SIBCON 2026: Hormuz Crisis Signals New Normal for Shipping

Disruption Becomes the Baseline

According to a report by Ship & Bunker, the keynote panel at SIBCON 2026 in Singapore discussed how the closure of the Strait of Hormuz at the end of February has evolved from an acute shock into a sustained condition of high prices and inconsistent fuel supply. Speakers said that, drawing on experience from IMO 2020, COVID, and the Russia-Ukraine war, the industry should expect further disruptions and stay prepared rather than treat the current situation as an isolated event.

The panel, moderated by Sarah Cottle of Dow Jones Energy and featuring representatives from the IMO, Stolt-Nielsen, TFG Marine, and NYK Line, was held under the Chatham House rule, so comments were not attributed to individuals.

Supply Over Price

Panelists noted that bunker procurement has shifted from being price-driven to supply-driven, with buyers now asking whether fuel is available at all rather than focusing solely on cost. At the onset of the crisis, roughly 15% of global liquid chemical flows reportedly stopped overnight, straining feedstock supplies for refiners and petrochemical producers across Asia Pacific.

Who Bears the Cost

The panel discussed how shipowners carry the first-order costs of operating in disrupted regions, including vessel damage liability, crew injury claims, higher insurance premiums, crew bonuses, and diversion expenses. Panelists argued that fuel suppliers should not be expected to absorb costs tied to safety or disruption, since they neither create nor manage that risk.

Seafarer Safety and Cyber Risk

Speakers highlighted that many seafarers remain in the Gulf region, and the conflict has caused what one panelist described as “far too many fatalities.” Rising tensions have also coincided with more cyberattacks on vessels, including spoofed communications between ships and shore offices, contributing to more dangerous operating conditions.

Digitalisation and Fuel Choices

Panelists pointed to digitalisation of bunkering operations, including replacing traditional tank dipping, as a way to speed up operations and potentially save three to five hours per port call. According to panelists, owners, suppliers, and banks have lost significant sums over the years due to disputes and irregularities in the bunkering market, and part of the resistance to digitalisation is that it would remove that element of the business; Singapore’s quality and quantity dispute rates were cited as notably lower than the global average.

Panelists said what owners want is clarity: with the EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime and national directives all in play, compliance rather than cost is the biggest headache.

On fuel transition, panelists noted that the money currently being made in the disrupted market could be reinvested in alternative fuels. When asked to choose a single fuel, two panelists named ammonia for the long term, while one named LNG for the short to medium term.

Apeks view — The throughline here is planning discipline, not forecasting the next flashpoint. Owners already absorb the first-order costs of disruption, so the practical lesson is building operational resilience into contracts, insurance, and crew welfare before the next shock, not after. Digitalising bunkering checks, replacing manual dipping with verifiable records, reduces one source of dispute and delay at a time when supply certainty matters more than price. None of this replaces judgment calls on routing, fuel choice, or risk exposure, but better evidence trails make those calls faster and more defensible.