Performance Shipping Inc. (PSHG): PESTLE Analysis [Nov-2025 Updated]

Performance Shipping Inc. (PSHG) is navigating a 2025 market defined by exceptional day rates-Aframax vessels are averaging around $45,000 in Q4-but this profitability is defintely under threat from two major forces: escalating geopolitical risks keeping shipping lanes volatile, and the immediate, non-negotiable cost of new environmental regulations like the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), which is set to raise operating costs by an estimated 10%. You need to understand how these external Political, Economic, and Legal shifts map directly to your bottom line, so let's cut straight to the PESTLE analysis.

Performance Shipping Inc. (PSHG) - PESTLE Analysis: Political factors

You're looking at the tanker market as a seasoned investor, and honestly, the political risk isn't just a background factor anymore; it's the main driver of your freight rates and asset values. For Performance Shipping Inc., the current geopolitical climate-from the Red Sea to US-China tariffs-is creating a structural supply squeeze that supports their higher-margin time charter strategy, but it also elevates their operational risk profile.

The core takeaway is that global political instability is effectively removing a significant chunk of the world's tanker capacity from the conventional market, which is a net positive for compliant operators like Performance Shipping Inc. in the near term, but you must factor in the volatility.

Geopolitical conflicts keep Suez/Panama Canal transit risks high

The instability in key chokepoints is the single biggest political factor affecting global shipping capacity right now. Ongoing conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, have turned the Red Sea and the Suez Canal into high-risk zones. This forces vessels to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope, which is a massive logistical change.

This rerouting adds an average of 4,000-6,000 miles to Asia-Europe voyages and increases transit times by 30-50%. For Performance Shipping Inc.'s fleet, this extends the effective voyage length, soaking up available vessel supply and tightening the market. The Suez Canal's traffic collapsed in 2025, with transits dipping below 100 in May 2025, a stark indicator of this shift. Plus, war risk insurance premiums for the remaining vessels that brave the area have skyrocketed from a typical 0.07% to as high as 2% of a ship's value, which is a cost you either absorb or pass on.

Meanwhile, the Panama Canal, while seeing traffic rise by 10.2% in mid-2025 as a partial alternative, still faces limitations due to drought conditions, keeping the two most critical global maritime shortcuts highly unreliable.

US/China trade tensions affect global oil demand and shipping patterns

The escalating trade conflict between the US and China is directly reshaping the tanker market by creating segmented, less efficient trade routes. In October 2025, the US implemented port tariffs on Chinese-owned or operated vessels, starting with an initial tariff of $50 per net ton per port call. China quickly retaliated, imposing port fees of $56 per ton on US-linked vessels, effective October 14, 2025. This tit-for-tat dynamic forces shipowners and charterers to avoid certain tonnage for specific routes, fragmenting the global fleet.

This policy volatility is driving up freight rates on key routes. For example, Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) rates on the Middle East-to-China route hit $100,000 per day in September 2025, the highest in nearly three years. Honestly, this uncertainty is why new investment is slowing: newbuilding orders for tankers were down a sharp 74% year-on-year in the first half of 2025, signaling a future supply constraint that will benefit existing, compliant tonnage like Performance Shipping Inc.'s fleet.

Sanctions enforcement creates complex, high-premium shipping routes

The enforcement of sanctions against Russia, Iran, and Venezuela is getting more aggressive, creating complex, high-premium shipping routes for compliant operators. By the third quarter of 2025, global regulators had blacklisted over 1,000 vessels linked to sanctions evasion, expanding their focus beyond just the ships to include flag registries and financial enablers. For instance, the EU and UK jointly lowered the G7 oil price cap on Russian crude by 15% in September 2025 to increase pressure.

This increased enforcement is a double-edged sword: it raises compliance costs and the risk of accidental sanctions breaches, but it also creates a premium for legitimate, well-insured vessels. The tightening supply of compliant vessels has caused one-year Time Charter (TC) rates for VLCCs to rise by roughly 30% over a recent period, reaching around $53,666 per day.

Increased scrutiny on 'dark fleet' operations stabilizes legitimate charter rates

The 'dark fleet'-tankers operating outside traditional insurance and classification frameworks to carry sanctioned oil-is a major geopolitical factor. By September 2025, this fleet had swelled to 978 oil tankers, representing about 18.5% of the global market capacity, or 127 million deadweight tons (dwt). This migration of vessels into the 'shadow' market is an unintended consequence of sanctions.

Here's the quick math: when nearly one-fifth of the global tanker capacity is effectively removed from the conventional market due to sanctions and compliance risk, the supply for legitimate charterers tightens dramatically. This structural tightness directly supports the elevated charter rates that Performance Shipping Inc. is capitalizing on. Their strategic move to acquire two Suezmax tankers at $75.4 million each, secured with three-year charters at $36,500/day, shows they are betting on this geopolitical supply constraint to persist.

The scrutiny is intensifying, with 'Tier 3' vessels-ships with legitimate owners engaging in risky activities like Russian port calls-surging by 164% in 2025, signaling that the compliance line is getting much harder to walk.

Your next step should be to:

• Investment Team: Model the sensitivity of Performance Shipping Inc.'s cash flow to a 10% change in the Suez Canal rerouting premium by next Tuesday.

Performance Shipping Inc. (PSHG) - PESTLE Analysis: Economic factors

Global Oil Demand Growth Projected at 1.5 Million Barrels/Day for 2025

The core economic driver for Performance Shipping Inc. is the demand for crude and refined oil products, which dictates the volume of cargo for its tanker fleet. While the initial projection of 1.5 million barrels per day (b/d) growth for 2025 was ambitious, the consensus view as of late 2025 is more tempered, yet still positive for the tanker market. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects world oil demand growth at approximately 790 kb/d (thousand barrels per day) year-on-year for 2025.

For a slightly higher estimate, investment bank JP Morgan anticipates demand will increase by approximately 0.9 million barrels per day in 2025. This growth is critical, but the real boost for tanker demand, known as tonne-mile demand, comes from geopolitical disruptions forcing longer voyages, such as diversions around the Cape of Good Hope and new sanction-driven trade routes. The demand is robust enough to keep the fleet busy, despite a slight moderation from earlier forecasts.

Tanker Day Rates for Aframax Vessels Averaging $45,000 in Q4 2025

Aframax spot rates have shown significant strength and volatility, largely exceeding historical averages, which is a massive tailwind for PSHG. The company reported that its fleet's average Time-Charter Equivalent (TCE) rate for Q3 2025 was $29,460 per day, with Aframax spot rates averaging approximately $37,500 per day during that period.

Looking into Q4 2025, the market has seen even higher peaks. For example, the Baltic Exchange's Aframax A6 average soared to $50,925 per day on October 24, 2025, indicating the potential for a very strong quarter. This volatility, driven by structural inefficiencies like longer transit times and geopolitical rerouting, is the key to outsized earnings. Performance Shipping Inc.'s strategy of combining spot market exposure with stable time-charter contracts helps capture these spikes while maintaining a floor on cash flow.

Here's the quick math on the market's recent performance:

Inflation and High Interest Rates Push Up Newbuild and Vessel Financing Costs

The high-interest-rate environment is definitely a double-edged sword for capital-intensive businesses like shipping. The Federal Reserve's decision to maintain interest rates, with the target range around 4.25%-4.50% (as of March 2025), directly increases the cost of debt for new vessel acquisitions or refinancing existing loans.

This is a major headwind for fleet expansion. The global Ship Financing market is projected to reach approximately $125 billion by 2025, but the rising cost of capital is forcing owners to look at alternatives like leasing and private equity. For PSHG, this pressure is already visible; the company noted increased financing and administrative expenses related to its Nordic bond issuance and lease transactions, which contributed to a net income decline to $3.9 million in Q3 2025 from $12.4 million in Q3 2024. Higher interest rates also contribute to the rising cost of newbuilds, which are already seeing price increases due to shipyard backlogs and stricter environmental regulations.

• Higher borrowing costs affect all new fleet investments.
• Newbuild prices are rising due to shipyard capacity constraints.
• Financing expenses directly reduce net profitability, as seen in Q3 2025 results.

Strong US Dollar Still Pressures Non-USD Denominated Operating Expenses

As a US-listed company reporting in US Dollars, a strong US dollar (USD) is generally favorable for revenue, as freight rates are typically USD-denominated. However, it creates significant pressure on operating expenses (OPEX) that are paid in other currencies. PSHG's non-USD denominated costs, such as crew wages, port fees in foreign ports, and certain maintenance services, become more expensive when translated back into a strong USD.

The company reported facing higher administrative and operating costs in Q3 2025, which is a direct consequence of both global inflation and the currency translation effect. For a tanker operator, managing this currency risk is crucial, as a significant portion of its daily vessel operating expenses (like crew and stores) are incurred outside the US dollar zone. The strong dollar essentially erodes some of the gains from strong USD-denominated charter rates.

Next Step: Operations Team: Review Q4 2025 OPEX budget for non-USD costs and identify potential hedging opportunities by the end of the year.

Performance Shipping Inc. (PSHG) - PESTLE Analysis: Social factors

Growing pressure from institutional investors for ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) compliance

You can't ignore the drumbeat of institutional investors anymore; Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards are now a core part of a tanker company's valuation. Performance Shipping Inc. is defintely feeling this, which is why they released their 2024 ESG Report in August 2025. This report, developed with reference to the Global Reporting Initiative Universal Standards 2021 (GRI's), is a direct response to the market demanding transparency.

The company's institutional ownership sits at nearly 19.90% of its stock, which means a significant portion of the shareholder base is actively scrutinizing their social and environmental performance. If your ESG score dips, major funds like BlackRock or Vanguard can and will divest, or at least pressure management. It's not just about doing good; it's about accessing capital at a reasonable cost. You need to show a clear path to sustainability to keep the big money interested.

Increased public awareness of oil spill risks and corporate social responsibility

Public awareness of maritime disaster risk is high, and a single incident can wipe out years of brand building. The tanker industry is under a microscope, especially after 2024 saw six oil spills from tanker incidents, leading to over 700 metric tons of oil leaking into the sea. That's a massive reputation risk for any company in the sector.

For Performance Shipping Inc., corporate social responsibility (CSR) is now intrinsically linked to operational integrity. The industry is responding with a focus on prevention, evidenced by global events like the INTERSPILL Conference 2025 in April, which focused on preparedness and response. A key action item is investing in better ship maintenance and crew training to prevent these accidents. Honestly, a well-trained crew is your best insurance policy.

Labor shortages for skilled seafarers drive up crew wages by 5-7%

The global shipping industry faces a persistent shortage of competent seafarers, particularly skilled officers, which is driving up labor costs far beyond minimum agreements. While the International Bargaining Forum (IBF) agreement included a 2% pay rise from January 1, 2025, the actual market is much hotter.

The real-world labor market for skilled crew members is tipping in their favor, with some surveys indicating that market-driven salaries are rising by at least 10% in general, and specialized roles like Ukrainian fitters seeing jumps of up to 30% due to shortages. This is a direct operational cost pressure on Performance Shipping Inc. that impacts your bottom line, requiring you to budget for higher crew expenses to maintain quality and retention.

Here's the quick math on the wage pressure you're seeing:

Consumer shift to electric vehicles (EVs) creates long-term demand uncertainty

The global shift in consumer behavior toward electric vehicles (EVs) is creating a long-term structural challenge for the oil tanker market. While Performance Shipping Inc. deals in crude and refined products, the decline in road fuel demand is a clear headwind.

The numbers are clear: global passenger EV sales are projected to hit nearly 22 million units in 2025, marking a 25% increase from 2024. This surge is already having a measurable effect. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that the growing EV fleet displaced over 1.3 million barrels of oil per day (mb/d) in 2024. For 2025, global EV sales are projected to reach 10 million, potentially reducing oil demand by 350,000 barrels per day (b/d).

This structural demand loss, while not catastrophic in the near-term, signals that the long-term growth trajectory for oil transport will be subdued. You need to factor this into your long-term fleet renewal and capital expenditure plans. The product tanker market, which carries refined fuels like gasoline and diesel, will soon be entirely dependent on fuel price arbitrages and geopolitics for growth, not steady demand.

• Global EV sales projected to reach 22 million units in 2025.
• EVs displaced over 1.3 million barrels of oil per day in 2024.
• Long-term demand uncertainty requires a pivot to vessels capable of transporting alternative fuels.

Performance Shipping Inc. (PSHG) - PESTLE Analysis: Technological factors

You're looking at Performance Shipping Inc. (PSHG) and trying to map their long-term viability against the massive technological shifts hitting the tanker sector. The reality is that technology is no longer just about engine efficiency; it's a critical, high-cost compliance issue. PSHG's strategy, particularly their reliance on scrubber-fitted vessels, creates a near-term cost advantage but introduces a long-term risk of technological obsolescence compared to true dual-fuel competitors.

Adoption of dual-fuel (LNG/MGO) engines for new fleet additions

PSHG is executing a fleet modernization strategy, but their focus is on eco-design and exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers) rather than the more future-proof dual-fuel technology. In October 2025, the company announced the acquisition of two modern Suezmax tankers, M/T Eco Bel Air and M/T Eco Beverly Hills, for a purchase price of $75,438,000 per vessel.

These vessels are 'scrubber-fitted' and feature 'lower consumption electronic engines,' which means they are optimized to burn cheaper, higher-sulfur Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) while meeting current sulfur emissions regulations. This is a smart short-term capital expenditure (CapEx) decision, but it locks the fleet into a reliance on HFO and Marine Gas Oil (MGO), bypassing the industry trend toward Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) or methanol-ready dual-fuel engines. That's a strategic choice to maximize current HFO price spread benefits, but it defintely creates a future CapEx hurdle for conversion or replacement.

Increased use of AI/Machine Learning for route optimization and fuel savings

The immediate opportunity for PSHG lies in the rapid adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) for voyage optimization, a low-CapEx, high-return technology. AI-powered route optimization systems, which analyze real-time weather, currents, and traffic, are now standard in modern shipping. For the typical tanker, this technology can deliver measurable fuel consumption reductions in the range of 10% to 15%. [cite: 8, 1, 5 (from first search)]

Here's the quick math: If fuel accounts for approximately 50% of a vessel's operating costs, a 10% fuel saving translates directly to a 5% reduction in total operating costs. This is a must-have technology just to remain competitive on the spot market.

• Reduce fuel consumption by 10%-15% using AI. [cite: 8, 1, 5 (from first search)]
• Improve schedule reliability and on-time arrivals.
• Lower carbon intensity indicator (CII) scores for compliance.

Cyber security risks rise, requiring $500,000+ annual investment per vessel

The digitalization that enables AI efficiency also introduces catastrophic cyber risk. The maritime cybersecurity market is growing rapidly, reaching an estimated $4.14 billion in 2025, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 12.4%. [cite: 3, 5 (from second search)]

The cost of a breach is the real driver for investment. The average cost of a data breach in the transportation sector is approximately $4.4 million, [cite: 6 (from second search)] which is enough to wipe out the annual profit of a vessel. To mitigate this risk and ensure compliance with IMO 2021 mandates, a comprehensive annual investment of $500,000+ per vessel is required for layered defense, crew training, and regulatory auditing. This investment covers both Information Technology (IT) and Operational Technology (OT)-the systems that control navigation and propulsion. You have to spend money to sleep at night.

Slow, expensive rollout of carbon capture technology across the fleet

Onboard Carbon Capture and Storage (OCCS) technology is emerging as a potential bridge solution for existing vessels, but the rollout is slow and capital-intensive. Feasibility studies on retrofitting carbon capture systems onto existing tankers have revealed significant costs, which PSHG will face for its current fleet.

A full-scale retrofit on a medium-range tanker is estimated to cost between US$13.6 million for a system that captures 20% of CO2, and up to $30 million for a system capable of capturing 90% of CO2. [cite: 6, 13 (from first search)] Plus, operating expenses (OpEx) for a carbon capture system can increase a ship's annual operating expenses by an additional 25% due to the energy required to run the system. [cite: 13 (from first search)]

This high cost and the associated operational penalty (space and weight for the captured CO2) make fleet-wide adoption a slow process, likely delaying a significant move until regulatory or carbon pricing mechanisms make the return on investment clearer.

Performance Shipping Inc. (PSHG) - PESTLE Analysis: Legal factors

You're navigating a regulatory environment where environmental compliance is no longer a future cost-it's a major, immediate operational expense. For Performance Shipping Inc., the legal landscape in 2025 is defined by a trifecta of stringent, enforced global and US maritime regulations, plus a renewed focus on market competition. Your core challenge is translating these legal mandates into capital expenditure and operating cost projections, especially with the EU's carbon pricing hitting hard this year.

IMO's Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) rating system is now fully enforced

The International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) rating system, which came into force in 2023, is now in its critical third year of enforcement. This is when the consequences of low ratings start to bite, affecting charter rates and asset value. Vessels must reduce their carbon intensity by an annual factor of approximately 2% to maintain a 'C' rating or better.

For a tanker fleet like Performance Shipping Inc.'s, this is a clear risk. The first year of data collection showed a significant portion of the global tanker fleet is already struggling: oil tankers specifically accounted for 743 'D' scores and 349 'E' scores in the first reporting period. A vessel receiving a 'D' rating for three consecutive years, or an 'E' rating for one year, must submit a corrective action plan.

A major compliance deadline is fast approaching: all ships of 5,000 gross tonnes (GT) and above must have their Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) Part III revised and approved by December 31, 2025. This revision must incorporate an implementation plan to meet the newly set, more stringent CII reduction factors, which target a 21.5% reduction by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. You must ensure your vessels are compliant to avoid operational restrictions and charterer preference penalties.

EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) inclusion raises operating cost by an estimated 10%

The inclusion of the shipping sector in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is the single largest new operational cost factor for 2025. This is not a theoretical charge; it's a mandatory purchase of EU Allowances (EUAs) that directly impacts your voyage economics. In 2025, the phase-in requires shipping companies to surrender allowances for 70% of their verified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on voyages to, from, and within the European Economic Area (EEA), up from 40% in 2024. Here's the quick math: this represents a 75% increase in the volume of allowances required year-over-year, assuming emissions remain flat.

The financial burden for the global shipping industry is estimated to exceed $6 billion in compliance costs for 2025 alone. Charterers are already seeing surcharges ranging between €45 and €75 per ton of CO₂. For Performance Shipping Inc., this cost is either passed through to the charterer or absorbed, depending on the contract structure (e.g., time charter vs. spot market). Non-compliance carries a steep penalty of €100 per excess ton of CO₂ emitted.

US ballast water management regulations require significant retrofitting

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) regulations for Ballast Water Management Systems (BWMS) are fully enforced, requiring all vessels discharging ballast water in US waters to meet the D-2 standard using a USCG type-approved system. The compliance deadline, tied to a vessel's first scheduled dry-docking after September 2024, means 2025 is the first full year where non-compliant vessels face detention and fines.

For Performance Shipping Inc.'s tanker fleet, this requires a substantial capital outlay for retrofitting. The typical cost for installing a USCG-approved BWMS on a large tanker ranges from USD 500,000 to $2 million per vessel, depending on the system complexity and the specific vessel's design. This investment is non-negotiable for maintaining access to US ports, a critical trade route for oil tankers.

• Mandatory D-2 Standard: Requires USCG type-approved Ballast Water Management Systems (BWMS).
• Retrofit Cost: Budget USD 500,000-$2 million per vessel for installation and dry-dock time.
• Risk: Port State Control (PSC) inspections are intensifying, with a focus on compliance and crew training.

Increased anti-trust scrutiny on major charterers and pooling agreements

Antitrust scrutiny is heating up globally, shifting the legal risk from purely environmental to commercial practices. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, in particular, announced a new Task Force in March 2025 to target anticompetitive regulations, specifically calling out the Transportation sector as an area of heightened interest. This indicates a more aggressive stance on market concentration and pricing practices.

While tanker pooling arrangements offer operational efficiencies, their structure-which involves competitors agreeing on commercial terms-puts them under a potential spotlight. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) and the DOJ have a formal resource-sharing agreement to ramp up enforcement in maritime shipping. This means the legal risk for any perception of collusion or market manipulation, especially regarding freight rates or capacity management, is elevated in 2025. You should be defintely reviewing the governance and information-sharing protocols of any pooling agreements your vessels participate in.

Performance Shipping Inc. (PSHG) - PESTLE Analysis: Environmental factors

The environmental landscape for Performance Shipping Inc. is dominated by a non-negotiable regulatory push toward decarbonization, which is fundamentally reshaping fleet valuation and operating costs. This isn't a distant problem; it's a 2025 balance sheet reality, driven by immediate compliance costs and a clear market preference for green vessels.

Focus on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to meet IMO 2030 targets

You are operating in a market where the regulatory clock is ticking loudly toward the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2030 targets. The core mandate is to achieve a reduction in the carbon intensity of international shipping by at least 40% compared to 2008 levels. The IMO's Net-Zero Framework, which includes a mandatory global fuel standard and a GHG emissions pricing mechanism, is on track for formal adoption in October 2025 and is scheduled for enforcement starting in 2027. This means the capital expenditure decisions you make today-like PSHG's commitment to new, LNG-ready vessels-must be future-proofed against these 2030 thresholds.

PSHG is addressing this by investing in a younger, more efficient fleet. The company has contracted for newbuilding LR2 Aframax product/crude oil tankers, with deliveries expected in late 2025 and 2026, which are designed to be LNG-ready. They are also acquiring two 2019-built, eco-design Suezmax tankers for delivery in early 2026. This is a smart move because it immediately reduces the average age and operational carbon intensity of the fleet, securing better charter rates and compliance standing.

Scrapping of older, less efficient vessels accelerates due to CII penalties

The Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) rating system is the financial weapon forcing fleet renewal. It grades ships from A (best) to E (worst) based on carbon emissions per unit of transport work. For the tanker segment, an estimated 74% of the current fleet needed operational changes to meet the 2030 CII thresholds. The financial impact is immediate: a vessel with an 'A' rating can command a market premium of approximately 7% in asset value, while an 'E' rated vessel faces a discount of around 12%. This 19-point spread in valuation is what drives the accelerated scrapping of older tonnage. For PSHG, maintaining a younger, eco-efficient fleet is not just about compliance; it is about preserving the book value of your assets. The CII requirements are expected to tighten from 2026, so a 'C' rating today could become a 'D' tomorrow. You can't afford to hold onto a vessel that will be a stranded asset.

Higher bunker fuel costs for compliant, low-sulfur fuels

The cost of compliant fuel is a major and volatile operating expense. While the global average price for Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) is forecast to be around $547/mt for the full year 2025, the true cost for voyages involving European Union (EU) ports is significantly higher due to the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).

For intra-EU voyages in 2025, the combined cost of VLSFO and carbon allowances is forecast to push the price to between $755 and $795 per metric ton (mt). Even a voyage with only one EU port is projected to cost $670-$690/mt. This is a direct, substantial increase in voyage costs that must be factored into every single charter negotiation.

Extreme weather events disrupt key shipping lanes, impacting scheduling

Climate change is now a direct operational risk, not just a long-term environmental one. The frequency of severe weather events, specifically Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, has increased by 25-30% per decade, posing a constant threat to scheduling and safety. These events force costly diversions and speed reductions.

Plus, the fragility of critical chokepoints is a major factor for tanker operations. While geopolitical tensions (like the Red Sea attacks in 2024) caused oil traffic to surge by nearly 50% around the Cape of Good Hope, climate risks like coastal inundation and extreme heat are also threatening the Suez Canal. Extreme heat, which can reach 45°C, affects engine cooling and increases the risk of sandstorms that reduce visibility. This means your operational planning must account for more frequent, longer, and more costly diversions.

• Plan for 25-30% higher frequency of severe weather route disruptions.
• Model the cost of rerouting around the Red Sea/Suez, which adds significant voyage days.
• Factor in the operational risk of extreme heat, which impacts engine efficiency.

This is a market where you have to be tactical. Your biggest near-term lever is fleet utilization and managing the regulatory compliance costs. So, the next step is clear. Finance: draft a 13-week cash view by Friday, explicitly modeling the impact of a 10% rise in EU ETS costs and a 5% increase in crew wages.