Sometimes first-movers can gain an advantage by offering products that others can’t with handsome margins to show for.

That is what’s happened in certain biofuel bunker markets. Bunker suppliers with chemical bunker tankers seem to be reaping the rewards of their investments with sizeable bunker delivery price premiums.

In the past week we have seen delivered 100% used cooking oil methyl ester biofuel (UCOME B100) indicated way above our estimated UCOME cargo price in Singapore. If bunker suppliers fix stems at these price levels, it could help their payback times on chemical tanker investments.

To break down our estimate, PRIMA Markets has assessed UCOME FOB China – a major producer - at $1,000-1,015/mt in the past week. The freight rate for a 40,000 mt medium-range tanker sailing from China to Singapore has been $15/mt. Delivered B100, meanwhile, has been indicated at $1,290-1,300/mt, which leaves $260-285/mt to cover logistics costs like storage, handling and delivery to a receiving ship with a chemical bunker tanker.

That looks like a chunky bunker margin compared to estimates from the ARA, where we have recently seen delivered UCOME B100 fixed at both $5/mt premium and $5/mt discount to Argus UCOME barges, a key benchmark for UCOME pricing in the region. B100 bunker prices are sharper in the ARA not just because of a more established pricing index, but because a greater number of suppliers can offer B100. They are not bound by the same biofuel delivery vessel restrictions as in other bunker locations.

So-called IMO Type II chemical tankers - which can also typically supply methanol - are required to be allowed to supply bio-bunker blends above 25% in ports outside of the ARA, where stems are delivered by river barges exempt from the IMO rules. A growing number of bunker suppliers have invested in them, but only a few of these vessels have entered into operation yet.

Vitol Bunkers, Global Energy, Fratelli Cosulich, BMT, Stena Oil and Peninsula are among the few suppliers with chemical bunker tankers in their fleets that can deliver B100 stems in non-ARA ports today. Singaporean Consort Bunkers has placed orders for up to 20 of these chemical tankers, while Fratelli Cosulich has another two on order and Peninsula-affiliated Hercules Tanker Management has six with an option for another four.

TFG Marine’s Singapore entity will take four of Consort Bunker’s vessels and one of Fratelli Cosulich’s vessels on time charters. TotalEnergies and Mitsui & Co. have both supplied B100 in Singapore with Global Energy’s Maple chemical tanker.

Because of early entries into this burgeoning B100 market, these suppliers are among the only 1-3 suppliers in a given bunker location. Biofuel bunker demand to date has mostly revolved around Scope 1 and 3 emission reductions, with container liners and car carrier companies as typical uptakers.

But with FuelEU Maritime less than a month away, more companies will be enquiring about stems with higher biofuel contents. They will run some vessels on B100 and average out their greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity reductions across a pool of vessels, or sell their compliance surpluses in one of the many over-the-counter markets that have popped up.

That leaves a golden pricing window for forward-thinking bunker suppliers as biofuel goes from niche to necessity for more EU-trading vessels.

In other alternative news this week, a string of headlines showed that LNG is still very much in vogue.

LNG bunker supplier Titan has expanded a deal to supply mass-balanced liquified biomethane (LBM) to Norwegian shipping firm United European Car Carriers' (UECC) dual-fuel LNG vessels. Since July, over 95% of the fuel delivered to UECC’s vessels by Titan has been mass-balanced LBM.

More and more fleet renewal programmes boast lower-carbon vessels. A.P. Moller-Maersk has had bragging rights for its methanol-capable container ship orders this decade, before recently pivoting to LNG orders and getting some flack from environmental organisations. This week it put in orders for 20 container ships with LNG-capable engines, and with that it concluded its fleet renewal order target this time around.

And Canadian bunker supplier Seaspan Energy has delivered its first ship-to-ship LNG bunker stem to a container ship in California’s Port of Long Beach.

By Erik Hoffmann

Photo credit: Global Energy Trading
Source: ENGINE
Published: 9 December, 2024

Sweden leads Europe in developing alternative fuels, driven by its 2045 net-zero emissions target and the IMO’s 2050 decarbonisation goal, and it is now making bold advances in renewable fuel options for commercial shipping. 

It is also investing heavily in infrastructure to support the development of biofuels, liquefied biogas and natural gas, and synthetic fuels like eMethanol. Many of these projects, although relatively nascent, showcase the country’s bold vision to lead the alternative fuel development pack.

Groundbreaking

In May 2023, Sweden broke ground on the FlagshipONE facility in Örnsköldsvik, targeting annual production levels of 50,000 tonnes of carbon-neutral eMethanol by combining carbon dioxide and green hydrogen for commercial shipping.

In February 2024, Jämtkraft AB launched NorthStarH2, with the goal of producing up to 100,000 tonnes of eMethanol each year to support Sweden’s green electricity supply and maritime needs.

But the development of alternative fuels goes beyond eMethanol. In August 2024, ScanOcean partnered with Vegoil to introduce a marine fuel derived from hydrotreated vegetable oil produced in Sweden. The tanker vessel Key Fjord successfully took on that product as bunker fuel at the Port of Oskarshamn, marking a step towards making biofuels commercially viable for maritime use.

Such developments highlight Sweden’s leadership in the development of greener fuel options for maritime use. But supply issues could put the brakes on by limiting their market reach.

The risk of oversupply

Shipping faces a ‘Catch-22’ scenario with alternative fuels: low adoption limits the infrastructure development while companies delay investing in newbuilds or retrofits until fuel supply chains expand. 

This production-market access disconnect risks oversupply in Sweden’s alternative fuel market, restricting access to the wider European maritime sector.

Nils Igelström, Managing Director at GAC Sweden, highlighted the challenge of balancing production and demand for renewable marine fuels: "Sweden is producing some of the most advanced renewable marine fuels, but cargo owners are unwilling to pay higher freight costs. Without buyers, the environmental benefits remain unrealised, stalling progress towards decarbonisation."

Despite interest from shipowners, low demand highlights the need for better market access. 

“Companies like Preem, lead the development of alternative fuels, but oversupply persists,” added Igelström. “With heavily investments in refineries and fuel development, these facilities will continue producing fuels regardless of current demand. However, the priority now is ensuring these fuels reach the market effectively.”

Nils Igelström Managing Director, GAC Sweden

Beyond the Baltic

Supply chain bottlenecks of alternative fuels, including logistical challenges and limited port infrastructure in other parts of Europe, hinder the export of surplus alternative fuels and can lead to higher costs and regulatory complexities. This uneven distribution particularly affects vessels that do not have easy or regular access to the North and Baltic seas. 

“If a vessel calls at Gothenburg regularly, fuel supply isn’t an issue,” said Igelström. “But in areas lacking necessary infrastructure, accessing Sweden’s alternative fuel supplies is challenging. With availability limited to Sweden or Finland or Germany, shipping companies hesitate to invest in greener vessels without certainty of supply.” 

Igelström also emphasised the need to improve accessibility across Europe to encourage investments and support the maritime sector’s green transition. 

The cost factor

Logistical challenges raise costs, with bunkering accounting for up to 50% of a vessel’s daily operating costs. Greener alternatives, according to the World Economic Forum, can cost up to four times more than traditional heavy fuel oil. For an industry with tight margins and volatile freight rates, zero-emission shipping significantly increases the cost of goods. 

A study by Drewry estimated that switching to green methanol would increase fuel costs by 350%, equivalent to an additional US$1,000+ per 40 feet container shipped from Asia to Europe.

“There is a big price gap between renewables and fossil fuels. Exporting Sweden’s alternative fuels further increases costs, but that’s a necessary step to achieve shipping’s green potential,” Igelström said.

Collaboration and clarity

Shipping thrives on clarity, but gaps in regulatory goals, infrastructure, and environmental policies hinder the development of an effective green fuel supply chain.

“Shipping companies need certainty,” Igelström noted. “With tight margins, they can’t risk fuel unavailability, especially where delivery points are scarce. Collaboration across Europe is essential to build a uniform supply chain that ensures renewable-powered ships can operate globally. Policymakers, industry leaders, and international organisations must unite to create conditions for renewable fuels to succeed.”

Sweden is working with partners in Finland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, leading the charge in devising a supply chain that can support the maritime sector’s access to green fuels. 

In May 2024, the Nordic Maritime Transport and Energy Research Programme launched the STORM project to address supply barriers, assess fuel suitability, and propose solutions to accelerate the green transition. Sweden’s leadership in this initiative highlights its commitment to not only fuel development, but also market accessibility. 

“Sweden is doing its part to drive shipping’s fuel transition through fuel development and regulatory frameworks. However, Europe must collaborate to efficiently distribute surplus renewable fuels across the continent,” Igelström concluded.

Photo credit: GAC Sweden
Published: 6 December, 2024

Stolt Tankers on Monday (2 December) said it will use a biofuel bunker blend on all ships in its Stolt-Nielsen Inland Tanker Service (SNITS) fleet – more than 30 in total. 

The bunker fuel, HVO20, is an 80/20 blend of hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO), which is expected to reduce carbon emissions from the SNITS fleet by around 18% in December, compared to the ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD) fuel that is traditionally used. 

Maickel Uijtewaal, SNITS General Manager, said: “We are delighted to be undertaking this initiative to bunker renewable fuel on all our vessels this month. It underlines our commitment to exploring and implementing energy-efficiency measures where possible and we hope it inspires our customers and others in the industry to do the same.”

This is the latest in a series of sustainability milestones for the SNITS fleet. In 2023, SCR exhaust aftergas treatment systems were installed on Stolt Rhine and Stolt Merwede to significantly reduce nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NOx) emissions. 

At the same time, SNITS became a Green Award incentive provider. This is a quality assessment certification scheme that awards ships that exceed industry standards in terms of safety, quality and environmental performance.

In August 2024, Stolt Main bunkered 100% renewable HVO100 fuel for the first time, and five other vessels moved to renewable biofuels in 2024.

Photo credit: Stolt Tankers
Published: 4 December, 2024