Cargo ship runs aground in the Suez Canal
March 25,2025.  9:16 am

On March 23, 2021, the cargo ship Ever Given ran aground in the Suez Canal, completely blocking one of the world's most important shipping routes. The 400-meter-long vessel—a length comparable to a skyscraper laid on its side—came to rest across the narrow passage between the banks of the Egyptian canal. The incident, which occurred near kilometer 151 of the waterway, brought maritime traffic in both directions to a complete standstill for six days.

It is estimated that between 10% and 12% of global trade passes through this route, making the grounding an immediate threat to international supply chains, with economic losses estimated at billions of dollars, a situation that is only exacerbated by the high demand for imported products caused by the pandemic.

The causes of the incident have not been conclusively established. A first hypothesis, widely circulated in the early days of the grounding, suggested that a sudden gust of wind had reduced visibility and destabilized the container ship's rudder. However, initial forensic reports suggest a second hypothesis—a reckless maneuver by the Ever Given's team of captains—would have played a greater role in the atypical hydrodynamic behavior evident throughout the canal during the incident. It would also explain the vessel's final position.

In their defense, the ship's crew pointed to alleged communication failures with port operators and deficiencies in the assisted pilotage system imposed on all container ships entering the canal.

Although it does not appear in the official reports on the case, there is a third hypothesis that has been automatically dismissed by the authorities leading the investigation. According to preliminary records accessed by this media outlet, the Ever Given's navigation instruments showed a sudden increase in the total weight of the cargo being transported. This increase, which occurred less than 45 minutes before the incident, could have contributed to the partial sinking of the hull into the clay seabed. Despite its exclusion from the formal technical analysis, this hypothesis has been the subject of discussion in logistics and port circles, especially because of the implications it would have in terms of customs control and traceability of goods.

The rejection this third possibility has generated among sources close to the case is striking. According to local media, crew members have agreed to provide their statements on the condition that their identities remain confidential. The key to the accident is far from being explained by a malfunctioning of onboard devices or a large-scale smuggling operation.

“At least 150 containers located on the starboard side of the midships began to move slightly. This movement produces a very distinctive sound that can be heard on board when navigating stormy waters or encountering turbulence in ports. However, at this time, the team maintained full control of the ship and conditions were favorable; there was no reason for such a situation. Furthermore, why only 150? To this day, we have no satisfactory explanation.”

The operators who were called in to supervise the connection with the tow trucks reported to me via radio that some containers were open. This can happen; sealing systems are not foolproof, and customs checks can loosen the fasteners. But the team reported goods scattered around as if they had been forcefully ejected from inside the container. The photographs we took for internal control looked like those of a piñata explosion, with no signs of fire, overheating, or decompression that could explain what happened. I was struck by the fact that there were bags, thermoses, and toothbrushes that were not destroyed by the impact with other containers, but had become tiny, as if they had been shrunk without losing any detail. They fit in the palm of the supervisor's hand.

There are similar observations in the logs of the team responsible for dismantling some containers to facilitate the removal of the Ever Given's bow. These tasks were carried out independently by canal operators under the supervision of the Egyptian port police, so there is no strong reason to suspect communication contamination among the witnesses to the events. Among observations in cold technical terminology, several marginal notes can be read:

“There were no signs of corrosion, but the interior emits a strong smell of stale ozone and overheated resin.”

“The texture of some objects was inconsistent: soft on the outside, but with rigid cores that vibrated to the touch.”

The log closes with a lapidary phrase underlined three times:

“Do not reopen without adequate protection.”

The truth is that, beyond the official explanations, what arrived at its destination was not exactly what had set sail. Despite the resumption of transit and the closure of the case, doubts remain about the exact conditions under which the cargo completed its journey.