Connect with us
DNV Decarbonization Insight Series August 2026 - What maritime professionals should know about AI Training

Business

Interview: Nunchi Marine believes Iran war forces a reset in bunker cargo trading

Tomas Stacy, Managing Director of Bunker Trading at oil cargo and bunker trading company, Nunchi Marine, comments on volatility, supply disruption and survival in a fractured market.

Admin

Published

on

Tomas MT

The war involving Iran has pushed the global bunker market into one of its most turbulent periods in recent memory, with Singapore – the world’s largest bunkering hub – feeling the impact.

Once‑reliable supply chains have been disrupted, price volatility has surged to extreme levels, and bunker cargo traders are being forced to abandon long‑standing strategies in favour of defensive, risk‑driven decision‑making.

The sharp reduction in Middle Eastern supply flows has exposed structural vulnerabilities in the market, while suppliers and traders alike have tightened terms amid unprecedented uncertainty.

Against this backdrop, bunker cargo trading has shifted from margin optimisation to survival mode. In this executive interview, Tomas Stacy, Managing Director of Bunker Trading at Singapore-headquartered independent oil cargo and bunker trading company, Nunchi Marine shares how the conflict is reshaping bunker cargo trading, the challenges importers now face, and what it takes to navigate a market defined by scarcity, volatility and risk.

MT: How has the Iran war changed the bunker cargo trading landscape in Singapore?

TS: The change has been structural rather than cyclical. The market is now characterised by extreme price volatility, tighter availability, and far more defensive behaviour from both traders and physical suppliers. The conflict has disrupted a core supply artery into Asia, and that has exposed just how dependent Singapore has been on stable Middle Eastern flows. Trading today is less about optimising margins and more about managing risk and ensuring continuity of supply.

MT: What has been the most immediate impact on bunker cargo importers since the conflict began?

TS: Margin pressure and uncertainty have intensified almost overnight. The sharp drop in tanker movements through the Strait of Hormuz has effectively choked a primary supply source, and that has translated directly into price shocks. Since the war began, VLSFO prices in Singapore have more than doubled, while MGO prices have surged even more sharply. For importers, this has made forward planning extremely difficult and increased exposure on every cargo decision.

MT: Why has the market struggled to replace lost Middle Eastern barrels?

TS: The scale of the disruption is the key issue. The Middle East typically supplies around 1.2 million metric tons of fuel oil per month to Asia, and there is no simple replacement for that volume. Alternative supplies from the Americas or Russia exist, but they are constrained by high freight costs, sanctions, or limited availability. In practical terms, arbitrage opportunities into Singapore have become largely unworkable, leaving the market structurally tight.

MT: How has extreme price volatility changed trading behaviour and supplier relationships?

TS: Volatility has fundamentally altered risk appetite. At the onset of the conflict, prices were moving by as much as $100 to $150 per metric ton in a single day, which makes holding large cargo positions highly risky. In response, physical suppliers have become increasingly defensive—rationing volumes, prioritising long‑standing customers, and avoiding even short‑term term contracts. For traders, this has meant smaller position sizes, shorter, and a much greater emphasis on counterparty strength and reliability.

MT: Beyond price and supply, what risks are now top of mind for bunker cargo traders?

TS: Quality and logistics have moved sharply up the risk agenda. Recent alerts around off‑spec VLSFO in Singapore which were linked to engine damage, have added a new layer of concern for cargo procurement. At the same time, tight supply conditions are beginning to create logistical bottlenecks, with some vessels struggling to secure bunker slots and early signs of congestion appearing at major ports. In this environment, survival depends on disciplined risk management—avoiding long‑term fixed‑price exposure, strengthening supplier relationships, enforcing stricter quality controls, and building greater operational flexibility into voyage planning.

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 31 March 2026

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: Notices of annual meeting issued for Vroon Shipping Asia and related firms

Annual meetings of the companies will be held by electronic means on the 6 October 2026 at 3pm, according to Government Gazette notices.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED Drew Beamer

Notices of annual meeting were issued by liquidators of Vroon Shipping Asia Pte Ltd and related firms, which are in members’ voluntary liquidation, on the Government Gazette on Thursday (27 August). 

The other companies involved are Vroon Offshore Asia Pte Ltd and Vroon Ship Holding Pte Limited. 

According to the notices, the annual meetings of the companies will be held by electronic means on the 6 October 2026 at 3pm.

The purpose of the meeting is to have an account laid before the meeting showing the acts and dealings of the liquidator, Knut Unger, and the conduct of the winding up in the preceding year.

 

Photo credit: Drew Beamer
Published: 28 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Methanol

Wallenius Wilhelmsen, EUKOR secure green methanol bunker fuel supply from EcoMethanol

Under a MoU, Hyundai Corporation will buy the methanol produced in Taebaek and sell it on to the two carriers, which will burn it as fuel in their own fleets.

Admin

Published

on

By

Wallenius Wilhelmsen, EUKOR secure green methanol bunker fuel supply from EcoMethanol

South Korean firm EcoMethanol on Wednesday (26 August) signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on the supply of green methanol with Taebaek City, Hyundai Corporation, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS of Norway and EUKOR Car Carriers. 

The signing took place at EUKOR’s head office in Seoul.

EcoMethanol is the special purpose company set up by South Korean clean energy firm Plagen to build a green methanol plant in Taebaek, Gangwon State. 

Under the MoU, Hyundai Corporation will buy the methanol produced in Taebaek and sell it on to the two carriers, which will burn it as fuel in their own fleets. Taebaek City takes part as an equity co-investor and will provide administrative and policy support. Production, trading and end use are tied together in a single chain, the first such arrangement in Korea.

Manifold Times previously reported Taebaek City and Plagen signing an investment agreement for a new green methanol production plant in the South Korean city that will be supplied as bunker fuel.

Wallenius Wilhelmsen, EUKOR secure green methanol bunker fuel supply from EcoMethanol

The plant will produce 15,000 metric tonnes (mt) a year from forestry residues, using dual fluidized bed (DFB) gasification, a process already proven in commercial operation. Total investment is KRW 120 billion.

EcoMethanol holds Korea’s integrated environmental permit, has secured its site in the Dongjeom Industrial Complex and has completed basic design. Construction is due to start in December 2026 and commercial production in January 2029. The plant will employ 36 people locally.

Taebaek’s role as a production hub is written into both national and provincial plans. The Taebaek Jangseong Colliery Economic Revitalization Project cleared preliminary feasibility review in 2025 with a green methanol facility included in its scope, and Gangwon State lists a green methanol cluster in its mid- to long-term investment plan for former coal-mining regions. Dongjeom will be the first of these facilities to be built, because its industrial site is already developed.

Carbon regulation in shipping is no longer a prospect. The EU Emissions Trading System now covers maritime transport, the FuelEU Maritime regulation on greenhouse gas intensity is in force, and the International Maritime Organization is moving toward adoption of its Net-Zero Framework.

Korean carriers are already buying green methanol. HMM’s methanol-fueled container ships HMM Green and HMM Forest took on 2,900 mt and 3,110 mt at Yangshan Port in Shanghai in March and May 2025. 

The car carrier Arctic Tern, operated by EUKOR, loaded about 2,800 mt in Shanghai in July 2026 before starting commercial service on the Asia-Europe route. All of that fuel was made in China.

Korea produces none of its own. Ulsan Port was the first port anywhere to bunker green methanol for a ship, in 2023, but the fuel had been imported. 

Korea consumes roughly 2 million mt of methanol a year, most of it imported and made from fossil feedstock.

The Taebaek plant would be the country’s first domestic source of clean marine fuel.

Related: Korea: Taebaek City and PLAGEN to build green methanol bunker fuel plant

 

Photo credit: EcoMethanol
Published: 28 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

DNV report: Regulatory uncertainty demands fleet strategies built for multiple futures

Report examines four regulatory scenarios, ranging from adoption of IMO NZF in its current form to its outright rejection, energy efficiency uptake, and long-term bunker fuel and technology strategies.

Admin

Published

on

By

DNV report: Regulatory uncertainty demands fleet strategies built for multiple futures

Regulatory uncertainty is increasing pressure on shipowners to make investment decisions that remain viable across multiple future scenarios, said classification society DNV on Thursday (27 August). 

According to DNV’s 10th Maritime Forecast to 2050, stronger global regulatory signals could accelerate the uptake of energy-efficiency measures, enabling the global fleet to consume up to 25% less energy by 2050 compared to a scenario where regulation is driven by regions.

The report examines four regulatory scenarios, ranging from adoption of the IMO Net-Zero Framework (NZF) in its current form to its outright rejection, which could lead to a period of prolonged regulatory gridlock, and explores the implications of these outcomes for fuel demand, energy efficiency uptake, and long-term fleet fuel and technology strategies.

Cristina Saenz de Santa Maria, CEO Maritime, DNV, said: “Ships ordered today will operate well beyond 2050, but many of the factors shaping their future performance remain uncertain. Regulatory requirements are advancing faster than the fuel, infrastructure, and technological systems needed to support them, making long-term investment decisions increasingly complex. The industry therefore needs greater clarity and alignment among all stakeholders to provide the confidence required for long-term investment. In the meantime, shipowners need strategies that deliver benefits today while remaining resilient across a range of regulatory and market outcomes.”

Energy efficiency is one of the most immediate and practical levers available to shipowners, delivering value across regulatory outcomes whether implemented at the newbuild stage or as a retrofit. A case study of a hydrodynamic measures retrofit on a 5,000 TEU container vessel showed potential annual fuel savings of 16%, with a payback time of around one to four years depending on future fuel prices. Retrofits can add similar value across many ship types and with sufficient planning can typically be completed during a standard class-renewal dry docking.

The development of the marine low-GHG fuel market remains a key challenge. While significant progress has been made in expanding alternative-fuel capabilities of vessels, scaling fuel production depends on confidence that demand will materialize. DNV projects shipping demand for low-GHG fuels to range from 4 to 22 Mtoe by 2030 and 33 to 185 Mtoe by 2050, depending on regulatory outcomes, with uptake also shaped by future uptake of shore power, plug-in hybridization, nuclear power, and onboard carbon capture systems.

Current project pipelines indicate a maximum global supply of 270 Mtoe by 2030, although actual volumes are likely to be lower due to project delays and other uncertainties, and shipping will need to compete with other industries for its share. However, the cost of reducing emissions varies significantly between fuel pathways, with abatement costs ranging from about 180 to 1,290 USD per tonne of CO₂ avoided, highlighting the importance of regulation and market incentives in enabling low-GHG fuel markets to develop.

Øyvind Sekkesæter, lead author of Maritime Forecast to 2050, said: “Scenarios explored in this year’s report show how different regulatory futures can lead to very different outcomes in energy efficiency uptake, fuel demand, and consequently, GHG emissions. By testing fuel and technology choices across multiple scenarios, shipowners can identify strategies that create value today while preserving flexibility as regulation, fuel availability, prices, and technologies evolve. Strategies that each owner chooses will also be dependent on their fleet type and operating context.”

Key findings from the report: 

  • Several regulatory futures remain possible as the IMO continues negotiations on the Net-Zero Framework, with these outcomes shaping investment decisions, low-GHG fuel uptake, and energy-efficiency deployment across the global fleet.
  • With global regulatory incentives in place, the world-fleet could consume 25% less energy by 2050 than under a scenario limited to regional regulations.
  • Energy efficiency can pay off regardless of regulatory outcome – 5,000 TEU container ship case study shows 16% annual fuel savings from hydrodynamic measures retrofit.
  • Shipping demand for low-GHG fuels could range from 4 to 22 Mtoe by 2030, and 33 to 185 Mtoe by 2050, depending on regulatory outcomes and the availability of these fuels in a competitive global market.
  • Current project pipelines indicate that a maximum of 270 Mtoe of supply could be available by 2030, though actual volumes are likely to be lower due to project delays and other uncertainties, and shipping will need to compete with other industries for its share.
  • Testing fuel and technology strategies across different scenarios can help shipowners identify robust choices for an uncertain transition. Testing, piloting, and verifying technologies can provide the trusted performance data needed to make investment decisions with greater confidence.

Note: DNV’s 10th Maritime Forecast to 2050 can be found here. 

 

Photo credit: DNV
Published: 28 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending