Porti & ambiente — le notizie raccolte

Ocean Network Express (ONE) reported a sharp decline in earnings for full-year 2025, as weaker freight rates and soft demand weighed on performance despite stable volumes. The Singapore-headquartered carrier grouping posted full-year revenue of $16.6bn for the period April 2025 to March 2026, down 14% year on year. EBITDA fell 54%, to $2.75bn, while EBIT dropped 92%, to $310m. Net profit also plunged 92% to $338m. Lifted volumes remained largely flat, up just 1% year on year, to 12.9m teu – an increase of 117,000 teu, which lagged significantly behind overall year-on-year market demand growth of 4.7% last year, according to Container Trades Statistics. ONE said cargo movements had remained “sluggish” in the fourth quarter, although a modest recovery in freight rates helped deliver a quarterly profit of $55m. But for the full year, demand was described as ‘subdued’, although there was some seasonal strength on the Asia-Europe trade ahead of Chinese New Year. The carrier noted that an influx of newbuild tonnage continued to pressure the supply-demand balance, weighing on freight rates. However, this was partially offset by port congestion and severe weather disruption, which tightened effective capacity. Geopolitical tension in the Middle East also pushed up costs, although the direct impact on fourth-quarter earnings was limited. The carrier explained that costs had risen across several areas. Operating expenses increased, due to higher vessel costs and port charges, while variables were driven up by more expensive empty container repositioning. Freight rates also declined overall, amid the softer supply-demand balance, although bunker prices fell year on year and overhead costs remained stable. In the Asia-North America eastbound trade, both the pre-CNY peak and post-holiday recovery were weaker than expected, with volumes trending down year on year. In contrast, ONE noted that Asia-Europe westbound demand had strengthened ahead of the holiday, supporting improved utilisation on both major routes. Chief executive Jeremy Nixon said the line had managed to remain profitable through “disciplined cost control and operational efficiency”, despite the heightened volatility. “While we continue to navigate a complex and volatile global environment, our focus remains on maintaining safe, secure, and reliable operations,” he said, adding that a new leadership structure and service enhancements would support performance in the coming year. And looking ahead, ONE forecasted a full-year profit of around $300m for FY2026, another decline following 2025, and warned that outlook visibility remained limited due to geopolitical risks, particularly in the Middle East. The carrier said the restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz and continued diversion from the Red Sea/Suez Canal route, with vessels still routing via the Cape of Good Hope, had added significant cost pressure. And cargo flows to North America had weakened, while demand for Europe-bound shipments remained comparatively robust. To mitigate disruption, ONE said it had taken “agile measures” across its network, including expanding terminal capacity in key locations such as Laem Chabang and Busan, aimed at stabilising operations and improving service reliability. Inside the industry’s AI shift Complete The Loadstar’s ‘State of AI in the Supply Chain’ survey — and receive the full report and data before release. Take the 2-min survey

La società spezzina attiva come officina nel settore navalmeccanico e industriale ha in programma anche di acquisire un bacino di carenaggio per migliorare i propri margini di guadagno “Siamo ben contenti di entare a far parte della famiglia Msc, con cui condividiamo valori e filosofia”. Con queste parole Alessandro Bardi, amministratore delegato di Jobson Italia, conferma e commneta a SHIPPING ITALY il passaggio della sua azienda al gruppo svizzero controllato dalla famiglia Aponte. La notizia del passaggio è stata annunciata dalla stessa Msc attraverso il proprio giornale Il Secolo XIX. “Le linee strategiche che abbiamo condiviso sono quelle di continuare a operare per il settore navale senza variare la nostra missione aziendale” precisa Bardi, che preferisce non fornire elementi precisi sul valore e sui dettagli dell’operazione. Secondo fonti vicine al gruppo armatoriale ginevrino gli attuali due soci, ovvero lo stesso Bardi e Giuliano Allegri (tramite la Asso Maritime SA), rimarranno nel capitale con una quota di minoranza e continueranno a guidare operativamente l’azienda che opera come officina meccanica nel settore navalmeccanico e nel refitting navale. Gli obiettivi per il futuro sono ambiziosi: “Il progetto futuro è quello di potenziare le strutture e la presenza nel mondo di Jobson grazie anche al lavoro che arriverà del Gruppo Msc e da quello che continueremo a fare rispetto a oggi”. In attesa di potere conoscere i numeri del 2025, il bilancio ordinario d’esercizio di Jobson Italia rivela che nel 2024 l’azienda spezzina (oltre 230 addetti) ha raggiunto un volume d’affari salito a 113 milioni di euro (dai 74 milioni dell’anno precedente), con un margine operativo positivo per 7 milioni e un risulttao netto in utile di 3 milioni di euro (in salita anch’esso rispetto ai 2 milioni del 2023). Oltre che in Italia Jobson presente e attiva tramite sue controllate anche a Singapore (Jobson Asia), in Estremo Oriente (Jobson Far Est), in Marocco (Jobson Marocco Sarl), in Spagna (Jobson Iberia), in Belgio (Jobson benelux), in Turchia (Jobson Turkey), negli Stati Uniti (Jobson Usa, l’ultima filiale costituita proprio nel 2024) ed è attiva anche nel settore ferroviario attraverso la società italiana Jobson Rail Srl. Quest’ultima risulta evidentemente complementare alla Innoway Trieste, società anch’essa parte del Gruppo Msc e attiva nella realizzazione di carri ferroviari merci. Oltre a ciò sono state recentemente costituite altre 7 startup: Jobson Med, Jobson Academy, Jobson Maritime Uae, Jobson Spain, jobson Adriatic, Salam Jobson Qatar e Jobson Korea. Queste società “si pongono – è scritto nel bilancio – quali elementi atti alla captazione di ulteriori commesse con armatori locali, tese anche alla collaborazione con produttori istituzionali di ricambi e macchinari di rilevanza. A proposito di penetrazione di mercato Jobson eidenzia una “fidelizzazione dei rapporti di partnership con Grimaldi, Corsica Ferries, Gruppo Msc, Gnv, Moby, Hapag Lloyd e Saipem” fra gli altri. Nel bilancio 2024 si legge inoltre che “il primario scopo che si infutura nel prossimo periodo riguarda la captazione di un’area portuale e, soprattutto, l’acquisizione di un bacino di carenaggio: tle incremento porterebbe alla riduzione del 45% dei costi per servizi resi da terzi, rendendo la marginalità operativa in una posizione di crescita esponenziale”. Chissà che questo progetto non si concretizzi proprio con l’atteso investimento di Msc in un nuovo bacino di carenaggio al porto di Gioia Tauro. ISCRIVITI ALLA NEWSLETTER QUOTIDIANA GRATUITA DI SHIPPING ITALY SHIPPING ITALY E’ ANCHE SU WHATSAPP: BASTA CLICCARE QUI PER ISCRIVERSI AL CANALE ED ESSERE SEMPRE AGGIORNATI

AIM-listed and Singapore-headquartered oil and gas player Jadestone Energy has received a stamp of approval for its environmental plan (EP) from the country’s offshore regulator for wellhead removal activities at its oil field off the coast of Australia. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) gave Jadestone the green light on April 22, 2026, to move forward with activities proposed in its submittedenvironment plan, entailing the removal of three wellheads:Montara-1,2, and3within production licenceAC/L7. The company plans to remove the three wellheads from theMontara field,which lies approximately 690 kilometers (373 nautical miles) east of Darwin in a water depth of around 80 meters. The field was discovered in 1988 with the drilling of the exploration well Montara-1, and later appraised with the drilling of appraisal wells Montara-2 and Montara-3 in 1991 and 2002, respectively. The wells were suspended with annual monitoring undertaken by a remotely operated vehicle (ROV). Both the primary and secondary barrier envelopes were verified in 2021, and the wells confirmed to be plugged and abandoned as per the NOPSEMA accepted well operations management plan (WOMP). A final abandonment report was submitted to the regulator for these wells in September 2021. The accepted EP, which provides for the removal of Montara-1, 2, and 3 wellheads, includes remote operated vehicle (ROV) activities such as ‘as found’ and ‘as left’ surveys, marine growth removal, and wellhead area preparation. Jadestone has listed multiple methodologies for the wellhead removal activity to allow for vessels and tools of opportunity over the validity of the EP: abrasive water jet cutting (AWJC), external cutting using diamond wire saw (DWS), or equivalent, and mechanical internal cutting. While the duration of the activity at each wellhead is expected to be approximately 2 days, an allowance of approximately 14 days has been provided, including mobilization, seabed surveys, wellhead removal, and demobilization, to allow for mobilization and demobilization of the vessel and unforeseen delays due to weather or equipment. One vessel is required to complete this activity with the capacity to recover the subsea infrastructure to the deck. The dismantling and disposal of the wellheads is anticipated to be completed within 12 months of arrival at the receiving port and waste management facility. The wellhead composition is predominantly mild steel, and it is anticipated that most of it will be recycled or repurposed. The EP underlines that the wellhead removal will be subject to the availability of a suitable vessel, and whenever feasible, will be a vessel of opportunity mobilizing to the Montara field for other activities. As a result, the exact timing of the wellhead removal is unknown. However, removal activities may be undertaken at any time during the life of the EP, which is five years from acceptance. The Jadestone-operated and owned Montara project, encompassing three separate fields – Montara, Skua, and Swift/Swallow – is located in the Timor Sea offshore Australia, approximately 690 kilometres west of Darwin. The oil from the subsea wells is piped via subsea flowlines to an unmanned wellhead platform and then to theFPSO Montara Venture, which acts as a hub for the Montara fields. Take the spotlight and anchor your brand in the heart of the offshore world! Join us for a bigger impact and amplify your presence at the core hub of the offshore energy community!

Sinolam International, a Singapore-based investment company focused on oil, gas, and power investments in emerging markets in Asia and Latin America, has disclosed the return of its multibillion-dollar lawsuit against AES Corporation to the Virginia state court. This legal challenge, which revolves around Panama’s liquefied natural gas (LNG)-to-power market, is connected with the cancellation of a license for a major gas-fired power generation project. According to Sinolam, a U.S. Federal District Court in Virginia remanded itslawsuitagainst AES Corporation, originally filed on December 19, 2025, in the Circuit Court for Arlington County, back to the Virginia state court on April 24th, granting the firm’s request over the other player’s objections. The Panamanian company claims to have successfully sought to argue the case in Virginia, where corporate entities are held highly accountable for ethical lapses. Sinolam is seeking more than $4 billion in the U.S. case. Sinolam LNG TerminalandSinolam Smarter Energy LNG Power Co., which are energy infrastructure developers focused on LNG-to-power solutions in emerging markets,welcomedthe $33.4 billion AES acquisition by the BlackRock-led consortium, as it could strengthen financing in the context of any future resolution of the litigation. This content is available after accepting the cookies. $33.4 billion acquisition of AES filling financial coffers for Panamanian firms’ $4B lawsuit As a result, the case will now move forward in Arlington County, where Sinolam highlights that key decisions were mostly orchestrated by AES management from the company’s global headquarters there. The Panamanian player alleges AES, along with partner InterEnergy Holdings, worked to exclude it from participating in Panama’s LNG-to-power market, pointing to alleged misuse of confidential information, interference with contracts, and intimidation tactics. The company emphasizes that it had already secured permits and commercial agreements for an LNG terminal and power project, but those plans could not progress due to“the unlawful actions of AES and InterEnergy, acting by themselves and through their joint venture, Group Energy.” Kenneth Zhang, Sinolam’s CEO, commented:“We are pleased with the decision to return this matter to Virginia state court and appreciate the clarity it brings to the path forward. Sinolam remains confident in the strength of our claims and is committed to pursuing them vigorously in the appropriate forum.” Take the spotlight and anchor your brand in the heart of the offshore world! Join us for a bigger impact and amplify your presence at the core hub of the offshore energy community!

With procurement activity and other pieces being put in place, West Natuna Exploration Limited (WNEL), a majority-owned subsidiary of Singapore-headquartered natural gas player Conrad Asia Energy, is setting the development stage to achieve the first gas production from its natural gas field next year in the West Natuna Sea off the coast of Indonesia, Southeast Asia. Followinga final investment decision (FID)in March 2026, West Natuna Exploration, as the operator of theDuyungproduction sharing contract (PSC) with a 76.5% stake, and its partners,Empyrean Energy( 8.5%) andCoro Energy(15%), set theMako gas projectdevelopment activities in motion with letters of award covering more than $280 million of capital contracts, constituting over 80% of the total capital costs. As a result, letters of award have been issued for the drilling rig, subsea, umbilicals, risers, flowlines (SURF), engineering, procurement, construction, and installation (EPCI), conductor support frame (CSF), EPCT, and all long lead items. The operator has confirmed that several milestone payments have already been made to the contractors, with costs remaining in line with previous guidance. The commercial development of the project in the Riau Islands Province of Indonesia will be done in cooperation with the Indonesian government, WNEL as operator, and PT Nations Natuna Barat (NNB), an entity under Arsari Group, which is expected to become the majority participating interest holder in the Duyung PSC, following a farm-out deal from November 2025. The Mako gas project will initially comprise six development wells tied back to a leased mobile offshore production unit (MOPU), with a design capacity of 172 mmscfd. The sales gas will be transported via an approximately 59-kilometer, 18-inch pipeline to theKF platformin the adjoining Kakap PSC, then through the WNTS pipeline for delivery to the Indonesian domestic market. The supply will be facilitated via a new spur pipeline from the WNTS to Pemping Island, Riau Province, which is being constructed by PLN EPE, a wholly owned subsidiary of PLN Persero. The gas allocation volumes and transportation tariffs within the WNTS have been agreed with SKK Migas and the WNTS joint venture. According to project partners, a formal gas transportation agreement is expected to be executed in the coming weeks. The total capital expenditure to first gas is estimated at $320 million. The Mako gas project is fully funded, including a substantial contingency, and remains on track for first gas in Q4 2027. This content is available after accepting the cookies. Full offtake from Conrad’s Indonesian gas field booked by local utility Under its agreement with Conrad, Empyrean is entitled to 8.5% of all cash payments to WNEL. Located approximately 100 kilometers to the north of Matak Island and 400 kilometers northeast of Batam, the Mako development is described to have a proven reservoir, infrastructure access, and a clear timeline. Gaz Bisht, Empyrean’s Interim CEO, commented:“Empyrean is pleased to note the rapid advancement in development activities at the Makogasfield, with significant procurement activity being undertaken during the March quarter, all fully funded under the previously announcedcarryloanagreement. “Importantly, first production from Mako remains on track to commence late next year, a landmark milestone for all parties involved.” Take the spotlight and anchor your brand in the heart of the offshore world! Join us for a bigger impact and amplify your presence at the core hub of the offshore energy community!

As Australia’s immediate fuel crunch eases aftersuccessful effortsto diversify supply, policymakers are turning their attention to dealing with the next energy security crisis. The question is, what would actually work? The Coalition this weekannounced a policyto double onshore reserves of liquid fuels to 60 days’ supply, or around 1 billion litres of petrol, diesel and aviation fuel. For its part, the Labor governmentis expectedto announce new energy security measures ahead of the budget. Last week, the government canvassed options to refine more fuels in Australia, whether by expanding capacity for the nation’s two remaining fuel refineries following a firethat damagedViva’s Geelong refinery earlier this month, reopening closed refineries, or evenbuilding a new one. Of these options, modestly boosting fuel storage is the only sensible one. The level would need careful calibration. But it cannot stand alone. The Coalition’s plan focuses only on getting back to “normal” – meaning dependent on overseas shipments of fossil fuels – and not on reducing demand through electrification and biofuels. Normal doesn’t exist any more. This year’s energy crisis is the second major disruption in the past five years and looks to befar worsethan the2022 crisis. Much coverage to date has focused on the gap between Australia’sdomestic requirements, known as Minimum Stockholding Obligations, for roughly 30 days of onshore stored fuel and90 daysof net oil imports required by the International Energy Agency through an agreement. This misses the point. At the turn of the century, domestic oil wells were still producing large volumes for the nation’s eight refineries to process. Because the IEA’s 90-day requirement is fornet importsand Australia was producing most of its own fuel, the nation did well by this metric. Since then, the oil riches of the Bass Strait have largely beenused up, and six refinerieshave closed. Oil from Western Australia’s North West Shelf is mostly exported to large refineries in Singapore and Malaysia, which are much closer than Australia’s east coast. Australia became dependent on imported fuel, meaning it needed much higher stocks to meet its IEA obligations. Criticisms of the current government and its predecessors over fuel reserves aren’t well grounded. The refineries and their storage tanks closed because there wasn’t enough domestic oil to process and they couldn’t compete with bigger producers overseas. Australia’s remaining refineries are only hanging on throughgovernment subsidies. Even so, it could be a smart move to further expand domestic fuel reserves, given how exposed we are to a long and increasingly unreliable supply chain. It will also take some years to shift to more secure alternatives. Diesel storage is particularly important. Australia usestwice as muchdiesel (roughly 90 million litres a day) as petrol (44 million) because long-distance trucks, mine sites and farmers all rely on this fuel. There has been an addition of 300 million litres of diesel storage in the last few years via government and industry co-funding. But doubling storage to 60 days based on current consumption, as the Coalition wants, is unlikely to be necessary. It would make no sense to spend billions building huge tanks when the goal has to be to progressively reduce how reliant we are on importing liquid fuels. Calls toreopen closed refineriesdon’t stack up, as Energy Minister Chris Bowen haspointed out. New South Wales’s Kurnell, South Australia’s Port Stanvac and Victoria’s Altona refineries have already been demolished and replaced with oil import terminals. The exception is Perth’s Kwinana refinery, which closed in 2021 and has being considered as a site to manufacture biofuels. There’s no point in expending the time and money on building new refineries if there’s no domestic crude oil to process. Australia’s proven supplies of crude oil are nowsix years awayfrom depletion. Potential new reserves such as the Taroom Trough in Queensland or WA’sDoradoare unproven. They will take a long time to confirm, would be expensive to extract, and may not produce the right type of crude oil to be converted into the most important fuel, diesel. A new refinery could import crude from overseas, but it would be competing with much larger regional refineries and we would still be reliant on overseas supplies. For these reasons – and more – expanding refinery capacity is unlikely to help. This year’s oil shock may have a long tail. The Strait of Hormuz is not open and damaged facilities will need to be repaired. It makes sense to accelerate the shift to electric transport and machinery wherever possible, rather than overbuilding fuel storage and see the tanks become stranded assets. What authorities must do is make a hard-nosed assessment of how much fuel storage we will actually need, paired with accelerated electrification targets. The great benefit of electrified transport is that the energy to run electric cars, buses, trucks and mine equipment can be made locally using renewables and storage, with backup gas plants. Every new EV cuts demand for petrol or diesel, freeing up scarce supplies for use in areas where electrification is presently harder. Electric cars are now approaching price parity with combustion engine vehicles. Electric buses and electric delivery vans are now common on city streets and the first electric prime moversare arriving. Rapid progress in battery technology means electric trucks are now viable for medium-distance routes such asSydney-Canberra. Longer routes will be harder. Here, biodiesel may have a role. Last year the federal governmentannounceda $1.1 billion plan for low-carbon liquid fuels such as biodiesel, made from fats such as tallow, vegetable oils or even algae. These alternative fuels havelong struggledwith scale and cost. But they may be worthwhile if it means long-distance trucks are able to run on locally-made, low-emissions fuel. For example, Indonesia isabout to shiftto a 50/50 mix of biodiesel and fossil diesel. A new efficiency scheme for commercial and heavy transport could drive the change, as the New Vehicle Efficiency Scheme is doing for cars and light commercial vehicles. So, there’s the plan: