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
IMO incentive to shape bio-bunker choices: Correction
IMO incentive to shape bio-bunker choices: Correction
Corrects B30 pricing in paragraph 5. New York, 21 April (Argus) — An International Maritime Organization (IMO) proposal for ship owners who exceed emissions reduction targets to earn surplus credits will play a key role in biofuel bunkering options going forward. The price of these credits will help determine whether B30 or B100 becomes the preferred bio-bunker fuel for vessels not powered by LNG or methanol. It will also influence whether biofuel adoption is accelerated or delayed beyond 2032. At the conclusion of its meeting earlier this month the IMO proposed a dual-incentive mechanism to curb marine GHG emissions starting in 2028. The system combines penalties for non-compliance with financial incentives for over-compliance, aiming to shift ship owner behavior through both "stick" and "carrot" measures. As the "carrot", ship owners whose emissions fall below the IMO's stricter compliance target will receive surplus credits, which can be traded on the open market. The "stick" will introduce a two-tier penalty system. If emissions fall between the base and direct GHG emissions tiers, vessel operators will pay a fixed penalty of $100/t CO2-equivalent. Ship owners whose emissions exceed the looser, tier 2, base target will incur a penalty of $380/t CO2e. Both tiers tighten annually through 2035. The overcompliance credits will be traded on the open market. It is unlikely that they will exceed the cost of the tier 2 penalty of $380/t CO2e. Argus modeled two surplus credit price scenarios — $70/t and $250/t CO2e — to assess their impact on bunker fuel economics. Assessments from 10-17 April showed Singapore very low-sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) at $481/t, Singapore B30 at $740/t, and Chinese used cooking oil methyl ester (Ucome), or B100, at $1,143/t (see charts). If the outright prices remain flat, in both scenarios, VLSFO would incur tier 1 and tier 2 penalties, raising its effective cost to around $563/t in 2028. B30 in both scenarios would receive credits putting its price at $653/t and $715/t respectively. In the high surplus credit scenario, B100 would earn roughly $580/t in credits, bringing its net cost to about $563/t, on par with VLSFO, and more competitive than B30. In the low surplus credit scenario, B100 would earn just $162/t in credits, lowering its cost to approximately $980/t, well above VLSFO. At these spot prices, and $250/t CO2e surplus credit, B100 would remain the cheapest fuel option through 2035. At $70/t CO2e surplus credit, B30 becomes cost-competitive with VLSFO only after 2032. Ultimately, the market value of IMO over-compliance credits will be a major factor in determining the timing and extent of global biofuel adoption in the marine sector. By Stefka Wechsler Scenario 1, $70/t surplus credit $/t Scenario 2, $250/t surplus credit $/t Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
FincoEnergies joins FuelEU compliance market
FincoEnergies joins FuelEU compliance market
London, 16 April (Argus) — Netherlands-based fuel supplier FincoEnergies has launched a pooling service to help shipowners comply with FuelEU Maritime requirements. The service will enable undercompliant ships to meet their FuelEU requirements by pooling them with vessels that run on marine biodiesel supplied by FincoEnergies' own GoodFuels brand. The pooling service is also based on a partnership with maritime classification organisation Lloyd's Register, the company said. FincoEnergies said it will take the role of "pool organiser". The FuelEU Maritime regulation, which came into effect this year, sets greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets of 2pc for vessels travelling in or out of Europe. The reduction jumps to 6pc from 2030 and gradually reaches 80pc by 2050. The pooling mechanism built into FuelEU Maritime allows shipowners to combine vessels to achieve overall compliance across the pool, enabling a system by which compliance can be traded. Argus assessed the values of FuelEU Ucome-MGO abatement and Ucome-VLSFO abatement, prices which can be used as a metric to value compliance, at an average of $302.56/t of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) and $337.46/tCO2e, respectively, so far this year. By Hussein Al-Khalisy and Natália Coelho Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism
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.
Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'
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.
Spotlight content
Argus FuelEU costs, Ucome abatement prices
Argus has launched two FuelEU cost of compliance prices that represent the cost of abating one tonne of CO2 equivalent (e) by bunkering used cooking oil methyl ester (Ucome) instead of marine gasoil (MGO) or very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO).
FAQB24 (Ucome & VLSFO) dob Fujairah
Argus has launched the first marine biodiesel price for the Middle East — B24 dob Fujairah — adding to its existing coverage for Asia, with prices also published at the ports of Singapore and Guangzhou.
FAQArgus 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.
FAQArgus 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
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
