Connect with us

Scrubbers

Glander International Bunkering: The growing role of scrubbers in bunker market

Shipping firms have been installing scrubbers at pace, with HSFO representing 32.3% of Singapore’s total demand last year – up from 29.2% in 2022, 25.8% in 2021 and 21.3% in 2020, says Glander.

Admin

Published

on

glander international

Global bunker trading firm Glander International Bunkering on Thursday (15 February) published an article discussing the return of High Sulphur Fuel Oil (HSFO) and adoption of scrubbers as well as what that means for costs and compliance:

While the bunker industry’s attention has been focused on alternative fuels, a quiet revolution has been going on behind the scenes: the return of HSFO. 3.5% sulphur fuel oil had been the dominant grade of bunker fuel up until 2020, when the IMO’s global 0.50% sulphur limit shifted the majority of demand to VLSFO. But HSFO was not banned – ships had the choice of installing exhaust gas cleaning systems, or scrubbers, to allow them to continue burning the cheaper high-sulphur product. Shipping firms have since been installing the systems at pace, with HSFO representing 32.3% of Singapore’s total demand last year – up from 29.2% in 2022, 25.8% in 2021 and 21.3% in 2020. The systems work by spraying water into a vessel’s exhaust, washing out sulphur and other emissions and leaving them still compliant with the 0.50% limit while burning cheaper HSFO.

Economic Considerations

The main reason to use a scrubber is to generate savings in fuel bills. On a global average basis, delivered HSFO has traded at a discount to VLSFO of about $65-405/mt since the start of 2020. Depending on the size and type of ship, scrubbers can cost between about $2 million and $8 million to install. Operating costs are minimal, with only a small extra power requirement needed to run the system, so the bulk of the fuel savings can go towards paying off the initial capital expenditure. Installing the systems usually requires the ship to be out of service at a dry dock for two or three weeks, but this can be arranged at the same time as scheduled dry-docking. Depending on the HSFO-VLSFO price spread, the systems typically pay for themselves within a few years, after which time the fuel-bill savings almost all come as improved profitability. In 2022, Eagle Bulk said it expected its $100 million investment in scrubbers to have paid off by the end of the year, within two years of IMO 2020.

Environmental Impact

The environmental impact of scrubbers is a contested issue. The majority of scrubbers in use are open-loop models that discharge their washwater into the sea, rather than retaining it for disposal at ports. Opponents of the technology regard this as just shifting shipping’s sulphur pollution problem from the atmosphere into the oceans, and have raised concerns about the impact on the marine environment. For its part, the scrubber industry funded research on the environmental impact of washwater in 2021. The report found no toxicity impact for fish, and some short-term effects on algae and crustaceans in high concentrations. The report characterised the risk to the aquatic environment as acceptable. One other environmental effect should be considered. Because HSFO requires less energy use by refineries to produce than VLSFO, the use of HSFO with a scrubber comes with marginally lower net GHG emissions than using VLSFO.

Challenges and Risks

The main challenges around using a scrubber are around regulatory risk and HSFO availability. The regulatory risk concerns the possibility of ships not being allowed to use their scrubbers, meaning they will need to consume VLSFO and forgo the fuel savings. While the IMO recognised scrubbers as a valid means of sulphur limit compliance, a range of port authorities around the world have banned the discharge of washwater from open-loop models in their waters since 2020, citing environmental concerns. For most ships, these areas where scrubbers cannot be used represent only a small fraction of their area of operation, meaning that they can still generate enough fuel savings by using the systems, but for some more geographically-confined vessels the bans may have a larger impact. Over the longer-term, some politicians are arguing for a wider ban on the use of scrubbers. Were a large bloc such as the EU to ban scrubber washwater discharge across its jurisdiction, this would pose a much larger threat to the systems’ viability. A more pressing concern is the availability of HSFO at ports around the world. While HSFO was the dominant bunker fuel grade, it was easily available worldwide, but it has since become more of a niche product at some ports. Refineries are still producing HSFO in large quantities, but at ports where few scrubber-equipped ships call for bunkers, some suppliers have given up on selling it. With fewer suppliers competing for HSFO demand at these ports, competition is limited and margins creep up, significantly cutting into the discount for HSFO versus VLSFO. This can result in a situation as seen in Gibraltar last year, where the HSFO price approached parity with VLSFO in September.

Future Outlook

The future outlook for scrubbers will depend in part on how quick the shipping industry is to abandon fossil fuels altogether. With any change on that scale looking unlikely for at least the next decade, the systems are probably set to remain a significant presence in the global bunker market for many more years, absent any wider move against them by regulators. One factor that may keep the systems relevant over a longer period will be their adaptation to cover other emissions. Scrubber manufacturers are increasingly developing models that combine conventional scrubbers with carbon capture systems – if this technology proves economically viable and is accepted by regulators, the combined systems are likely to become an attractive choice for shipowners wary over the shift to alternative fuels.

 

Photo credit: Glander International Bunkering
Published: 16 February, 2024

Continue Reading

ECA

VPS examines North-East Atlantic ECA on current bunker fuel mix and testing

Impact of this new ECA, will not only affect bunker fuel selection and testing, but it will also require a review of, voyage planning, bunker procurement and scrubber strategy, amongst others.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED VPS logo

Steve Bee, Group Marketing and Strategic Projects Director, and Emilian Buksak, Decarbonisation Advisor of marine fuels testing company VPS, on Wednesday (8 April) highlighted MEPC 84 approved a new emission control area (ECA) covering the North-East Atlantic Ocean, with agreements reached on adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI. 

The new ECA, which will become the world’s largest emission control area, will be implemented on 1st September 2027

In a recent article, VPS outlined how VPS testing, data, CEM systems and advisory services can support vessels in both their operational and compliance challenges associated with this new ECA:

The recent International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO), Maritime Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in London, had its main focus on setting binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the global shipping sector. In keeping with the Committee’s continuing drive to decarbonise shipping and reduce the pollutant emissions from the global fleet, one major outcome from the MEPC-84 meeting was the approval of a new emission control area (ECA) covering the North East Atlantic Ocean, with agreements reached on adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI.

This new ECA, which will become the world’s largest emission control area, will be implemented on 1st September 2027, with the ECA requirements taking effect on 1st September 2028. It will cover the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Ireland, the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal, extending up to 200 nautical miles from their baselines:

VPS examines North-East Atlantic ECA impact on current bunker fuel mix and testing

A key advantage of the new NE Atlantic ECA is that it will close the gap between the existing ECAs in the North and Baltic Sea, plus the Mediterranean, creating an almost continuous zone of reduced shipping emissions. It will also connect to the newly approved ECAs in the Canadian Arctic and Norwegian Sea, which are scheduled for implementation in 2026 and 2027 respectively. Together these ECAs will cover almost half of all Arctic coastal waters, improving air quality, by reducing SOx, NOx and Particulate Matter (PM), protecting  public health, and reducing the environmental impacts from shipping.

The sulphur limit for the marine fuels allowed to be burnt within this new ECA will reduce from the current 0.50% to 0.10%. This will force vessels to use either effective abatement technology (scrubbers), or alternatively burn marine distillates, ultra-low-sulphur fuels (ULSFOs), or biofuels with a sulphur content of less than 0.10%.

Without doubt this new ECA will cause a significant change to the current fuel mix, probably on an even greater scale than was witnessed with the introduction of the Mediterranean ECA back in May 2025.  The fuel mix in the Mediterranean Pre-ECA implementation was,  53% VLSFO, 28% HSFO, 16% MGO, 2% ULSFO and 1% Biofuels. But from the 1st May 2025, the fuel mix changed to, 30% VLSFO, 29% HSFO, 30% MGO, 8% ULSFO and 4% Biofuels.  

So, in terms of actual tonnage, the Mediterranean ECA witnessed a decrease in VLSFOs by 23%, whilst MGO usage increased by 107%. At the same time, ULSFO and biofuels supply increased 4-fold.

Regarding fuel quality within the Mediterranean post-ECA implementation, MGO off-specification rates increased to 4%. However, the most worrying off-specification rates were for ULSFOs which saw a 10-times increase from 2% to 20% from the start of the ECA, with the main off-specification parameters being pour point, sulphur, TSP, CCAI, water and viscosity.

Therefore, it is fair to assume we’ll witness a similar dramatic fuel mix change upon the implementation of the NE Atlantic ECA, with possibly similar fuel off-specification issues, highlighting the continuing need for proactive fuel testing to protect vessels, crew and the environment.

Whilst the focus on fuel quality is essential, the multi-pollutant nature of this new ECA, covering SOx, PM and NOx, also brings the role of continuous emissions monitoring increasingly to the fore. Therefore, a further consideration relating to the impact of this new ECA relates to vessel newbuilds and the stricter NOx Tier III requirements. For newbuilds subject to the stricter NOx Tier III requirements, compliance depends not only on engine certification at delivery, but on demonstrating that exhaust after-treatment systems, typically Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) or Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR), continue to perform as designed throughout the service life of the vessel.

For scrubber-equipped ships, real-time SO₂ measurement provides the operational evidence of equivalency that Port State Control inspections increasingly expect to see. Plus, for vessels operating under multiple overlapping regulatory regimes, including the new NE Atlantic ECA, EU MRV, EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime, continuous emissions monitoring via the VPS EMSYS CEM system delivers a single, verified source of emissions data that can be applied across all of them.

As noted by DNV in their MEPC 84 technical and regulatory update, the newly adopted IMO measurement guidelines can also be used for determining actual methane and nitrous oxide under the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime, confirming the direct route from IMO-recognised measurement to EU compliance reporting.

At an operational level, the new ECA will introduce considerable complexity in the way fuel consumption is attributed across voyage segments, with VLSFOs burnt outside the zone and compliant fuels inside, all of which carry implications for consumption reporting, charterparty allocation and EU MRV alignment. VPS Maress can provide the underlying fuel and energy data into one auditable platform, helping crews manage the operational complexity that the new ECA introduces, including voyage segmentation, fuel changeover and emissions accounting, plus providing the consolidated data foundation that feeds existing EU MRV and IMO DCS reporting obligations. 

VPS PortStats via the VPS Verisphere eco-system, (VeriSphere | VPS), further supports bunker procurement planning with port-by-port intelligence on compliant fuel availability and price spreads. Such intelligence and insights, will prove particularly valuable in the months immediately following 1st September 2028, when the supply pressure on 0.10% sulphur fuels is likely to peak.

Regarding the more strategic decisions ahead, including Tier III engine selection for newbuilds, retrofit feasibility for existing tonnage, and charterparty clauses allocating the ECA fuel cost premium between owners and charterers, VPS Advisory Services can provide the integrated commercial and technical perspective needed to navigate this transition with confidence.

Therefore, its clear the impact of this new ECA, will not only affect the choice of fuel to be burnt onboard and its subsequent quality testing, but it will also require a review of, voyage planning, bunker procurement, scrubber strategy, engine certification, compliance documentation and charterparty exposure.

Related: DNV on IMO MEPC 84: Revisiting Net‑Zero Framework

 

Photo credit: VPS
Published: 14 May, 2026

Continue Reading

Scrubbers

No open-loop EGCS with HSFO bunker fuel allowed in Saudi Arabian ports

Use of HSFO with an Open-Loop Exhaust Gas Cleaning System at 0.5% or 0.1% sulphur mode setting is prohibited until further notice for the ships entering Saudi Arabian ports, says GAC.

Admin

Published

on

By

Aramco: Ras Tanura Port, Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, on the Arabian Gulf.

The use of High Sulphur Fuel Oil (HSFO) with an Open-Loop Exhaust Gas Cleaning System (EGCS) at 0.5% or 0.1% sulphur mode setting is prohibited until further notice for the ships entering Saudi Arabian ports, according to GAC Hot Port News on Wednesday (3 December). 

All ships entering Aramco ports shall comply with one of the following options:

  • Use compliant fuel oil (≤ 0.50% m/m Sulphur, or ≤ 0.10% when operating in ECAs, if applicable).
  • Operate the EGCS in Closed-Loop mode (or Hybrid system in Closed mode), with strict prohibition on the discharge of wash water into the sea.

 

Photo credit: Aramco
Published: 8 December, 2025

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Equatorial navigates through sanctions and green transition amid shifting bunkering landscape

Shipowners’ demand for ‘cheapest compliant fuel’ suggests a potentially more competitive and shrinking market for LSFO, forecasts Choong Sheen Mao, COO at Equatorial.

Admin

Published

on

By

Equatorial navigates through sanctions and green transition amid shifting bunkering landscape

Singapore-based physical bunker supplier Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd (Equatorial) is adapting to a dynamic global bunker market shaped by regulatory shifts, geopolitical tensions, and the push for decarbonisation, states its Chief Operating Officer.

Choong Sheen Mao was amongst panellists of the Bunker Sellers Panel at IBIA Annual Convention 2025 in Hong Kong on Tuesday (18 November) when he shared a significant trend of shipowners increasingly opting for high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) paired with scrubbers, driven by the pursuit of the “cheapest compliant fuel”.

Despite a narrowing spread between high and low sulphur fuels – from approximately USD 125 to USD 80, and occasionally below USD 70 – shipowners continue to see long-term investment returns from scrubbers. This shift suggests a potentially more competitive and shrinking market for low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO).

“Geopolitical instabilities, particularly armed conflicts, sanctions and trade wars, are creating considerable market distortions. These instabilities lead to supply disruptions, cargo rerouting, and impact bunker prices,” added Choong.

“Compliance has become a paramount concern, with recent substantial fines underscoring the risks involved. The current economic slowdown, compounded by sanctions and self-sanctioning, presents a ‘double pain’ for the market.

“The market’s daily volatility is also heavily influenced by global politics, making it challenging to assess without a deep understanding of geopolitical events.”

To ensure marine fuel quality, Equatorial emphasises managing its own supply chain and operating its own fleet of bunkering vessels, allowing for direct control from delivery to the customer, he stated.

This approach prioritises transparency and security, fostering long-term relationships where quality issues can be collaboratively addressed. Knowledge sharing, especially concerning parameters from new bunker fuel testing methods such as Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS), is also deemed crucial.

Supporting the transition to alternative marine fuels, while acknowledging the uncertainty surrounding the dominant future fuel, Equatorial has strategically invested in IMO Type 2 chemical tankers capable of handling methanol, biofuel, and conventional bunker fuels.

“Biofuel is identified as the most effective short-term solution, offering favourable pricing and operational costs compared to other green alternatives,” explained Choong.

“However, challenges include feedstock availability and potential export quotas from key producing nations like China.

“The adoption of alternative marine fuels necessitates a closer, more collaborative relationship between buyers and sellers.

“This involves detailed discussions on specific fuel specifications beyond standard ISO requirements, extensive lab sampling, and long-term commitments from both parties, particularly given the absence of a liquid hedging market for biofuels.

“Collaboration across safety, quality, and commercial aspects is essential for the successful implementation of bio bunker fuels to the future maritime market.”

 

Photo credit: International Bunker Industry Association
Published: 1 December, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending