Much as the Shipping Industry may not like, Global Politics and Wars to interfere in Global Trade, there is no escape route when you have Tariffs going like a Yo-Yo in the world of circus.

Will there be another war like on the Western Border?

Are these wars for proving victorious or are they being fought for land, mineral wealth or rare minerals that will go into Space / IT industry?

Time will not tell anything as have none of the previous Global wars.

World’s Largest Container Ship MSC Irina with a capacity of 24,346 Teu’s arrived at Kerala’s Vizhinjam International Seaport on 9^th June, marking a major milestone for India’s newest deepwater facility.

This was the vessel’s first-ever visit to a South Asian port, showing the port’s ability to handle Ultra-Large Container Vessels (ULCV’s).

All About The MSC IRINA

MSC IRINA was launched in March 2023. It began its maiden voyage in April of that year.

MSC IRINA is officially the world’s largest container ship by capacity, measured in TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units).

It is operated by the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), one of the world’s leading shipping lines.

MSC IRINA has a total capacity of 24,346 TEUs, making it the largest container ship in the world. It surpassed the previous record-holder, OOCL Spain, by 150 TEUs.

The ship measures 399.9 metres in length and 61.3 metres in width. Its length is approximately four times that of a FIFA- designated football field.

The ship is designed to stack containers up to 26 tiers high, providing unmatched vertical capacity. MSC IRINA is specifically built to transport large volumes of containers between Asia and Europe.

It is designed to improve logistics efficiency and support International trade routes. The ship plays a crucial role in

connecting major manufacturing hubs in Asia with consumer markets in Europe.

The vessel is equipped with energy-saving technologies to reduce fuel usage and emissions. These features help achieve a carbon emission reduction of up to 4 per cent, encouraging eco-friendly shipping practices in the maritime industry.

Vizhinjam International Seaport, located near Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala, is India’s first deep-water, all-weather transhipment port, formally inaugurated on May 2 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

It is developed under a public-private partnership (PPP) model and jointly operated by Vizhinjam International Seaport Ltd (VISL) and Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd (AVPPL). Built on the landlord port model, VISL is responsible for providing the core infrastructure, while terminal operations and cargo handling are managed by private concessionaires like Adani.

This call of the vessel is a milestone for not just Vizhinjam but for India’s emergency as a key player in global transhipment. A bold vision now in motion.

Ammonia fuelled ships

As the shipping industry strives to reduce its environmental impact, the potential of ammonia as fuel in shipping has emerged as a potential low- carbon option with promising characteristics. Unlike traditional marine fuels, ammonia is virtually free of sulphur oxide (SOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions, contributing to cleaner air quality. When produced using renewable energy, ammonia can achieve a lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction of up to 90% compared to traditional fossil fuels. This makes it a viable option for achieving the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) target of reducing GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050.

Advantages of Ammonia as a marine fuel

Ammonia can be used in various ammonia powered engines, including dual-fuel engines that can switch between ammonia and conventional fuels. Its high energy density and low viscosity make it suitable for long-range shipping operations.

Ammonia marine fuel safety

However, the widespread adoption of ammonia fueled ships faces storage and bunkering infrastructure challenges. Safe and efficient ammonia handling requires specialised equipment and facilities currently limited in the shipping industry. Ammonia holds significant potential as a low-carbon fuel for maritime, offering a path towards cleaner, more sustainable operations. Whilst challenges remain, ongoing research and development efforts are paving the way for a future where ammonia plays a major role in decarbonising the maritime sector.

China’s expanding hydropower infrastructure and strategic control over the upper Brahmaputra (Yarlung Tsangpo) pose escalating geopolitical and environmental challenges for India. This research note evaluates China’s dam-building activities between 2021–2025 and their implications for regional water security, hydrological stability, and cross- border diplomacy. Highlighting the absence of formal water-sharing agreements and limited data transparency, the study calls for India to pivot from reactive postures to adaptive, multilateral governance.

Recommendations include leveraging Underwater Domain Awareness (UDA), enhancing hydrological monitoring, and decentralizing river governance to build long-term resilience and regional cooperation.

The challenge of maritime decarbonisation is not that it is happening, but that it needs to happen so quickly.

The evolution of sail to its heyday of the great tea clippers took centuries, and the transition to coal-powered steam ships was driven by greater supply chain mobility and speed. The arrival of diesel-fuelled engines led to a new type of vessel propulsion, but this took close to one hundred years to emerge. Each shift had a dramatic impact on the cost,

speed and efficiency of shipping. The energy transition the maritime industry faces today is distinct from those earlier evolutions. It is not driven solely by technological advances or economics, but by an environmental imperative, increasingly underscored by social pressure, policy and regulatory demands to reduce emissions.

Decisions are being made today without commercial certainty, but in the knowledge that regulations, rather than economics, will push forward change. In this context, shipowners, charterers, insurers, financial markets and technology suppliers are seeking a better understanding of where the industry is heading. Lloyd’s Register (LR) is committed to providing trusted advice and to leading the maritime industry safely and sustainably through the energy transition. Our Fuel for Thought series puts decarbonisation options under the spotlight, analysing policy developments, market trends, supply and demand mechanics and safety implications. Each edition focuses on a specific fuel or technology, creating a reference point for the industry to overcome upcoming challenges as it faces the next great shift in ship propulsion.

Trade talks between the US and China will continue into a second day as the two sides look to ease tensions over shipments of technology and rare earth elements. “We are doing well with China,” Donald Trump told reporters at the White House, adding “China’s not easy.”

· U.S. Import Surge Expected as Retailers Rush to Beat Tariff Deadline

Import cargo volumes at major U.S. container ports are expected to

surge through the summer months as retailers rush to…

Over half a dozen U.S.- loaded ethane vessels, originally bound for China, have stalled around the U.S. Gulf Coast after Washington requested U.S. exporters seek licenses to ship the shale gas to the top buyer, according to trade sources and ship tracking data on Friday.

Around half of all U.S. ethane exports head to China, and the halt in flows has pushed ethane prices lower on worries of domestic oversupply and is likely to cut into profits of top ethane producers.

Energy Transfer and Enterprise Products Partners, two of the largest ethane producers and exporters, have warned the disruptions could impact their exports. The U.S. Commerce Department has also denied some vessels emergency authorization requests to export to China.
Liberia-flagged STL Qianjiang, which loaded at Energy Transfer’s Nederland terminal for China’s Satellite Chemical, was anchored off the coast on Friday in the Gulf, according to LSEG and Kpler ship tracking data.
Energy Transfer, which produces ethane by extracting it from natural gas and then exports it from terminals along the Gulf Coast, said it received a letter from the U.S. Commerce Department on June 3 requiring the company to apply for a license to ship ethane to China.
The company and Satellite Chemical did not reply to requests for comments on the vessel.
Three other vessels, which were set to load in early June, were anchored in the U.S. Gulf near Houston and Port Arthur,

Texas, while three others hovered further south in the water after having slowed down.

Meanwhile, Liberia-flagged very large ethane carrier (VLEC) “Pacific Ineos Grenadier”, which loaded at Enterprise Products Partners’ terminal in Morgan’s Point, Texas, and had been originally destined for China, was anchored at an Enterprise dock

along the Houston Ship Channel on Friday after heading away from the Gulf Coast on Thursday.

The ship had not discharged on Friday afternoon and it was not immediately clear if it would. Enterprise has natural gas liquids storage facilities along the ship channel.
The vessel, a part of British petrochemical firm Ineos’ fleet, has been used by the company exclusively for transit between the United States and China since August 2023, according to Kpler data.
Enterprise Products Partners received the license requirement letter in late May, and on Wednesday said it received a notice from the U.S. government of its intent to deny emergency requests for three proposed export cargoes of ethane totalling around 2.2 million barrels to China.
Enterprise has 20 days to respond to the denial, it said on Wednesday. Unless otherwise notified by the government by the 45th day after receiving the notification, the denials will become final.
“With the curbs on U.S. ethane (exports), these ships are now struggling to move any cargo. So they are either just drifting out at sea or in a neutral direction hoping things resolve themselves with the recent meeting between U.S. and China,” an executive at a ship brokering firm said.

· ‘NO IMMEDIATE ALTERNATIVE MARKETS’

U.S. ethane production touched a record 2.8 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2024, according to the Energy Information Administration, and was expected to rise to 3.1 million bpd by next year. Most of the output growth was expected to be exported to meet international demand as domestic consumption will likely hold steady.
Exports also climbed to a record 492,000 bpd last year, of which about 227,000 bpd, or 46%, headed to China.
“These are distressed cargoes at this point. I would expect these to have been sold at significant discounts,” said Uday Turaga, founder of energy research and consulting firm ADI Analytics.
“Without China, there are no immediate alternative markets for vast U.S. ethane exports, directly impacting prices and profit for major U.S. producers due to specialized trade contracts,” he said.
The letters from the Bureau of Industry and Security, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, said exports of ethane pose an

unacceptable risk of military end-use in China, according to both

companies’ filings.

Chinese petrochemical firms use ethane as a feedstock because it is a cheaper alternative than naphtha, while U.S. oil and gas producers need China to buy their natural gas liquids as domestic supply exceeds demand.
(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2025.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has opened a public comment period regarding proposed modifications to its Section 301 trade actions targeting China’s maritime sector dominance. The modifications, announced on June 6, 2025, focus on changes to vessel fee structures and LNG export licensing requirements.
The proposed changes come as part of an

ongoing investigation initiated in April 2024, which determined that China’s practices in the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors unreasonably burden U.S. commerce. As a result this past April the USTR announced significant trade actions targeting China’s maritime sector dominance, including 25% tariffs on goods linked to maritime and shipbuilding, port use fees for Chinese-built vessels, and export license restrictions if Chinese retaliation or non-compliance was detected.

Key modifications under consideration include a targeted coverage provision for vessels in the Maritime Security Program and a shift to net tonnage-based fees under Annex III. The USTR also proposes eliminating provisions that previously allowed for the suspension of LNG export licenses. This change, which would apply retroactively to April 17, 2025, will help reducing regulatory uncertainty for energy exports.

· Could forward accommodation blocks become mainstream?

Maersk has shown the way for other shipping sectors to radically shift ship design with the decision it took earlier this decade to shift accommodation blocks forward for a series of methanol-fuelled box-ships. Other sectors are now looking at similar shifts.

Two new projects focus on relocating the crew living quarters and navigation bridge from their conventional aft position to the bow of the vessel.

In a joint development project between Lloyd’s Register (LR), HD Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (HMD), and PanOcean, a new Ultramax bulk carrier design has been introduced, featuring a forward accommodation block. This layout, traditionally used only in niche vessel types, is being reimagined to address a new challenge: spatial limitations for integrating decarbonisation technologies.

Similarly, a second initiative—an approval in principle agreement between LR, HMD, and the Liberian International Ship & Corporate Registry (LISCR)—revealed plans for a 50,000 dwt MR tanker with forward accommodation. The novel configuration is designed to enhance visibility for wind-assisted propulsion (WAPS) while providing space for technologies such as ammonia dual-fuel systems and carbon capture units.

Discussing the new tanker design, Sung-Gu Park, LR’s President of Northeast Asia, commented: “This project demonstrates the urgent need for commercially viable and regulation-ready vessel designs that accommodate decarbonisation technologies without compromising operational efficiency. It represents our shared commitment to enabling the maritime industry’s transition to net- zero through intelligent design, practical innovation, and collaboration.”

Historically, forward accommodation blocks have been restricted to specialised vessels—such as heavy-lift ships, ice-class vessels, Great Lakes bulkers, and river barges—where visibility, cargo access, or regional constraints justified the layout.

Now, the push for low- and zero-carbon operations is driving shipbuilders and owners to re-evaluate legacy designs. The aft- located superstructure, once ideal for balancing cargo and machinery, has in the view of some naval architects become a bottleneck for modern emission-reduction technologies, many of which require significant real estate and specialised positioning onboard.

· New ship orders plummet

The global shipbuilding industry is currently experiencing a significant downturn in newbuilding orders, primarily due to regulatory uncertainties and geopolitical tensions. This decline is particularly evident in the dry bulk sector, where new orders have plummeted to what has been described as historic lows. In a new report, weak freight rates, high newbuilding prices, extended lead times, and overall market uncertainty for the slump in orders, with Owners keen to see how Donald Trump’s tariff war plays out before committing to newbuilds as well as the plans by the US Trade Representative surrounding China-linked tonnage and higher American port fees.

2024 ordering levels represented the strongest year since 2008 Ambiguity surrounding future environmental regulations and the adoption of alternative fuels is also causing shipowners to hesitate in placing new orders.

Newbuild ordering as a whole in the first five months of 2025 is down by around 50% year-on-year, according to data albeit from 2024 levels that represented the strongest ordering year since 2008, and with shipyards generally retaining very strong forward orderbook coverage.

National Retail Federation (NRF) peak-season forecast remains subdued despite tariff-reprieve bounce.
The import numbers are starting to come in and they are ugly. The question now is whether the 2025 peak season can recover from the tariffs. The latest forecast from the NRF is not encouraging.
Transpacific Box rates lose steam as carriers undercut for cargo shares. Final US port fee plan will not be released until July at the earliest.

LNG carriers may end up paying to pollute.

· Why shipping is sounding more bullish on short- and long- term risk factors in Eyes of some??

WHAT does China’s unassailable lead in terms of naval power, the wording of recent US statutes and the adaptability of shipping, all have to do with how a chief financial officer eats their breakfast?

It’s all about how shipping perceives risk and uncertainty right now.

Uncertainty has dominated the shipping industry in the past months.

But this narrative that shipowners are paralysed by the geopolitical volatility is only part of the story.

The global economy is at a crossroads. We are entering an era of superpower rivalry between the US and China that will fundamentally upend established trading assumptions and fragment shipping down geopolitical lines.

Now, depending on who you are talking to, the response to that uncertainty results in either a barely concealed fist-bump of joy as they mentally run through the profitable opportunities ahead, or near-term paralysis as they conclude that there is no value in strategic investment in the face of such unknowable odds.

And that’s because this isn’t just the long-term disintegration of a rules- based order that we are talking about, although that is part of it.

Near term that uncertainty is created by the fact it is now security not economics that is driving the bus when it comes to US decision making, and that’s confusing everyone.

Agility is the new currency for shipping. We have to adapt to all these challenges — shipping’s bullish elite told us.

Volatility is the lifeblood of profitable shipping and certainty has never been a prerequisite for making decisions. So, why complain about exogenous shocks now?

On stage, the message was defiant: shipowners paralysed by the geopolitical swings risk losing out.

Off stage, their commitment to specific questions of progress and investment was generally more hesitant.

But they still need to make decisions — and that’s the focus.

Japan Proves Its Innovation Again with a 310,000-Tonne Oil Monster That Will Redefine the Future of Maritime Transport

· Japan is about to unveil a massive oil tanker that could change the shipping industry forever. With groundbreaking technology and an unexpected fuel choice, this vessel promises to set new environmental standards.

In a bold move toward reducing maritime emissions, Japan is preparing to launch one of the world’s largest and most environmentally-conscious oil tankers. Scheduled for delivery in 2028, the ship will be a game-changer, both for the shipping industry and for global efforts to curb CO₂ emissions. According to Interesting Engineering, this impressive vessel, designed with cutting-edge technology, will set new records for size and fuel efficiency, all while using an unexpected alternative fuel source.

China’s Chokehold on This Obscure Mineral Threatens the West’s Militaries
China produces the entire world’s supply of samarium, a rare

mineral.

In the quiet heart of global manufacturing lies a category of

elements that rarely grab headlines — but whose strategic importance rivals that of oil in the 20^th century. These are rare earth minerals, and China’s control over their production and export is now sending tremors through boardrooms and ministries around the world.

In May, China’s rare earth exports surged by 23% to 5,864 tons — the highest monthly figure in a year — despite export curbs it imposed just weeks earlier. The irony is stark: while exports rise on paper, supply remains squeezed for specific industries. China’s April export controls, especially on high-value rare earth magnets, have left ripple effects in sectors ranging from semiconductors to electric vehicles (EVs), bringing factories in Europe and Japan to a grinding halt.
The message is clear — access to these 17 critical minerals is now as much about geopolitics as it is about economics. These materials are foundational to modern technology, underpinning everything from smartphones to solar panels, from fibre optic cables to advanced defence systems.
China isn’t just a large player in this field — it is the dominant force. It processes 90% of the world’s rare earth magnets and controls 70% of their production. And the implications of that dominance are being felt acutely, particularly in India.

· India’s Urgent Pivot

Faced with the growing threat of supply throttling, India is scrambling to carve its own path. As a major importer of rare earth magnets — about 809 tonnes annually — India’s automotive and electronics industries are dangerously exposed. Since April 4, there have been virtually no magnet supplies from China. Some Indian companies’ attempts to secure shipments in May were rejected outright, despite having valid export certifications.
In response, India is turning to diplomacy and domestic self- reliance. The Indian Embassy in Beijing is co-ordinating meetings between Industry leaders and the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, even as back-channel negotiations continue through the Chinese Embassy in India.
The clock is ticking. Supplies with Indian automakers are expected to last only until the end of June, which could adversely

impact India’s budding EV industry.

While diplomatic overtures are underway, New Delhi is also moving fast to structurally reduce its reliance on China. The government has launched the National Critical Mineral Mission, aimed at strengthening domestic capabilities in rare earth exploration, mining, and magnet production. Fiscal incentives for manufacturing rare earth magnets domestically are also on the

table, targeting minerals like neodymium, a key input for EV motors and wind turbines.

India is also eyeing alternative suppliers. Active discussions are being held with Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, the US, and Russia to set up alternate supply chains. Vietnam appears to be the most immediate possibility, although 90% of its rare earth production is used domestically. Indonesia may offer slightly more flexibility, but Chinese influence over supply there raises concerns.
One interim solution under consideration is importing full assemblies or sub-assemblies instead of just magnets. However, this would require significant changes to India’s quality control norms and production-linked incentive schemes, many of which demand domestic value addition as a prerequisite for financial support.

· A Global Game of Leverage

China’s export restrictions are not without justification, at least from its point of view. The rare earth items in question have dual- use potential — for both civilian and military applications. Beijing has justified the curbs as a move to protect national security and comply with non-proliferation obligations.
However, the geopolitical subtext is hard to miss. These curbs were discussed during a recent phone call between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump — a rare diplomatic exchange that highlights the seriousness of the issue. India, too, raised its concerns with China.
Even as China signals willingness to approve select export licenses, it’s clear that it intends to maintain tight control. A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Commerce has stated the country is open to “enhancing communication and dialogue” on export controls — but only for compliant, peaceful usage.
The shortages are already biting. Japan’s Suzuki halted production of its Swift model. Several European semiconductor firms warn they are just weeks away from forced shutdowns.

Strategic Autonomy or Strategic Fragility?
As the world scrambles to diversify away from China, the urgency

reflects a deeper truth: the global economy’s dependence on a

single nation for critical inputs is not just risky — it’s

unsustainable.

For India, this moment is a wake-up call. It must now balance immediate supply pressures with long-term structural reforms. A reliable rare earth ecosystem will take years to build, but the process has begun — born not out of choice, but necessity.
Whether it’s through domestic production, strategic partnerships, or reworked import rules, India’s mission is clear: reduce exposure, build resilience, and never again be left vulnerable to the whims of a geopolitical gatekeeper.
Baltic Indices 10th June, 2025

Baltic Exchange Index – 10 JUNE 2025 Baltic Exchange Capesize 182 Index

Route Description Value Change

===== ========================================== ===

C8_182 182000mt Gib/Hamburg transatlantic RV 32,814 + 1214 C9_182 182000mt Cont-Med trip China-Japan 47,438 + 295 C10_182 182000mt China-Japan transpacific RV 27,009 – 1146 C14_182 182000mt China-Brazil round voyage 26,710 – 1612 C16_182 182000mt Backhaul 5,969 – 181

=================================================== ===

C5TC 182 Weighted Timecharter Average 27,729 – 607

Baltic Exchange Index – 10 JUNE 2025

Baltic Exchange Capesize Index 2956 (- 54)

Route Description Value($) Change

====== =================================== ========

C2 160000mt Tubarao to Rotterdam 9.993 – 0.064

C3 160-170000mt Tubarao to Qingdao 23.410 – 0.723

C5 160-170000mt W Australia to Qingdao 9.740 – 0.351

C7 150-160000mt Bolivar to Rotterdam 14.536 + 0.265 C8_14 180000mt Gibraltar-Hamburg T/A RV 28,714 + 857

C9_14 180000mt Conti/Med Trip China/Japan 43,594 + 237

C10_14 180000mt China/Japan T/P RV 23,795 – 1275 C14 180000mt China-Brazil RV 22,990 – 1443 C16 180000mt N.China to Skaw-Passero 1556 – 51

C17 170000mt Saldanha Bay to Qingdao 16.772 – 0.978

========================================== ========

5TC Weighted Timecharter Average 24,519 – 442

Baltic Exchange Panamax 82500mt Index 10 JUNE 2025 Baltic Exchange Panamax Index 1,300 (+ 36)

Route Description Value ($) Change

====== ================================= ======== P1A_82 Skaw-Gib T/A RV 11,364 + 454

P2A_82 Skaw-Gib trip HK-SKorea incl Taiwan 18,650 + 500 P3A_82 HK-SKorea incl Taiwan, Pacific/RV 10,081 + 514 P4_82 HK-SKorea incl Taiwan to Skaw-Gib 7,653 + 94 P6_82 Dely Spore Atlantic RV 12,355 + 61

====== ================================= =======

P5TC Weighted Timecharter Average 11,698 + 320

The following routes do not contribute to the BPI or Weighted TC Average. Route Description Value ($) Change

====== ================================= ===== P5_82 S. China Indo RV 8,606 + 639

P7 66000mt Mississippi Rvr to Qingdao 46,150 + 0.421 P8 66000mt Santos to Qingdao 33.371 + 0.057

Baltic Exchange Panamax 82 Asia Index – 10 June 2025

Route Description Size (MT) Value($) Change

===== ====================== ========

P5_82 S.China one Indo RV 8,606 +639

Baltic Exchange Supramax Index – 10 JUNE 2025 Baltic Exchange Supramax Index 919 (- 7)

Route Description Value ($) Change

====== ========================================= ====

S1B_63 Cnkle trip via Med or Blsea to China-S.Korea 12,183 + 41 S1C_63 US Gulf trip to China-South Japan 17,796 – 33 BS2_63 North China one Australian or Pacific RV 10,506 – 107 BS3_63 North China trip to West Africa 10,450 – 150 S4A_63 US Gulf trip to Skaw-Passero 18,201 + 155 S4B_63 Skaw-Passero trip to US Gulf 8,471 + 25 BS5_63 West Africa trip via ECSA to North China 13,521 + 85 BS8_63 South China trip via Indo to EC.India 11,421 – 286 BS9_63 W.Africa trip via ECSA to Skaw-Passero 12,550 + 54 S10_63 S.China trip via Indonesia to South China 8,681 – 175 S15_63 Indian Ocean trip via S.Africa to Far East 11,346 – 287

====== ========================================= ======

S11TC Weighted Timecharter Average 11,617 – 90 S10TC Supramax(58) Timecharter Average 9,583 – 90

Baltic Exchange Index – 10 JUNE 2025 Baltic Exchange Handysize Index 601 ( 0)

Route Description Value ($) Change

====== ======================================== =========

HS1_38 Skaw-Passero trip Recalada – Rio de Janeiro 5,900 + 11 HS2_38 Skaw-Passero trip Boston – Galveston 8,461 – 7 HS3_38 Rio de Janeiro-Recalada trip Skaw – Passero 16,033 + 39 HS4_38 USGulf trip via USG or NCSA to Skaw-Passero 4,207 + 278 HS5_38 SE Asia trip to Spore – Japan 10,744 – 112

HS6_38 N.China-S.Kor-Jpn trip to N.China-S.Kor-Jp

10,406 – 75 HS7_38 N.China-S.Kor-Jpn trip to SE Asia 10,056 – 44

====== ======================================== =========

7TC Weighted Timecharter Average 10,811 – 1

All Rights in all material and information on this document is reserved. Any form of reproduction or distribution of the information contained in this by any means whether electronic or otherwise is expressly prohibited including distribution by re- producing it anywhere.

You may view or otherwise use the information, prices, indices, assessments and other related information, graphs, tables, images in this Publication is only for your personal use if you are an authorised user for internal use only.

Data in this publication, includes independent and verifiable data collected from market participants.

Any user of the Data should not rely on any information and/or assessment contained therein in making any investment, trading, risk management or other decision.

I do not guarantee the adequacy, accuracy, timeliness, and/or completeness of the Data or any component thereof or any communication (written, oral, electronic, or other format). The writer shall not be subject to any damages or liability, including but not limited to any indirect, special, incidental, punitive, or consequential damages (including but not limited to, loss of profits, trading losses, and loss of goodwill).

Share with...