Dutch HVO buying rises on lower costs

Market: Biofuels
04/03/24

Obligated parties in the Netherlands have ramped up hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) blending in recent weeks as the cost of the drop-in biofuel has fallen below that of renewable fuel tickets (HBEs). Blending has also been supported by the prospect of a retroactive increase in the 2024 domestic blending mandate.

Prompt prices for double-counting palm oil mill effluent (Pome) oil-based HVO — or HVO Class IV — that generates advanced HBE-G tickets has fallen more steeply than the other classes of HVO in recent months, driving demand for this class in particular. The relative physical blend cost of HVO Class IV dropped below market value of HBE-Gs in January and has remained so (see graph).

The spread between HVO Class IV and its biodiesel counterpart Pome OME also narrowed in the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) hub, from $1,051.68/t on 1 November to $257.78/t on 18 January, and has only marginally increased since then to $333.08/t on 1 March (see chart).

Buying interest has been piqued by plans from the Dutch government, announced last year, to increase the country's annual obligation — which stipulates a mandatory share of renewable energy in the transport sector — to 28.4pc for 2024, from 19.9pc. The proposal still requires approval from the Council of State, an independent adviser to the government and parliament, with a response expected this month. If approved, the amendment will be adopted retroactively from 1 January.

On the supply side, a decision in Sweden to cut domestic road emissions targets for 2024-26 has led to an increase in HVO entering ARA, weighing on prices since the start of the year.

Trade for HVO (Class IV) in ARA has exceeded other classes — spanning HVO produced from feed and food crops (Class I), used cooking oil (Class II) and tallow (Class III) — on Argus Open Markets (AOM) in 2024, with 8,000t of Class IV trade initiated since the beginning of the year.

By Thomas Hughes

HVO Class IV fob ARA vs Pome ome biodiesel fob ARA $/t

HVO Class IV vs Pome ome vs HBE G €/GJ

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News

11/11/24

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.

Find out more

News

Carbon intensity reg pivotal to biobunkers in 2025

08/11/24

News

08/11/24

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.

News

Canada climate plans not equally at risk post-Trudeau

08/11/24

News

08/11/24

Canada climate plans not equally at risk post-Trudeau

Toronto, 8 November (Argus) — Canada's climate policies will be overhauled if prime minister Justin Trudeau loses an upcoming federal election, but the Conservative Party might not move to roll back all of the programs. Trudeau over nine years in office has pushed through a raft of carbon pricing policies, cracked down on provinces with insufficiently ambitious plans, and even started a global "challenge" to spur more jurisdictions to price emissions. But Canada's policies have exacerbated cost-of-living concerns at a time when voters across the world are punishing incumbents for inflation, and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has barnstormed the country with a pledge to "axe the tax." An election must happen no later than October 2025, and the ruling Liberals are down significantly in polls. "We are going to see change, significant change," said Lisa DeMarco, a senior partner at the law firm Resilient and a member of the International Emissions Trading Association board at the Canada Clean Fuels and Carbon Markets Summit in Toronto, Ontario, this week. What "axe the tax" might mean in practice is uncertain. Inevitable targets are the country's federal fuel charge, currently at C$80/t ($57.54/t) and set to gradually increase to C$170/t in 2030, and a recently proposed greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program for upstream oil and gas producers. But other policies, especially those with industry support, could remain. The country's distinct system for taxing industrial emissions, which includes a federal output-based pricing system that functions as a performance standard, "will likely be untouched," said former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole. A point of debate at the conference was what Poilievre might do with the country's clean fuel regulations, which function similarly to California's long-running low-carbon fuel standard and have boosted biofuel usage in the country. The policy is "certainly not at the top of the list" of Conservative priorities, said Andy Brosnan, president of low-carbon fuels at environmental products marketer Anew Climate. But that does not mean it will escape scrutiny. Conservatives could tinker with the program or push through more muscular changes like excluding electric vehicles, said David Beaudoin, chief executive of the climate consultancy NEL-i. "We should expect that regulation will be maybe not dismantled but somehow changed, perhaps fundamentally," Beaudoin said. In the gap left by the federal government, provinces could make up the difference with their own climate programs, panelists agreed. Quebec for instance has a linked carbon market with California, and British Columbia has its own low-carbon fuel standard. But policymakers should heed the lessons of Trudeau's declining popularity and reorient how they approach climate policy, O'Toole argued. "Try to be minimally disruptive on economically vulnerable citizens," he said. "Try not to pit industry against industry or region of the country against region." By Cole Martin Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Talks to restart as port of Vancouver lockout drags

08/11/24

News

08/11/24

Talks to restart as port of Vancouver lockout drags

Calgary, 8 November (Argus) — A labour disruption at the port of Vancouver is now into its fifth day, but the employers association and the locked-out union are to meet this weekend to try to strike a deal and get commodities moving again. Workers belonging to the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 514 on Canada's west coast have been locked out by the BC Maritime Employers Association (BCMEA) since 4 November. This came hours after the union implemented an overtime ban for its 730 ship and dock foreman members. The two sides will meet on 9 November evening with the assistance of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) in an effort to end a 19-month long dispute as they negotiate a new collective agreement to replace the one that expired in March 2023. The FMCS was already recruited for meetings in October, but that did not culminate in a deal. Natural resource-rich Canada is dependent on smooth operations at the port of Vancouver to reach international markets. The port is a major conduit for many dry and liquid bulk cargoes, including lumber, wood pellets and pulp, grains and agriculture products, caustic soda and sodium chlorate, sugar, coal, potash, sulphur, copper concentrates, zinc and lead concentrate, diesel and renewable diesel liquids and petroleum products. These account for about two-thirds of the movements through the port. Grain operations and the Westshore coal terminal are unaffected while most petroleum products also continue to move, the Port of Vancouver said on 7 November. As the parties head back to the bargaining table, the ILWU Local 514 meanwhile filed a complaint against the BCMEA on 7 November, alleging bargaining in bad faith, making threats, intimidation and coercion. "The BCMEA is trying to undermine the union by attempting to turn members against its democratically-elected leadership and bargaining committee, said ILWU Local 514 president Frank Morena on 7 November. "They know their bully tactics won't work with our members but their true goal is to bully the federal government into intervention." But that is just "another meritless claim," according to the BCMEA, who wants to restore supply chain operations as quickly as possible. The union said BC ports would still be operating if the BCMEA did not overreact with a lockout. "They are responsible for goods not being shipped to and from BC ports — not the union," Morena says. The ILWU Local 514 was found to have bargained in bad faith itself already, according to a decision by the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) in October. Billions of dollars of trade are at risk with many goods and commodities at a standstill at Vancouver, which is Canada's busiest port. A 13-day strike by ILWU longshore workers in July 2023 disrupted C$10bn ($7.3bn) worth of goods and commodities, especially those reliant on container ships, before an agreement was met. By Brett Holmes Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

US renewable diesel imports fall, spot liquidity stalls

07/11/24

News

07/11/24

US renewable diesel imports fall, spot liquidity stalls

Seattle, 7 November (Argus) — The US renewable diesel import lineup for November is unusually thin as last month's equipment failure in Singapore limits loadings, while broader supply and policy uncertainty constrain both near-term liquidity and incentives to plan beyond the fourth quarter. Just two vessels carrying renewable diesel are currently expected to reach US west coast ports this month, according to tracking data from global trade and analytics platform Kpler. Clearocean Maria reached Los Angeles with about 109,000 bl from Singapore on 2 November, per Kpler, while Leikanger is due to follow on 10 November to Long Beach, California, with an additional 345,000 bl of Singaporean renewable diesel. The November lineup as of Thursday also reflected an atypical lack of both Newfoundland-origin cargoes and Jones Act vessels for domestic volume delivery to the west coast from the US Gulf. Altogether, present waterborne supply totals for this month would represent a 69pc drop from average west coast deliveries — both foreign and domestic — from January-September, to about 455,000 bl. Final October receipts are yet to be confirmed, but data aggregated from Kpler and early-month bills of lading suggest about 1.49mn bl across all west coast-bound vessels. Total volumes are subject to change as more cargoes are scheduled, or if previously listed vessels are rerouted or identified as carrying a different product. But the thinned lineup is likely the first material consequence of an equipment failure that shut down production of US-spec renewable diesel at Neste's Singapore biorefinery last month. Neste's pause in Singapore is likely to continue to stymie the flow of offshore fuel to the US west coast through the end of the year, contrary to long-held market expectation that the scheduled end of the blender's tax credit (BTC) next month would spur a flurry of imports this quarter. There remains no public timeline for a return to normal operations in Singapore, while the BTC is slated to give way to the Inflation Reduction Act's 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit for 2025-onward, with the latter's effect on future import economics yet unknown. In the meantime, tighter supply has spurred widespread supplier withdrawal from California's spot head of the pipeline (hop) R99 markets, and resultant stagnation in spot differentials has muddled even negotiations for remaining 2024 contracted volume. An absence of hop offers in Los Angeles and San Francisco prevailed across much of October, and scattered bids in the first week of November went entirely unanswered as Donald Trump's re-election introduced new uncertainty for federal incentive programs and, thus, US production and blender economics. In essence, several unknowns cloud the market's present ability to develop forward supply strategy: the fate of the BTC and terms of various proposed extensions, the role the White House's changing of the guard will play in shaping remaining 45Z guidance, and the knock-on effects on both domestic production and imports from Singapore and Newfoundland — together responsible for an average 906,000 bl/month delivered to the US west coast this year so far. By Jasmine Davis Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more