Connect with us

Analysis

Integr8: OPEC+ Kicks the Can with Bunker Costs Set to Fall by 10% in 2025

Research Contributor Steve Christy reports various analysts forecasting lesser spending on bunkers in 2025.

Admin

Published

on

OPEC+ Kicks the Can with Bunker Costs Set to Fall by 10% in 2025

By Steve Christy, Research Contributor, Integr8 Fuels
[email protected]

We have seen bunker prices slide for the past two months

For a number of months, we have pointed to bunker prices falling under the weight of very weak oil fundamentals. This has certainly come to fruition and bunker prices have continued to slide over the past two months. In Singapore, VLSFO prices are some $75/mt lower (minus 12%) than in mid-October, and in Rotterdam the drop has been around $50/mt (minus 10%).

graph 1 1024x797

In the HSFO markets, the drop has been greater in NW Europe, down $75/mt in Rotterdam over the last two months (minus 14%), with Singapore down $50/mt (minus 10%).

The decline is even clearer looking back to end 2023

The picture below is enough to illustrate how far bunker prices have fallen since the end of last year, and just how low we are today.

graph 2 1024x809

Has OPEC+ ‘come up with the goods’?

In our report last month, we highlighted the huge dilemma facing OPEC+, who at the time were looking to unwind their 2.2 million b/d of voluntary cutbacks starting in January next year. The problem was this was against a backdrop of weak growth in world oil demand and more than enough new non-OPEC+ production to meet additional demand. Consequently, it has been clear for some time that if OPEC+ wanted to maintain oil prices anywhere close to recent levels, then there was little, or no room for them to start increasing production anytime soon. The original strategy of reversing the cuts in January was almost certain to see Brent crude fall into the $60s (and Singapore VLSFO in the $450-500/mt range).

As is usually the case when faced with adversity, OPEC+ does ‘come up with the goods’. In this instance (at their early December meeting), they decided to shelve any idea of raising production in January, and pushed back the current target start date to April. They have also slowed the re-introduction period, now unwinding the cuts over 18 months, rather than the previously planned 12-month time frame.

At the same OPEC+ meeting, it was also agreed that the planned 0.3 million b/d increase in the UAE’s quota allocation would be pushed back by 3-months, to April and also be staged over 18-months (not 9-months as previously indicated).

The net result is that under current plans, OPEC+ production would increase by around 140,000 b/d each month starting in April, rather than increases of 210,000 b/d starting in January.

The market tells you everything

Looking at oil prices, they continued to slide through November. However, in the run-up to the early December OPEC+ meeting there were indications that the group would again delay (for the third time) any unwinding of the production cuts. The outcome has been for prices over the past 3-weeks to be maintained in the $72-74/bbl for Brent, and the $525-550/mt range for Singapore VLSFO.

The key here is, although prices appear to have held up after the OPEC+ meeting, there has been no significant rebound. The market does not believe at this stage that the new outcome will tighten oil fundamentals and push prices higher. OPEC+ may be ‘kicking the can down the road’ regarding the best timing to unwind production cuts, but they have come together to halt the slide in prices.

There is a strong view that when OPEC+ come to review the April start date, they will again have to delay unwinding production cutbacks.

Analysts vary on their price views, but they don’t see a major rebound

A number of analysts have published crude price projections since the outcome of the latest OPEC+ meeting. As always, there are variations, but looking at views for Brent crude over Q1 and Q2 next year, there are a number within the range $70-75/bbl, which is within the trading range we have seen over the past month and in line with the current $73/bbl price.

graph 3 1024x820

Goldman Sachs are higher than this range, showing Brent moving up to $77/bbl in Q2, whilst Bank of America (BOA) are much lower, looking at $66/bbl in Q2 .

Based on $70-75/bbl crude price, Singapore VLSFO would be in a range of $525-550/mt (close to current prices). At the extremes, BOA’s view would imply Singapore VLSFO just below $500/mt, and Goldman Sachs at a high of $575/mt. Even at the outer reaches of these analyst views, the bunker market would not be in a ‘shock’ in the first half of next year.

Good news for bunker buyers looking at annual budgeting

If you are in the office and looking at how much you are going to spend on bunkers in 2025, the analysts would suggest, a lot less than this year (and last year). Again, a core of 2025 forecasts lie in the $70-74/bbl range, with BOA at a low of $65/bbl, and Goldman Sachs at a high of $76/bbl; all lower than the $80/bbl average price seen in 2023 and in 2024.

graph 4 v2 1024x789

UBS does have a higher price forecast of $80/bbl for Brent next year, but this was published before the OPEC+ decision to defer production increases, so perhaps should not be included.

Annual bunker costs 12% less in 2025?

Using these analysts’ views on Brent prices, it implies the 2025 annual average price for Singapore VLSFO falls within a core range of $525-550/mt, with the outer limits up to $570/mt as a high (Goldman Sachs) and $485/mt as a low (BOA).

graph 5 1024x807

In terms of budgeting VLSFO bunker costs for 2025, it means the ‘core view’ is at least 10% lower than in this year. Even based on Goldman’s ‘higher’ price forecast, annual average bunker costs for 2025 will still be 5% lower than this year. Finally, using the BOA’s forecast suggests there will be a massive 20% reduction next year. Whichever way you look at it, the analysts are currently telling us that we will be spending less on bunkers in 2025!

 

Photo credit: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 24 December 2024

 

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

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS

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


  • Mokara Final
  • PSP Marine logo
  • CNC Logo Rev Manifold Times
  • Innospec logo v6
  • Auramarine 01
  • endress
  • Kenoil
  • Trillion Energy
  • Synergy Asia Bunkering logo MT
  • E Marine logo
  • LabTechnic
  • Advert Shipping Manifold resized1
  • VPS 2021 advertisement
  • Headway Manifold
  • 400x330 v2 copy

Trending