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

CHIMBUSCO Jiangsu on Tuesday (3 December) said it successfully refuelled the new methanol dual-fuel powered 1,300TEU container ship NCL VESTLAND at Taizhou Sanfu Marine Engineering.

The total amount of methanol bunker fuel delivered to the boxship was 79.5 metric tonnes.

CHIMBUSCO Jiangsu said the implementation of bunkering operation marked a major breakthrough for the company in the application of alternative fuels for ships, marking its ability to supply methanol marine fuel to ships on a regular basis.

A mobile methanol bunkering skid jointly developed by CHIMBUSCO Jiangsu and COSCO (Lianyungang) Liquid Loading & Unloading Equipment was used for the bunkering operation, which was successfully completed in 2.5 hours. 

In a separate statement, COSCO Shipping said the bunkering operation represented CHIMBUSCO Jiangsu’s first marine methanol fuel supply onshore.

The mobile methanol filling skid operates using the pump as its power source to facilitate simultaneous unloading and refuelling tasks. 

This skid includes several key functional modules, each of which is highly integrated. This integration ensures a safe and efficient process for transferring methanol fuel from tankers to a vessel’s fuel bunker, while also enabling seamless operation and intelligent management. 

The mobile methanol filling skid offers flexibility, requires low initial investment, and boasts a rapid bunkering rate of 180 cubic metres (m3) per hour. 

“It stands as an optimal solution for methanol bunkering in the era before widespread adoption of methanol bunkering vessels. Additionally, it can provide bunkering support for shipyards to test new vessels and meet the bunkering requirements of the shipyard,” it added. 

Photo credit: CHIMBUSCO Jiangsu
Published: 6 December, 2024

Industry coalition SEA-LNG on Thursday (5 December) said that while the approximately 2,200 LNG-fuelled vessels and LNG carriers represent only ‘two minutes into the hour’ of the global fleet of approximately 60,000 deep sea vessels, it remains an adolescent fuel that is maturing significantly faster than other alternative bunker fuels. 

However, it said the LNG pathway still needs more investment, especially in landside facilities for liquefaction near ports, bio and synthetic methane production and bunkering capacity worldwide.

This year has witnessed unprecedented investment in the maturing and scaling of LNG from ship owners.  LNG is starting to dominate as the preferred future fuel pathway. 

However, the bunker market, while growing substantially, is lagging and concerns persist regarding the ability to supply the rapidly growing fleet of LNG-fuelled vessels.

Peter Keller, Chairman, SEA-LNG, said: “With high profile owners now choosing the LNG pathway, we anticipate this trend will continue and accelerate through 2025 and beyond.”

“As the various alternative fuel pathways mature, there is a growing realisation that, despite previous aspirations, some alternative fuel pathways – like the LNG pathway – are more practical and realistic than others.”

“While investment in newbuild LNG-fuelled ships is robust, we need to see the same for bunker vessels, supply and liquefaction infrastructure. As the LNG pathway continues to mature and the use of liquefied biomethane and eventually e-methane increases, the delivery of the fuel to vessels must be assured and the investment gap closed.”

Keller added: “There are approximately 60,000 deep sea ships on the water and, today, we’re looking at around 600 LNG capable ships afloat with a further 600 on order. There are another 1,000 LNG cargo carriers and bunker vessels of varying sizes.”

“While that’s a small percentage of the global fleet, as the clock ticks towards shipping’s emissions reduction targets, the LNG pathway is maturing far faster than other alternative fuels.”

According to DNV there are currently 54 methanol vessels and 2 ammonia vessels on the water.

There are aspects of LNG usage that are fully mature – safety for one. LNG is easy to transport, poses minimal, if any, risk to marine environments, has a low flammability range and is non-toxic. Effective regulations, standards and guidelines for safe operations are widespread, and LNG has been shipped around the world for almost 60 years without any major incidents at sea or in ports.

Keller continued: “When compared to traditional fuels, LNG is more of a teenager with all the growing pains, challenges and victories associated with adolescence.”

“But it is maturing all the time as the market continues to grow, new build orders continue to rise, and the LNG pathway with biomethane and eventually e-methane produced from renewable hydrogen, gains acceptance globally.”

“Shipping stakeholders are investing in LNG because it provides a low risk, incremental pathway for decarbonisation, starting now.  The other alternative fuels are basically toddlers by comparison.  And when it comes to safety, some are mere newborns!”

Another critical need in the maturing process during a period of increased regulation of carbon emissions is the adoption of standardised chain of custody models on a worldwide basis. 

Chain of custody models are becoming increasingly important to maritime decarbonisation as they provide mechanisms to verify that the fuels used are low carbon. 

Such verification creates investor confidence in new fuel supply chains and accelerates the transition to low-carbon fuels, enabling early adoption in conditions of limited supply. 

“They will create a market for green fuels by connecting buyers to fuel producers away from bunker ports enabling faster scaling and providing flexibility to shipping companies at lower cost,” SEA-LNG added.

Photo credit: SEA-LNG
Published: 6 December, 2024