Connect with us

Analysis

Integr8 Fuels: Additional costs can make bunker buyers pay more

Taking additional costs together with calorific value, density short-lifts and overall fuel quality should yield a good benefit for the bunker buyer, writes Senior Research Analyst.
Admin

Published

5 years ago

on

andrey sharpilo PcWGCSoqRg unsplash

Anton Shamray, Senior Research Analyst at Integr8 Fuels, the bunker trading and brokerage arm of Navig8, on Thursday (20 August) published an analysis on the finer details regarding locational costs when purchasing marine fuel:

In the previous articles we looked into how bunker buyers unknowingly pay more for the fuel bought, either by buying fuel with a low energy content or by suffering losses due to density short-lifts. However, the total cost of fuel is also influenced by the additional charges and fees, which vary significantly by port and often between suppliers in the same port. Additional costs are generally known at the point of enquiry however these are sometimes overlooked when planning or buying bunkers, resulting in overpayments.

Additional fess can significantly add to stem cost

A sample of over 6,000 stems globally covering the first half of 2021 has been analysed of which over 30% were found to contain some sort of additional fee.

Figure 1. Additional fees broken down

Figure 1. Additional fees broken down (source: Integr8 Fuels)

These fees typically include barging, port charges and dues, various taxes and surcharges, among others (Figure 1). On average, among the stems with additional fees the cost of the fuel itself contributes around 92% to the total stem value, however this varies dramatically by stem.

Knowing where additional costs can hit hard is critical to buying bunkers competitively, particularly when it comes to the barging fees as these on average represent over 5% being by far the largest contributor of all non-fuel related costs.

Depending on the port, barging fees are often charged on a tiered basis with the lumpsum charges for up to a certain quantity and a $/mt charge for the quantities above.

In a number of ports in Americas different suppliers charge different barging fees (example New York), which makes it even more difficult for a bunker buyer to calculate the true cost of bunkers and compare suppliers between themselves. The problem is compounded by additional fees and taxes that are often chargeable as a percentage of the total stem value.

Additional fees in the bunker industry ironically remind of the fee structure when ordering a takeaway delivery online.

To what otherwise looks like a cheap meal one needs to pay extra for a side, the platform then charges delivery and service fees, and because demand is high it gives an option to pay extra for prioritised delivery. In the end, what initially looked like a good value lunch becomes a relatively expensive meal overall.

Watch out for extra fees in North America, Med and Red Sea

Similarly, in the bunker industry additional fees can easily make what looks like a competitive price quoted by a supplier into a rather expensive quotation overall, particularly when quotes from different ports are compared.

Figure 2. Key ports by prevalence of additional cost stems and proportion of such costs in average stem value

Figure 2. Key ports by prevalence of additional cost stems and proportion of such costs in average stem value (source: Integr8 Fuels)

Figure 2 shows the share of stems with additional costs in the key global ports as well as the share of additional costs in the average stem value. This may vary depending on the data sample given that additional costs often include a single lumpsum element which is less felt for larger quantity stems, however the map shown should still be representative.

On Figure 2, the green circles are for ports where less than one in three stems come with additional fees. Yellow circles are for ports where between one and two in three stems have additional fees applied, while in red ports additional fees are charged on most occasions. The larger the circle the higher the proportion of additional fees in a stem hence the larger red circles are of the most interest. These can typically be found in North and Central America as well as around Mediterranean and Red seas. Although some green ports have rather large circles meaning a small proportion of stems have high additional fees, these are mostly due to the smaller sized stems which are invariably charged for barging, while their larger quantity counterparts are not.

While some ports have red circles, these can also be due to the addition of the non-barging fees. Port fees and agent costs can often be packaged with the fuel (example Lisbon) and almost as often be paid as part of voyage expenses (example Gibraltar). These costs, however, apply in any case and can hardly be avoided although running a fair comparison by either including (preferably for bunker only calls) or excluding them is nevertheless important.

Detailed costs calculations are key

Figure 3 shows an example of bunker planning between Houston and Panama. Please note this example may not always be representative and depends on the market conditions, however the main point is to show the importance of calculating the total bunkering cost, including barging and other fees and how these may influence the end result.

Figure 3. Houston vs Panama bunker intake planning

Figure 3. Houston vs Panama bunker intake planning

In the current market environment HSFO can often be found offered at competitive prices in Panama, often a few dollars below Houston, however assuming that both ports arepriced equally buying 1,000mt of HSFO turns to be more expensive in Panama, given the additional fee structure whereby the owner will overpay just under $3,000 for the stem. This calculation does not include any agency fees for Panama or out of port charges in Houston.

However, due to the structure of the fees, Panama will not always be the expensive port of the two. Figure 4 shows the sensitivity chart which illustrates that Panama is the cheaper port for quantities up to around 700mt and over 2,000mt.

While in this case the monetary difference may be relatively small, it can add up significantly over the course of a year or for a fleet of vessels.

Figure 4. Total paid difference between Houston and Panama on an HSFO stem

Figure 4. Total paid difference between Houston and Panama on an HSFO stem (source: Integr8 Fuels)

The differences can also vary if bunkering is considered in ports with a different structure of additional fees or with no fees at all – this could be for a voyage whereby Suez is compared with Malta or a voyage where Piraeus is competing with Istanbul, among others.

Overall, additional costs including barging can significantly alter the economics of buying fuel from a supplier or a port and taking this into account, together with calorific value, density short-lifts and overall fuel quality should yield a good benefit for the bunker buyer.

 

Photo credit: Andrey Sharpilo on Unsplash
Published: 20 August, 2021

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Quality

FOBAS report warns of growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

LR’s latest FOBAS Fuel Quality Report reveals that the biggest fuel quality risks are no longer confined to off-specification fuels, with some compliant fuels creating operational challenges.
Admin

Published

1 week ago

on

July 15, 2026

By

New FOBAS report warns growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

Classification society Lloyd’s Register (LR) on Tuesday (14 July) warned that ship operators are facing a growing risk from fuels that appear compliant under routine ISO 8217 testing but still present operational risks once onboard.

According to LR’s latest Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) Fuel Quality Report, covering the first half of 2026, off-specification fuels remain a persistent challenge. 

However, some of the most disruptive cases now involve fuels that pass routine compliance testing but show poor stability or compatibility, or contain non-conventional blend components that are only identified through more detailed investigative analysis.

Several incidents investigated highlighted this trend. In March and April, a number of vessels reported operational difficulties after bunkering fuel in a major bunkering hub. Further forensic analysis found that many of the fuels contained elevated concentrations of Estonian shale oil, in some cases estimated to be around 10-15%.

While shale oil is recognised within ISO 8217 as an acceptable blend component, FOBAS investigations found that higher concentrations can be associated with fuel instability and operational issues affecting filters, separators and fuel pumps.

The report also shows that fuel quality variability remains stubbornly high. Off-specification cases remained elevated throughout the first six months of 2026, suggesting that quality issues are no longer isolated events but a more persistent feature of today’s marine fuel supply chain.

The most common recurring issues included sulphur exceedances, excessive water content, sediment and stability problems, elevated catalytic fines, sodium contamination and low flash point distillate fuels.

At the same time, biofuels (especially FAME blends) are continuing to grow without being a primary source of quality issues. Where issues occurred in blended fuels, they were generally associated with the conventional VLSFO component rather than the FAME fraction.

The report concluded that operators will need to adopt a more proactive approach to fuel management as marine fuels become more diverse and fuel quality risks become harder to identify through routine compliance testing alone.

Greater emphasis on fuel stability, compatibility and understanding fuel composition will be critical to reducing operational disruption and maintaining vessel performance.

Murray Kirkwood, Fuel Specialist Consultant, Lloyd’s Register, said: “The findings from our latest report show that fuel quality risk is evolving. The challenge is no longer simply identifying fuels that fail specification. Increasingly, operators are encountering fuels that meet the required limits but still create operational difficulties once they are stored, handled and used onboard.

“As fuel blending becomes more complex, the distinction that matters is increasingly not between on-spec and off-spec fuel, but between fuels that are operationally resilient and fuels that are operationally fragile. Understanding that difference is becoming essential for shipowners and operators.”

The latest findings reinforced FOBAS’ long-standing view that effective fuel management increasingly depends on understanding fuel behaviour rather than relying solely on pass-or-fail specification testing.

By combining routine fuel quality monitoring with forensic investigation of operational incidents, FOBAS provides shipowners with a clearer understanding of emerging fuel quality risks as the industry continues its transition to a more diverse and complex fuel landscape.

Note: The FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel Quality Report H1 2026 is available at FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel quality reports | LR

 

Photo credit: Lloyd’s Register
Published: 15 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Interview

Interview: Alkagesta navigates risk from bunkering ops during turbulent times

As the industry navigates this period of uncertainty, the key question is no longer ‘what will fuel cost?’ but rather ‘will fuel be available?’, highlights Mithat Çiftçioğlu.
Admin

Published

3 months ago

on

May 7, 2026

By

Mithat MT

Mithat Çiftçioğlu, Marine Fuels Director at Alkagesta, shared his opinion on risk management for bunkering operations under current geopolitical tensions through the April edition of shipping magazine Deniz Ticaret.

The maritime publication, part of the Turkish Chamber of Shipping (İMEAK Deniz Ticaret Odası), has given Manifold Times permission to republish the article:

Fueling Ships in Turbulent Times

From Oil Shock to Fuel Access Crisis: A New Risk Map for Maritime 2026

The final weeks of the first quarter of 2026 mark one of the most complex periods in recent years for global energy and maritime markets. The sharp rise in oil and refined product prices since February 28 may look like a classic energy shock at first glance, but developments in the maritime sector point to a far deeper structural rupture.

What is being debated in the market today is no longer just oil prices. For traders and shipowners operating in the maritime sector and bunker market, the real issue is not the price of fuel — it is access to fuel. The fundamental question in the market has shifted: not what will the price of fuel be, but will fuel even be available?

In light of the Force Majeure cancellations at Asian ports over the past two weeks, another question must also be considered: Will pre-agreed bunker supply contracts actually be delivered?

From Oil Prices to Logistical Reality

Tensions in the Middle East have created a strong geopolitical risk premium in the oil market. Brent crude briefly surpassed the $100 per barrel mark, triggering a search for a new equilibrium across markets. This will inevitably bring inflation and recession back onto the global agenda in the months ahead.

But the rise in oil prices does not only reflect the risk of supply disruption — it also signals the return of one of the most fragile chokepoints in global energy trade:

The Strait of Hormuz

Approximately one-third of the world’s oil trade passes through this narrow waterway. Around 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products transit Hormuz daily. Any disruption here would therefore affect not only oil prices, but also global refined product flows and the bunker market directly.

Why Strategic Oil Reserves Are Not the Solution

A commonly proposed solution in energy crises is the release of strategic petroleum reserves. However, releasing these reserves does not directly resolve a bunker crisis. Strategic reserves consist of crude oil. To produce bunker fuel, the following chain must be completed:

Crude oil → Refinery → Product logistics → Bunker port

This process takes time. Strategic reserves can temporarily stabilize oil prices, but they cannot solve the access problem in the bunker market in the short term.

Furthermore, the announced reserve release of 400 million barrels, to be drawn down at a rate of 2.5–3 million barrels per day, can only cover a small fraction of the estimated daily loss from the Middle East — optimistically 8–10 million barrels, pessimistically 18–20 million barrels per day.

A Historic Surge in Bunker Fuel Prices

The per-ton price of VLSFO (0.5% sulfur) bunker fuel has surpassed $1,000, reaching approximately double pre-war levels. This also represents some of the highest prices seen since July 2022.

While prices at bunker hubs such as Singapore and Fujairah are approaching $1,100 per ton, European markets have remained comparatively lower.

The Real Problem Is Not Price — It Is Fuel Access

Obtaining bunker quotes for April has become increasingly difficult, particularly at Asian ports. Even where shipowners and traders can secure quotes, the absence of supply guarantees makes pricing extremely challenging.

A senior executive at Oldendorff Carriers summarized the situation in these words:

“We cannot price cargo because we cannot calculate fuel costs; we cannot calculate fuel costs because there is no supply guarantee.”

The CEO of Maersk has compared the current situation to the pandemic era, stating that companies are attempting to source fuel through methods they have never tried before in order to keep global shipping networks supplied.

While supply is tight and prices are near their peak in Singapore and Fujairah, Rotterdam appears relatively more balanced. However, as the conflict drags on, risk perception in European markets is also rising.

The surge in bunker prices will not only increase costs — it will also affect global maritime transport capacity. Ships are expected to reduce their speeds to conserve fuel. This could lead to a reduction in effective carrying capacity, creating new logistical bottlenecks in global trade.

The importance of working with reliable, long-term partners has never been more apparent than during a crisis such as this.

The Widening Price Spread Between Fuel Types

A notable development in the bunker market in recent weeks is the rapid widening of price differentials between different fuel types. Two spreads in particular have expanded significantly:

  • Marine Gas Oil (MGO) – VLSFO
  • VLSFO – HSFO

Rising demand for distillate products, refinery production balances, and regional supply tightness are all contributing to this widening. As a result, bunker purchases have become not merely a matter of price level, but a strategic decision tied to product type and port selection.

An Unexpected Development: Biofuels Becoming Competitive

Another noteworthy development in the bunker market is that biofuels have remained at relatively competitive price levels. This creates two important opportunities for shipowners.

On one hand, biofuels remain competitively priced in certain markets. On the other, they offer a means of compliance with new regulations entering into force in Europe — particularly the FuelEU Maritime and EU ETS frameworks, which require reductions in carbon intensity. In this context, biofuels have become a strategic option for many shipowners.

Conclusion: Active Bunker Management Is The New Normal

The 2026 bunker market presents one of the most complex energy trading environments in recent years. The rise in oil prices, geopolitical risk at the Strait of Hormuz, tightness in physical fuel supply, and widening price spreads between fuel types have made bunker fuel management more critical than ever.

The prevailing view in energy markets is that as long as the risk at the Strait of Hormuz persists, turbulence in the bunker market will persist with it. As time passes, the depletion of commercial stocks may deepen the existing supply tightness further.

For this reason, the current situation is viewed not merely as an energy crisis, but as a new stress scenario testing the logistical infrastructure of global trade.

The view increasingly heard across energy markets is this:

“As long as Hormuz remains closed, it will not be oil prices but fuel access that constitutes the defining risk for global shipping.”

Finally, for shipowners and operators, bunker strategies are shifting away from a passive purchasing approach toward a model grounded in active risk management.

 

Photo and article credit: Deniz Ticaret
Published: 7 May 2026

Continue Reading

Analysis

T&E: Overreliance on traditional bunker fuels costs shipping USD 395 million a day due to Iran conflict

Development has made alternative fuels increasingly more competitive, states Eloi Nordé, shipping policy officer at T&E.
Admin

Published

4 months ago

on

April 2, 2026

By

The Hormuz crisis adds over 300 million a day to shippings fossil fuels bills

The European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) on 27 March highlighted the adoption of green marine fuels would reduce the shipping industry’s exposure to fuel price shocks in future.

It noted shipping companies are spending an extra €340 million (USD 394.74 million) a day in additional fuel costs as a result of the latest conflict in the Gulf.

As 99% of the global fleet runs on fossil fuels, the industry is directly exposed to fuel price volatility and supply disruptions. Efficiency measures, electrification and e-fuels would reduce the industry’s exposure to price fluctuations.

According to T&E, marine fuel prices have escalated rapidly, with VLSFO reaching €941 per tonne in Singapore, up 223% since the start of 2026. At the same time, LNG prices have risen by 72% since early March. Since February 28, shipping companies have incurred more than €4.6 billion in additional fuel costs.

The development has made alternative fuels increasingly more competitive. As fossil fuel prices reach record highs again, the cost gap with e-fuels is narrowing.

T&E’s research shows that the cost gap between marine gas oil – one of the more expensive fossil fuels – and e-fuels has shrunk to near parity (+5%) in some ports.

Hormuz oil crisis boosts potential e fuel competitiveness

While the trend may be temporary, it shows that the volatility of fossil fuel markets offsets much of the structural cost disadvantage of clean fuels.

“Chaos in the Strait of Hormuz is putting global maritime trade under the spotlight. But it’s on the oil markets where its impact will be felt the most. The war is costing the industry millions every day,” said Eloi Nordé, shipping policy officer at T&E.

“Some governments and parts of the industry have spent the last year bashing green maritime measures as being too expensive, yet those costs pale in comparison to this super-disruption.

“If anything, this crisis should be the catalyst for more investment in European e-fuels and greater uptake of energy efficiency measures to avoid fossil fuel shocks in the future.”

 

Photo credit: European Federation for Transport and Environment
Published: 2 April 2026

Continue Reading

Trending