Voyage Risk Assessment
Traditional risk assessment uses port-pair lookups. A vessel going Shanghai to Rotterdam via Suez has different risk than via Cape of Good Hope — but legacy tools score them the same. ArcNautical computes the actual ocean route, then samples 10 intelligence signals along every segment.
The Fundamental Problem
A voyage risk score should reflect what happens between the ports, not just at them.
Static lookup tables assign a single risk level to each origin-destination pair. Updated quarterly at best. Cannot distinguish between routing alternatives.
Compute the actual ocean route using A* pathfinding through a 0.05-degree water grid. Sample 10 intelligence signals along every segment of the route polyline.
Intelligence Signals
Each signal is queried spatially against the route polyline. Zero-count signals are excluded from the weighted average denominator — the composite score reflects only what is actually present on your route.
Incidents along the route corridor
War risk premium zones
Active navigational warnings
Intensity along transit countries
Transit country exposure
Port state control history
Flag state white/grey/black list
Wind, wave height, sea state
Dark activity, spoofing zones
Composite instability index
Stochastic Analysis
Point estimates are not enough for underwriting decisions. ArcNautical runs 500 simulations per voyage with AR(1) correlated weather uncertainty to produce an ETA distribution, fuel consumption range, and probabilistic risk bounds.
Instead of a single expected arrival time, get a probability distribution. The P10 is the optimistic case (10th percentile), P50 is the median, and P90 is the pessimistic case. Weather uncertainty is modeled with AR(1) autocorrelation (rho = 0.85) — because bad weather days tend to cluster, not alternate.
Fuel consumption modeled using the Admiralty cubic law: consumption scales with the cube of speed. Each vessel type has reference consumption rates. CO2 calculated using IMO MEPC.364(79) emission factors per fuel type (HFO 3.114, VLSFO 3.151, MGO 3.206, LNG 2.750 tonnes CO2 per tonne of fuel).
Calculate the Carbon Intensity Indicator per IMO MEPC.339(76) and MEPC.354(78). Get the projected CII rating (A through E) for this voyage based on vessel type, DWT, distance, and fuel consumption. Includes the annual tightening factor — so a voyage that rated B in 2024 might rate C in 2026.
Reports
Complete voyage risk assessment with composite score, all 10 signal breakdowns, route map, waypoint timeline, and risk driver analysis. Designed for underwriter review.
Side-by-side comparison of alternative routes (e.g. Suez vs Cape). Risk score, transit time, fuel consumption, CO2 emissions, and CII rating for each option.
Regional piracy intelligence brief with incident density maps, trend analysis, source attribution (IMB, ReCAAP), and recommended transit precautions.
Built For
War risk, hull and machinery, cargo. Price premiums based on actual route risk, not outdated port-pair tables. Compare routes to quantify the risk delta when a vessel diverts around a high-risk zone.
Provide voyage risk data alongside freight quotes. Differentiate on intelligence. A broker who can quantify the risk difference between Suez and Cape routing adds value that a rate sheet alone cannot.
Monitor voyage risk across the entire fleet. Get alerts when a vessel enters a high-risk zone or when risk conditions change along a planned route. CII projections help with regulatory compliance planning.
Structured, auditable voyage risk assessments for clients who need to demonstrate due diligence. PDF reports with full methodology notes that satisfy regulatory review requirements.
ArcNautical computes the actual ocean route and scores it against 10 live intelligence signals. Free voyage scoring — no signup required for your first assessment.
Or reach us directly: [email protected]