Generic Hero BannerGeneric Hero Banner
Latest market news

Viewpoint: EU looks elsewhere to boost ethanol supply

  • Market: Biofuels
  • 27/12/19

European ethanol spot prices are set to remain at a wide premium over Eurobob oxy grade gasoline in 2020, having hit a seven-year high on an outright basis in the final quarter of 2019. Imports from outside the EU will be required to make up a shortfall in supply as more countries adopt higher ethanol blends.

The T2 prompt physical assessment climbed to an average of €652/m³ last month — hitting €721.50/m³ on 19 November — as fuel suppliers looked to cover shortages in meeting renewable fuel blending targets for the year. Domestic blending mandates in the majority of EU member states will now rise in line with the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) 2020 target of a 10pc share of the road transport fuel pool.

The adoption of E10 — a gasoline blend that contains up to 10pc ethanol content — by more member states is encouraging demand. It is currently available in Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Romania. The Netherlands also rolled out E10 on 1 October. Slovakia, Hungary and Lithuania are due to make the grade available in 2020.

It is unpopular in Germany, the first EU country to introduce it, accounting for just 14pc of the country's 620,000 b/d gasoline market. But a further discount to E5 at service stations, if implemented, might encourage greater uptake and would offer a viable means for Germany to achieve its own greenhouse gas (GHG) savings target of 6pc, up by two percentage points on the year and in line with the EU Fuel Quality Directive (FQD).

On the supply side, the fourth quarter of the year is usually a period when extra volumes of ethanol produced from the European sugar beet harvest enter the market until February. At the same time demand declines, with most gasoline blending typically in the summer months.

While EU wheat and maize harvests in the 2019-20 season are forecast to be broadly similar to the five-year average — 1.6pc above and 0.6pc below, respectively — the sugar beet harvest is projected to be 5.1pc under the the five-year average as a result of frequent and abundant rainfall. Strong domestic sugar prices have also led producers to opt for table sugar. But with the removal in May of EU anti-dumping duties on US ethanol, which spanned the previous five years, suppliers are also looking to imported product to cover any shortfalls.

EU countries imported an average of 5,100 t/month of undenatured ethanol from the US in January-May 2019. Imports jumped to an average of 18,000 t/month in June-September. While many US ethanol producers are still unable to produce EU RED certified product, extra supply will weigh on prompt ethanol prices should more producers outside the EU market hit the minimum GHG savings requirement of 50-60pc.

US producers look likely to raise the GHG tag of their ethanol, given relatively low prices domestically. Firm values on European ethanol derivative contracts along the forward curve suggest it is economical for US product to head for Europe throughout the next 12 months. Imports from Peru should also support EU supply levels. The South American country is a consistent supplier of around 15,000 t/month of ethanol to Europe. Strong prices in Europe and a decline in prices in major consumer Brazil will likely encourage interest in transatlantic trade.

The potential impact of imports may be limited somewhat by growing EU demand for ethanol with higher credentials. There is appetite in several member states for product well above the required 50pc GHG savings baseline, particularly given challenges many countries face in meeting the FQD. The average GHG savings of ethanol produced in the EU was 71pc in 2018, according to ePure.

By Daniel Mackay


Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

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

Funding cuts could delay US river lock work: Correction


14/04/25
News
14/04/25

Funding cuts could delay US river lock work: Correction

Corrects lock locations in paragraph 5. Houston, 14 April (Argus) — The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) will have to choose between various lock reconstruction and waterway projects for its annual construction plan after its funding was cut earlier this year. Last year Congress allowed the Corps to use $800mn from unspent infrastructure funds for other waterways projects. But when Congress passed a continuing resolutions for this year's budget they effectively removed that $800mn from what was a $2.6bn annual budget for lock reconstruction and waterways projects. This means a construction plan that must be sent to Congress by 14 May can only include $1.8bn in spending. No specific projects were allocated funding by Congress, allowing the Corps the final say on what projects it pursues under the new budget. River industry trade group Waterways Council said its top priority is for the Corps to provide a combined $205mn for work at the Montgomery lock in Pennsylvania on the Ohio River and Chickamauga lock in Tennessee on the Tennessee River since they are the nearest to completion and could become more expensive if further delayed. There are seven active navigation construction projects expected to take precedent, including the following: the Chickamauga and Kentucky Locks on the Tennessee River; Locks 2-4 on the Monongahela River; the Three Rivers project on the Arkansas River; the LaGrange Lock on the Illinois River; Lock 25 on the Mississippi River; and the Montgomery Lock on the Ohio River. There are three other locks in Texas, Pennsylvania and Illinois that are in the active design phase (see map) . By Meghan Yoyotte Corps active construction projects 2025 Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

IMO GHG pricing not yet Paris deal-aligned: EU


14/04/25
News
14/04/25

IMO GHG pricing not yet Paris deal-aligned: EU

Brussels, 14 April (Argus) — The International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism "does not yet ensure the sector's full contribution to achieving the Paris Agreement goals", the European Commission has said. "Does it have everything for everybody? For sure, it doesn't," said Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, the commission's climate and energy spokesperson said. "This is often the case as an outcome from international negotiations, that not everybody gets the most optimal outcome." The IMO agreement reached last week will need to be confirmed by the organisation in October, the EU noted, even if it is a "strong foundation" and "meaningful step" towards net zero GHG emissions in global shipping by 2050. The commission will have 18 months following the IMO mechanism's formal approval to review the directive governing the bloc's emissions trading system (ETS), which currently includes maritime emissions for intra-EU voyages and those entering or leaving the bloc. By EU law, the commission will also have to report on possible "articulation or alignment" of the bloc's FuelEU Maritime regulation with the IMO, including the need to "avoid duplicating regulation of GHG emissions from maritime transport" at EU and international levels. That report should be presented, "without delay", following formal adoption of an IMO global GHG fuel standard or global GHG intensity limit. Finland's head representative at the IMO delegation talks, Anita Irmeli, told Argus that the EU's consideration of whether the approved Marpol amendments are ambitious enough won't be until "well after October". Commenting on the IMO agreement, the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) pointed to the "neutral" approach to feedstocks, including first generation biofuels. "The EBB welcomes this agreement, where all feedstocks and pathways have a role to play," EBB secretary general Xavier Noyon said. Faig Abbasov, shipping director at non-governmental organisation Transport and Environment, called for better incentives for green hydrogen. "The IMO deal creates a momentum for alternative marine fuels. But unfortunately it is the forest-destroying first generation biofuels that will get the biggest push for the next decade," he said. By Dafydd ab Iago Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Malaysian Fathopes to reach SAF plant FID by 1Q 2026


14/04/25
News
14/04/25

Malaysian Fathopes to reach SAF plant FID by 1Q 2026

Singapore, 14 April (Argus) — Malaysian biofuel feedstock supplier Fathopes Energy's planned sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) plant will reach a final investment decision (FID) in the first quarter of 2026, it said. Intital engineering design will be done from July to December 2025, Fathopes' director Eddy Leong said at an event on 10 April, speaking on behalf of the company's chief executive Vinesh Sinha. The plant's capacity is unconfirmed. Fathopes signed an initial agreement at the event with testing, inspection and certification company AmSpec Group. They aim to identify, assess and document feedstocks across Asia-Pacific, Australia and New Zealand that can be used at the planned plant. The agreement will take effect from 1 June. Besides used cooking oil (UCO), other waste feedstocks such as palm oil mill effluent (Pome) oil and spent bleaching earth oil (SBEO) will be explored. Fathopes will take the lead in collecting feedstock samples, while AmSpec will analyse their suitability for SAF production. Amspec will help develop an on-site SAF laboratory at the plant to ensure compliance with industry standards and environmental regulations. Fathopes had signed an initial agreement with Danish technology firm Topsoe in February, in which Topsoe agreed to provide catalysts and engineering expertise to assess feasibility of building the refinery. By Sarah Giam Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism


11/04/25
News
11/04/25

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — International shipping organisations and market participants mostly support the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism approved today at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, but some raised concerns. The structure approved by the IMO establishes that ships must reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. Emissions above this target will be charged at $380/tCO2e. The levels defined by the approved regulation are achievable, according to a market participant, who said the gradually increasing targets may allow the market to properly adapt to the transition. The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) secretary general Guy Platten said the sector is already investing billions of dollars in 'green' technology, so the agreement gives certainty that sustainable marine fuels producers need. "The world's governments have now come forward with a comprehensive agreement which, although not perfect in every respect, we very much hope will be formally adopted later this year," he said. The European Shipowners (ECSA) secretary general Sotiris Raptis agreed the draft "is not perfect", but he celebrated progress towards a net zero emissions target, saying "it is a good starting point for further work" and pointing out that it may ensure the necessary investment in production of clean fuels. During a press briefing, IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said ships operating in international waters will be obliged to comply with the regulations after adoption, despite the US' refusal to engage with the discussions . Adoption of the pricing mechanism will be discussed and voted on in October. Offering a counterview, the Global Maritime Forum said the agreed measures may not be strong enough to reach IMO targets. "The GHG intensity targets create uncertainty as to whether the strategy's emissions reduction checkpoints for 2030 and 2040 will be met," it said. "As currently designed, measures are unlikely to be sufficient to incentivise the rapid development of e-fuels such as e-ammonia or e-methanol , which will be needed in the long run due to their scalability and emission reduction potential." It said that failure to invest in these fuels would put at risk the target of at least 5pc zero- and near-zero emission fuel use by 2030 and the industry's entire 2050 net-zero goal. The World Shipping Council's vice president Bryan Wood-Thomas praised the agreement and said one benefit of it is the pricing system that is "more aggressive" if a vessel fails to meet the GHG intensity standard. "But you also have a fee system that gives investors more confidence in actual revenue [from using cleaner fuels]," he said. The Brazilian representative told Argus the fact that some countries thought the agreement was too ambitious while others indicated it was not ambitious enough show the group may have reached a balance that can be possible to comply. About the Brazilian position, the representative said the country "was never against an agreement". "We were only against some aspects of the agreement, and we think that the membership has heard our concerns, and that's why we ended up pretty happy with the results", he said. Brazil voted in favour of the agreement today. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Madeleine Jenkins, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Generic Hero Banner

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