How maritime intelligence is strengthening P&I Club risk management

The mutual model has endured for nearly 170 years because it rests on a principle that is both simple and robust: shipowners share each other's risks, and in doing so, create a collective resilience that no individual operator could achieve alone. The integrity of that model depends entirely on the quality of what goes into the pool.

What is changing is the scale of the threat to pool integrity — and the availability of the data to address it.

‍

The pressure on the mutual pool

The 2024/25 policy year was a difficult one by most measures. Pool claims — those between $10 million and $100 million shared across the International Group's twelve member clubs — reached levels that exceeded all clubs' expectations, with approximately 23 pool losses recorded, at an estimated pooled cost of between $650 million and $700 million. Including individual club retentions and associated costs, the group's total exposure crossed $1 billion.

The factors driving that deterioration are well understood: geopolitical disruption, Red Sea rerouting increasing voyage distances and mechanical stress, ageing fleet profiles, mis-declared cargo, fire-prone electric vehicle consignments, and increasingly the direct and indirect exposure created by a shadow fleet whose vessels share the same waters as members' tonnage.

Pool claims are subject to significant back-year deterioration, with claims historically deteriorating by 32% between 12 and 18 months, and 66% between 12 and 36 months. That long-tail nature means that the full cost of the 2024/25 year will not be known for some time. But it reinforces a structural truth about P&I: the costs that accumulate in the pool are not simply a function of how many incidents occur. They are a function of whether those incidents were preventable, whether the claims arising from them are genuine, and whether the members generating them should have been in the pool at all.

Maritime intelligence addresses all three of those dimensions.

‍

Member vetting: What enters the pool matters

The mutual principle creates a shared interest in the quality of membership that goes beyond any individual club's commercial considerations. Because Group Clubs share claims through the pooling system, they have a common interest in loss prevention and control, and in the maintenance of quality standards throughout the membership. A member who brings a history of deceptive activity, sanctions exposure, or sub-standard operations into the pool is not simply a bad risk for their own club — they are a cost borne by every other member.

Vetting new entrants rigorously has always been a club obligation. The question is what that vetting now needs to look like.

The traditional approach — reviewing vessel particulars, classification records, flag state, and declared trading areas — is insufficient in an environment where false-flag vessels now account for 29% of the dark fleet, with fraudulent registries emerging from an expanding range of jurisdictions. A vessel whose IMO number, flag state, and declared management structure all appear legitimate at the point of entry may have a behavioural history that tells a fundamentally different story.

Effective member vetting now requires a behavioural layer. This means reviewing AIS transmission history over a meaningful period, not just recent months, to identify patterns of unexplained dark activity, loitering in zones associated with ship-to-ship transfers of sanctioned cargo, or port call sequences inconsistent with declared trading areas. It means examining ownership network structure to identify shell company layers or rapid flag changes that suggest regulatory arbitrage. And it means screening against not just formal sanctions lists but against the behavioural indicators that precede formal designation.

Behavioural indicators including AIS spoofing, dark operations, suspicious routing, and unexplained gaps have been shown to predict future sanctions designations even for vessels not yet formally listed. For a club considering whether to enter a vessel, this is material intelligence — not a peripheral compliance check.

‍

Ship-to-ship transfers: The environmental and liability exposure clubs cannot ignore

STS transfers represent one of the most significant and fastest-growing risk vectors for P&I clubs. The liability exposure is not theoretical. When a transfer goes wrong — a spill, a collision, structural damage — the environmental cleanup costs, wreck removal obligations, and third-party claims can escalate into major pool events. When that transfer involves sanctioned cargo, the legal and regulatory exposure compounds dramatically.

Over the past year, dark STS transfers surged sharply, overtaking other indicators of deceptive activity, while AIS spoofing remained persistently high. Vessels rendezvous repeatedly in specific zones — including the Laconian Gulf off southern Greece, waters off Malaysia, and regions off West Africa — offering deep water, distance from territorial surveillance, and proximity to shipping lanes.

For clubs, monitoring STS activity among entered vessels is an essential loss prevention and compliance function. A member vessel conducting repeated dark STS transfers in known high-risk zones is generating exposure that the club needs to understand before a casualty crystallises it into a claim. The 2025 OFAC advisory formalised the obligation: following successive ship-to-ship engagements, it is essential to research all involved vessels — not only by name, but using multiple identification and location data points.

There is also a broader mutual interest argument. A member whose vessel participates in an STS transfer with a shadow fleet tanker — whether knowingly or not — may have contributed to the conditions that cause a subsequent collision or pollution incident involving a third party. The club's ability to defend or resist such a claim depends partly on its ability to demonstrate what it knew about the member's operating practices, and when.

‍

Casualty reconstruction: Building the evidentiary record

Complex casualty investigations — collisions, groundings, cargo fires, structural failures — require an objective account of events that neither the shipowner nor the claimant can credibly challenge. This is where high-frequency AIS data, combined with satellite imagery, has transformed the claims function.

The value of this capability was illustrated starkly in the retrospective analysis of the SKIPPER, a sanctions-evading tanker seized by US authorities in late 2025. Analysis of movements over 12 months documented six separate dark periods totalling more than 200 days, six offshore cargo operations with draught swings of 9 to 10 metres far from any port infrastructure, and a geographic deception that placed the vessel's AIS broadcast 1,200 nautical miles from its actual loading location. That reconstruction was only possible because the underlying tracking data and satellite imagery existed and could be cross-referenced.

For P&I clubs, the ability to reconstruct vessel movements at the moment of an incident — the precise speed, heading, and position of all vessels involved in a collision; the route taken by a vessel prior to a grounding; the location and status of a ship during a cargo loss event — is the difference between a well-evidenced claims position and one that depends on the accounts of interested parties.

High-frequency AIS data provides the temporal and positional record. Optical and radar satellite imagery fills the gaps where AIS has been disabled or manipulated. Together, they create an independent, third-party account of events that is increasingly accepted as authoritative in maritime arbitration and litigation.

The practical implication for clubs is that this capability needs to be built into claims workflows as a default, not deployed reactively in the largest cases only. The cost of retrospective data retrieval increases with time. The evidentiary value is highest when captured promptly.

‍