HomeMaritime BudgetsFrom Carbon to Chokepoints. Here are 17 Hidden Costs Shipowners are Mispricing in 2026 Budgets

From Carbon to Chokepoints. Here are 17 Hidden Costs Shipowners are Mispricing in 2026 Budgets

December 8, 2025

📊 Subscribe to the Ship Universe Weekly Newsletter

Most 2026 fleet budgets are built around fuel curves, TCE targets and OPEX lines that feel familiar, while the real risk sits in a new layer of carbon costs, chokepoint detours and compliance traps that do not show up clearly on last year’s spreadsheet. This report pulls those hidden levers into the light so shipowners, boards and lenders can see where the money really leaks out when EU ETS, FuelEU and chokepoint routing collide with old budgeting habits.

⏱️ 2 minute summary: 17 hidden cost levers A quick map of where budgets quietly misprice carbon, chokepoints, crewing, vendors and digital tools.
▼
# Cost lever Budget blind spot 2026 earnings effect Metric to watch
1 EU ETS exposure by trade lane and charterparty Single fleetwide ETS estimate that ignores where ships actually trade and who pays under each charter. Wrong ETS split between owner and charterer plus surprise cash calls when EU trades grow. ETS cost per voyage by lane and CP clause.
2 FuelEU Maritime penalties and non compliance Treating FuelEU as a future issue instead of pricing likely non compliance and credit needs now. Penalty and certificate costs that erode margins on specific trades and ship types. Expected FuelEU penalty per ship per year.
3 Carbon opportunity cost of slow or no retrofits Capex is visible, but higher fuel and carbon bills from delayed upgrades are not priced. Lost spread between retrofit case and status quo on fuel, ETS and premium employment. Fuel and ETS delta per ship with and without upgrade.
4 CII downgrades that shrink charterer pool CII spreadsheet shows letters, not lost access to charterers and trades as ratings fall. Lower utilisation and weaker rates when ships drop out of preferred pools or vetting lists. Share of days fixed with top charterers by CII band.
5 Red Sea, Suez and Cape detour routing Base plan assumes normal Suez routes and treats Cape detours as rare exceptions. Higher days, fuel, war risk and fewer voyages per year when detours become semi permanent. Extra cost per year if a route stays on Cape instead of Suez.
6 Panama Canal draft limits and water charges Historic average tolls are used while drought driven draft, slots and auction costs are ignored. Higher canal and auction fees plus lost revenue from sailing under optimal intake. Extra cost per transit in restricted and severe scenarios.
7 Canal tolls tied to emissions and green scores Static toll numbers ignore surcharges or discounts linked to ratings or fuel profile. Penalty for poor ratings or missed savings from qualifying for lower toll bands. Toll impact per transit by rating tier.
8 Port time and hours at anchor Waiting is treated as part of the voyage instead of a targetable cost line. Extra fuel, carbon and lost trading days from slow ports and weak berth management. Average waiting hours per call by port and agent.
9 DA spread and port agency drift One “typical DA” hides big spreads between agents and unnegotiated service items. Thousands to millions left on the table in above benchmark DAs each year. DA gap between best quartile and actual per port.
10 Drydock scope creep and lost opportunity days Budget tracks yard quote, not extra off hire days and added yard priced tasks. Missed earnings from staying in dock while the market pays well on the water. Days of overrun versus plan in the last dockings.
11 Insurance deductibles, exclusions and under used cover Premiums are counted but expected deductible and uninsured loss spend is not. Higher net loss per incident and dead premium on covers that no longer fit. Deductible and uninsured loss budget per year.
12 Cyber incidents hidden as IT spend Licences and hardware are priced, but serious incident scenarios are not costed. Off hire, delay and response costs that could have funded basic hardening and drills. Expected cost per serious cyber incident over 10 years.
13 AIS and sanctions missteps that raise financing cost Compliance is seen as overhead rather than protection of debt and insurance pricing. Margin step ups and reduced bank appetite after a few negative compliance events. Extra interest if margins rise by a set basis point step.
14 Connectivity and SaaS sprawl at fleet level Subscriptions sit in many cost centres and are never totalled or rationalised. Large recurring spend on overlapping tools and unused modules for limited decisions. Total satcom plus SaaS spend per vessel per month.
15 Vendor lock in on coatings, hull cleaning and lubes Long running supplier deals are rarely re tested against market levels or performance. Paying above market rates or accepting weaker performance year after year. Estimated saving from re tendering main coating and lube panels.
16 Crew turnover and training hidden in manning Churn related fuel, incident and efficiency costs are not separated from manning OPEX. Higher risk and consumption plus weaker compliance when key ranks rotate too fast. Total cost per crew replacement including fuel and delay effect.
17 Carbon data quality and spreadsheet time Manual reconciliation for EU ETS, CII and client reports is treated as free staff time. Full time equivalents tied up cleaning data that better systems could handle. Estimated annual cost of carbon and emissions spreadsheets.
1
EU ETS allowances that ignore real trading patterns The carbon line item that jumps when routes and charters shift.
▼
Essence: Most budgets use “EU ETS = price × tonnes” for the whole fleet. The real bill depends on which ships trade in and out of EU ports, how often, and who actually pays under each charter.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Using one fleet wide ETS rate instead of separate EU heavy and non EU trade views.
  • Ignoring who carries ETS cost under different charterparty clauses.
  • Not updating the estimate when cargo mix or routing changes during the year.
What decision makers actually need
  • ETS cost per day for a typical EU intensive loop versus a non EU loop.
  • A split of ETS cost by ship type and main charterer group.
  • A map of which fixtures allow ETS pass through and which leave the owner holding the bill.
Quick ETS cost check for one ship Illustration only – use your own data.
Approximate ETS bill for this ship: €800,000

Once this shows as a separate carbon line in the budget, it is much easier to argue for routing, speed and charter changes that reduce it.

2
FuelEU intensity gaps that trigger surprise penalties When “normal” fuel plans do not match EU greenhouse targets.
▼
Essence: FuelEU Maritime makes ships calling EU ports hit a tightening greenhouse intensity target. If fuel plans stay “business as usual,” owners can end up buying costly low carbon blends or paying penalties that were never clearly separated in the budget.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Treating FuelEU as a future topic while the first compliance years are already inside the budget horizon.
  • Assuming existing VLSFO or LNG usage will meet the intensity target for all EU related voyages.
  • Leaving the choice of compliant fuels to ad hoc bunker decisions instead of a fleet level plan.
What decision makers actually need
  • A shortlist of ships and routes most exposed to FuelEU based on EU port calls.
  • An estimate of the greenhouse intensity gap for those trades versus the target line.
  • Side by side numbers for “pay for compliant fuel” versus “pay the penalty” scenarios.
Quick FuelEU extra cost check Rough view for one trade or ship.
Extra FuelEU related cost: €500,000 per year

This number should sit on its own line in the budget and be linked directly to fuel strategy and route planning, not buried inside general bunker OPEX.

3
Carbon opportunity cost of slow or no retrofits When “saving capex” locks in higher fuel, carbon and weaker charter demand.
▼
Essence: Delaying energy efficiency retrofits on props, ducts, hull and routing looks like saving capex, but it means higher fuel bills, rising EU ETS costs, weaker CII ratings and fewer premium charter options over several years. That cumulative hit rarely shows clearly in the annual budget.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Looking at retrofit capex as a one year hit without adding up multi year fuel and carbon savings.
  • Running payback at low time charter rates that ignore upside markets where better ships earn more.
  • Not pricing the value of staying in the “A to C” CII band that some charterers now require.
What decision makers actually need
  • Fuel plus ETS cost per day before and after retrofit on representative routes.
  • A simple payback and internal rate of return range at both low and strong market earnings.
  • A view of which charterers pay a premium or require higher ratings for more efficient ships.
Quick retrofit payback check Simple view for one vessel.
Simple payback period: 5.6 years (annual saving about $720,000).

This is the gap that disappears when retrofits are treated only as a capex number instead of a multi year fuel, carbon and charter earnings decision.

4
CII downgrades that quietly shrink your charterer pool When slipping from C to D costs more in earnings than in any “CII line item”.
▼
Essence: Falling from C to D on CII often means more forced slow steaming, higher fuel per unit of cargo and some charterers quietly dropping the vessel from their vetting list. The real cost shows up as lower TCE and fewer period options, not just in a small “CII adjustment” cell in a spreadsheet.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Seeing CII only as a compliance rating with minor technical correction costs.
  • Not valuing the loss of access to charterers that insist on “A to C only” tonnage.
  • Ignoring how slow steaming to protect ratings reduces available days and tonne miles.
What decision makers actually need
  • An estimated daily TCE gap between “good” and “poor” rated ships on main routes.
  • A simple count of key charterers that will not take D or E rated vessels at all.
  • A view of how much extra slow steaming time is required to hold the line on ratings.
Quick CII downgrade earnings check Estimate lost earnings from one rating step.
Approximate lost earnings: about $625,000 per year, or $1,875,000 over 3 years.

This makes the CII decision visible in hard dollars, which is more useful for boards than a rating letter alone.

5
Red Sea, Suez and Cape detour ‘Plan B’ that is not fully priced When emergency routing becomes the new normal but stays off the budget sheet.
▼
Essence: Owners often budget on normal Suez routes and treat Red Sea attacks or closures as rare events. In practice, multi month diversions via the Cape add recurring days, fuel, war risk and security costs that belong in a separate line of the 2026 budget, not as a one off exception.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Keeping a single voyage model through Suez and ignoring a Cape detour case in the core budget.
  • Treating extra war risk, security, and longer hire as purely recoverable from charterers.
  • Not pricing the effect of longer round voyages on fleet wide capacity and charter coverage.
What decision makers actually need
  • Extra days and extra fuel per voyage when routing via the Cape instead of Suez by ship type.
  • Annual cost of Cape routing if it persists for a quarter, half year, or full year.
  • A view of how many ships are effectively tied up by longer routes compared with a normal year.
Quick Cape detour cost check One route pattern, one year.
Extra routing cost via Cape: about $3,600,000 per year on this pattern.

This should be part of a named chokepoint and security line in the budget, not absorbed quietly into a generic bunker or hire variance.

6
Panama Canal draft restrictions and water charges When a routine canal turns into a climate chokepoint with real budget impact.
▼
Essence: Drought driven draft limits and slot constraints have shown that Panama can shift from routine to chokepoint quickly. Underpricing the cost of priority slots, cargo lightening or routing around the canal means fixture results look fine on paper but underperform once real canal conditions bite.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Using historic average tolls and assuming full draft and normal slot availability.
  • Not separating the cost of auctions or priority bookings from standard canal fees.
  • Ignoring the revenue impact of sailing under optimal intake to meet draft limits.
What decision makers actually need
  • Scenario cases for normal, restricted and severe draft with matching toll and waiting time assumptions.
  • Expected cost of priority slots compared with the cost of waiting or rerouting.
  • A view of lost revenue per voyage when intake is reduced to meet lower canal drafts.
Quick Panama disruption cost check One trade, one year.
Combined disruption impact: about $2,800,000 per year on this trade.

Once these amounts sit in a named Panama scenario line, it is easier to explain why some fixtures or route choices look weaker than historic averages.

7
Canal tolls linked to emissions and ‘green scores’ When static toll assumptions hide both penalties and discounts.
▼
Essence: Some canals and ports now link tolls and port dues to emissions profiles or “green” ratings. Owners who assume static toll structures can miss both extra charges and meaningful discounts if fleet efficiency and documentation are not actively managed.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Using a single toll number per canal or port without any link to emissions or rating tiers.
  • Ignoring that eco designs or efficiency upgrades may qualify for discounts in some schemes.
  • Not tracking which ships would fall into higher fee bands if thresholds tighten further.
What decision makers actually need
  • A map of canals and ports that already use, or plan to use, emissions based tolls or dues.
  • Estimated surcharge or discount per transit for current fleet performance and for an improved case.
  • A link between “green score” changes and the payback of retrofit or newbuild efficiency choices.
Quick ‘green toll’ impact check One canal / port, one year.
Estimated discount: about $150,000 per year on this route.

Building this into the budget makes it easier to show that better ratings are not just reputational – they have a hard dollar canal and port effect.

8
Port time: hours at anchor that nobody owns in the budget When “just waiting” becomes one of the biggest hidden costs in the fleet.
▼
Essence: Waiting time is often treated as “part of the voyage,” but every extra day at anchor blows up fuel, carbon and off hire exposure. Few budgets put a number on reducing average port turnaround by even half a day per call, even though that can be worth hundreds of thousands per year across a fleet.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Lumping port waiting, shifting and delays into generic voyage variance notes.
  • Not tracking average hours at anchor by port, agent and cargo type.
  • Ignoring the opportunity cost of ships stuck outside congested or slow ports.
What decision makers actually need
  • Average waiting hours per call, with a simple “what if we cut this by 6–12 hours” view.
  • Daily cost per ship including fuel, carbon and hire while at anchor or drifting.
  • A ranked list of ports and agents where small process changes could free up the most days.
Quick port waiting cost check One fleet wide improvement scenario.
Value of saved port time: about $4,500,000 per year (100.0 ship days).

Once this shows as a line in the budget, port process and agency choices stop being soft topics and become hard savings targets.

9
DA spread and ‘port agency drift’ When agent variance quietly eats into every port call.
▼
Essence: Different agents can quote the same port with a wide spread on tugs, launches and “miscellaneous” fees. Most OPEX budgets accept a single average DA number per port without measuring how much is lost to agency variance and weak port procurement control.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Using one “typical DA” per port and never revisiting it against real invoices.
  • Allowing each vessel or operator to pick agents without a benchmark or panel.
  • Leaving tug, launch and husbandry items unbundled and unnegotiated for years.
What decision makers actually need
  • A DA benchmark per port based on best quartile agent performance, not the average.
  • A simple view of how much is lost annually to “above benchmark” agent choices.
  • A list of ports where retendering or consolidating agents would save the most.
Quick DA leakage check Compare benchmark DA to what you actually pay.
Approximate DA leakage: about $2,700,000 per year across these ports.

Once this number has its own line, it becomes easier to argue for agent panels, retenders and tighter DA controls instead of accepting “this is just what the port costs.”

10
Drydock scope creep and lost opportunity days When “a few extra days” off hire cost more than the yard invoice suggests.
▼
Essence: The yard quote rarely captures the real cost of weak worklist discipline: extra off hire days, last minute items added at yard prices and follow up repairs. Budget lines often focus on the final invoice number but underweight the opportunity cost of each extra day off hire in a strong market.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Budgeting only for quoted yard days and direct repair costs.
  • Ignoring unplanned scope creep that extends stays and adds yard priced extras.
  • Not valuing the lost earnings from missing strong spot or period opportunities.
What decision makers actually need
  • An expected range of yard overrun days based on past dockings by ship type and yard.
  • Daily earnings (or cost of capital) for each extra day off hire in current market conditions.
  • A view of which tasks should be done alongside or deferred instead of added in dock.
Quick drydock overrun cost check One docking, simple upside / downside view.
Extra off hire: 5 days (~$275,000 in lost opportunity this docking).

Showing this number alongside the yard invoice helps senior teams see why tight worklists and good planning matter as much as day rate negotiations.

11
Insurance deductibles, exclusions and under used cover When the real risk cost sits outside the premium line.
▼
Essence: Premiums make it into the budget, but the cost of high deductibles, uncovered cyber or war risks and slow, weakly documented claims often does not. At the same time, fleets may pay for covers they rarely use because nobody audits whether the programme still fits trading patterns and risk appetite.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Pricing only the premium line and not the expected deductible spend from routine claims.
  • Leaving cyber, war and delay exposures underinsured or excluded without a costed back up plan.
  • Keeping legacy covers that are rarely used or duplicated by other policies or contracts.
What decision makers actually need
  • An expected deductible and uninsured loss budget per policy, not only premium by line.
  • A clear map of exclusions against real cyber, war and delay scenarios for the fleet.
  • A review of under used covers with a simple keep, redesign or remove decision per product.
Quick insurance “hidden cost” check One simple view for deductibles and dormant cover.
Estimated hidden insurance cost: about $900,000 per year (deductibles about $600,000, under used cover about $300,000).

Putting this number next to the premium line helps boards see why programme design, claims discipline and cover audits matter as much as premium negotiations.

12
Cyber incidents that only show up as ‘IT spend’ When “just IT” masks off hire, delay and reputational damage.
▼
Essence: The budget often sees “IT and cyber” as overhead. What is missing is the cost of a real cyber event: off hire, delays, incident response, ransom handling and reputational damage with charterers, ports and banks. Underinvesting in hardening, crew training and incident playbooks is a classic mispricing.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Budgeting for licences and hardware but not for the impact of a serious cyber incident.
  • Relying on generic corporate policies that do not reflect vessel and port side realities.
  • Assuming incidents will be covered by insurance without checking limits and conditions.
What decision makers actually need
  • A realistic incident scenario for one ship and for shore systems, with costed impacts.
  • A comparison of those impacts with current cyber budget and insurance limits.
  • A clear list of minimum hardening, backup and drill measures to be funded in 2026.
Quick cyber incident cost check One fleet level expectation view.
Approximate cost per serious incident: about $1,100,000. Ten year expectation on these inputs: about $2,200,000 total, or ~$220,000 per year.

This turns cyber from a pure “IT spend” discussion into a risk and earnings topic that can be compared directly with training, hardening and insurance options.

13
AIS / sanctions missteps that raise financing costs When weak screening shows up later as a higher cost of capital.
▼
Essence: Weak screening of cargoes, ports and counterparties can trigger sanctions and compliance concerns. Even without headline fines, it can raise debt margins, tighten banking appetite and increase insurance scrutiny. That financing drag is rarely traced back to the ESG and compliance budget.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Seeing sanctions and AIS monitoring as pure compliance overhead, not as protection of funding cost.
  • Underfunding tools and staff for screening complex trades or higher risk regions.
  • Ignoring how one or two negative compliance events can change lender and insurer pricing.
What decision makers actually need
  • A view of total debt and insurance exposure that is sensitive to perceived sanctions risk.
  • Scenario cases for a small, medium and serious compliance incident and how margins might move.
  • A costed plan for screening tools, training and audits that is cheaper than a margin step up.
Quick “sanctions risk” financing impact check One basis point change across your debt.
Extra annual interest cost from margin step up: about $1,250,000 per year.

Putting this number next to the AIS, screening and legal spend turns “compliance cost” into a direct financing trade off instead of a soft discussion.

14
Connectivity and SaaS sprawl at fleet level When “just a few subscriptions” turns into a quiet fleet wide tax.
▼
Essence: Satcom plans, routing tools, performance platforms and other SaaS products often grow one small subscription at a time. The real cost of overlapping tools, unused modules and per vessel data charges is rarely rolled up and compared with the actual decisions and savings they support.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Booking connectivity and SaaS under several small cost centres instead of one fleet wide view.
  • Allowing overlapping tools for weather, performance or reporting without rationalising them.
  • Not tracking which modules crews actually use and which sit idle after rollout.
What decision makers actually need
  • One inventory of all satcom, SaaS and data contracts by ship, function and owner.
  • Total monthly cost per vessel and per function, with overlap flagged clearly.
  • A shortlist of tools to consolidate, renegotiate or remove, with estimated savings.
Quick connectivity and SaaS roll up Simple fleet level sanity check.
Total connectivity and SaaS spend: about $5,760,000 per year (about $6,000 per vessel per month).

With this number visible, it becomes easier to justify vendor consolidation, usage audits and sharper negotiations instead of accepting quiet sprawl across the fleet.

15
Vendor lock in on coatings, hull cleaning and lube oil When “set and forget” supplier panels turn into a long term cost premium.
▼
Essence: Many owners lock into one network for hull cleaning, lubes or coatings and then leave it untouched for years. Without re tendering or measuring performance, the fleet can sit on old rates or accept weaker results while large spend buckets roll on automatically in the background.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Rolling coatings, hull cleaning and lube contracts forward without a fresh market check.
  • Not linking supplier choice to real fuel performance, off hire or warranty outcomes.
  • Letting local one off choices override global volume and bundle opportunities.
What decision makers actually need
  • Total annual spend by category and key vendor, not just per vessel invoices.
  • A view of potential savings from re tendering or rebundling at current market levels.
  • Performance data that shows which vendors actually support lower fuel and downtime.
Quick vendor lock in premium check One combined view for coatings, hull cleaning and lubes.
Estimated vendor lock in premium: about $640,000 per year at current volumes.

Showing this as one number helps justify structured tenders, performance clauses and periodic vendor rotation instead of leaving these costs on autopilot.

16
Crew turnover and training that only shows as ‘manning’ When churn and weak handovers raise fuel, risk and stress across the fleet.
▼
Essence: Manning lines usually include recruitment, training and relief flights, but they rarely capture the extra fuel, incidents and lost efficiency that come with high crew turnover and weak handovers. Under funded training for digital tools and new rules multiplies this cost quietly over time.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Budgeting for manning cost per day but not for churn related fuel and reliability losses.
  • Underestimating the time new officers need to use digital systems and comply with new regimes.
  • Treating handover time and overlap as a pure cost instead of a risk control measure.
What decision makers actually need
  • Turnover rates by rank and ship type, and the cost of each replacement cycle.
  • An estimate of fuel and delay impact when key roles change frequently.
  • A budget line for planned overlap, simulator time and digital tool training by rank.
Quick crew churn cost check Combine direct replacement and efficiency loss.
Estimated annual crew churn cost: about $1,600,000 (direct replacement about $960,000, efficiency losses about $640,000).

When this number is visible, it is much easier to argue for retention measures, better handovers and structured training instead of cutting manning related lines blindly.

17
Carbon data quality and ‘spreadsheet time’ When weak reporting data quietly builds a full time back office cost.
▼
Essence: Poor noon reports and fragmented systems push staff into manual reconciliation for EU ETS, CII and customer reporting. The salary and opportunity cost of this “spreadsheet army” almost never appears as its own line, even though better data quality and basic integration could cut it sharply.
Where 2026 budgets go wrong
  • Accepting manual EU ETS and CII reconciliation as “normal” compliance work.
  • Running separate spreadsheets for charterers, regulators and internal reporting.
  • Not measuring how much skilled staff time is consumed by cleaning basic data.
What decision makers actually need
  • Estimated full time equivalent staff effort spent on carbon and emissions spreadsheets.
  • A comparison of that cost with basic system fixes, integration or structured noon report upgrades.
  • A simple list of the three biggest manual data pain points to prioritise in 2026.
Quick “spreadsheet time” cost check One way to price your internal carbon admin load.
Estimated annual cost of carbon spreadsheets: about $238,680 per year (roughly 1.4 full time equivalents).

Once this appears as a line beside system and process investments, it becomes easier to fund better data quality and integration instead of hiring another person to reconcile reports by hand.

We welcome your feedback, suggestions, corrections, and ideas for enhancements. Please click here to get in touch.
By the ShipUniverse Editorial Team — About Us | Contact


Related Posts