Business
Monitoring bunker price changes and buying on weighted average price can save money
Integr8 Fuels reports bunker buyers getting caught with buying one fuel cheap and then overpaying on the other and this is currently the case in a number of ports globally.
Integr8 Fuels, the bunker trading and brokerage arm of Navig8, on Friday (14 August) published an analysis on why it is important for bunker buyers to consider average volume weighted price to ensure savings as bunker prices can change unexpectedly even in a slow market; it was written by Anton Shamray, Senior Research Analyst:
In the past couple of months, it has been a somewhat quieter period in the bunker industry, particularly with regard to VLSFO and LSMGO, with relatively low prices and abundant supply generally……..
There is clearly a lot of uncertainty about whether oil demand will carry on recovering given the rise in the Covid-19 cases in a number of countries and what the OPEC+ countries will do with the crude oil cuts going forward.
For now, we have mostly seen bunker prices trailing Brent, although there have been a number of ports where pricing changed in bunker buyer’s favour or against it.
Given the low freight environment in many shipping sectors, opportunities to buy smart and pay less should not be missed and one of the approaches would be to utilise the volume weighted price average calculation when fixing multiple fuel stems.
VLSFO pricing: a somewhat unexpected outsider
Selecting ten major bunker ports for the price analysis and ranking them by VLSFO price we found that Singapore, and for some buyers rather unexpectedly, appeared to be at the bottom of the table in the past couple of months meaning it is the most expensive port out of the ten for lifting VLSFO bunkers.
In general, it appears that the ports in the West have cheaper VLSFO bunkers than the ports in the East, however in both regions a number of changes occurred between June and August despite the somewhat muted activity in the market.
Looking back to June, of the ten selected ports, NW European and USG ports including Houston, Rotterdamand St. Petersburg, were the cheapest, while Singapore and Zhoushan had the most expensive VLSFO (Figure 1 below).
While the difference between the cheapest and the most expensive port shrank from around $200/mt in January to $40/mt in August, the decrease in freight rates emphasizes the importance of every little saving achieved.
Again, Singapore remains at the bottom of the ranking. While it may not be possible for vessels trading regionally to sail West to pick up cheaper bunkers, for vessels operating globally deviating from the usual buying patterns may result in savings.
For example, before for a ship sailing West to East, Singapore was a natural stop for a bunker only call, while now it is worth checking whether a bunker load can be taken elsewhere on the route. Moreover, a rise in the number of quality issues has recently been recorded in Singapore, which is another reason to potentially look at the alternative ports for comparison on price and quality.
St.Petersburg appears to have lost its VLSFO price advantage over Rotterdam in August.While it used to be quite common for a vessel discharging in Rotterdam to lift bunkers in St.Petersburg if this was the next port, currently Rotterdam can provide a good alternative. Lifting in Rotterdam could also protect the buyer should the voyage orders change and the vessel is no longer heading to the Baltic.
The other location is Panama, which in June was in the top-3 of the most expensive VLSFO ports and by August became one of the cheapest making it more competitive with Houston.
Even in a quiet market, such changes happen on a weekly and even daily basis so keeping your options open and assessing prices not only in alternative regional ports but also on the other end of your voyage could result in savings.
While VLSFO by far is the main fuel these days, a large number of stems bought are actually dual fuel and in the case of a non-scrubber vessel that would be VLSFO and LSMGO, while for a scrubber fitted vessel that would most likely be HSFO and LSMGO.
LSMGO pricing: do not get caught with expensive gasoil
Taking the same ten ports and raking them by the price of LSMGO, the picture is somewhat different (Figure 3 below).While the cheapest ports are still in NW Europe, Fujairah is by far the most expensive, and with Singapore being somewhat in the middle.
It is also worth noting that since June there has been little change in the port ranking based on the LSMGO price, which indicates that LSMGO price changes are less extreme.
While Fujairah may be almost $10/mt cheaper than Singapore on VLSFO, it is a whopping $60/mt more expensive on LSMGO. These differences should be taken into account when buying bunkers and they show the importance of calculating the volume weighted average price of the bunker fuel bought.
The importance of the weighted price average
For the dual fuel stems it is of great importance to calculate the average volume weighted price to ensure the cheapest bunker port is identified.We have seen on a number of occasions bunker buyers getting caught with buying one fuel cheap and then overpaying on the other and this is currently the case in a number of ports globally.
Figure 4 shows the comparison between Fujairah and Singapore and while VLSFO in Fujairah can be bought almost $10/mt cheaper than in Singapore, LSMGO in Fujairah is more than $60/mt more expensive
For a rather typical system comprising of 750mt of VLSFO and 150mt of LSMGO, Singapore would still be the cheapest port given the high LSMGO pricing in Fujairah, saving the buyer $4 on every ton bought, which in this case adds up to savings in the region of $3,000.
Granted that in the current bunker market environment where the price spreads between different ports are often in single digits, this may not seem like great savings, however when oil prices rise (and eventually they will), these spreads may start widening and so increase the potential to either lose or save money depending on the buying approach taken.
Photo credit and source: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 19 August, 2020
Alternative Fuels
Yang Ming orders six LNG dual-fuel, ammonia-ready containerships from Hanwha Ocean
Each of the six new vessels will have a capacity of up to 13,650 TEU and feature LNG dual-fuel propulsion and Ammonia Fuel Ready specifications.
Alternative Fuels
LR, China’s MARIC unveil tanker concept ready for three future bunker fuels
Both secured AiP for a new 114,000 DWT product and crude oil tanker designed to accommodate future conversion to LNG, methanol or ammonia.
Alternative Fuels
DNV: Alternative-fuelled vessel orders hit highest monthly level since October 2024
LNG-fuelled vessels accounted for the vast majority of August activity while the strong summer performance marked a significant acceleration in ordering activity after a relatively slow start to the year.
Latest data from classification society DNV’s Alternative Fuels Insight (AFI) platform alternative-fuelled vessel ordering was strong in August, with 52 new vessels added to the platform.
This is the highest monthly total since October 2024 and follows another active month in July, when 47 vessels were added to the database.
LNG-fuelled vessels accounted for the vast majority of August activity, with 46 orders recorded. The container segment led the way with 30 orders, while the car carrier segment contributed a further 12 LNG-fuelled vessels. In addition, four ethanol-fuelled bulk carriers and two hydrogen-powered bulk carriers were added during the month, as well as one LNG bunker vessel.
The strong summer performance marked a significant acceleration in ordering activity after a relatively slow start to the year. In total, 242 alternative-fuelled vessel orders have been placed in the first eight months of 2026, representing a 27% increase compared with the same period in 2025.
LNG remains the dominant fuel choice, accounting for 63% of all alternative-fuelled vessel orders registered so far this year. Container vessels represent the largest share of these LNG orders (59%), followed by car carriers (30%).
Jason Stefanatos, Global Decarbonization Director at DNV Maritime, said: “The past two months have been particularly strong for alternative-fuelled vessel ordering, with August recording the highest monthly total we’ve seen since October 2024. This has helped lift year-to-date orders to a level well above the same period last year.
“LNG remains the leading fuel choice, driven largely by activity in the container and car carrier segments. These sectors have been among the earliest adopters of alternative fuels, supported by predictable liner operations and increasing demand from cargo owners to reduce emissions across supply chains.
“For many owners, LNG offers a combination of emissions reductions, fuel availability and future flexibility while the longer-term fuel landscape continues to evolve.
“At the same time, the latest figures include orders for ethanol- and hydrogen-fuelled vessels, highlighting that owners continue to explore a range of decarbonization pathways. Different segments are making different fuel choices, but the overall level of activity demonstrates continued investment in lower-emission shipping.”
Photo credit: DNV
Published: 4 September, 2026
OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS
Yang Ming orders six LNG dual-fuel, ammonia-ready containerships from Hanwha Ocean
LR, China’s MARIC unveil tanker concept ready for three future bunker fuels
DNV: Alternative-fuelled vessel orders hit highest monthly level since October 2024
TFG Marine advances global MFM rollout with two US Gulf bunker barges
GENA Solutions: Total renewable and low-carbon methanol project pipeline increases from 61.8 to 62.2 Mt by 2032
Baltic Exchange: Bunker Report (3 September 2026)
ENGINE: Americas Fuel Availability Outlook (3 September 2026)
Singapore-flagged tugboat “Kim Heng 3203” placed under Sheriff’s arrest
US targets five bunker companies in latest sanctions campaign against Iran
Singapore bunkering community supports Living Hope Evangelism’s 7th anniversary outreach for residents in need
China’s bunker market reshaped by tax rebates, trade flows and refining changes, says economist
Hengli Petrochemical’s ex-Singapore trading arm faces winding up application
Rajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours
Report: GCMD outlines practical approach to quantity assurance in marine biofuel supply chains
-
Vessel Arrest1 week agoSingapore-flagged tugboat “Kim Heng 3203” placed under Sheriff’s arrest
-
Sanctions2 weeks agoUS targets five bunker companies in latest sanctions campaign against Iran
-
Events2 weeks agoSingapore bunkering community supports Living Hope Evangelism’s 7th anniversary outreach for residents in need
-
Interview1 week agoChina’s bunker market reshaped by tax rebates, trade flows and refining changes, says economist
-
Winding up2 weeks agoHengli Petrochemical’s ex-Singapore trading arm faces winding up application
-
Bunker Claim4 days agoRajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours
-
Biofuel1 week agoReport: GCMD outlines practical approach to quantity assurance in marine biofuel supply chains
-
Winding up2 weeks agoSingapore: Notices of intended dividend issued for Ocean Bunkering Services, Hin Leong Marine