Port Houston will conduct its own study of portions of a potential Project 12 to deepen the Houston Ship Channel. The port is also continuing to assess a container terminal expansion north of Barbours Cut as it plans for container capacity needs over the next decade.

The move adds a port-led track to channel planning on one of the busiest waterways in the United States. For cargo owners routing goods through the Texas Gulf Coast, it is an early step toward longer-term changes in vessel access, terminal capacity and supply chain reliability.



Chief executive Charlie Jenkins announced the decision at the Port Commission meeting on October 21. He said the port would "move forward with its own study for portions of a potential Project 12." Port Houston published further details on October 29.



The port will carry out the work under Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. This provision allows non-federal interests, such as port authorities, to undertake feasibility studies for federal navigation projects and submit them for federal review.



The port-led study will run alongside a traditional feasibility study with the US Army Corps of Engineers. That study covers the wider Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay system. The dual approach allows Port Houston to advance analysis of selected channel segments while broader system-wide work continues with its federal partner.



A Federal Interest Determination meeting between Port Houston and the Corps started a 45-day process. That process is expected to produce a recommendation on the scope of the Project 12 study.



The Project 12 study follows the completion of the port-led portions of Project 11. That program widened the Galveston Bay reach of the Houston Ship Channel from 530 feet to 700 feet. The Corps remains responsible for other elements of Project 11.



Port Houston is also evaluating options for additional container capacity. One option is the proposed Barbours Cut Northside Expansion on Spilman Island in La Porte, Harris County, Texas.



The project is under review through the Department of the Army permit SWG-2025-00640 and an Environmental Impact Statement process. Plans cover: An approximately 318-acre container terminal, two vessel berths, New wharf infrastructure, Dredging and an expanded turning basin, and road and dredged-material infrastructure



Phased construction is expected to begin no later than 2032, with capacity potentially available around 2036.



The timeline is significant. Port Houston expects its existing container terminals to reach maximum throughput capacity by 2033. Barbours Cut remains one of several options under consideration. Any move forward would require a Final Investment Decision by the Port Commission.



Recent cargo figures show rising demand at the port. Port Houston handled 376,419 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units, the standard measure of container volume) in September. That is an 11% increase year on year. Throughput for the first nine months of 2026 reached about 3.35 million TEU, up 2%. Loaded imports rose 16%.



The wider Houston Ship Channel region handled 22.3 million tons of foreign cargo in August, up 18% year on year. Exports increased 24%.



For shippers, importers, and the forwarders who manage their freight, these volumes help explain the port's planning horizon. Steady import growth, combined with a projected capacity ceiling in 2033, gives Port Houston a clear reason to advance channel and terminal studies now rather than later.



Port Houston is formally the Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas, and is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. The wider Houston Ship Channel complex includes more than 200 private terminals and eight public terminals.



Port activity supports nearly 1.5 million jobs in Texas and 3.37 million jobs nationwide. The Project 12 study and the Barbours Cut evaluation are early-stage steps, and both remain subject to federal review and Port Commission decisions. Together, they show a port planning for the vessel access and container capacity that its cargo growth will demand in the coming decade.

CMA CGM will apply a $35 per TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit) war risk surcharge to container shipments to and from Black Sea countries starting November 9, 2026. The surcharge covers all cargo categories. The company attributes the decision to deteriorating security conditions in the region and the rising cost of maintaining maritime operations there

The surcharge applies to cargo carried on CMA CGM's own container services and to cargo moved by third-party feeder operators. Feeder operators run smaller vessels that link regional ports with larger mainline services. The surcharge specifically covers Ukrainian container traffic routed through two regional gateways: Constan?a, Romania , Poti, Georgia.



CMA CGM has set a later implementation date for certain trade lanes. For shipments involving the following markets, the surcharge takes effect on December 1, 2026: The United States and its territories, Australia, New Zealand, Latin American countries.



The company said the later date reflects the need to comply with regulatory procedures in these markets.



The surcharge follows rising war-related risks across the Black Sea. On September 16, the Joint War Committee (JWC), which represents marine war risk underwriters in the London insurance market, updated its list of high-risk areas to include almost the entire Black Sea.



The territorial waters of Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria and Georgia remain excluded from the designation. The expanded high-risk area adds to cost pressures on shipping companies operating in the region.



CMA CGM stated that vessels transiting the Black Sea face additional costs. It described the surcharge as a measure to ensure the continuity of its container shipping services in the region.



The company said it will continue to monitor security conditions and may revise its transportation terms as the situation develops.

Japan has officially announced anti-dumping duties on nickel-based stainless steel cold-rolled strip and plate from mainland China and the Taiwan region.

Effective October 31, 2026, these duties range from 27.7% to 42.1% for Chinese products and 3.6% to 20.1% for Taiwanese products. This decision follows Japan's multi-year investigation, which began in July 2025, and reflects unchanged rates from the provisional duties imposed in July 2026. The duties will remain in place until October 2031.



Among Chinese producers, Shanxi Taigang and unsampled manufacturers face a 27.7% duty, while POSCO (Zhangjiagang) Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. and related suppliers face the highest rate of 42.1%. For Taiwanese producers, YUSCO and unsampled manufacturers are subject to 3.6%, while Walsin and related suppliers face 20.1%.



The targeted products are nickel-based stainless steel materials, used in industries including automotive, home appliances, precision equipment, and railway vehicles. These materials are high-value inputs due to their corrosion resistance and smoothness achieved through cold-rolling processes, making them integral to Japan's manufacturing sector.



Japan's investigation revealed an increase in imports from China and Taiwan, which negatively impacted domestic producers. Between 2022 and 2024, the market share of imported products rose by 32%, while comparable domestic sales volume and profit indices fell significantly. For Japanese producers, this drop in profitability - against rising imports - played a critical role in the decision to impose duties.



In 2025, Japan produced 80.67 million tonnes of crude steel, a 4% year-on-year drop, compared to China's 960.8 million tonnes. While Japan's steel industry operates on a smaller scale, its integrated production system remains vital for downstream manufacturers. However, growing import competition has prompted domestic producers to advocate for stronger trade protections.



These duties do not mean imports will cease. Japanese companies relying on foreign steel for specific specifications or capacity gaps will continue sourcing internationally. For Chinese exporters, this new tariff structure increases the urgency to diversify markets and optimize logistics. Exporters should focus on compliance documentation and explore alternative markets like Southeast Asia. Freight forwarders must adjust to shifting trade flows and evaluate new routing strategies to maintain efficiency.



Ultimately, while duties create challenges, Chinese steel suppliers retain competitive advantages in certain segments, emphasizing the need for flexible and strategic responses.

Maersk has announced temporary adjustments to booking acceptance and cargo routing at selected Middle East ports, citing sustained disruption in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz compounded by regional port congestion. The affected locations include Khor Fakkan and Fujairah on the UAE's east coast, as well as certain Upper Gulf destinations. These measures carry direct implications for cargo transport arrangements, vessel schedules, and final delivery timelines.

On October 30 (local time), Maersk issued a customer advisory titled "Temporary Booking Restrictions: Khor Fakkan, Fujairah and Selected Upper Gulf Destinations", stating that ongoing disruption near the Strait of Hormuz, combined with regional port congestion, is affecting cargo flow and delivery timelines. In response to current operational conditions, the company has decided to implement temporary adjustments to booking acceptance and cargo routing for the affected destinations. The advisory does not enumerate all impacted Upper Gulf destinations, nor does it specify an end date for the restrictions. Maersk has indicated that it will continuously assess the temporary measures in line with evolving conditions and will keep customers updated on subsequent arrangements.



For cargo already booked, Maersk has stated that the relevant account managers will contact affected customers directly to provide specific cargo information and guidance on next steps, including negotiating alternative transport arrangements where applicable. For cargo already in transit, Maersk has cautioned that delays may still occur and has committed to providing customers with the latest cargo status updates. Where onward transport arrangements or revised delivery dates cannot yet be confirmed, this will be clearly communicated within those updates. Customers should note that an adjustment to an existing booking does not automatically result in cargo being rolled to the next sailing; actual arrangements must be confirmed directly with the carrier.



With respect to new bookings, Maersk has indicated these will be accepted subject to available capacity. For viable alternative routing options, Maersk will engage customers further on estimated transit times and associated costs, with specific arrangements dependent on actual operational conditions and available capacity. This means that even where a new booking is accepted, whether cargo can be shipped via the original routing must be confirmed on a shipment-by-shipment basis, taking into account available space, port calls, and alternative transport conditions.



Khor Fakkan and Fujairah are both situated on the UAE's east coast and serve as critical gateways connecting the UAE and surrounding markets. Against the backdrop of disruption to transit through the Strait of Hormuz, operational changes at these ports and shifts in cargo routing may further affect container shipping and overland transshipment arrangements across the Gulf region. For cargo relying on UAE east coast ports for transshipment or inland distribution, the booking restrictions may introduce route adjustments, changes to transshipment connections, and additional transport costs.



Exporters, freight forwarders, and logistics service providers shipping cargo to the UAE and Gulf region are advised to monitor booking confirmations, actual loading arrangements, in-transit cargo status, and alternative transport costs for affected destination ports closely in the near term, rather than relying solely on original booking information to assume cargo will arrive as planned. Specifically, the following points warrant verification: whether the carrier is accepting new bookings and under what capacity conditions; whether booked cargo requires re-allocation or route adjustment; whether in-transit cargo is subject to delays and revised delivery dates; and the time and cost implications of alternative port or overland transshipment options. For time-sensitive shipments, early communication with cargo owners regarding potential delay risks is advisable, with sufficient buffer time built in to accommodate any route changes.

On 2 November, Maersk announced that it and Hapag-Lloyd had implemented a structural adjustment to the ME1 service under the Gemini Cooperation network, redirecting the route from the Cape of Good Hope back through the Suez Canal.

The ME1 service connects India and Europe, and following the adjustment, its port rotation reads: Mundra - Nhava Sheva - Salalah - Suez Canal - Tangier - Rotterdam - Wilhelmshaven - Hamburg - London - Algeciras - Tangier - Suez Canal - Salalah - Mundra.



Maersk affirmed that the Suez Canal represents a critical maritime corridor linking East and West, and a key driver of efficient global supply chains. Routing via the Suez Canal and Red Sea constitutes the fastest, most sustainable, and most effective means of providing customers with transportation between Asia and Europe. Reinstating ME1 through the Suez Canal, rather than continuing around the Cape of Good Hope, positions the service to deliver materially improved transit efficiency for customers. From a network design perspective, the adjusted ME1 covers India's west coast, Middle Eastern hub ports, and Europe's principal gateways - a configuration that serves to shorten voyage distances, improve vessel turnaround efficiency, and provide a more stable transit path for cargo moving in the India-to-Europe direction.



Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd will continue to monitor the security situation in the Middle East closely. Any further changes to the Gemini Cooperation network will remain contingent on sustained stability in the Red Sea region. The safety of crew, vessels, and customer cargo remains the paramount consideration. Accordingly, the ME1 reinstatement constitutes a service-by-service, phased structural adjustment and does not signify a full restoration of Suez Canal routing across the Gemini network; whether the scope of reinstatement will be expanded further depends on ongoing security assessments and prevailing operational conditions.



Against a broader industry backdrop of continued tension across the Middle East - with both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab-el-Mandeb experiencing varying degrees of disruption - the pace of Red Sea reinstatement is accelerating faster than previously anticipated, emerging as one of the defining variables shaping competitive dynamics in the container shipping market. ME1 marks another Gemini service to resume Suez Canal routing, following earlier adjustments to AE15, AE19, AE5, AE11, AE12, and ME2. The progressive expansion of reinstatements stands to shorten Asia-Europe and India-Europe voyage distances and release capacity previously absorbed by Cape diversions, though the practical market impact will ultimately be determined by the scale of reinstatement, schedule integration, and the trajectory of the security environment.



Freight forwarders and cargo owners with shipments affected by the ME1 adjustment are advised to verify specific vessel names, voyage numbers, port calls, and schedule details on a shipment-by-shipment basis, confirming booking routing and estimated arrival times individually rather than treating the reinstatement of a single service as equivalent to a full restoration of Red Sea routing. For cargo transiting India and the Middle East to Europe, the revised ME1 port rotation should be evaluated in terms of transit time and transhipment connectivity implications. Continuous monitoring of carrier security assessments, service announcements, and insurance arrangements is recommended, with contingency time built in to accommodate potential interim adjustments.

The reopening of the Red Sea has reached a critical milestone, with all four major shipping alliances - Gemini, Ocean Alliance, Premier Alliance, and MSC - resuming operations via the Suez Canal. Premier Alliance, previously cautious, has now confirmed its return with vessel-specific schedules, completing the transition of major carriers from intent to active execution.

Premier Alliance has announced the resumption of two Asia-to-Mediterranean services. The MD1 service, connecting Asia to the Eastern Mediterranean, will be operated by YM TRUST on Voyage 0106, with first loading in Ningbo on 10 November and an estimated arrival in Damietta, Egypt, on 7 December. The MS2 service, linking Asia with the broader Mediterranean, will be operated by ONE SYNERGY on Voyage 003, starting in Qingdao on 16 November and reaching Piraeus, Greece, by 28 December. Both services include key ports like Singapore and the Suez Canal in their rotations. ONE has emphasized that vessel routing will remain flexible based on the Middle East's security conditions.



Yang Ming has outlined its phased Red Sea return, starting with vessels departing Asia on 11 November and reaching the Gulf of Aden by 28 November. By year-end, Yang Ming plans to restore two Mediterranean and one Northwest Europe service, representing 30-40 percent of its Europe-bound capacity. Evergreen is reportedly planning trial voyages via the Red Sea in November, though official announcements remain pending.



According to Alphaliner, 63 percent of Far East-to-Europe services operated by top liners resumed Red Sea transits in mid-October, with Suez Canal capacity recovering to over 50 percent of pre-crisis levels. Drewry estimates canal volumes will reach 80 percent of normal by February 2027, with full resumption across Maersk services expected by March 2027.



The resumption of Suez Canal transits is increasing vessel capacity, influencing freight rates amidst November's announced rate hikes. Estimated arrival times are likely to fluctuate, and shippers are advised to confirm voyage details directly with carriers. The interplay between rising capacities and rate adjustments will shape pricing dynamics in the coming months.

November 1 marked a significant date for synchronized rate increases across Asia-Europe and trans-Pacific trades, but results fell short of expectations. Rates on the Europe trade barely moved, while trans-Pacific softening began earlier, highlighting varying conditions across trade lanes.

The gap between announced and actual rates remains wide. For example, while MSC and CMA CGM filed rates around $4,500-$5,200 per FEU for November 1, realized rates hovered between $3,000-$3,500. Despite carriers filing a second round of increased rates for November 15, the effect remains muted. Blank sailings, at an 8% cancellation rate across major east-west trades, are concentrated on the Europe trade. Asia-North Europe/Mediterranean routes account for 46% of these cancellations, reflecting focused capacity management as Europe remains critical for long-term contract negotiations. Still, rates have not stabilized, with Maersk's spot rate dropping to $3,000/FEU in early November, marking the second consecutive weekly decline.



The trans-Pacific trade saw earlier and steeper rate declines. Drewry's World Container Index showed Shanghai-Los Angeles rates falling 6% week-on-week to $7,514/FEU, the largest drop since June 2025, while Shanghai-New York rates fell 5%. Weak US import demand, projected to decline 11% month-on-month in November, has driven this trend. Despite these declines, some forwarders reported stable rates and improved vessel schedules, suggesting localized steadiness amidst broader market weakness. This divergence highlights the importance of distinguishing between booked transaction prices and current quotes.



Blank sailings have not significantly boosted rates, as they mainly target underloaded sailings rather than representing a structural capacity withdrawal. On the Asia-Europe trade, where blank sailings are most concentrated, rates remain weakest. The underlying issue is insufficient demand, with more available capacity than cargo to fill it.



For cargo owners and freight forwarders, tariff announcements should not be taken at face value. Confirmed spot rates should be verified by trade lane and transaction specifics. Monitoring long-term contract developments, US import trends, and blank sailing schedules will remain critical for navigating ongoing volatility.

Ocean Network Express has ceased its slot charter arrangement on Maersk's Qilin service, according to a report by Container News citing DynaLiners. As relayed by Wedoany, ONE joined the China-Australia trade lane in July of this year on a slot charter basis, remaining on the service for approximately four months before its withdrawal. No customer advisory has appeared on ONE's official website, and neither party has publicly disclosed the reasons for the termination. With the conclusion of the slot charter, ONE's capacity offering under its "Australia Express (AUX)" brand on the route has also come to an end.

The Qilin service is an independently operated Maersk product, deploying five vessels of approximately 2,700 TEU each on a port rotation of Shanghai-Hong Kong-Sydney-Melbourne-Shanghai. ONE's role within the service was to charter a portion of the available capacity and resell it to shippers under its own AUX brand. The vessels and network infrastructure were provided by Maersk; ONE's commercial contribution was the marketing and sale of slot capacity. With the charter arrangement concluded, AUX loses its saleable inventory on the route, and the brand's service offering on this trade lane is effectively discontinued. This model - commonly described in liner markets as a slot charter with private-label resale - allows the brand operator to enter a trade lane rapidly without vessel commitment, though it correspondingly limits direct control over service operations.



The operational impact falls primarily on shippers and freight forwarders who had been booking through the AUX channel. With that channel now closed, cargo requiring continued access to the Qilin service must be booked directly with Maersk, or rerouted via alternative China-Australia service offerings, with applicable capacity and pricing subject to each carrier's current quotations. For shippers holding AUX bookings on cargo not yet shipped, immediate contact with ONE's local agent is advisable to confirm whether existing bookings remain valid and to identify alternative arrangements. Given the absence of any public notice on ONE's official channels, written confirmation is the prudent course. Shippers with ongoing export requirements on the China-Australia corridor may wish to approach Maersk directly for Qilin capacity, or evaluate competing carriers operating direct services to Australia's east and west coast ports, with vessel schedules, port calls, and acceptance conditions to be verified against carrier websites and booking confirmations.



From an industry perspective, ONE's participation in the Qilin service - from entry to withdrawal in roughly four months - illustrates the compressed timelines characteristic of the slot charter model: rapid market entry is matched by an equally rapid capacity to exit. For freight forwarders, this dynamic reinforces the importance of identifying, at the point of booking, the actual operating carrier behind a branded service, together with the vessel and slot source. Brand-level adjustments or withdrawals can alter service arrangements with limited notice, with consequent implications for delivery schedules and shipper communication. The Qilin service itself is unaffected by the termination of the charter arrangement and will continue under Maersk's independent operation. Beyond Qilin, multiple carriers maintain direct services on the China-Australia corridor, and forwarders are well advised to verify the actual carrier and slot arrangement on a shipment-by-shipment basis - accounting for cargo type, destination port, and delivery requirements - while building schedule tolerance for the service changes that brand-level realignments may introduce.

PortXchange expands EmissionInsider with new multimodal monitoring, emissions forecasting, and scenario modeling features to help ports make better operational and investment decisions.

Ports have spent years improving how they calculate and report emissions. But knowing how much a port emitted last year does little to guide tomorrow's investment decisions.



That frustration has emerged repeatedly in PortXchange's conversations with ports seeking better ways to manage their environmental impact. They want to understand emissions across their operations, anticipate future changes, and assess the consequences of major investments.



PortXchange is responding by expanding EmissionInsider, with new features coming to the platform, including multimodal emissions monitoring, emissions forecasting, scenario modelling and AI-assisted decarbonization planning. Ports' practical needs are shaping these developments, as they want to use emissions information to guide operational and investment decisions.



Sjoerd de Jager, Managing Director & Co-Founder of PortXchange, believes the industry has spent too long treating emissions reporting as the end of the process rather than the starting point. ¡§Ports have become much better at measuring emissions, but measuring them doesn't make them disappear,¡¨ de Jager said. ¡§If the information sits in a report that nobody uses when making operational or investment decisions, we have to question what we're achieving. Ports need to know where they can make a difference, what it will cost and whether their plans will reduce emissions.¡¨



Eugene Sypachev, Head of Engineering at PortXchange, is leading the development program and sees a need for closer cooperation between sustainability teams and those responsible for daily port operations.



¡§In most ports today, sustainability and operations run as separate conversations. One team owns the annual number, the other owns the daily throughput target, with little shared data connecting the two,¡¨ said Sypachev.



¡§We want to give people across the port a clearer picture of operational activity and its emissions consequences, so environmental performance can be considered when decisions are made rather than assessed afterward.¡¨



Much of the maritime industry's attention has focused on vessel emissions, but ships are only part of a port's environmental footprint. Trucks, rail movements, and cargo-handling equipment also contribute, and many ports still struggle to understand their combined impact.



PortXchange is developing EmissionInsider's multimodal capabilities to bring these sources together, giving ports a clearer view of which activities drive most emissions and where reductions are possible. The company is among a relatively small group of technology providers pursuing emissions monitoring across multiple transport modes.



The expanded platform is being organised around four connected products: Emission Report, Emission Dashboard, Emission Simulations and Emission Strategy.



The Emission Report will provide structured emissions reporting for ports with different levels of data availability. The Emission Dashboard will support more regular monitoring of port activity and emissions, helping sustainability and operational teams track performance changes and measure progress against their targets.



Many planned capabilities come directly from discussions with ports that want to understand how changes in traffic, operating conditions, and future investments could affect emissions.



The forecasting capabilities will help ports anticipate short-term emissions changes. For example, weather disruptions or changes in vessel schedules can increase waiting times at berth or anchorage and lead to additional emissions. Using vessel movement information and emissions calculations, the platform aims to give ports a clearer picture of the potential environmental impact of these changes.



For longer-term planning, Emission Simulations will allow ports to examine the likely effects of different decisions before committing resources. Scenarios could include introducing shore power, electrifying port equipment, changing vessel speed limits or preparing for higher traffic volumes.



De Jager added: ¡§Ports are under pressure to spend millions on decarbonisation, but how many can confidently say which investments will make the biggest difference? We cannot keep asking ports to make expensive decisions based on assumptions. They need evidence before the money is spent.¡¨



Emission Strategy will introduce AI-assisted support for ports developing or reviewing their decarbonisation plans. It is being designed to help sustainability teams consider relevant measures and establish priorities based on their port's operations, emissions profile and objectives.



For some ports, the immediate priority is establishing a reliable emissions baseline. Others already have detailed reduction targets but need to understand how planned investments or operational changes could help them meet those commitments.



¡§Every port's journey starts in the same place: reporting, driven by regulation or by community demand for transparency. What comes next is where ports diverge,¡¨ Sypachev explained.



¡§A smaller port with limited resources may need help establishing its first reliable emissions baseline. Another may already have a detailed decarbonisation plan but need better information about which investments will deliver results. We are developing EmissionInsider to support those different needs rather than expecting every port to follow the same path.¡¨



The new features will be introduced progressively, allowing ports to build on their existing emissions reporting capabilities as their requirements develop. EmissionInsider's modular design means ports can select the products they need, with configurations and data integrations tailored to their operations and decarbonisation priorities.