Alternative marine fuels
Overview
The marine fuel sector is decarbonising. International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements and EU legislation is driving this change alongside consumer demand for low carbon solutions.
These drivers have prompted shipowners to invest in alternative marine fuels including; marine biodiesel, bio-methanol, grey methanol, LNG, ammonia and hydrogen.
Argus provides pricing, insights, and intelligence for the fast-growing alternative marine fuels market with independent news, analysis, and market commentary on emerging changes and trends so you can stay ahead.
Argus Market Highlights: Marine Fuels
Get the latest industry news, insight and analysis sent directly to your inbox.
Sign upLatest alternative marine fuels news
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.
LPG bunker demand lags despite competitive pricing
LPG bunker demand lags despite competitive pricing
New York, 29 October (Argus) — LPG is seen by shipowners as one of the least expensive fuels for meeting new low-carbon emission rules, but spotty safety rules, a lack of bunkering infrastructure or four-stroke engines able to use it is holding back demand. LPG has been price-competitive with LNG and at a significant discount to B30 biodiesel, bio-methanol and blue ammonia and green ammonia this year, according to Argus . ( see chart ). Taking into account the cost of CO2 traded on the EU emissions trading system (ETS), northwest Europe LPG was pegged at $577/t from 1-28 October compared with LNG at $614/t average ( see chart ). The EU's ETS for marine shipping started this year and requires ship operators pay for 40pc of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated on voyages in the EU. Next year, ship operators will have to pay for 70pc of their CO2 emissions. LPG is one of the fuels that can help ship operators comply with the FuelEU for the next ten years. Starting on 1 January 2025, the EU's FuelEU regulation will require a 2pc cut in the lifecycle greenhouse intensity for bunker fuels burned in EU territorial waters compared with 2020 base year levels. The reduction jumps to 6pc from 2030 and gradually reaches 80pc by 2050. LPG's lifecycle GHG emissions footprint varies depending on its production pathway. It is pegged at about 81.24 grams of CO2-equivalent per megajoule (gCO2e/MJ), according to technical support documentation from the California Air Resources Board. At this carbon intensity level, LPG is compliant with FuelEU's GHG limit set at 85.69 gCO2e/MJ through year 2034, similar to LNG. There are 151 operational ships with LPG-burning engines, with another 109 vessels on order by 2028, according to vessel classification society DNV. LPG bunker demand more than doubled to 242,292t in 2023 compared with 101,447t in 2022, according to the latest International Maritime Organization (IMO) data collected from vessels of 5,000 gross tonnes and over. But LPG bunker demand was dwarfed by comparison with LNG bunker demand, which was at 12.9mn t in 2023, up from 11mn t in 2022, according to the IMO. There were over 700 LNG burning vessels operational this year, with the number growing to 1,162 by 2028, according to DNV data. LPG accounted for 0.1pc and LNG for 6.1pc of global marine fuel demand from vessels with 5,000 gross tonnes and over in 2023. LNG as a marine fuel has been around longer than LPG. The World Liquid Gas Association, a trade association, began exploring the use of LPG as a marine fuel in 2012. The first LPG-fueled very large gas carrier BW Gemini was retrofitted to burn LPG in 2020. By comparison, LNG for bunkering by LNG carriers have been around since the 1960s. The first LNG-powered container ship was delivered in 2015. The bulk of the global LPG bunker demand came from LPG carriers. LPG carriers outfitted with LPG-burning engines can burn their own cargo, taking advantage of the ships' existing infrastructure and safety systems and minimizing their operating costs. But LPG demand from other major types of bunker-consuming vessels, such as container ships, dry bulk carriers and oil tankers, is lagging. One reason is only two-stroke LPG-burning marine engines are commercially available, says vessel classification society Lloyd's Register . Typically, large vessels use two-stroke engines for propulsion and four-stroke engines as auxiliaries, meaning auxiliary engines on vessels would need to be decarbonised through an additional fuel, says Lloyd's Register. LPG has a well-developed global network of import and export terminals. But LPG for bunkering port infrastructure, such as dedicated bunkering storage tanks and LPG bunkering barges, is mostly lacking. Unlike LNG for bunkering, LPG for bunkering regulatory guidelines are currently patchy. If leaked onto water, LPG rapidly vaporises and then sinks to the surface of the water given it is heavier than ambient air. If it ignites, it can create a "pool fire" that can spread and cannot be extinguished, continuing to burn until all the LPG is consumed, Lloyd's Register says. By Stefka Wechsler NW Europe selected alternative marine fuels $/t VLSFOe NW Europe, 1-28 Oct avg $/t VLSFOe Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Biomethanol, fuel oil demand up in Rotterdam port 3Q
Biomethanol, fuel oil demand up in Rotterdam port 3Q
London, 23 October (Argus) — Bunker fuel oil and biomethanol sales at the port of Rotterdam rose in the third quarter of this year, but those of gasoil and marine biodiesel fell, according to official port data. Very-low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO), ultra-low sulphur fuel oil (ULSFO), and high-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) sales all picked up on the quarter and on the year ( see table ). Participants attributed the increase in HSFO demand to the seasonal arrival of containerships at the port. HSFO demand rose in the previous quarter owing to re-routing of vessels because of chronic traffic disruption in the Red Sea. Ahead of the Mediterranean Sea becoming an emission control area (ECA) in May 2025, participants had pointed to expectations of firmer ULSFO demand in Europe for scrubber-less vessels operating between ECA zones. Vessels operating in ECA zones are be required to burn marine fuels with a sulphur content no higher than 0.1pc, rather than the global cap of 0.5pc. Combined sales for marine gasoil (MGO) and marine diesel oil (MDO) fell on the quarter and on the year in July-September. Market participants reported mostly lacklustre bunker fuel demand in the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) hub in that time, combined with tight prompt availability that weighed further on sales. Marine biodiesel blend sales declined sharply owing to a shift in voluntary demand east of Suez. B24 dob Singapore, a blend comprising VLSFO and used cooking oil methyl ester (Ucome), was an average of $715.56/t in July–September. This is lower than comparable assessed European blends, such as B30 Ucome dob ARA that averaged $804.71/t, B30 advanced fatty acid methyl ester (Fame) 0 dob ARA — which includes a deduction of the value of Dutch HBE-G renewable fuel tickets — at $738.12/t, and B24 Ucome dob Algeciras-Gibraltar at $784.12/t. Consequently containerships seeking to deliver proof of sustainability (PoS) documentation to their customers, to offset the latter's scope 3 emissions, shifted their marine biodiesel demand to Singapore when feasible. PoS can be obtained on a mass-balance system, allowing shipowners flexibility with regards to the port at which a blend can be bunkered. Biomethanol sales at the port of Rotterdam more than doubled on the quarter and soared by more than eight times on the year. Several shipping companies are leaning towards methanol and renewable methanol as alternative marine fuels to reduce their emissions. Danish shipping giant Maersk has ordered 24 methanol-powered container ships for delivery and commissioning during 2024-25, and Japanese classification society ClassNK said recently it expects 77 methanol-ready ships to be ordered by 2026, up from 27 newbuilds expected to be ordered this year. ESL Shipping said earlier this month it will build four new vessels that can run on biomethanol and green hydrogen-based e-methanol. Offtake agreements for renewable methanol are on the rise. Maersk has signed several letters of intent for procurement of biomethanol and e-methanol from producers such as Norway's state-controlled Equinor , Proman and OCI Global . Maersk has agreed to buy 500,000 t/yr from Danish shipping and logistics company Goldwind from 2024. Singaporean container shipping group X-Press Feeders said in 2023 it will buy biomethanol from OCI's Texas plant starting this year. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Natália Coelho, and Evelina Lungu Rotterdam bunker sales t Fuel 3Q24 2Q24 3Q23 q-o-q% y-o-y% VLSFO & ULSFO 1,045,774 917,253 997,356 14.0 4.9 HSFO 906,737 825,125 790,195 9.9 14.7 MGO & MDO 334,752 369,267 379,142 -9.3 -11.7 Marine biodiesel blends 137,177 235,043 183,249 -41.6 -25.1 Total 2,424,440 2,346,688 2,349,942 3.3 3.2 LNG (m³) 220,120 242,931 204,418 -9.4 7.7 Biomethanol 2,066 950 250 117.5 726.4 Port of Rotterdam Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Spotlight content
Argus B24 dob Guangzhou marine biodiesel spot price
Argus has launched the first marine biodiesel spot price for China — B24 dob Guangzhou — adding to existing coverage for Asia, including B24 dob Singapore.
FAQsArgus B30 (Ucome and VLSFO) dob Houston, Los Angeles
B30 Houston and Los Angeles delivered on board (dob) prices for use by ocean-going vessels comprise 30pc used cooking oil methyl ester (Ucome) and 70pc very low-sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO).
Alternative marine fuels key prices
Argus Marine Fuels features a comprehensive range of alternative marine fuels prices (in $/t VLSFO, $/t HSFO, and $/t MGO equivalents and $/mn Btu).
Latest events
Argus Sustainable Marine Fuels Conference
Argus Sustainable Marine Fuels Conference
Argus Biofuels Europe Conference & Exhibition
Argus Biofuels Europe Conference & Exhibition
Global alternative fuels vessel databases
Argus Marine Fuels includes access to proprietary data in three downloadable databases, providing essential insights into the changing marine fuels market:
Spot deals and firm quotes
This list of spot deals gives buyers and sellers understanding where they stand price-wise compared with their competitors. Argus’ daily deals/quotes detail the port, type of fuel, size of the deal, price, delivery method and delivery dates. It does not include counterparties’ names.
View sample data
Alternative fuels vessels and supplier list
Argus lists vessels that are burning alternative marine fuels, including methanol, biofuels, ammonia, hydrogen, LNG, LPG, as well as those running on batteries. The database is updated every month.
View sample data
Scrubbers
The database is updated every month. It contains over 4,300 records and counting.
View sample dataExplore our related services
