{"id":19169,"date":"2026-08-16T16:06:22","date_gmt":"2026-08-16T16:06:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/?p=19169"},"modified":"2026-08-16T16:06:22","modified_gmt":"2026-08-16T16:06:22","slug":"maritime-risk-clauses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/maritime-risk-clauses\/","title":{"rendered":"Maritime Risk Clauses: How to Avoid Costly Charterparty Disputes"},"content":{"rendered":"

A VLCC loading in the Persian Gulf can post time-charter equivalent earnings above $100,000 per day when regional tensions spike. Spot freight on certain Gulf-to-Asia crude runs has traded four times the five-year average. On paper the numbers look like a gift. In practice a large share of that cash never reaches the owner\u2019s bottom line.<\/p>\n

The difference is war-risk insurance. Premiums that once sat near 0.25 percent of hull value have routinely moved into the 3\u201310 percent range for a single transit. For a $100\u2013150 million tanker that single-voyage cover can cost several million dollars. Add elevated crew costs, higher bunker bills from maximum-speed transits, and the administrative friction of listed areas, and the apparent windfall shrinks or vanishes. This is the central paradox of high-risk Gulf shipping: headline freight rates soar while net returns for many operators remain constrained or even negative once every risk layer is priced.<\/p>\n

Shipping has always been cyclical. Long-run industry data show average returns clustered around high single digits with volatility frequently exceeding 30\u201335 percent. Classical finance would label such an asset class unattractive for permanent capital. Yet capital continues to flow because the extremes create temporary, asymmetric opportunities. The current phase in the Strait of Hormuz and adjacent waters is one of those extremes. Understanding where the money actually goes, who captures residual profit, and how costs ultimately travel through the supply chain is essential for any company moving bulk, energy, or containerized goods through the region.<\/p>\n

How War Risk Premiums Rewrite Voyage Economics<\/h3>\n

Standard hull and machinery cover excludes war, strikes, and related perils. Owners therefore buy separate war-risk cover, usually structured as an annual policy with the right for underwriters to reprice or cancel on short notice when a corridor is reclassified. The Joint War Committee\u2019s listing of the Arabian Gulf and approaches triggers that mechanism almost immediately.<\/p>\n

\"Shipping<\/a>

Shipping Economics High-Risk Paradox<\/p><\/div>\n

Recent market data illustrate the scale. Pre-escalation levels around 0.25 percent of insured value have risen at peaks to 7.5\u201310 percent for Hormuz transits. Even after temporary de-escalations, rates have settled in ranges several times the peacetime baseline. A single VLCC transit can generate an additional insurance bill measured in millions of dollars. Container and product-tanker operators face similar step-ups, frequently expressed as per-TEU or per-voyage surcharges that carriers then attempt to recover.<\/p>\n

These costs are not theoretical. Operators report that insurance and related risk charges have become the dominant variable expense on affected voyages, sometimes exceeding bunker costs. The old efficiency tools\u2014slow steaming, weather routing optimization, just-in-time arrival\u2014lose relevance. Masters are instructed to transit at maximum safe speed to minimize exposure time. Fuel consumption rises. The economic calculation shifts from minimizing operating expense to minimizing time-at-risk.<\/p>\n

Surcharge mechanisms exist precisely for this situation. War risk surcharges, emergency contingency surcharges, and related emergency fuel adjustments appear on invoices. The legal and commercial question is allocation. Under most voyage charter parties the charterer bears the additional war-risk premium once the vessel is ordered into a listed area. Time-charter structures can differ. In practice the incidence depends on bargaining power, the exact wording of the charter, and the speed with which markets reprice. When capacity is tight and alternatives scarce, more of the cost sticks with the cargo interest. When spare tonnage exists or rerouting options improve, owners absorb a larger share.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
Voyage Economics<\/span><\/div>\n
\n

VLCC Cost Structure Comparison: Normal vs. High-Risk Transit<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The table below outlines a hypothetical cost breakdown for a 30-day voyage of a VLCC (Value: $100M, Cargo: 2,000,000 barrels of crude)<\/strong> transiting from the Persian Gulf to East Asia, contrasting standard conditions with a high-risk operational environment (7-day War Risk Area breach).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Expense Category<\/th>\nStandard Conditions (USD)<\/th>\nHigh-Risk Transit (USD)<\/th>\nCost Driver \/ Notes<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
H&M War Risk Premium<\/td>\n$15,000<\/td>\n$500,000<\/td>\nSpikes from annual base rate to 0.50% AP for a 7-day breach.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n

Cargo War Insurance<\/td>\n$25,000<\/td>\n$350,000<\/td>\nBased on cargo value of ~$140M (0.25% premium surcharge).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n

Crew Danger Pay (Bonus)<\/td>\n$0<\/td>\n$45,000<\/td>\nMandatory 100% basic pay bonus for 7 days in ITF war zone.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n

Bunker Fuel (VLSFO \/ MGO)<\/td>\n$650,000<\/td>\n$740,000<\/td>\nIncludes high-speed transit during breach and minor rerouting.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n

Port Delays \/ Demurrage<\/td>\n$0<\/td>\n$90,000<\/td>\nEstimated 2 days of security & convoy delays ($45k\/day).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n

Private Maritime Security (PCASP)<\/td>\n$0<\/td>\n$35,000<\/td>\nArmed security team onboarding and specialized equipment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n

TOTAL VOYAGE OPEX & VAR-COST<\/td>\n$690,000<\/td>\n$1,760,000<\/td>\n+155% Total Increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Summary Insight:<\/strong> Insurance premiums and risk surcharges account for over 75% of the cost delta<\/strong> between a standard and high-risk voyage. On a 2-million-barrel cargo, this inflates the freight transport cost by roughly $0.53 per barrel<\/strong>.<\/div>\n
\n
Crucial Liability Gap<\/span><\/div>\n
\n

The Missing Layer: P&I Clubs and War Risk Liabilities<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

While soaring Hull & Machinery (H&M)<\/strong> premiums capture headlines, they only cover physical damage to the vessel. The secondary\u2014and often far more catastrophic\u2014financial exposure lies within third-party liabilities covered by Protection & Indemnity (P&I) Clubs<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
1. Automatic Exclusion & Bio-Chem Limits<\/div>\n
Standard P&I cover automatically excludes war risks once a vessel enters JWC-listed corridors. Owners must purchase expensive reinstatement policies or specialized War Risk P&I excess cover, often subject to strict inner limits on bio-chemical and dirty bomb risks.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
2. Environmental Pollution & Wreck Removal<\/div>\n
A single attack leading to a major oil spill or a sunken vessel blocking a narrow channel can trigger liabilities exceeding $1 billion. P&I war caps are often strictly enforced, leaving owners exposed to uncapped environmental damages under local laws.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
3. Crew Claims & Detention Expenses<\/div>\n
P&I clubs manage crew repatriation, disability, and death benefits\u2014all of which multiply in designated High Risk Areas (HRAs). If a vessel is detained or seized, P&I policies face complex operational delays before constructive total loss (CTL) triggers kick in.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Key Takeaway for Operators:<\/strong> A voyage may look profitable after calculating H&M war premiums and freight surcharges, but an unhedged P&I liability gap in contested waters can instantly jeopardize an owner’s entire capital balance.<\/div>\n

Vintage Tonnage and the Risk-Taking Premium<\/h3>\n

Newbuilding prices for tankers and bulkers remain elevated. Ordering a modern VLCC or Suezmax at the top of the cycle locks in high capital cost for years. In contrast, older vessels\u2014those whose book value has already been largely written down\u2014offer a different risk-return profile. Their residual capital cost is low. If they can still obtain insurance and crew, every dollar of freight after variable costs is closer to pure contribution.<\/p>\n

\"VLCC\"<\/a>

VLCC<\/p><\/div>\n

Market behavior confirms the pattern. Larger, publicly listed operators with strict ESG and safety policies often reduce exposure or withdraw from the highest-risk legs. Smaller or more opportunistic owners, frequently operating older tonnage, step in. They accept higher war-risk premiums and potential reputational exposure in exchange for multi-fold freight rates. Some owners simply sell the vessel at the elevated second-hand values that risk periods produce\u2014an asset play timed to the peak\u2014and exit the trade altogether.<\/p>\n

This is not new. Shipping history is littered with periods when older, fully depreciated ships earned outsized returns precisely because modern fleets stayed away. The current environment in the Gulf corridor repeats the pattern. The owners capturing the residual profit after insurance are often those whose balance sheets already treated the hull as a sunk cost.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
Human Capital Risk<\/span><\/div>\n
\n

Crew Danger Pay & The Human Factor in High-Risk Transit<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Behind insurance figures lies a critical operational hurdle: the crew. When corridors are designated as High-Risk Areas (HRAs) or War Operations Areas by bodies like the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and the International Maritime Employers’ Council (IMEC), human resource costs rise exponentially.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
1. Mandatory Double Basic Pay (Bonus Rates)<\/div>\n
Under ITF agreements, seafarers transiting designated war zones are entitled to a bonus equal to 100% of their basic pay for the duration of the transit. For a VLCC crew of 20 to 25 officers and ratings, this hazard pay adds a substantial daily burden to operating expenses (OPEX).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
2. The Right to Refuse & Repatriation Rights<\/div>\n
Seafarers hold the legal right to refuse to enter a designated high-risk zone. If a crew member exercises this right, the operator is legally obligated to repatriate them at the company’s expense and hire replacement personnel, causing costly voyage delays, off-hire periods, and port disruptions.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
3. Doubled Death & Disability Benefits<\/div>\n
In the event of injury or fatality resulting from hostile action in war zones, contractual compensation to seafarers or their families doubles. Managing this heightened liability requires specialized crew war-risk insurance policies alongside standard P&I entries.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Operational Reality:<\/strong> High freight rates mean little if a vessel is stalled because key crew members refuse to sail. Fleet managers must account for crew retention, emergency staffing protocols, and hazard bonuses when evaluating the true profitability of a Gulf voyage.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Operational Bottlenecks<\/span><\/p>\n

Demurrage, Port Diversions & Friction Expenses<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n

Beyond direct war-risk premiums and elevated crew wages, high-risk transits trigger a cascade of secondary operational frictions. These logistical disruptions severely erode charterers’ margins and distort supply chain timelines.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
1. Port Congestion & Demurrage Escalation<\/div>\n
Heightened security protocols, stringent inspection regimes, and naval convoy alignment lead to severe port congestion. When vessels breach laytime limits waiting to berth or clear security checkpoints, daily demurrage penalties accrue rapidly\u2014often reaching tens of thousands of dollars per day for crude and chemical tankers.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
2. Deviation to Ports of Refuge<\/div>\n
When imminent threat levels rise or active hostilities break out, masters exercise their liberty to alter course toward a designated Port of Refuge. Forced rerouting incurs massive secondary expenses, including additional bunker consumption, port entry dues, pilotage fees, and complex general average (GA) legal declarations.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
3. Heightened Inspection & Compliance Overhead<\/div>\n
Navigating high-risk corridors triggers intensive Port State Control (PSC) inspections, armed guard clearance checks, and cargo verification procedures. These administrative and physical checks add costly non-productive hours, extending overall turnaround times and inflating agency fees.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Charterparty Impact:<\/strong> Standard charterparty terms often lead to dispute over whether time spent waiting for security clearance or diverting to safe anchorage counts as laytime or off-hire. Clear contractual allocations of these bottleneck risks are essential to prevent prolonged litigation.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Financial Case Study<\/span><\/p>\n

Comparative Voyage Cost Model: Standard vs. High-Risk Transit<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n

To illustrate the financial gravity of operating in high-risk zones, the table below compares a baseline 30-day voyage for a VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier – $100M insured hull value, carrying 2M barrels of crude)<\/strong> against the same voyage during heightened regional tension.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Cost Element<\/th>\nBaseline Voyage (Standard Risk)<\/th>\nHigh-Risk Corridor Voyage<\/th>\nImpact \/ Variance<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Hull & Machinery (H&M) War Premium<\/td>\n$15,000 (0.015% Annual base)<\/span><\/td>\n$500,000 (0.50% 7-day breach)<\/span><\/td>\n+3233%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Crew Hazard Bonus (Danger Pay)<\/td>\n$0 (Standard wage)<\/span><\/td>\n$45,000 (+100% basic pay \/ 7 days)<\/span><\/td>\n+$45,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Bunker Fuel & Routing Deviations<\/td>\n$650,000 (Direct passage)<\/span><\/td>\n$780,000 (Speed alteration\/minor rerouting)<\/span><\/td>\n+20%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Port Delays & Demurrage (2 Days)<\/td>\n$0 (On schedule)<\/span><\/td>\n$90,000 ($45,000\/day delay rate)<\/span><\/td>\n+$90,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Armed Guards \/ Security Protocols<\/td>\n$0<\/td>\n$35,000 (3-4 man security team)<\/span><\/td>\n+$35,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total Variable Voyage Cost<\/td>\n$665,000<\/td>\n$1,450,000<\/td>\n+118% Increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
Per-Barrel Impact:<\/strong> In this model, high-risk operational costs add roughly $0.39 to $0.40 per barrel<\/strong> of oil transported. While seemingly small on a single barrel, across a 2-million-barrel cargo, it represents an additional ~$785,000 in unbudgeted expense<\/strong> per single voyage.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Who Ultimately Pays: Surcharges, Contracts, and the Final Consumer<\/h3>\n

Emergency and war-risk surcharges are designed to allocate incremental cost along the contractual chain. In theory the mechanism works. In practice the ability to pass costs depends on three factors: contract rigidity, market power, and the elasticity of final demand.<\/p>\n

Long-term supply contracts with fixed pricing or limited escalation clauses leave the seller or the logistics provider absorbing the spike until the next renegotiation window. Spot cargoes and shorter-term arrangements reprice faster. Large energy traders and commodity houses with strong balance sheets and diversified sourcing can absorb temporary hits and later recover through wider margins. Smaller industrial buyers or retailers further down the chain often lack that flexibility.<\/p>\n

Empirical observation from recent disruptions shows the cost rarely stops at the first or second tier. Elevated freight and insurance feed into CIF prices. Refiners, manufacturers, and distributors adjust selling prices where competitive conditions allow. Where competition is intense or contracts are sticky, margins compress and the cost is shared. Over successive cycles the residual burden reaches the end consumer in the form of higher delivered prices for energy, petrochemicals, metals, and manufactured goods that rely on Gulf-origin or Gulf-transiting cargoes.<\/p>\n

The alternative\u2014systematic avoidance of the Strait\u2014adds its own costs. Longer routes increase ton-mile demand, raise bunker consumption, and reduce effective fleet productivity. Those costs also appear in freight rates and, eventually, in landed prices. There is no free option. The choice is between paying the risk premium to keep the shorter route open or paying the distance and time premium of avoidance.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
Cargo Owner Perspective<\/span><\/div>\n
\n

The Invisible Landed Cost: Marine Cargo War Risk Premiums<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

While vessel owners manage hull and freight risk, cargo owners (shippers and charterers)<\/strong> face an equally direct margin compression through Marine Cargo War Risk Insurance<\/strong>. Standard marine cargo policies automatically exclude war, strike, and terrorism risks in listed JWLA corridors, forcing cargo interests to purchase specialized add-ons or absorb carrier-imposed surcharges.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
1. Ad Valorem Cargo Surcharges<\/div>\n
Unlike container freight surcharges charged per TEU, cargo war risk is calculated on total invoice value (Ad Valorem). For high-value energy shipments, crude oil, or specialized petrochemicals transiting the Gulf, a jump in war risk rates from 0.05% to 0.5%\u20131.0% adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the landed cost of a single shipment.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
2. Incoterms Mismatch & Insurance Gaps<\/div>\n
Incoterms like CIF require the seller to obtain minimum insurance coverage (Institute Cargo Clauses C or A), but standard terms rarely mandate comprehensive war risk cover unless explicitly negotiated. Shippers operating under legacy CIP or CIF contracts often find themselves uninsured for war risk detentions, blockades, or cargo abandonments.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
3. Carrier Pass-Through Surcharges (WRS)<\/div>\n
Liner operators and container carriers hedge their own vessel insurance spikes by passing down Emergency War Risk Surcharges (WRS)<\/em> directly to shippers. These arbitrary, short-notice surcharges shatter pre-calculated supply chain budgets and directly inflate working capital requirements for importers.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Strategic Imperative:<\/strong> Cargo owners cannot rely on ocean carriers or default trade contracts to shield them. Proactive buyers must audit their cargo insurance policies for War Risk reinstatement options and account for fluctuating Ad Valorem<\/em> rates in their total cost of goods sold (COGS).<\/div>\n

Practical Steps for Cargo Interests and Operators<\/h3>\n

Companies that move goods through or from the region can reduce exposure with disciplined process rather than perfect foresight.<\/p>\n

First, map every active contract for war-risk and emergency surcharge clauses. Identify which party bears the cost under different trigger conditions and the notice periods required. Where gaps exist, negotiate clearer allocation language at the next renewal.<\/p>\n

Second, treat insurance as a live input rather than a fixed overhead. Maintain relationships with specialist brokers who can provide real-time indications for specific vessels and routes. Build contingency budgets that assume elevated premiums for a defined period rather than hoping for rapid normalization.<\/p>\n

Third, diversify routing and inventory buffers where commercially feasible. Holding modest additional stock or qualifying alternative supply origins reduces the pure leverage of any single chokepoint. The carrying cost of inventory is measurable; the cost of a multi-week disruption is often larger.<\/p>\n

Fourth, evaluate counterparty risk carefully. Operators willing to accept higher war-risk exposure may offer attractive freight, but their insurance capacity, P&I club standing, and crew management quality matter. A vessel that cannot obtain cover or whose crew refuses the voyage is of little use.<\/p>\n

Platforms that aggregate verified carrier and service-provider options can shorten the search for suitable capacity under stress. One such resource is available at Platform.Tendify.Net<\/a> for operators seeking structured visibility into available tonnage and service terms.<\/p>\n

Structural Implications for Cross-Border Supply Chains<\/h3>\n

Repeated activation of war-risk pricing in the Gulf and adjacent corridors is changing baseline assumptions. Underwriters have indicated that a sustained period of incident-free transits\u2014measured in years rather than weeks\u2014is required before premiums fully revert. Some market participants now treat a higher structural risk premium as the new normal for certain energy and container lanes.<\/p>\n

This has second-order effects. Inventory strategies shift from pure just-in-time toward more resilient positioning. Financing costs rise because lenders and insurers price the elevated operational risk. Trade finance documentation increasingly requires explicit war-risk cover evidence. For companies whose supply chains depend on Gulf energy, petrochemicals, or intermediate goods, the cost of capital and working-capital intensity both increase.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the volatility creates selective opportunity. Owners with fully depreciated tonnage, flexible insurance arrangements, and operational discipline can generate returns that more than compensate for the risk during the elevated phase. Traders with strong balance sheets can arbitrage temporary dislocations in regional product balances. The key is recognizing that the headline freight rate is only the starting point of the calculation.<\/p>\n

Closing the Loop on Risk Allocation<\/h3>\n

The question posed by current conditions is straightforward: can surcharges and contractual mechanisms fully internalize the regional risk premium, or does residual cost inevitably migrate to the final consumer? Experience across successive disruptions shows partial recovery through surcharges is achievable when markets are tight and contracts allow. Full insulation of any single party is rare. Over the full cycle the delivered cost of goods that transit high-risk corridors rises. That increase is the market\u2019s way of pricing the probability of interruption.<\/p>\n

Operators and cargo interests that treat war-risk cost as a permanent planning variable rather than a temporary anomaly will make better capital and inventory decisions. Those who continue to budget on peacetime assumptions will face repeated margin shocks.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Marketplace Intelligence<\/div>\n

Mitigate Information Asymmetry in Gulf Trades<\/h3>\n

For organizations seeking clearer visibility into carrier capacity, service reliability, and risk-adjusted routing options across Gulf and broader MENA trades, structured marketplace tools drastically reduce the information friction that amplifies cost.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Access Market Intelligence
\n\u2192<\/span>
\n<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Strategic Takeaway: The Mastered Cost Stack<\/h4>\n<\/div>\n

The Strait of Hormuz will remain a critical artery for global energy and maritime trades. The paradox of high freight rates existing alongside disappearing margins is not an anomaly; it is the direct expression of how operational risk is priced when a strategic chokepoint becomes contested.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cThe companies that master the full cost stack\u2014freight, insurance, speed, and contractual allocation\u2014will protect margins while others simply watch the numbers move.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

High-Risk Zone Transit Operational & Security Checklist.pdf<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A VLCC loading in the Persian Gulf can post time-charter equivalent earnings above $100,000 per day when regional tensions spike.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":19176,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[778],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-logistics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19169"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19169\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19177,"href":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19169\/revisions\/19177"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/19176"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tendify.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}