Connect with us

Analysis

ENGINE: East of Suez Bunker Fuel Availability Outlook

Bunker fuel availability has improved in Chinese river ports, while longer lead times are recommended for VLSFO stems in Singapore this week.

Admin

Published

on

post 49344

The following article regarding regional bunker fuel availability outlooks for East of Suez ports with special attention to availability in Singapore has been provided by online marine fuels procurement platform ENGINE for publication on Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times:

22 June 2021

Bunker fuel availability has improved in Chinese river ports, while longer lead times are recommended for VLSFO stems in Singapore this week.

VLSFO stems are in tighter supply in Singapore. Recommended times are up by three days from last week, to 6-8 days now. Bunker demand has picked up in Singapore after a few weeks of muted demand, which could explain the longer lead times, sources say.

The bunkering hub’s lead times for HSFO380 and LSMGO are unchanged on the week, however. LSMGO stems need 4-5 days of lead time, and HSFO380 around 10 days.

Lower net imports have drawn residual fuel oil out of Singapore’s inventories, which dropped to two-month lows of 23.98 million bbls last week, Enterprise Singapore data showed.

Higher fuel oil exports to Malaysia, China and Bangladesh contributed to draw fuel out of storage. A rare 36,000 mt cargo bound for South Africa – where supply of HSFO has been tight for several months – also boosted exports. Singapore’s fuel oil imports fell on the week.

Fuel availability continues to be ample in Zhoushan and Shanghai. Recommended lead times are steady on the week at 2-3 days for all three fuel grades, which is the shortest among major East of Suez ports.

Chinese river ports, including Nantong and Zhangjiagang, are seeing better HSFO380 and VLSFO availability now, after tightening supplies in the first half of the month.

VLSFO and LSMGO remains tight for certain prompt dates in South Korean ports, but lead times are roughly steady on the week at 4-5 days and there is more fuel around amid waning demand.

South Korea’s southern ports have been pricing VLSFO more competitively with Zhoushan in recent days. Their premiums over Zhoushan narrowed considerably on Tuesday after Zhoushan’s price gained on several higher-priced stems. The lowest-priced South Korean ports have VLSFO at $6-17/mt above Zhoushan, which is down from $20-30/mt last week.

Stems of all grades can be tight for prompt dates in Fujairah, where recommended lead times have held steady from last week at six days for VLSFO and LSMGO, and eight days for HSFO380.

The UAE bunker hub’s heavy distillate and fuel oil inventories fell by 11% to a four-week low of 12.36 million bbls last week, data from the Fujairah Oil Industry Zone (FOIZ) and S&P Global Platts showed.

Fujairah’s bunker demand weakened slightly last month. Total bunker sales fell by 1% from April, to just under 658,000 mt in May, according to FOIZ and Platts. That translates to an average of 21,200 mt/day in May, down 900 mt/day from April.

The port’s 380cst VLSFO sales fell by 3,800 mt on the month, HSFO380 by 3,000 mt, and combined LSMGO and 0.50% MGO sales were down by 1,100 mt. Lower-viscosity 180 cst VLSFO grew in popularity, however, with sales up by 1,800 mt.

 

Photo credit: ENGINE
Published: 23 June, 2021

Continue Reading

Research

Yamna identifies five potential global ammonia bunkering hubs

Unlike methanol, ammonia is not constrained by biogenic CO2 availability, and its production process is relatively simple.

Admin

Published

on

By

Yanma projected ammonia bunkering hubs

Specialised green hydrogen and derivatives platform Yamna in early December identified several potential ammonia bunkering hubs around the world.

The hubs are Port of Rotterdam, Port of Algeciras, Suez Canal, Jurong Port, and Port of Salalah.

“The shipping industry faces an ambitious challenge: reducing emissions by 20% by 2030 (compared to 2008 levels) and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, in alignment with IMO targets,” it stated.

“Achieving these goals in the medium to long term depends on the adoption of alternative low-emission fuels like green ammonia and methanol.

“Among these, ammonia is attracting growing interest as a viable option. Unlike methanol, it is not constrained by biogenic CO2 availability, and its production process is relatively simple.”

However, the firm noted kickstarting ammonia bunkering on a large scale required four enablers to align:

  • Ammonia fuel supply
  • Application technology
  • Bunkering infrastructure
  • Safety guidelines and standards

It believed ammonia bunkering hubs will first emerge where affordable and scalable ammonia supply is available.

Yanma Why use ammonia for bunkering fuel

 

Photo credit: Yanma
Published: 31 December 2024

Continue Reading

Research

Port of Long Beach releases Clean Marine Fuels White Paper

Document intended to prepare and position the port and its stakeholder for adopting low carbon alternative fuels.

Admin

Published

on

By

Clean Marine Fuels Port of Long Beach (December 2024)

The Port of Long Beach (PLB) in late December released the Clean Marine Fuels White Paper as part of efforts to identify solutions capable of reducing emissions from ships.

“To understand the opportunities and challenges related to the adoption of clean marine fuels, the Port of Long Beach hired ICF Consulting to develop this white paper as an educational resource and guidance document,” stated PLB

“This document is also intended to prepare and position the port and its stakeholder for adopting low carbon alternative fuels.

“The white paper provides high level information on the array of currently available low carbon marine fuels, along with an exploration of the potential infrastructure needs for their deployment.”

The document covers the use of different types of clean bunker fuels such as green hydrogen, green methanol, green ammonia, renewable LNG and biofuels for shipping.

“The shift to clean marine fuels is no longer optional but a necessity for the sustainability of the maritime industry,” stated PLB in its closing remarks.

“This transition, while presenting challenges such as high costs, limited fuel availability, and the need for extensive infrastructure development, is advancing due to evolving policy frameworks and growing industry commitment.

“Addressing these obstacles will require targeted initiatives and robust collaboration between public and private sectors. Continued policy support, government funding, and sustained industry commitment will be essential to driving this progress and ensuring the long-term sustainability of maritime operations.”

Editor’s note: The 123-page Clean Marine Fuels White Paper may be downloaded from the hyperlink here.

 

Photo credit: Clean Marine Fuels White Paper
Published: 26 December 2024

Continue Reading

Port & Regulatory

Clyde & Co: FuelEU Maritime Series – Part 6: Legal issues

Bunker purchasers should consider the wording of their bunker supply contracts carefully and ensure that they are comfortable with the contractual provisions.

Admin

Published

on

By

CHUTTERSNAP MT

Global law firm Clyde & Co on Thursday (19 December) released the final instalment of its six-part series uncovering the FuelEU Maritime Regulation.

In it, the firm looked at the legal issues that could potentially arise between various parties, such as owners, charterers, ship managers, bunker suppliers, and ship builders, as a result of the compliance requirements imposed by the Regulation.

The following is an excerpt from the original article available here:

Bunker supply contracts – legal issues

Both vessel owners and bunker purchasers will want to ensure that they are able to take advantage of the preferential treatment provided under the FuelEU Regulation for consuming renewable fuels, including biofuels and renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs) (such as methanol and ammonia).

Article 10 of the FuelEU Regulation states that such fuels must be certified in accordance with the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) 2018/2001. If the fuel consumed by the vessel does not meet the applicable standards or have the appropriate certification, then it “shall be considered to have the same emissions factors as the least favourable fossil fuel pathway for that type of fuel[1].

In order to confirm that the fuel complies with greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity and sustainability requirements, the vessel owner and bunker purchaser will want to ensure that the bunker supplier provides the appropriate certification required under the FuelEU Regulation. The EU has required certification of such fuels, with the aim of guaranteeing “the environmental integrity of the renewable and low-carbon fuels that are expected to be deployed in the maritime sector.”[2]

The FuelEU Regulation provides that the GHG intensity of fuel is to be assessed on a “well-to-wake” basis, with emissions calculated for the entire lifespan of the fuel, from raw material extraction to storage, bunkering and then use on board the vessel.

Vessel owners and bunker purchasers will, therefore, need to be mindful of the importance of establishing how “green” the fuel actually is, and of the risk of bunker suppliers providing alternative fuels that will not allow for preferential treatment under the FuelEU Regulation.

It would, therefore, be advisable for bunker purchasers to consider whether the wording of their bunkering supply contracts is sufficient to ensure that the fuel is properly certified under the FuelEU Regulation. This could include contractual provisions that require the supplier (i) to provide a bunker delivery note (BDN), setting out the relevant information regarding the supply (such as the well-to-wake emission factor), and (ii) to provide the necessary certification under a scheme recognised by the EU.

Bunker purchasers should also be mindful that bunkering supply contracts often contain short claims notification time bars and provisions restricting claims for consequential loss. Issues could therefore arise where a purchaser tries to advance a claim against the supplier for consequential loss due to a lack of certification, but the bunker supplier argues that such losses are excluded under the terms of the bunker supply contract.

Bunker purchasers should therefore consider the wording of their bunker supply contracts carefully and ensure that they are comfortable with the contractual provisions.

 

Photo credit: CHUTTERSNAP from Unsplash
Published: 26 December 2024

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending