Marine fuels
Overview
The introduction of new regulations has caused fundamental change across the marine fuel markets. Reliable insight and data reflecting the market direction are more pressing than ever.
Gain daily transparency into the difference between conventional and alternative marine fuel prices and plan ahead more effectively with our market outlook and forecasts.
Our global coverage of marine fuels delivers market-driven price assessments, supply and demand data, price forecasts, and forward curve prices. Along with the latest news, market commentary, and in-depth analysis led by our market experts, our comprehensive insight helps your business decide on the best suited alternative marine fuel for your needs.
Latest marine fuels news
Browse the latest market moving news on the marine fuels industry.
Singapore bunker sales jump 19.5pc in October
Singapore bunker sales jump 19.5pc in October
Singapore, 14 November (Argus) — Bunker fuel demand at the port of Singapore rose by 19.5pc on the month to 4.8mn t in October, supported by stronger enquiries from shipowners. It takes total bunker consumption at the port to 45.3mn t in the first 10 months of the year, putting Singapore on course to break last year's record high sales of 51.8mn t. The latest statistics release from the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) show consumption of both conventional and alternative marine fuels rose strongly last month as more ships refuelled in Singapore. Bio-bunkers and B24 demand hit a new record monthly high of 116,200t, taking the total for January-October to 586,500t. Consumption has already exceeded last year's 518,000t, driven by shipping emissions compliance requirements set by the EU and IMO. Demand for B24 is expected to steadily rise in the coming months ahead of the implementation of the FuelEU regulations from January 2025. Demand for LNG as a marine fuel at the port of Singapore increased by 37pc from September to 50,600t in October, which was also a new record high for monthly consumption. "In general, we are seeing bigger enquiries in the last month or so," said a London-based trader. Sales of very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) in Singapore rose by 11.8pc from September to 2.5mn t last month, while high-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) consumption jumped by 11pc to 1.8mn t. By Mahua Chakravarty Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Q&A: Low-carbon marine options to grow: Baseblue
Q&A: Low-carbon marine options to grow: Baseblue
New York, 11 November (Argus) — With marine fuel greenhouse gas emissions regulations tightening, ship owners are looking for financially feasible low-carbon fuels to add to their marine fuel repertoire. Argus spoke with Dionysis Diamantopoulos , head of alternative fuels at bunker supplier and trading firm Baseblue, about ship owners' options. Edited highlights follow. Do you expect onboard CO 2 capture and storage technology to become more important in the next five years? The big question for carbon capture technology is the storage capacity for the seized CO2. For example, if an available technology only allows 200t of CO2 to be captured on a voyage for the full capacity of CO2 tanks, then if we take into account that 1t of fuel produces on a tank-to-wake assessment context 3.2t of CO2, this means that after burning 62.5t of fuel oil/gasoil on the vessel that would fill the entirety of the storage capacity of the carbon capture equipment. Considering that this consumption could be a 2-3 day sail for some vessels running on 30-plus day voyages, the proportion of time "online" and "offline" of this technology would be inefficient. In addition, questions over the development of carbon capture technology is dependent on the availability of infrastructure worldwide to collect the captured CO2. If a vessel calls at, say, Brazil and then west Africa, and has a full carbon capture tank from the second day of the voyage and cannot discharge the captured CO2 at a west African port, we have further "offline" time of the capture technology. Other questions could include the space on deck/holds and further design considerations for the carbon capture technology. In 2030 what do you expect the global marine fuel mix to look like? In the immediate future, conventional fuel will remain the front runner, followed by biofuels due to the ability of existing fleets/engines to burn them. LNG usage could also increase if orders/deliveries of new building dual-fueled vessels increase. The IEA's director, Mr Birol, said recently that he expects LNG prices to drop due to the inflow of cargoes of LNG from the US and Qatar in the upcoming year. In the years to come, we will also see more methanol dual-fueled vessels on the water, and different areas worldwide will surely develop to supply these vessels with sustainable methanol types. Ammonia will eventually join the mix after infrastructure developments and protocols have been set for the safety of bunkering procedures. Do you think that next year's FuelEU regulation will be sufficient to encourage the move to sustainable marine fuels? The reality is that we must start somewhere, and FuelEU is a solid driving factor in pushing our industry to begin incorporating alternative fuels in the energy mix. It is vital that FuelEU and EU ETS is incorporated gradually into shipping. A charge to completely eradicate emissions within the next year or so would not be reasonable, viable or achievable. This phase-in period also assists in avoiding stranded assets and global trade disruptions. To comply with FuelEU, shipowners must know each alternative marine fuel's well-to-wake (full lifecycle) greenhouse gas emissions scores, but there is a lot of confusion around these. What well-to-wake emissions would you say each fuel has? It is not a question of my own or others opinion; it is rather what can be proven with the relevant documentation, for example, from the proof of sustainability documentation that ISCC-certified suppliers can publish. This also showcases why having a proper paper trail and documentation that officially accompanies the supplies is important. If we are talking about the default values, they would be: B100 16.37 gCO2eq/MJ; B30 MGO 70.18 gCO2eq/MJ; B30 VLSFO 71.73 gCO2eq/MJ. Fossil LNG are default values based on the type of engine. For LNG Diesel DF, it is 76.13 gCO2eq/MJ. We have not yet delivered bio-LNG or bio-methanol, so we are unsure of the GHG savings. China is lagging behind Singapore in terms of biodiesel bunker (B24) sales. Do you expect Chinese biodiesel bunker demand to pick up next year? Singapore is the king of bunkering in the region and ranks as one of the largest global bunkering hubs/ports. But Hong Kong's biofuel supplies, namely B24 VLSFO, have started and have picked up. Specifically, we at Baseblue already have recurring customers who lift biofuel blends in Hong Kong. Is conventional bunker trading this year more or less competitive than last year? Conventional bunker trading this year is more competitive compared to previous years. In my opinion, this has to do with various factors. First, crude oil prices have been under pressure. Whenever prices are under pressure, smaller trading houses try to take advantage of the fewer financing needs and appear more competitive. Next, bunker trading companies have sprouted exponentially over the last few years, which is enough to increase competition. By Stefka Wechsler Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Carbon intensity reg pivotal to biobunkers in 2025
Carbon intensity reg pivotal to biobunkers in 2025
New York, 8 November (Argus) — The International Maritime Organization's (IMO) carbon intensity indicator (CII) regulation will propel biofuel bunker demand in 2025 as its restrictions tighten. The CII regulation came into force in January 2023 and thus far has had a muted effect on shipowners' biofuel bunker demand. But 2025 could be a pivotal year. CII requires vessels over 5,000 gross tonnes (gt) to report their carbon intensity, which is then scored from A to E. A and B vessel scores are regarded as superior energy efficiency, while C, D and E are considered moderate to inferior scores. The scoring levels are lowered yearly by about 2pc, so a vessel with no change in CII could drop from from C to D in one year. If a vessel receives a D score three years in a row or E score the previous year, the vessel owner must submit a corrective action plan. The IMO has not established penalties or restrictions for vessels scoring D. Thus, theoretically a ship owner could have scored D in 2023 and 2024 with no consequences. Year 2025 will mark CII's third year, when ship owners whose vessels were scoring D in 2023 and 2024 will need to rethink their sustainability approach or risk getting D again and having to produce corrective actions plans in 2026. That is in addition to the ship owners whose vessels will score E in 2024. To improve its CII score, a ship owner could reduce its speed and burn low-carbon fuels, among other solutions. Biofuel is the only plug-and-play low-carbon fuel option that does not require a costly vessel retrofitting. in 2023 of the vessels 5,000 gt and over, 3,931 scored D, 1,541 scored E and 3,967 did not report scores, according to the latest IMO data ( see chart ). Assuming that the non-responders refrained from reporting to avoid sharing their low D and E scores, then the total number of D and E scoring vessels could be as high as 9,439, or 33pc of the total vessel count. The bulk of the vessels reporting D and E were dry bulk carriers at 1,853 and 641, respectively, followed by oil tankers at 743 and 349, respectively, according to IMO data. The dry bulk carrier category also had the highest number of non-responders at 1,015 vessels. The vessel classification society American Bureau of Shipping concluded that a reference case container vessel with 154,000t deadweight could see its rating improve from D to C in 2025 if it switched from burning conventional marine fuel to B25 biofuel. FuelEU, EU ETS: All bark, no bite Separately from the CII regulation, ship owners traveling in, out and within EU territorial waters will see the implementation of a new FuelEU marine regulation on 1 January and the tightening of the existing EU ETS regulation. But neither would be major driving forces behind biofuel for bunkering demand in 2025. The EU ETS will require that vessel operators pay for 70pc of their CO2 emissions next year. But even with the added cost of CO2, a B30 biofuel blend is more expensive than conventional marine fuel. In Rotterdam in October, B30 — comprised of 30pc used cooking oil methyl ester (Ucome) and 70pc very low-sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) — with a 70pc CO2 cost added would have averaged $924/t, compared with VLSFO with added 70pc CO2 cost at $682/t, according to Argus data. In order for the EU ETS to entice ship owners to burn biofuels, at current VLSFO and Ucome prices, the price of CO2 has to rise up to $300/t. And CO2 has fluctuated from $55-$102.5/t from January 2023 to October 2024. Starting on 1 January 2025, the EU's FuelEU regulation will require that vessel fleets' lifecycle greenhouse gas intensity is capped at 89.34 grams of CO2-equivalent per megajoule (gCO2e/MJ) through 2029. For vessels which do not meet this cap, a low biofuel blend can meet the requirement. A B5 blend, comprised of 5pc Ucome and 95pc VLSFO, emits less than 89 gCO2/MJ. At this rate, albeit higher, demand for biofuels would not spike dramatically. Unlike the CII scores which apply to individual vessels, FuelEU applies to vessel pools. Different shipping companies are allowed to pool their vessels together to share compliance and meet the EU ETS emissions limits. Thus several biofuel or LNG burning vessels can compensate for the emissions generated by the majority of the older, less fuel efficient vessels burning conventional marine fuel in the pool. By Stefka Wechsler CII vessels rating Number of vessels (5,000 GT and over) Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Europe-Africa bunkers: Scrubber spread rises in ARA
Europe-Africa bunkers: Scrubber spread rises in ARA
London, 5 November (Argus) — For a full list of daily, spot bunker deals and firm price quotes collected by Argus globally click here . Marine fuel prices diverged at European and African ports amid mixed views on spot demand and higher crude futures prices on Tuesday. Spot bunker fuel demand was also described as moderate across several ports. The front-month Ice Brent crude futures contract increased to $76.03/bl at 16:30 GMT from $74.68/bl at the same time in the previous session. The front-month Ice gasoil futures contract rose to $696.50/t from $683/t at the same timestamp. Traders had mixed views about spot marine fuel demand in the ARA trading and refining hub but bunker fuel prices rose. Prompt availability was described as tight for marine gasoil (MGO). The scrubber spread — the difference between very-low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) and high-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) dob bunkers fuels in ARA — rose to $48.50/t from $38/t in the previous session. Marine fuel prices mostly rose in the Gibraltar-Algeciras-Ceuta (GAC) bunkering hub as traders reported tightening HSFO availability. The west Mediterranean hub's delivered VLSFO premium to ARA fell to $30.50/t from $20/t in the previous sessions. Bunker fuel prices were mixed in Genoa amid thin bunker fuel demand. Genoa's MGO premium to Malta rose to $60/t from $42.50/t in the previous trading session. Traders reported moderate spot bunker fuel demand in Piraeus but with normal prompt availability. Piraeus' MGO premium to Malta rose to $20/t from $5/t at the previous close. In Istanbul, marine fuel prices diverged but MGO prices eased by more than 3pc on the day. Participants reported moderate bunker fuel demand and sufficient prompt availability. Istanbul's HSFO premium to the GAC hub fell to $17.50/t from $32.50/t at the previous session. Participants reported firm bunker fuel demand in Las Palmas and ample normal availability but bunker fuel prices diverged across the grades. Las Palmas's HSFO premium against the GAC hub rose to $30/t from $15/t at the previous close. In Durban, MGO prompt availability was mostly tight. Durban's MGO premium against Cape Town rose to $12.50/t from $11/t at the previous close. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Spotlight content
Browse the latest thought leadership produced by our global team of experts.
Explore our marine fuels products
Argus marine fuel solutions provide global daily and forecasted prices for conventional and alternative marine fuel prices, as well as daily forward curves prices.
Key price assessments
Argus prices are recognised by the market as trusted and reliable indicators of the real market value. Explore some of our most widely used and relevant price assessments.
Related events
Argus Sustainable Marine Fuels Conference
Argus Sustainable Marine Fuels Conference
Argus Biofuels Europe Conference & Exhibition
Argus Biofuels Europe Conference & Exhibition
