Connect with us

Analysis

Integr8: OPEC+ Kicks the Can with Bunker Costs Set to Fall by 10% in 2025

Research Contributor Steve Christy reports various analysts forecasting lesser spending on bunkers in 2025.

Admin

Published

on

OPEC+ Kicks the Can with Bunker Costs Set to Fall by 10% in 2025

By Steve Christy, Research Contributor, Integr8 Fuels
[email protected]

We have seen bunker prices slide for the past two months

For a number of months, we have pointed to bunker prices falling under the weight of very weak oil fundamentals. This has certainly come to fruition and bunker prices have continued to slide over the past two months. In Singapore, VLSFO prices are some $75/mt lower (minus 12%) than in mid-October, and in Rotterdam the drop has been around $50/mt (minus 10%).

graph 1 1024x797

In the HSFO markets, the drop has been greater in NW Europe, down $75/mt in Rotterdam over the last two months (minus 14%), with Singapore down $50/mt (minus 10%).

The decline is even clearer looking back to end 2023

The picture below is enough to illustrate how far bunker prices have fallen since the end of last year, and just how low we are today.

graph 2 1024x809

Has OPEC+ ‘come up with the goods’?

In our report last month, we highlighted the huge dilemma facing OPEC+, who at the time were looking to unwind their 2.2 million b/d of voluntary cutbacks starting in January next year. The problem was this was against a backdrop of weak growth in world oil demand and more than enough new non-OPEC+ production to meet additional demand. Consequently, it has been clear for some time that if OPEC+ wanted to maintain oil prices anywhere close to recent levels, then there was little, or no room for them to start increasing production anytime soon. The original strategy of reversing the cuts in January was almost certain to see Brent crude fall into the $60s (and Singapore VLSFO in the $450-500/mt range).

As is usually the case when faced with adversity, OPEC+ does ‘come up with the goods’. In this instance (at their early December meeting), they decided to shelve any idea of raising production in January, and pushed back the current target start date to April. They have also slowed the re-introduction period, now unwinding the cuts over 18 months, rather than the previously planned 12-month time frame.

At the same OPEC+ meeting, it was also agreed that the planned 0.3 million b/d increase in the UAE’s quota allocation would be pushed back by 3-months, to April and also be staged over 18-months (not 9-months as previously indicated).

The net result is that under current plans, OPEC+ production would increase by around 140,000 b/d each month starting in April, rather than increases of 210,000 b/d starting in January.

The market tells you everything

Looking at oil prices, they continued to slide through November. However, in the run-up to the early December OPEC+ meeting there were indications that the group would again delay (for the third time) any unwinding of the production cuts. The outcome has been for prices over the past 3-weeks to be maintained in the $72-74/bbl for Brent, and the $525-550/mt range for Singapore VLSFO.

The key here is, although prices appear to have held up after the OPEC+ meeting, there has been no significant rebound. The market does not believe at this stage that the new outcome will tighten oil fundamentals and push prices higher. OPEC+ may be ‘kicking the can down the road’ regarding the best timing to unwind production cuts, but they have come together to halt the slide in prices.

There is a strong view that when OPEC+ come to review the April start date, they will again have to delay unwinding production cutbacks.

Analysts vary on their price views, but they don’t see a major rebound

A number of analysts have published crude price projections since the outcome of the latest OPEC+ meeting. As always, there are variations, but looking at views for Brent crude over Q1 and Q2 next year, there are a number within the range $70-75/bbl, which is within the trading range we have seen over the past month and in line with the current $73/bbl price.

graph 3 1024x820

Goldman Sachs are higher than this range, showing Brent moving up to $77/bbl in Q2, whilst Bank of America (BOA) are much lower, looking at $66/bbl in Q2 .

Based on $70-75/bbl crude price, Singapore VLSFO would be in a range of $525-550/mt (close to current prices). At the extremes, BOA’s view would imply Singapore VLSFO just below $500/mt, and Goldman Sachs at a high of $575/mt. Even at the outer reaches of these analyst views, the bunker market would not be in a ‘shock’ in the first half of next year.

Good news for bunker buyers looking at annual budgeting

If you are in the office and looking at how much you are going to spend on bunkers in 2025, the analysts would suggest, a lot less than this year (and last year). Again, a core of 2025 forecasts lie in the $70-74/bbl range, with BOA at a low of $65/bbl, and Goldman Sachs at a high of $76/bbl; all lower than the $80/bbl average price seen in 2023 and in 2024.

graph 4 v2 1024x789

UBS does have a higher price forecast of $80/bbl for Brent next year, but this was published before the OPEC+ decision to defer production increases, so perhaps should not be included.

Annual bunker costs 12% less in 2025?

Using these analysts’ views on Brent prices, it implies the 2025 annual average price for Singapore VLSFO falls within a core range of $525-550/mt, with the outer limits up to $570/mt as a high (Goldman Sachs) and $485/mt as a low (BOA).

graph 5 1024x807

In terms of budgeting VLSFO bunker costs for 2025, it means the ‘core view’ is at least 10% lower than in this year. Even based on Goldman’s ‘higher’ price forecast, annual average bunker costs for 2025 will still be 5% lower than this year. Finally, using the BOA’s forecast suggests there will be a massive 20% reduction next year. Whichever way you look at it, the analysts are currently telling us that we will be spending less on bunkers in 2025!

 

Photo credit: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 24 December 2024

 

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Alkagesta highlights key insights on European choke point pressures in August

Update covers dual supply crisis currently shaping global bunker markets — a stalled Strait of Hormuz peace process and Rhine water levels at a 140-year record low — and the implications for Singapore.

Admin

Published

on

By

Alkagesta

Malta-based global commodity trading house Alkagesta recently shared latest market insight examining the dual supply crisis gripping global energy markets as diplomatic efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz stall and Rhine water levels fall to record lows, creating what the company describes as a “state of emergency” for European inland fuel distribution.

In an article published on Alkagesta Market Insights on 11 August, the company’s trading and market intelligence teams outlined how the convergence of two simultaneous logistical crises is tightening prompt fuel availability across Singapore, Northwest Europe, and the Mediterranean:

Strait of Hormuz transits fell to a near-one-month low of 13 ships on August 9 following an attack on an ADNOC-linked tanker, as both the US and Iran demand war reparations before any reopening agreement can be reached. Simultaneously, Rhine water levels at the Kaub chokepoint fell to 16 cm on August 10 — the lowest since records began in 1880 — with forecasts pointing to a further drop to just 4 cm by August 14, effectively halting barge traffic and trapping fuel oil stocks at the ARA hub.

The supply picture across both key hubs has deteriorated sharply. In Singapore, Middle Eastern fuel oil imports nearly tripled week-over-week to 328,878 mt by July 29 — the highest volume since March — providing some relief as onshore commercial heavy distillate stocks rose to a five-week high of 19.58 million barrels by August 5. However, July bunker fuel sales are estimated to have fallen 3.7% month-over-month to 4.44 million mt, with elevated premiums redirecting prompt demand toward alternative ports including Zhoushan and Port Klang.

In Europe, the VLSFO market remains acutely undersupplied as refiners continue to prioritize high-margin diesel over low-sulfur blending components, while the Rhine crisis has forced barges to operate at just 15–20% of normal capacity — with freight rates from Rotterdam to Karlsruhe rising more than 400% in two months.

Alkagesta’s strategic outlook points to a potential total breakdown in Rhine-linked inland distribution by mid-August, a VLSFO Hi-5 spread likely to remain above $200/mt through Q3, and a global crude market that analysts warn requires an additional 2.1 million b/d for 18 months to rebuild depleted inventories.

Note: The full article can be read here.

 

Photo credit: Alkagesta
Published: 17 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Integr8 Fuels: Why bunker markets could be lower than we thought

Marine fuel prices could prove lower than previously anticipated as easing refinery margins and improving bunker market fundamentals outweigh a still-uncertain crude oil outlook, says Integr8 Fuels.

Admin

Published

on

By

6 5

By Steve Christy, Expert Contributor, Integr8 Fuels

29 July 2026

We have just seen one false dawn, is there another to come? 

Last month, we wrote about how close we were to the expected lows in Brent and Rotterdam bunker prices, but not yet Singapore. Given what has happened since, a month is not only a long time in politics, but also a very long time in the bunker market. 

There was a resumption of attacks in the Arabian Gulf region on 13 July, followed by targeted Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea oil infrastructure and shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb region, the gateway between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. As a result, Brent futures fell to lows of around $70/bbl in late June and early July before surging to a high of $100/bbl on 23 July. Over the same period, Singapore VLSFO fell to $635/mt before climbing to $865/mt, a swing of $230/mt in just 16 days. 

Jul 2026 Graph 01 1024x613 1

Prices at the start of this week fell sharply after a halt in Arabian Gulf attacks over the weekend, with front month Brent was down to intra-day lows of $84/bbl, and Singapore VLSFO $750/mt.  However, at the time of writing there has been a ‘surprise’ attack by Iran, and retaliatory action by the US, with prices rising again.  It looks like we could be at another false dawn. 

The obvious questions are: will there be a return to peace negotiations, and are we close to the end of the war and free-flowing traffic through the strait of Hormuz (and also the Bab el-Mandeb)? The obvious answer is, we don’t know; there are only a few people that are likely to know the answer to this. All we can do is plan for every eventuality. 

Low stocks, higher bunker prices, and a strong Singapore VLSFO premium: it’s a challenge 

For those of us in the bunker market, the point we made last month about Singapore VLSFO trading at a strong premium to crude still holds, albeit slightly less pronounced. The loss of supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, together with the added uncertainty surrounding Saudi product exports from the Jizan and Rabigh refineries on the Red Sea, has sustained this premium. 

These developments are likely to keep the Singapore VLSFO premium to crude at elevated levels until there is greater confidence that Middle East crude and product supplies are returning to more normal trading patterns. Amid all the price volatility, this Singapore VLSFO premium remains a key indicator to watch. 

Backwardation in Brent futures illustrates market psychology 

One month ago, backwardation in Brent futures (front month minus second month) had fallen from $7/bbl to virtually nothing, reflecting the market’s belief that an end to the war was little more than a negotiating step away. It wasn’t. The resumption of attacks, coupled with Houthi involvement in the Red Sea, sent prices sharply higher again, with backwardation in the Brent futures market returning to almost $6/bbl. 

Jul 2026 Graph 02 1024x572 1

The halt in attacks over the past weekend has taken steam out of the market, with prices and backwardation falling sharply. Where we go from here depends if there is again a belief peace is on the horizon, or if this is another false dawn. The past month highlights how impossible it is to predict an ending to the war, and how fragile any expectations of peace can be. 

We cannot ignore the price, but still must look to the future

It is impossible to write a report and not highlight the turmoil of the current market and what is happening. However, we still must look beyond this, to see where we could end up. 

In an earlier report, we suggested the run-up to the US mid-term elections in November may be a backstop to the war. However, even this is not guaranteed. There are many dynamic elements to the economy and voter intentions, but one feature that will always crop up in the US is the gasoline price. This has risen from $3/gallon before the war to over $4/gallon for the past four months. 

Jul 2026 Graph 03 1024x570 1

If it comes to it, will Republican voters want to see a resolution to the war and a return to $3 gasoline prices ahead of the elections? 

We have a change of heart on how low bunker prices can go

We don’t know exact timings, but in any planning, we must look at what happens when the war does finally end and prices fall, whenever that may be. In past reports we have highlighted the view that Brent crude prices are unlikely to fall back to pre-war levels in the $60s, and Singapore VLSFO unlikely to go back in to the $400s. This may be the point at which these views change.

Previous thinking was based on a relatively short war, where there would be a large loss of oil supply and a massive stock-draw. In this case, tighter stock levels would be sufficient to keep prices higher than their pre-war levels once we returned to ‘normality’. This would mean Brent futures in the $70s (and not in the $60s), and Singapore VLSFO in the $500s, and not the $400s.

A number of mainstream analysts also held this view, although there were some that were lower and some higher.

Given the war has already gone on for much longer than almost everyone expected, this thinking must change. Yes, global stocks have been drawn down at a rapid rate, but this is slowing. Higher pricing and inflationary blows have had a major impact on global oil demand, with current indications that total oil demand in the second quarter of this year was some 4 million b/d lower than year earlier levels.

The graph below shows this sharp drop in demand and even if the war comes to an end relatively soon, and demand gets back towards some normality, a structural loss of more than 1 million b/d in global oil demand is still expected to have taken place because of the extended period of conflict.

If the war goes on for even longer, structural losses in global oil demand are likely to be even greater.

Jul 2026 Graph 04 1024x579 1

Source: US EIA

It’s a hard road, but we can get there

This means that once the war does end, market psychology will be looking at a rapid increase in oil supplies going into a global market which is much lower in demand.  This opens the way for prices to easily return to their pre-war levels of Brent in the $60s and Singapore VLSFO in the $400s. 

Now we just need those at the centre of negotiations to get us there.

 

Photo credit and source: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 30 July, 2026

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

on

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
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending