We have become habituated over the course of the 21st century to bulk carrier freight markets being dependent on China. So the big event of the last month should have been the National People’s Congress in Beijing held earlier in March, plus the publication of the 15th Five-Year Plan. The NPC focused on reviving the slowing economy, boosting domestic consumption, and strengthening technological innovation in the face of international pressures. It did little to support China’s steel industry, which has been forced to cut production for each of the last three years. Support for industry focused on hi-tech, AI, robotics, biomedical and electric-power. China presented itself as a beacon of stability and a dependable trading partner. The bulk carrier trades could infer that they have little to fear from the Middle Kingdom. Meanwhile, 2026 had started very much in owners’ favour with the Baltic Dry Index averaging 1,777 points in January, its highest since 3,168 points in January 2010 and 2,041 points in February, the highest since 2,678 points, also in 2010. The omens for March were good. Demand in the Atlantic was brisk based on increased industrial activity in the US and Europe, along with steady positive export demand expectations from South America. Iron ore prices were relatively stable in Asia, giving China’s buyers a steady runway for imports. However, the BDI in March to date has averaged 2,064. While this is better than the 1,532 recorded for March last year, it lags the March averages for 2022 and 2024. Some of the vim has been lost as charterers appear to be cutting enquiry. The search for a scapegoat has alighted on bunker prices which are driving up costs for shipowners and thus pushing up the cost of freight for charterers. The war in the Middle East is reducing fuel oil supplies and has increased the price of LSFO at Singapore from around $470 per tonne at the end of February to around $925 per tonne by March 20. As early as March 3, brokers were citing rising bunker prices were the main factor in pushing up TCEs for most sizes of bulk carrier. The spread between HSFO and LSFO was $55 for physical delivery in Singapore on March 3, and by March 20 the spread was a whopping $159 per tonne as LSFO was $925 and HSF $766 per tonne. Bulk carrier owners with scrubbers onboard their ships have reason to feeling smug on pricing, though they face the same predicament as buyers of LSFO: will global fuel oil supplies be enough to maintain operations? The fuel price conundrum can be seen in the freight market. For instance, on the Australia to China iron ore voyage, per tonne freight was $9.37 on February 20 and increased to a peak of $13.48 on March 16 before slipping back to $11.71 on March 20. But plug these data and fuel prices into a voyage calculator and the TCE of around $24,850 per day on February 20 becomes $35,653 on March 16, as LSFO had doubled. On March 20 with freight of $11.71 and LSFO rated at $925 in Singapore, the TCE was back to $25,387. One might say that charterers were taking a cautious approach to try to keep freight rates down as fuel prices and availability went in opposing directions. In the Atlantic, C3 freight prices from Brazil to China continued at a steady upward rise from $23.86 on February 20 to $30.73 per tonne on March 19, slipping a few cents to $30.65 on March 20. Perhaps charterers felt less exposed to Singapore fuel prices, rightly or wrongly. Throughout March, bunker availability concerns have affec