Black Sea disruption: How the risk is reaching freight costs
Market perspective · Information checked 15 October 2026
For anyone buying or selling physical product out of the Black Sea, freight has become a central part of the commercial discussion. The price of the product still matters, but the cost and certainty of moving it can change the economics of the whole transaction.
Recent reporting points to attacks on commercial shipping, greater insurance scrutiny and more difficult vessel acceptance. My view is that buyers need to look at those pressures together. A workable cargo price depends on a voyage that can be performed on the terms being discussed.
The insurance area has widened
On 16 September, the Joint War Committee issued JWLA-035, extending its Black Sea listing while excluding the territorial waters of adjoining countries other than Russia and Ukraine. The circular leaves its application to individual contracts for negotiation. The LMA also makes clear that premium rates are negotiated between brokers and underwriters; the committee does not set a standard charge. Read the circular and LMA guidance.
For a voyage involving Bulgaria or Romania, the practical implication is to assess the full intended passage as well as the loading port. An exclusion for territorial waters does not, by itself, settle the insurance treatment of the rest of the voyage.
There is evidence of the cost pressure. S&P Global reported on 1 October that the assessed additional war-risk cost for Black Sea crude shipments stood at $2.90 per barrel on 30 September, compared with $2.00 on 17 July, after reaching $3.70 on 29 July. These are dated crude-shipment assessments, not a current insurance or freight quotation for a diesel, gasoline or naphtha cargo. S&P Global, 1 October.
The cost reaches the cargo in several ways
The additional insurance premium is one component. Owners also have to decide whether they will accept the voyage, on which terms, and for how long their indication remains valid. S&P Global’s 9 October reporting on Russia-linked tanker routes described higher compensation for security, insurance and voyage-execution risks, with substantial differences between routes. That market is a separate reference point from a compliant product fixture out of Burgas; its headline rates should not be transferred to that cargo. S&P Global, 9 October.
My commercial reading is that fewer acceptable vessels willing to perform a particular voyage can weaken a charterer’s negotiating position. The useful vessel list is the one that meets the cargo, terminal, counterparty and insurance requirements.
Time can add another layer. Waiting, a changed route or a revised loading programme may increase voyage expenses and affect the buyer’s delivery window. Who pays for an extra premium, route change or delay depends on the agreed terms. BIMCO’s war-risk guidance specifically highlights the need to assess these issues against the particular charter party. BIMCO guidance.
Recalculate the delivered economics
The arithmetic can become significant quickly. As an illustration, an additional $250,000 allocated across a 25,000-tonne cargo adds $10 per tonne. That is a calculation example, not a reported Black Sea rate. The same exercise should be done using the actual voyage costs and cargo quantity.
Before relying on a freight indication, I want clarity on whether war-risk costs are included, the cover period, what happens if the vessel remains longer, the quotation’s validity and the treatment of additional expenses. The calculation also needs to avoid adding an insurance charge twice if it is already included in freight.
For buyers of ULSD, gasoline and naphtha, a current assessment of vessel availability and voyage costs is part of establishing a realistic delivered price.
At DRAKENSBERG ENERGY TRADING, our focus is on bringing the product, freight, timing and commercial terms into the same conversation. Contact our trading desk with your specification, quantity, destination and delivery window so that the requirement can be assessed on a clear basis.