US soybean oil futures volatile

Spanish Market: Agriculture, Biofuels
24/06/21

US soybean oil futures recovered after falling earlier in the week, while premiums for crude degummed soybean oil against the futures basis were mixed.

The July Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) soybean oil contract on 23 June settled higher at 62.13¢/lb, amid hot and dry weather concerns.

The July contract settled down by the 3.5¢/lb trade limit on 16 June and by the extended 5.5¢/lb trade limit on 17 June, following a record-high set on 8 June at 72.08¢/lb.

After the 5.5¢/lb decrease, soybean oil futures reversed course and settled higher for the rest of the week. Activity this morning was showing downward movement in the futures basis, due to heavy rains and cooler temperatures in the forecast.

Differentials for crude degummed soybean oil, a feedstock for renewable diesel and biodiesel, were mixed in response to the volatility in the futures basis.

The premium for crude degummed soybean oil in the Carolinas delivered market against the July CBOT decreased by 1.5¢/lb over the week to last stand at +7.5¢/lb. In the Iowa fob market, the differential premium increased by 1¢/lb, while other markets were unchanged.

US soybean planting progress was at 97pc complete as of 20 June, up from 94pc from the previous week, according to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). This is above the five-year average for this time of 94pc complete.

Growers in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin reached 100pc planting progress this week, joining Minnesota and Nebraska who reached it previously.

Soybean emergence was at 91pc as of 20 June, up from the 85pc five-year average for this time. As of 20 June, 5pc of planted soybeans were blooming, which is in line with the five-year average. The soybean crop conditions were little changed from the week ending 13 June.

USDA's Acreage report is due next week, which will release the details on planted soybeans against the 87.6mn acres forecast in the Prospective Plantings report from March.

By Jamuna Gautam

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.

12/11/24

California RD plant signals later start up

New York, 12 November (Argus) — An long-delayed project to convert a Bakersfield, California, oil refinery to produce renewable diesel (RD) has been given another extension for start up. Global Clean Energy Holdings, working to open a 15,000 b/d RD refinery, and trading house Vitol agreed last week to adjust the terms of a supply and offtake deal singed in June. The initial agreement said that Vitol could exit the agreement if the refinery was not producing at least 5,000 b/d of renewable diesel by the end of October, but that deadline has now been moved to 15 December. Global Clean Energy told Argus last month that it still has "plans in place to complete the remaining work and start up the facility" despite recently cancelling an agreement with its principal contractor. Vitol, after an initial three-year term, can now request up to three one-year extensions of the contract, up from two in the initial deal. The agreement, which cleared the way for former business partner ExxonMobil to exit, stipulates that Vitol will be the exclusive supplier of feedstocks to the plant and exclusive marketer of all fuel and environmental attributes. The revised agreement also says that if Global Clean Energy modifies its credit agreement to allow for more than $330mn in debt financing, then the renewable fuels producer will have to pay Vitol an additional fee that increases as more funds are borrowed. Global Clean Energy declined to clarify whether it had already triggered the obligation to pay Vitol the excess fee, saying that it could not provide more information ahead of filing its quarterly investor report "in the near future." If the plant begins operations as planned, it will have to contend with a challenging investment environment for biorefineries given recently low environmental credit prices and uncertainty around how president-elect Donald Trump will enforce a new federal clean fuels tax credit. At the same time, California regulators agreed last week to update the state low-carbon fuel standard, including by setting stricter carbon intensity targets that start next year. The regulatory updates lifted the prices of credits used for program compliance, which are a crucial source of revenue for companies bringing lower-carbon fuels like renewable diesel into the state. By Cole Martin Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Lower Mississippi draft restrictions lifted

11/11/24

Lower Mississippi draft restrictions lifted

Houston, 11 November (Argus) — The US Coast Guard (USGC) removed draught restrictions from the lower Mississippi River on 8 November, after several rain washed across much of the Midwestern US. Draft restrictions were completely lifted for north and southbound barges on the lower Mississippi River between Tiptonville, Tennessee, to Tunica, Louisiana. Approximately 2-8 inches of rain were reported in Illinois and Missouri in the last seven days, adding around 14 inches to the lower Mississippi River, according to the National Weather Service (NWS). St Louis, Missiouri was at a high of 11.5 inches above baseline on 11 November, up from a low of -1.5ft on 1 November. The USGC has had draft restrictions in place since August, with the river system receiving a short reprieve in early October after rain from Hurricane Helene poured into the US river system. But low water levels and restrictions returned about two weeks later. Prior to recent precipitation, drafts were restricted to 10-10.5ft for southbound barges and tows could not not be greater than 6-7 barges wide. Northbound barges could not draft greater than 9.5ft, tows could not be more than six barges wide, and only four barges could be loaded. High water levels are expected to remain through November, according to NWS but barge carriers have said that water levels will slip quickly if no additional rain falls along the upper Mississippi River. By Meghan Yoyotte 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

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.

Carbon intensity reg pivotal to biobunkers in 2025

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.

Canada climate plans not equally at risk post-Trudeau

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.

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