Connect with us

Analysis

ENGINE: East of Suez Bunker Fuel Availability Outlook

Availability tight across all grades in Zhoushan; bunker fuel demand remains weak across South Korean ports; Singapore prices rebound from multi-month lows.

Admin

Published

on

post 49344

The following article regarding regional bunker fuel availability outlook for the East of Suez region has been provided by online marine fuels procurement platform ENGINE for publication on Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times:

4 October 2022

By Nithin Chandran

  • Availability tight across all grades in Zhoushan
  • Bunker demand remains weak across South Korean ports
  • Singapore prices rebound from multi-month lows

Singapore

All grades remain in tight availability for prompt dates in Singapore. Recommended lead times for VLSFO and LSMGO are about 10-13 days. HSFO has a shorter lead time of 8-11 days.

Some suppliers in Singapore can offer VLSFO with a shorter lead time of about eight days, sources say.

The port’s VLSFO and HSFO benchmarks have recovered some of their losses after hitting their lowest levels in eight and 16 months, respectively, last month. The recent gains in Brent values have contributed to lift their prices.

Singapore’s residual fuel oil inventories were drawn in the latest week of September, but still averaged higher across the month than in August, according to Enterprise Singapore.

East Asia

Bunker fuel availability is tight across all grades in Zhoushan. Lead times have been pushed back, with several suppliers' earliest delivery dates now after the Golden Week Holidays that run from 1-7 October.

Some suppliers in Zhoushan are running low on stocks and expect replenishments to arrive only after the holidays, sources say.

All grades remain in normal availability in South Korea’s southern and western ports. Recommended lead times are about four days, and shorter than last week’s 7-8 days.

Bunker demand has been sluggish in South Korean ports in recent weeks, partly as a result of multiple bunker suspensions triggered by cyclones. Sources expect demand to rebound this month.

Prompt supply can be tight in Hong Kong. A supplier can offer a limited volume of VLSFO for prompt dates, a trader says.

LSMGO availability is normal in the Philippines' Manila. A supplier can offer deliveries for prompt dates.

VLSFO availability remains normal in Indonesia’s Jakarta and Surabaya. Recommended lead times are around 4-6 days.

South Asia

VLSFO and LSMGO supply remain steady in India’s Mumbai. Some suppliers can offer deliveries for prompt dates. Another requires at least 5-6 days of lead time. HSFO offers are mostly subject to enquiry.

VLSFO and HSFO supply is normal in Mundra on India's northwest coast and requires lead times of 4-5 days, slightly up from last week’s 3-4 days.

Bunker fuel availability remains good in Sri Lanka's Colombo. Recommended lead times are about 4-5 days and some suppliers can offer deliveries for prompt dates. Bunker deliveries were impacted at the port’s outer limits (OPL) on Monday due to rough weather conditions. Some suppliers are insisting on deliveries at inner anchorages to avoid delays, sources say.

Middle East

All grades remain in tight availability for prompt dates in Fujairah. Recommended lead times for HSFO, VLSFO and LSMGO are about 6-8 days.

Fujairah’s HSFO price premium over Singapore has narrowed considerably in recent days. Some suppliers have been trimming their prices to clear stocks, a trader says.

VLSFO and LSMGO supply is readily available for prompt dates in Oman’s Sohar.

 

Photo credit: ENGINE
Published: 5 October, 2022

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
  • Zhoushan Bunker
  • Sea Trader & Sea Splendor
  • RE 05 Lighthouse GIF
  • Aderco advert 400x330 1
  • Consort advertisement v2
  • v4Helmsman Gif Banner 01
  • SBF2
  • EMF banner 400x330 slogan

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS

  • SEAOIL 3+5 GIF
  • Triton Bunkering advertisement v2
  • HL 2022 adv v1
  • Singfar advertisement final


  • Auramarine 01
  • PSP Marine logo
  • Golden Island logo square
  • MFA logo v2
  • E Marine logo
  • intrasea
  • Trillion Energy
  • Synergy Asia Bunkering logo MT
  • Mokara Final
  • CNC Logo Rev Manifold Times
  • VPS 2021 advertisement
  • LabTechnic
  • 400x330 v2 copy
  • Headway Manifold
  • Advert Shipping Manifold resized1

Trending