Route Analysis · Panama Canal Displacement · Sept 2026
Blocked at one chokepoint, a grain fleet sailed the long way east, through four more chokepoints, then had to move again.
When the 2023–24 drought priced US Gulf grain carriers out of the Panama auction, rounding South America was never really on the table. The fleet went the opposite direction instead, traded one chokepoint for a chain of four, then lost one of those to war risk and had to move again.
Chokepoint: never 100% flowable, whatever the reason
Route 1
Straight through Panama
Distance10,807 nm
Chokepoints1 · draft
Extra daysnone
Extra costnone
Share, Oct ’2280%
Considered
Around Cape Horn
Distance18,335 nm
Chokepoints1 · storms, current
Extra days~35–38
Extra cost~$1.0–1.14M
Share, actual≈0%
Route 2
East via Suez / Red Sea
Distance13,563 nm
Chokepoints4 · beam, traffic, war risk
Extra days+18
Extra cost+$540K
Share, Nov ’2391%
Route 3
Further east: Cape of Good Hope
Distance15,582 nm
Chokepoints2 · traffic, storms, current
Extra days+22
Extra cost>$540K
Share, Dec ’2369%
Distances are great-circle for this corridor (Houston to Shanghai as a proxy pair), calculated via realistic waypoints. They represent the shortest possible path, not a sailed track.
Why not the Horn
The longest option on the map, not the shortest
Cape Horn looks like the obvious workaround, the same ocean system in the opposite direction from Suez. The distances say otherwise. On this exact corridor the Horn runs 18,335 nm against 10,807 nm via Panama, 70% farther, and longer than either eastbound option too (Suez 13,563 nm, Cape of Good Hope 15,582 nm). Wind and current compound the problem. A westbound transit around the Horn sails against the Southern Ocean’s prevailing westerlies and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, the same conditions that made the age of sail dread this passage. A modern engine will not get stranded the way a square-rigger could, but it still burns more fuel fighting them. Scaled to a Handymax grain run, the distance and conditions together land around 35–38 extra days and roughly $1.0–1.14M, a figure that happens to match the Cape Horn number The Narrows uses for Brazil to Japan reroutes in its Panama Canal scenario model. Suez, at +18 days and +$540K, was simply the cheaper way around, even counting four extra chokepoints against it.
A reader’s good question
Are capes chokepoints too?
Yes, and The Narrows treats them that way. A chokepoint is not defined by geometry: narrow channel, canal, strait. It is defined by whether flow is guaranteed at 100%, and it never is. Panama’s constraint is draft. Gibraltar, Suez and Malacca are beam and traffic density. Bab-el-Mandeb, since late 2023, is war risk. Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope are storms and current. Elsewhere the list runs to ice, coral, and piracy. The mechanism differs. The exposure does not: every one of these concentrates cost, delay and casualty risk onto whatever has to pass through, which is the only property that matters for accumulation risk. This is also why the Cape of Good Hope already behaves as a chokepoint in The Narrows’ own model, as the documented landing zone for accumulation whenever Suez throttles or closes.
History
This is not the first time the price has done the sorting
The Panama Canal Authority runs a daily priority auction whenever transit demand exceeds available slots. Any vessel that has waited at least ten days may bid, starting at $55,000. In normal conditions, a super booking fee of $135,000 to $140,000 buys a place in the queue. In November 2023, at the worst of the drought, the winning bid reached $3.975 million, a documented record paid by Japan’s Eneos Group for an LPG carrier, the Sunny Bright. Other vessels that stayed on Panama that month paid comparably: chemical tankers around $1.1 million, grain ships in the $2 million to $4 million range.
The auction does not affect every vessel class the same way, and that is the point. LNG and LPG carriers have no workable alternative: the long way around adds weeks, boil-off losses accumulate, and the cargo value justifies almost any slot price, so they bid to the top. Neopanamax container ships face a different constraint: their beam exceeds the old Panamax locks, so the Neopanamax locks are the only passage available regardless of price, and liner schedules make a multi-week reroute expensive in its own right. Both classes stayed on Panama and paid. Handymax and Supramax bulk carriers, the vessels that move grain, coal and fertiliser, could not clear that price against a cargo of 50,000 tonnes of grain, so they left instead, first for Suez and the Red Sea, later for the Cape of Good Hope.
Container side
$8.0B
Exposure The Narrows’ model attributes to the May 2023 draft restriction alone, the 40% Neopanamax cargo-capacity loss, before the ACP had cut a single transit slot. Sustained over a full quarter. No vessel was denied passage. The cost showed up anyway.
Bulk grain side
~$500–600M
The Narrows’ estimate of grain cargo value displaced in the four weeks to 31 October 2023, when Panama-transiting US Gulf grain vessels fell from 34 to 5 (Rabobank), applied against a representative blended grain export price. A single month, one commodity class, one corridor.
The same two-lever sequence is running again right now. The ACP’s 20 August 2026 advisory cut the maximum authorised draft to 48.0 feet, with a further cut to 47.5 feet, and reduced daily transit slots from a normal 36 to 38 down to 34 from 3 September and 32 from 15 September. Draft restriction first, then transit cuts: the identical order of operations as the opening moves of 2023. Whether it reaches the 2023 auction prices depends on how the rest of the dry season plays out, but the mechanism that produced a $3.975 million bid once is already live again.
A reader’s good question
What about the other direction? Asia to the Atlantic side
Plenty comes through that way, more than the westbound grain story might suggest. Asia to the US East Coast is the single largest corridor on the canal by tonnage, 48.4% of total 2024 traffic (Port Economics, Management and Policy), well ahead of any other route pairing including the one this page has been describing. It is affected by the same auction and draft mechanism, but different cargo classes responded in different ways, and not always the ways this page assumed above.
Neopanamax container ships mostly stayed on Panama and paid, for the beam and schedule reasons already described. Where lines did shift volume away, the main alternative was not a Suez or Cape reroute but an intermodal one: discharge on the US West Coast and move cargo east by double-stack rail, adding Houston, Charleston and Savannah traffic from a Los Angeles or Long Beach landing instead of a direct East Coast call, the pattern the Baker Institute documented at Rice University, down to a single named vessel, the Ever Max, unloading 700 containers onto Panama’s own railroad rather than transiting. Some volume also moved onto the pre-existing Asia to US East Coast Suez service, roughly a week slower than Panama. Spot cost on the Asia to East Coast lane rose more than a third during the acute period, to an estimated $2,400 per container (Baker Institute). What this page cannot responsibly claim is a clean Los Angeles dwell-time spike caused by that diversion: the port's own leadership was projecting a volume bump as early as August 2023, but the sharpest documented volume swings in the following months, an 18% year-on-year jump in January 2024 among them, were attributed by the port itself to Lunar New Year restocking and a strong US consumer, not to Panama. The diversion to the West Coast was real. A clean, isolated congestion signature from it is not something the public data supports.
Non-container cargo tells a sharper story, and it complicates something this page said earlier. Above, this page treated LNG and LPG carriers as vessels that simply bid to the top and stayed, because the cargo value justifies almost any slot price. That was true of the individual record-setting bids, but not of the fleet as a whole. US LNG cargoes to Asia transiting Panama fell from 38 in the third quarter of 2023 to just 10 a year later; by 2024, roughly 94% of US LNG bound for Asia was routing via the Cape of Good Hope instead, not Suez, adding about 20 days versus Panama and 10 days versus Suez (SynMax). Gas carriers appear to have judged Red Sea war risk unacceptable for their cargo even before their charter economics forced the issue, so they skipped the intermediate Suez step entirely and went straight to the longest safe option. The extra distance carries its own cost beyond charter and bunker: LNG boil-off runs about 0.1% to 0.15% of cargo volume per day on modern tonnage, so 20 extra days at sea means meaningfully more of the cargo either burned as fuel or reliquefied rather than delivered.1 Very large gas carriers faced a harder version of the same squeeze: neopanamax lock slots effectively reserved for them fell from 31 a day to 8 by early 2024, one VLGC auction slot sold for a documented $2.85 million, and Clarksons Research warned outright that some VLGCs might not be able to transit at all (Riviera Maritime Media). Large crude oil tankers fared worse still. Poten & Partners' assessment was blunt: they will not feature in this trade anymore, priced out of advance scheduling by the same auction mechanism that produced the grain and LNG numbers above.
1 Boil-off is not a clean loss figure. Modern carriers burn it as propulsion fuel or reliquefy it, and the charterparty, not a fixed rate, determines who bears the cost. A precise dollar figure for the Cape of Good Hope premium would need a specific vessel's boil-off and reliquefaction spec plus its contract terms, neither of which this page has.
LNG, Panama transits to Asia
38 → 10
US LNG cargoes routed via Panama, Q3 2023 versus Q3 2024. Most of the fleet left. It did not wait to be priced out one auction at a time.
LNG to Asia, 2024
94%
Share routed via the Cape of Good Hope rather than Panama or Suez, the longest of the three options, chosen anyway once Red Sea risk entered the calculation.
If it happened today
Aug 2026 rates put the Suez-style detour at $580K–$840K
Discussed live on the Granular podcast with Holly Birkett, 27 Aug 2026, using live Baltic indices and Ship&Bunker’s VLSFO benchmark rather than the 2023 documented baseline above. This is a different market snapshot, not a restatement of it.
Baltic Handysize index
$15,849/day
Baltic Supramax index
$20,789/day
Est. added charter + bunker cost, Handymax, ~18–20 day detour
$580,000 – $840,000
Sources. Grain routing shares (80% → 91% → 69%): American Farm Bureau Federation Market Intel, citing USDA Grain Transportation Report and CHS Inc. shipment data. Suez-route cost (+18 days, +$540K, $30K/day Handymax): The Narrows estimate from documented 2023 charter baselines. Route distances (10,807 / 18,335 / 13,563 / 15,582 nm): The Narrows calculation, a great-circle sum over realistic waypoints for this corridor, not tracked AIS data. Fuel-burn premium in Southern Ocean conditions: general pattern per Sinay.ai route-comparison data, for large containerships on a different corridor, directional only and not scaled to Handymax here. Prevailing westerlies and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current opposing westbound Cape Horn transits: standard maritime navigational knowledge, not independently modeled by The Narrows. Suez-corridor chokepoint list (Gibraltar ~300 transits/day, Suez ~15% of global maritime trade, Bab-el-Mandeb two 3km channels, Malacca ~30% of world trade): Port Economics, Management and Policy. Live rates (31 Aug 2026): Baltic Exchange Handysize and Supramax indices; Ship&Bunker VLSFO, Houston $679.50/mt and global average $848.50/mt. Auction bid history (opening bid $55K, normal $135–140K, Nov 2023 peak $3.975M, chemical tanker $1.1M, grain ships $2–4M): documented, Splash247, Maritime Executive, Grain Journal 2023. Container-side quarterly exposure ($8.0B) and grain-vessel count decline (34 to 5, four weeks to 31 Oct 2023): The Narrows Chokepoint Dependency Model, the latter citing Rabobank 2023; the $500–600M grain-value figure is a Narrows estimate applying a representative blended export price to that vessel count, not an independently documented number. Current 2026 draft and transit-slot advisory (48.0ft, 47.5ft, 34 and 32 transits from 3 and 15 September): Panama Canal Authority advisory, 20 August 2026. Asia to US East Coast canal share (48.4% of 2024 tonnage): Port Economics, Management and Policy. West Coast and rail diversion, the Ever Max example, Suez alternative, and per-container cost increase: Baker Institute, Rice University. Los Angeles volume and dwell context (August 2023 planning guidance; January 2024 18% year-on-year growth attributed to Lunar New Year restocking and consumer demand, not Panama): Port of Los Angeles public statements, CNBC, Seatrade Maritime. LNG transit decline (38 to 10 cargoes, Q3 2023 to Q3 2024) and 94% Cape of Good Hope share, 2024, with day-count comparisons: SynMax Intelligence. VLGC slot reduction (31 to 8 per day) and $2.85M record auction slot: Riviera Maritime Media, Clarksons Research. Large crude tanker assessment: Poten & Partners, via Riviera Maritime Media. LNG boil-off rate (0.1–0.15% of cargo volume per day, modern tonnage): Wartsila technical reference. Route lines are great-circle paths plotted on an equirectangular base map (world-atlas 110m land), built for legibility of the argument rather than navigational accuracy.
Want the full quantification model?
This piece traces where the fleet actually went. The Panama Canal scenario paper puts a value-at-risk number on it, by commodity and by importer, and models what a 2026 repeat looks like.