Ship Universe is designed for maritime stakeholders: lower costs with data-backed decisions. Mobile-friendly but designed for desktop research. Data is fluid, verify critical details before acting.
Russia has tightened control of foreign ships calling at its ports, with new rules that require Federal Security Service (FSB) clearance for every arrival from a foreign port and allow for mandatory underwater hull inspections for explosives. The extra steps are already stretching port call timelines, particularly for tankers and bulkers in Russian trades, and add inspection fees, higher war risk costs, and more uncertainty around schedules and charterparty performance.
Click here for 30 second summary
FSB checks add time and cost to Russian port calls
Russia now routes foreign ship arrivals through Federal Security Service (FSB) vetting and allows mandatory underwater hull inspections. The result is slower port entry, more paperwork and inspection risk, and higher war and operational costs for tankers and bulkers using Russian ports.
New clearance layer: Foreign ships from overseas ports need FSB approval before they are worked into the movement plan, adding a separate security decision on top of normal port control.
Extra time at anchor: Clearance cycles can stretch toward two days and may be followed by underwater checks, which make ETAs, laycans and follow-on fixtures harder to plan.
Higher voyage cost: Diving services, extended port stays and firmer war risk premiums all feed into the cost base of Russian related voyages, particularly on short-haul trades.
Narrower pool of tonnage: The mix of delay, cost and security exposure reduces the number of owners willing to lift Russian cargoes, supporting freight on these routes but tightening capacity.
Bottom line: Russian calls now carry a built-in security and delay premium. For ships trading these routes, days on hire, insurance costs and fixture wording around waiting time become central to voyage economics and to how much capacity remains available to charterers.
FSB Clearance And Underwater Hull Checks: Russian Port Call Impact
Item
Summary
Business Mechanics
Bottom-Line Effect
FSB port entry clearance
All foreign flagged ships arriving from foreign ports now need formal entry approval from the FSB before they can be included in a Russian port movement plan.
Port captains must notify the FSB within one hour of receiving a call request and provide details of the vessel and its ten most recent ports, triggering a security vetting cycle before any berthing decision.
📉 More pre arrival paperwork and a longer pre clearance window raise the risk of waiting at anchor and schedule drift on Black Sea, Baltic and Far East rotations.
Decision timeline
FSB officials can take up to 48 hours to approve or deny entry, and P&I guidance suggests that the full administrative cycle can reach around 53 hours even before any underwater work starts.
Clearance now depends on security service timelines instead of only port authority procedures, and there is explicit scope for refusal even when no suspicious items are found.
📉 Longer and less predictable pre arrival windows raise days on hire and 📈 can support higher freight or stricter waiting and demurrage terms on Russian related business.
Underwater hull inspections
A separate decree requires port operators to inspect the underwater parts of foreign vessels for explosives or other suspicious devices, with scope for dives before or after entry clearance.
Ports must contract specialist diving services and can seek reimbursement from shipowners. Inspection timing is not fixed, and extra checks may be ordered if risk is considered elevated.
📉 Inspection fees and uncertain dive timing add direct cost and extra idle time at anchor, weighing on voyage economics.
Exposure by trade and segment
Tankers and bulk carriers lifting Russian energy and commodity exports in the Black Sea, Baltic and Arctic see the greatest exposure because of higher security sensitivity on those flows.
Repeated calls on Russian load ports now carry cumulative delay and inspection risk, which can influence charterers choice of tonnage and owners willingness to commit high specification ships.
📈 More conservative voyage planning and higher perceived risk can support freight on these trades, but 📉 also narrow the pool of owners prepared to lift Russian cargoes at given rate levels.
War risk and insurance costs
War risk premiums for Black Sea and Russian calls have already firmed after recent attacks on tankers, and the addition of FSB clearance and hull checks reinforces a higher risk profile.
Underwriters factor security procedures, proximity to conflict and potential retaliation into pricing. Longer stays at anchor and closer association with Russian ports can lift quoted additional premium.
📉 Higher insurance cost per voyage feeds into all in freight economics, particularly for short haul cargoes where fixed costs are a larger share of returns.
Voyage planning and contracts
Port calls now have an added clearance block that is hard to predict precisely, which complicates laycan planning, ETA promises and follow on employment.
Owners and charterers need to decide how FSB clearance time and any inspection periods are treated in laytime and demurrage calculations, and whether special clauses are required.
📉 Poorly defined responsibility for clearance and inspection time can increase disputes and legal cost on Russian voyages and may lead to a risk premium in fixtures.
Security backdrop
The new rules follow a series of attacks and bomb threats against tankers linked to Russian trade, including incidents at Ust Luga and off distant anchorages, which raised concern over limpet mines and underwater explosives.
Authorities are using FSB screening and hull checks as a visible response to these incidents, tying port access more closely to national security processes while attempting to reassure domestic terminals and state energy exporters.
📉 Operational burden and security risk management are pushed further onto foreign shipowners and their insurers, even as authorities seek to demonstrate stronger protection.
Outlook and adjustments
For now the rules apply broadly to foreign ships from overseas ports, with timing and inspection intensity likely to vary by region and risk level. There is no clear timeline for relaxation.
If security incidents persist, controls may remain tight or spread further, while any easing would probably come only after a sustained reduction in perceived threat.
📉 Higher friction and cost are the base case for Russian port calls, with any future shortening of delays or checks representing 📈 upside rather than the norm.
Notes: Summary reflects Russian government decrees effective late 2025 and related P&I circulars. Actual impact varies by port, ship type, trade lane and individual risk assessment.
How the new checks reshape a Russian port call
Entry approval now runs through security services, not only port control, and foreign ships can face both desk based vetting and underwater hull inspections. The result is a slower, more paperwork heavy call profile that feeds into fleet availability and risk pricing on Russian linked trades.
Scope: foreign arrivals from overseas ports
Extra time: clearance cycle up to about two days
Key trades: Black Sea, Baltic, Arctic energy and bulk
Cost drivers: war risk cover, dives, waiting time
Where the checks support earnings
Where the checks weigh on operations
Added clearance time and dives keep some ships tied up longer on each voyage.
Higher war risk and operating costs justify stronger returns for owners who stay in the trade.
Perceived security risk reduces the pool of willing tonnage, which can firm rates on key routes.
Schedules become harder to keep when clearance decisions and dive timing are uncertain.
Extra steps increase dispute risk around laytime, demurrage and off hire treatment.
Operational focus shifts from cargo handling to managing security formalities and inspections.
Friction scorecard for a typical Russian call
Clearance paperwork and background checks
High
Underwater inspection requirements
Elevated
Impact on insurance and war risk pricing
Significant
Effect on global tanker and bulker balance
Local for now
Levels are indicative and show how the rules translate into everyday friction rather than precise numerical scores.
Stakeholder
What changes in practice
P&L angle
Shipowners lifting Russian cargoes
Port calls carry more formal security steps, longer port windows and a bigger focus on documentation.
Higher earning potential on routes where fewer ships are willing to participate, offset by extra cost and time risk.
Charterers and traders
Voyage planning must absorb clearance blocks and possible inspection delays on Russian calls.
Greater chance of knock on costs from waiting time, missed slots and higher freight on sensitive routes.
Ports and service providers
Increased role in coordinating with security services and managing diving capacity and schedules.
New revenue from inspection related work, but also higher complexity in berth and resource planning.
The new security procedures leave Russian related tanker and bulker trades with a higher baseline of friction, cost and timing risk, while also narrowing the pool of vessels prepared to call. For the moment the effect is concentrated on routes tied to Russian exports in the Black Sea, Baltic and Arctic, but any shift in enforcement intensity or copycat measures elsewhere would broaden the impact on global capacity and pricing.
