who turned that count into a monthly capacity assumption built a forecast on a rounding error.
The prior question is whether Wednesday was a pause or a level. A convoy halt, a specific threat warning, a missile test window, each of those opens a one-day hole and leaves the level intact. A level change looks different: the count steps down and stays down for a week. Eight attacks and twenty-nine turn-backs across the period point to a level rather than a pause, but the single-day figure cannot tell the two apart, and the surcharge you are being quoted this week was very likely priced off precisely that figure.
Twenty-nine is the number I would keep. Turning back is deliberate and expensive. The operator had a booked voyage, a bunker plan and a delivery window, and gave all three up. That is a revealed price rather than a stated one. For each of the twenty-nine, the war-risk premium quoted for the transit was, in the operator's judgement, worse than the cost of going around, and you can read the premium off that decision without ever seeing an insurance slip.
It also changes the capacity arithmetic. A ship that turns back does not lose one leg, it loses the pair, because the return voyage faces the same decision and will usually take the same answer. Twenty-nine turn-backs is closer to fifty-eight one-way slots gone from the strait string. Those slots do not wait at anchor for the water to clear. They get absorbed into longer rotations, which is why the transit count can recover before the schedule does.
Who feels it first. An exporter moving containers into Jeddah or Djibouti feels it at the destination door, as a booking that cannot be confirmed for the date asked. A European importer on an Asia string felt it weeks ago and now experiences it as a transit time that has outrun the contract, which is a penalty-clause problem rather than a freight problem. A tanker charterer feels it as a premium re-quoted voyage by voyage.
Who barely notices. Anyone whose cargo is already on the water under a fixed all-in rate. Their number is locked, their box is afloat, and the only live exposure is the delivery date. That is a far smaller exposure than the one the headlines describe, and it is why two importers can read the same story and walk away with opposite answers about whether they have a problem.
The order of transmission matters more than the size. The transit count moves within days. The war-risk premium re-prices within days to two weeks, because it is quoted per transit and re-quoted when the last quote expires. The emergency bunker surcharge is already in this month's market, which tells you it was priced on a count older than the count you are reading. Schedule reliability and the equipment imbalance at the destination land four to eight weeks out, when the boxes that should have come back do not, and someone in Europe discovers the shortage is not of ships but of empty steel in the wrong place.
So the surcharge line on your quote is a lagging indicator dressed as a leading one. It will still be on the invoice after the water clears, because surcharges are easy to add and administratively tiresome to remove.
Here is the part the coverage does not do. The 95% counts hulls, and hulls are not cargo. One remaining vessel can be a three-hundred-metre boxship or a small general cargo ship, and the tonnage behind those two readings of the same number differs by more than the number itself. A 95% decline in hulls can be a decline in tonnage anywhere from the high eighties to nearly a hundred. Every charge in this market is levied per box or per tonne, not per hull, so the headline figure and the figure that actually bills you are in different units, and nobody in the story reconciles them.
The second omission is the sixty-day arrangement. A sixty-day interim understanding is not a settlement. It is a signal that the parties expect this to be time-boxed, and a time-boxed risk can be priced while a structural one cannot. That is the whole difference between paying a premium for two months and rebuilding a network.
Run a small account. Assume forty FEU a month into Europe, my assumption and not a figure from the report, with a quarter of it exposed to a re-quote each month. Ten boxes whose cost can move. At a hundred dollars of movement per box the monthly exposure is a thousand dollars, which is not the interesting part. The interesting part is that ten boxes is small enough to manage by hand and large enough that managing it by hand costs more than the exposure. Below roughly twenty exposed boxes a month, a bespoke war-risk clause costs more to negotiate and administer than it saves, and the better trade is to accept the surcharge and protect the delivery date instead. Above twenty, the clause earns its drafting time.
That threshold is the only output of this exercise that changes a decision, and it is absent from the report, because the report is about ships and the threshold is about you.
The trap is treating a one-day count as a run rate and buying capacity at the top of it. The mirror trap is cancelling a booking because the headline says the strait is shut, when your cargo was on a string that rerouted three weeks ago and never touched the strait at all.
One ship is not a rate. It is a rumour with a timestamp. If the ten-day average is still under five transits when the sixty-day arrangement is announced, that announcement is the moment the premium gets marked down, and you want to be holding an option rather than an obligation when it does.
↑ Back to the key points