Generic Hero BannerGeneric Hero Banner
Latest market news

Viewpoint: IMO 2020 to have delayed price effect

  • Market: Oil products
  • 03/01/20

The fuel oil market is not likely to see large price swings with new marine fuel sulphur regulations that took effect at the beginning of 2020, given minor price changes for the compliant fuel in the weeks leading up to the change.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) as of 1 January capped the sulphur content of marine fuels to 0.5pc from the prior 3.5pc level. The new regulation is referred to as IMO 2020.

Most market participants expect IMO 2020-related demand to cause prices to rise in January-February and tighten the availability of low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO), which has a 0.5pc sulphur content. The full impact of IMO 2020 is more likely to be felt in March, as some expect a spike in distillate and sweet crude demand once the current global stockpile of LSFO has dwindled.

Global residual fuel oil hubs such as Fujairah, Rotterdam and Singapore are reported to have large volumes of IMO-compliant fuel available. But US Gulf LSFO values are 31pc higher than a year ago, while HSFO values are down by 14pc as the market prepared for IMO 2020.

Most US Gulf coast refiners in 2019 were in the process or had completed making LSFO blends that will comply with the IMO regulation. These blends can include various combinations of HSFO with products like MGO, 0.2pc sulphur heating oil and 0.0015pc sulphur ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD). Light and heavy crudes could trade at a wider differential because lighter crudes are highly sought by Gulf blenders to make IMO-compliant fuel.

Diesel cracks could rise significantly in the event shipowners experience issues using LSFO, either because LSFO is more expensive than marine-gasoil (MGO), an alternative IMO-compliant fuel, due to incompatibility of new blends. Mixing different batches of LSFO blends with varying aromatic and paraffinic components on ships can lead to sludge formation or asphaltene separation, both of which have the potential to seriously damage ship engines. According to some traders, most Gulf blenders have completed compatibility testing on their blends, but participants have expressed divided opinions on the degree to which shipowners should trust new blends as they enter the market.

It remains to be seen how LSFO will contend with marine-gasoil (MGO), a blend of lower sulphur distillate fuel, in the Gulf market, after averaging a $111/mt discount to MGO in December. For a global perspective, physical LSFO priced at a $5-$10/t premium to MGO spot assessments in Singapore for the week ending on 20 December, after pricing at discounts to MGO for November and December.Panama sales of LSFO rose to a premium over MGO on 13 December, the first instance of a premium of LSFO levels to MGO in the Americas thus far. But with MGO typically being a more expensive distillate blend, most market participants expect it to remain an emergency-only option in the US Gulf coast.

Other alternatives for shipowners include installing expensive scrubbers, exhaust cleaning equipment which remove sulphur oxides from the ship's engine, enabling the use of heavy fuel oil. Roughly 3,000 vessels have installed sulphur scrubbers globally, according to Argus consulting data.

HSFO is not predicted by market participants to fade out of the US market entirely, but rather remain through scrubber use or non-compliance. Global HSFO supply has already been curbed as refiners have reduced their production.

The power generation market is an alternative destination for HSFO, particularly in the US northeast. Some Gulf refiners with the ability to process heavier sulphur fuel oils through their cokers to turn into cheaper refined products and sell worldwide may also draw on on HSFO. As a result, imports of HSFO continue to flow into the US Gulf from places like Russia and Iraq. HSFO prices first dropped below $40/bl in mid-October and have since averaged at $37.97/bl over the last two and a half months. Traders expect HSFO to find a price floor in the first quarter.

By Kayla Meyertons


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
13/04/25

Keystone oil pipeline to restart by 15 April

Keystone oil pipeline to restart by 15 April

Houston, 13 April (Argus) — The 622,000 b/d Keystone crude pipeline is expected to resume service by 15 April, following a leak in North Dakota that shut deliveries last week. Calgary-based pipeline operator South Bow said the repair and replacement of the leaking section of pipe was taking place over the weekend. Once the company meets the terms of a corrective action order (CAO) issued by the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), it will be able to resume service. The pipeline has been off line since early on 8 April, when a leak was discovered in a rural field near Kathryn, North Dakota. An estimated 3,500 bl of crude was released but did not appear to have reached any waterways. "Keystone is targeting restoration of service and energy deliveries by Tuesday April 15, 2025, under the requirements of the CAO," South Bow said. "South Bow will require approval from PHMSA prior to restarting the pipeline." Under the CAO, South Bow must run metallurgical testing of the failed section of pipe, conduct a root cause analysis and meet other requirements. The pipeline system will also have to comply with certain pressure restrictions on Canadian sections of the line. The Keystone system is a major route for Canadian heavy crude destined for both the US midcontinent and the US Gulf coast, delivering about 15pc of the roughly 4mn b/d that the US imports from its northern neighbor. The line runs from the Canadian production and storage hub at Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, before splitting in two to head toward Illinois and the Gulf coast. Discounts for Western Canadian Select (WCS) at Hardisty to the CMA Nymex narrowed at the end of last week despite the shutdown, because of low inventories in Hardisty and open pipeline space on Canadian crude pipelines, including Enbridge's 3mn b/d Mainline system to the US midcontinent and the 890,000 b/d Trans Mountain pipeline to the Canadian Pacific coast. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Find out more
News

Mexico suspends Valero fuel import permits


11/04/25
News
11/04/25

Mexico suspends Valero fuel import permits

Mexico City, 11 April (Argus) — Mexico's tax authority SAT on 9 April suspended US refiner Valero's fuel import permits, the company said today. The company did not specify why its import license was suspended. "Valero is addressing each administrative observation noted in the suspension to clarify the issues. Additionally, [authorities] mistakenly stated that the company does not have valid import permits, which is incorrect since the permits are valid through 2038," the company said. When consulted, Valero told Argus it has no further information to share at this time. In Mexico, Valero holds gasoline, diesel and jet fuel import permits valid through 2038. The company is one of only a handful of private-sector companies with such permits. Shell, Marathon and ExxonMobil hold permits to import only gasoline and diesel. Valero is the leading private fuel importer in Mexico. On 9 April, its sales accounted for 10pc of Mexico's gasoline and diesel demand, according to the company. Private-sector companies started importing fuel into Mexico in 2016 after the market opened to more competition, but under former president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's administration, the energy ministry (Sener) cancelled dozens of fuel import permits. Valero is cooperating with the Mexican government and has recently joined a voluntary price cap agreement to keep regular gasoline below Ps24/l ($4.45/USG), the company said, adding that it "implements rigorous traceability and security controls throughout its supply chain." The company stores fuel at four private-sector terminals in Mexico, with over 4mn bl of capacity. The company is also expected to start storing fuel at the new 1.1mn bl OTM terminal in Altamira, Tamaulipas, in the near future. By Cas Biekmann 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.

News

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'


11/04/25
News
11/04/25

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting. Argus Media spoke to ministerial adviser and Finland's head representative at the IMO delegation talks, Anita Irmeli, on the sidelines of the London MEPC meeting. What is your initial reaction to the text? We are happy and satisfied about the content of the agreed text, so far. But we need to be careful. This week, all member states were able to vote. But in October, when adaption will take place, only those states which are parties to Marpol Annex VI will be able to vote if indeed a vote is called for, and that changes the situation a little bit. Here when we were voting, a minority was enough — 40 votes. But if or when we vote in October, then we need two thirds of those party to Marpol Annex VI to be in favour of the text. Will enthusiasm for the decision today remain by October? I'm pretty sure it will. But you never know what will happen between now and and the next six months. What is the effect of the decision on FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS? Both FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS have a review clause. This review clause states that if we are ambitious enough at the IMO, then the EU can review or amend the regulation. So of course, it is very important that we first consider if the approved Marpol amendments are ambitious enough to meet EU standards. Only after that evaluation, which won't be until well after October, can we consider these possible changes. Do you think the EU will be able to adopt these the text as it stands today? My personal view is that we can perhaps incorporate this text under FuelEU Maritime, but it may be more challenging for the EU ETS, where shipping is now included. What was the impact of US President Donald Trump's letter on the proceedings? EU states were not impacted, but it's difficult to say what the impact was on other states. By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism


11/04/25
News
11/04/25

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, pending an adoption vote at the next MEPC in October. The proposal passed by a majority vote, with 63 nations in favor including EU states, the UK, China and India, and 16 members opposed, including Mideast Gulf states, Russia, and Venezuela. The US was absent from the MEPC 83 meeting, and 24 member states abstained. The proposal was accompanied by an amendment to implement the regulation, which was approved for circulation ahead of an anticipated adoption at the October MEPC. Approval was not unanimous, which is rare. If adoption is approved in October at a vote that will require a two-thirds majority, the maritime industry will become the first transport sector to implement internationally mandated targets to reduce GHG emissions. The text says ships must initially reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 ( see table ) against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. This gradually tightens to 30pc by 2035. The text defines a "direct compliance target", that starts at 17pc for 2028 and grows to 43pc by 2035. The pricing mechanism establishes a levy for excessive emissions at $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) for ships compliant with the minimum 'base' target, called Tier 2. For ships in Tier 1 — those compliant with the base target but that still have emission levels higher than the direct compliance target — the price was set at $100/tCO2e. Over-compliant vessels will receive 'surplus units' equal to their positive compliance balance, expressed in tCO2e, valid for two years after emission. Ships then will be able to use the surplus units in the following reporting periods; transfer to other vessels as a credit; or voluntarily cancel as a mitigation contribution. IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said while it would have been more preferable to have a unanimous outcome, this outcome is a good result nonetheless. "We work on consensus, not unanimity," he said. "We demonstrated that we will continue to work as an organization despite the concerns." Looking at the MEPC session in October, Dominguez said: "Different member states have different positions, and there is time for us to remain in the process and address those concerns, including those that were against and those that were expecting more." Dominguez said the regulation is set to come into force in 2027, with first revenues collected in 2028 of an estimated $11bn-13bn. Dominguez also said there is a clause within the regulation that ensures a review at least every five years. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara IMO GHG reduction targets Year Base Target Direct Compliance Target 2028 4% 17% 2029 6% 19% 2030 8% 21% 2031 12% 25% 2032 17% 30% 2033 21% 34% 2034 26% 39% 2035 30% 43% Source: IMO 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