JLC China Bunker Market Monthly Report (February 2022)
China’s bonded bunker fuel sales tumbled in February amid weakened shipping demand around the Winter Olympics and the Spring Festival, showed JLC data.
Beijing-based commodity market information provider JLC Network Technology Co. recently shared its JLC China Bunker monthly report for February 2022 with Manifold Times through an exclusive arrangement:
Bunker Fuel Demand
Bonded bunker fuel sales plunge in February
China’s bonded bunker fuel sales tumbled in February amid weakened shipping demand around the Winter Olympics and the Spring Festival. Moreover, the spiking prices of the bonded bunker fuel driven by geopolitical crisis also discouraged the downstream buyers, leading them to refuel only on rigid demand.
China’s bonded bunker fuel sales dropped to 1.43 mln mt in February, falling by 7.74% month on month, JLC’s data showed.
Chimbusco and Sinopec sold about 590,000 mt and 580,000 mt of bonded bunker fuel in the month, JLC’s data shows. Bonded bunker fuel sales for SinoBunker and China ChangJiang Bunker (Sinopec) were about 68,000 mt and 30,000 mt, respectively. Suppliers with the Zhoushan license recorded 146,800 mt of sales and those with the Shenzhen license sold 11,000 mt of bonded bunker fuel.
(There is no update on import and export data for January yet, as the General Administration of Customs of the PRC is expected to combine January and February data instead of providing data for a single month. The combined data for January-February are expected to be released in late March, and we will update the import and export data in the March version report that will be provided in early April.)
Domestic bunker fuel demand decreases in February
Domestic bunker fuel demand continued to fall in February on the unattractive prices led by the crude market.
Also, the replenishment of most buyers has come to an end early in the month, and refiners were mostly delivering the previous-signed contracts as they were on leave for the Spring Festival. Therefore, market trading was thin with a restrained amount of new orders.The demand for domestic-trade heavy bunker fuel was about 320,000 mt in February, down 10,000 mt or 3.03% month on month. The demand for light bunker fuel was 130,000 mt in month, flat with the last month.
Bunker Fuel Supply
Bonded bunker fuel imports plunge in December
China’s bonded bunker fuel imports plunged in December, mainly because of ample supply of domestic low-sulfur resources and low bunker fuel demand in the year end. In addition, traders cut their imports in December as imported fuel still lacked price advantage. The country imported about 406,100 mt of bonded bunker fuel in December, falling by 54.69% month on month and 63.01% year on year, GAC data showed.
Specifically, Singapore ranked first among the suppliers by exporting 199,000 mt of bunker fuel to China, accounting for 49% of the total volume. Imports from the UAE, South Korea and Russia were 85,200 mt, 78,200 mt and 43,600 mt, accounting for 21%, 19% and 11% respectively.
(There is no update on bunker fuel oil import data for January yet, as the General Administration of Customs of the PRC is expected to combine January and February data instead of providing data for a single month. We will update this part in the March version report that will be provided in early April.)
Domestic blended bunker fuel supply drop in February
Chinese blending producers supplied a total of around 320,000 mt of heavy bunker fuel in February 2022, a drop of 20,000 mt or 5.88% from last month, JLC’s data showed. In north China, refiners kept low operating rates during the Beijing Winter Olympics. The high prices of blended oil, spurred by the crude market, also limited blenders’ interest. Refiners in east China supplied only a small amount of bunker fuel in the month, and that in South China still had to conduct cross-region blendstock purchase. Also, affected by environmental inspections, the prices of light coal tar surged amid short supply, resulting in a low blended volume. Besides, the shrinking demand around the Spring Festival lowered the supply. However, light oil supply edged up on considerable coking margins and high oil product prices, along with a larger deep-processing demand for low sulfur residual oil. Domestic light oil supply was about 140,000 mt in February, up by 10,000 mt from the previous month, JLC’s data shows.
JLC Network Technology Co., Ltd is recognized as the leading information provider in China. We specialized in providing the transparent, high-value, authoritative market intelligence and professional analysis in commodity market. Our expertise covers oil, gas, coal, chemical, plastic, rubber, fertilizer and metal industry, etc.
JLC China Bunker Fuel Market Monthly Report is published by JLC Network Technology Co., Ltd every month on China bunker market, demand, supply, margin, freight index, forecast and so on. The report provides full-scale & concise insight into China bunker oil market.
All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be photocopied, reproduced, retransmitted, put into a computer system or otherwise redistributed without prior authorization from JLC.
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.
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 Papermay be downloaded from the hyperlink here.
Photo credit: Clean Marine Fuels White Paper
Published: 26 December 2024
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.
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.