Managing a multi-cargo port is inherently complex. Each commodity class (containers, dry bulk, liquid bulk, RoRo, general cargo) demands specialised infrastructure, handling equipment, safety systems, and workforce competencies.
The result is complexity, operational silos, and capital locked into specialised terminals that are not always fully utilised.
But what if we flipped the model?
What if a large share of dry and liquid bulk could be converted into standardised containerised units — TEUs and FEUs — and handled mainly through container terminals?
Instead of designing ports around cargo types, we would design around one universal transfer standard: the container. The outcome would be a Universal Port Terminal — a single high-velocity interface capable of absorbing multiple cargo families with fewer fixed constraints.
This is not a blank-sheet fantasy. It is already happening in specific trades across mining, agriculture, chemicals, and food-grade liquids. The real question is: how far can we scale it without breaking economics or physics?
How it all started
In the early 1950s, ports were breakbulk machines. Cargo moved one sling at a time, slow, labour-heavy, and expensive. Trucking entrepreneur Malcolm McLean famously watched ships queue for days while goods were man-handled into holds, and asked a simple question: why not move the box instead of the goods? His intermodal breakthrough in the mid-1950s triggered a logistics revolution.
But early containerisation had a major problem: too many box sizes and formats. Operators favoured different lengths, railways had different gauges, and ports faced uncertainty about which standard to invest in. The turning point came when the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) established Technical Committee 104 in 1961 to harmonise container dimensions, strength, and handling interfaces. By the late 1960s, the 20-ft and 40-ft Series 1 ISO containers had become the global modules.
Where we are today
The annual Global seaborne trade reached 12.7 billion tonnes in 2024. The broad cargo mix by weight is roughly:
- 40% Dry bulk
- 30% Liquid bulk
- 20% Containers
- 10% Others (General Cargo, Breakbuk, RoRo, etc.)
So, containers represent roughly one-fifth of global seaborne trade volume. By value, the picture flips: about 70% of seaborne trade value is carried in containers.
From Bulk Handling to Bulk-in-a-Box
The core idea is simple: treat the container as a modular mini-silo or mini-tank.
For dry bulk, this means loading commodities such as grain, fertilisers, sugar, minerals, aggregates, plastics, or wood pellets into standard containers equipped with internal liners, top hatches, or bulk doors.
For liquids, it means using ISO tank containers or flexitanks within standard 20-foot boxes to carry chemicals, edible oils, industrial liquids, and more.
In other words, instead of building terminals around continuous bulk flows, the system breaks those flows into discrete container-sized units. Handling then becomes a standard container move: lift, transfer, stack, gate, rail, load.
Of course, the devil is in the detail: the equipment.
The equipment that makes it possible
For dry bulk, the enabling technologies are now mature and widely available:
- Bulk liners and bags-in-box systems turn standard containers into sealed bulk units, ideal for grains, sugar, plastics, and fertilisers.
- Specialised bulk containers with top hatches and rear discharge doors help with faster loading and unloading.
- Rotating spreaders (“rotainers”) allow cranes to lift a container and rotate it 180–360 degrees to discharge cargo via gravity into a hopper, ship’s hold, or stockpile. These are widely used for mining products and agri-bulk.
- Tilting frames and tipplers support rear-door discharge by lifting and tilting containers on dedicated platforms.
- Pneumatic and screw-extraction systems can remove powders and fine materials directly from containers into silos or conveyors.
For liquid bulk, the focus is on:
- ISO tank containers, which are standardised globally and can be stacked, handled, and shipped like any other container.
- Flexitanks, which convert a 20-foot container into a low-cost single-use tank for food-grade or non-hazardous liquids.
- Pump skids, manifolds, and heating systems, which interface tank containers with shore tanks, pipelines, trucks, or railcars.
Importantly, none of this requires exotic infrastructure. The core container terminal assets remain the backbone – STS cranes, yard cranes, tractors or AGVs and terminal operating systems (TOS).
In fact, the additional modules - bulk discharge stations, hoppers, conveyors, pump pads, and tank/liner handling facilities - don’t need to be deployed on-dock. These can be located in stand-alone hinterland bulk hubs connected to the container terminal via rail, barge, or high-capacity truck shuttles.
Why would a port want to do this?
The appeal is significant.
First, there is standardisation. Instead of maintaining separate terminals, fleets, and teams for containers, dry bulk, and liquids, a port can consolidate a large share of its business into a single, flexible container-based system. This simplifies training, maintenance, planning, and digital integration.
Second, there is flexibility and scalability. Markets change. A fertiliser flow that was once 2 million tonnes a year may fall to 500 000 tonnes. A new plastics polymer may appear with modest volumes but high value. Containerised bulk makes it easier to start, scale, shrink, or re-route flows without committing to huge specialised bulk berths and massive conveyor systems.
Third, it improves network connectivity. Containerised bulk can move seamlessly via global liner services and inland intermodal networks. This opens new routing options, supports landlocked regions, and enhances resilience when traditional bulk chains are disrupted.
Fourth, the model carries environmental and safety advantages. Sealed bulk containers reduce dust, spillage, and product loss. Visual impact is lower than large open stockpiles. Bulk flows can benefit from electrified container-handling equipment, and the terminal footprint can often be more compact and controlled.
The challenges
This is not a silver bullet.
For very high-volume and low-value commodities – iron ore, coal, bauxite at tens of millions of tonnes per year – traditional bulk terminals with giant shiploaders and continuous conveyors remain more cost-effective per tonne. The cycle times, equipment costs, and container handling overhead of a pure containerised model would struggle to compete at those scales.
Weight is another constraint. High-density cargo quickly hits container gross weight limits, forcing lower payload per unit and more container moves per tonne. Yard space can also become a bottleneck: a commodity that once sat in a compact stockpile may now occupy a wide yard footprint as thousands of heavy containers.
Operationally, ports must manage cleaning, liners, and contamination control. Reusing containers for different commodities requires procedures, facilities, and time. For dangerous goods and food-grade cargo, regulations and quality protocols become critical.
Economically, shippers accustomed to very low unit costs in classic bulk trades may resist higher cost per tonne – even if they gain flexibility, quality control, or market reach. The value proposition works best where logistics agility and network access carry real premium.
When bulk-in-a-box shines
This system works best when:
- Volumes are medium or fragmented: Containerised bulk shines in 0.1–3 Mtpa trades, multi-receiver flows, or seasonal peaks. Inland hubs absorb variability.
- Cargo has high dwell or value-add needs: If cargo waits for batching, blending, or quality release, keeping it inland avoids clogging quay stacks.
- A strong hinterland corridor exists: Rail shuttles, barge services, or high-capacity truck corridors make the extended gateway viable.
- On-dock permitting is hard: Dust, noise, DG setbacks are easier inland.
Designing the next generation of “Universal” Ports
Looking ahead, greenfield projects can embed this philosophy from the outset.
A future-ready “universal” port shall feature:
- A universal quay with high-capacity STS cranes that can handle both standard and bulk containers, potentially using quick-change spreaders.
- Hinterland Bulk Hubs (dry and liquid) with multiple discharge/loading stations feeding modular silo farms, sheds, and tank farms.
- A container yard wrapped around these bulk modules, with dedicated zones for heavy bulk containers, tank containers, reefers, and standard cargo.
- Integrated road and rail intermodal interfaces designed for high volumes of containerised bulk.
- Fully integrated digital systems combining container planning, bulk inventory management, and real-time tracking of each “box of bulk” from origin to destination.
In such a design, the port terminal is no longer “a container terminal plus a bulk terminal plus a tank farm”. It is a single, highly flexible logistics engine whose core unit is the container, regardless of what is inside it.
Adapting existing container terminals
For ports with mature container terminals, moving into containerised bulk does not require reinvention. It just requires careful retrofitting:
- Develop adjacent or inland dry-bulk container hubs with rotainer/tippler stations, dust-controlled hoppers, and links to silos or truck bays.
- Develop adjacent or inland tank-container hubs with racks, pump pads, manifolds, drainage, bunding, and firefighting.
- Reinforce selected yard areas for heavy bulk stacks.
- Update the TOS to classify bulk containers, link moves to silo/tank systems, and track quality lots.
- Adjust yard strategy to segregate sensitive cargoes and prioritise shuttle evacuation.
With this in place, a traditional container terminal becomes a hybrid facility – capable of handling standard containers, tank containers, and bulk-in-box cargo with relatively modest capital investment.
Economic Feasibility
For any given cargo, shifting from bulk/parcel tankers to containers is only viable if the total logistics cost per tonne doesn’t blow up. Key drivers include the following.
Volume and scale: Mega-flows like 50–200 Mtpa iron ore or coal are built around economies of scale in bulk carriers. Containers can’t compete on $/t here. Mid-size flows (0.1–3 Mtpa) are where containers can win. Fragmented origins/destinations, multiple receivers, or seasonal trades.
Cargo value and quality demands: Higher-value cargo or quality-sensitive products (e.g. speciality chemicals, some agri-bulk, processed minerals) can absorb a higher freight/handling cost in exchange for better segregation, traceability and reduced damage.
Network structure: If the inland chain is already container-based (rail, road, ICDs, depots), the marginal cost of using containers at sea shrinks. If you’d have to build an entire container ecosystem just for one bulk trade, economics are weaker.
Distance and rate differentials: On long-haul routes, bulk carriers enjoy strong economies of scale. On shorter or irregular routes, the flexibility of scheduled container services can outweigh pure $/t savings of bulk.
Imbalance and repositioning: Containerising a bulk export from a region with chronic container deficits can actually help (you’re creating export loads). Doing it in a region already flooded with empties can make a lot of sense; doing it in the opposite direction may not.
So, the maximum percentage that could be containerised isn’t a physical limit; it’s where these economics stop working.
Pragmatic Potential: which segments could realistically move into boxes?
Realistic speaking, we can expect the following uplifts per type of cargo.
General cargo / breakbulk / RoRo: 30–50% of remaining non-OOG breakbulk/RoRo tonnage could be containerised in many trades. Globally this might translate to on the order of +5 to 7% of total seaborne tonnage.
Minor dry bulks (as opposed to iron ore/coal): 15–30% of their total volume could move into containers where inland/logistics conditions are right. At global scale that might add roughly +3 to 6% of total seaborne tonnage.
Major dry bulks (iron ore, thermal/met coal, large-scale bauxite): Only very small, special flows (e.g. trial shipments, remote loading points, last-mile coastal legs) might use containers. At world scale this is a rounding error: well under +1 % of total tonnage.
Liquid bulk (crude, products, chemicals, oils): Crude oil & large petroleum product flows almost certain to remain in tankers for pure cost reasons. Chemicals, speciality liquids, edible oils, juices, etc. many are already in ISO tanks or flexitanks for specific lanes. There is room to grow ISO/flexitank usage for mid-volume trades and markets needing high flexibility, but you won’t move the big crude/product rivers into boxes. 5–10% of total liquid-bulk tonnage could be containerised in economic niches; globally that’s roughly +3 to 5% of total seaborne tonnage.
What the future looks like
Containerised bulk will not eliminate the need for large, dedicated bulk terminals, nor will it suit every commodity or trade lane. Yet for ports aiming to diversify revenues, reduce exposure to single-market cycles, lower emissions, and capture smaller or more fragmented flows, “bulk-in-a-box” is far more than a niche workaround.
It is a strategic infrastructure and operating model that converts cargo diversity from a constraint into a competitive advantage—standardising interfaces, boosting flexibility, and tightening control over quality, safety, and environmental performance.
If adopted at scale in the right segments, this approach could lift the containerised share of global seaborne tonnage toward 30% over time— which represents a 50% increase from today’s level—quietly reshaping how ports plan capacity, structure terminals, and position themselves in the next era of trade.