Shippers could have reduced fuel surcharge costs by as much as US$ 475 per TEU on cargo moving between the Far East and the US West Coast, according to a case study from maritime analytics company VesselBot, which argues that bunker price movements alone do not accurately capture the fuel cost of transporting containers.
The study compared published bunker-related surcharges from Maersk and CMA CGM with VesselBot’s Fuel Surcharge Reference Cost for April and May 2026. While the carriers published combined BAF and EFS charges of US$ 605 per TEU and US$ 710 per TEU respectively, VesselBot calculated reference fuel costs of US$ 295 per TEU in April and US$ 235 per TEU in May.
Based on those figures, the analysis identified potential savings of between US$ 310 and US$ 415 per TEU in April, rising to between US$ 370 and US$ 475 per TEU in May. For a shipper moving 1,000 TEU, that equates to possible savings ranging from US$ 680,000 to US$ 890,000 across the two months.
VesselBot said the difference stems from the way many fuel surcharge mechanisms are calculated. While bunker prices climbed more than 50% between January and May, the company’s analysis found that actual fuel cost per TEU also varies with vessel consumption, routing, sailing distance, utilisation and operational execution.
The report argues that this distinction matters as shipowners continue investing in fuel efficiency and voyage optimisation to reduce operating costs and emissions. If vessels consume less fuel through improved operations, bunker surcharges linked solely to fuel price indices may not capture those operational gains.
According to VesselBot, “A bunker index explains part of the cost fluctuation, but it does not prove that a surcharge reflects the actual fuel cost per TEU carried.” The company added that “independent fuel cost benchmarking is no longer just a procurement best practice. It is a necessary step toward controlling spend and preventing avoidable cost leakage.”
