Analysis

Newport Fuel Solutions: The Greening of Marine Fuels

A handful of marine fuel treatment manufacturers have recently claimed their products can help improve vessel efficiencies; but all is not as it seems.

Published

5 years ago

June 24, 2021

Admin

The following article ‘Curing the fuel stability pandemic’ has been written by Ralph Lewis, the CEO of refinery-grade fuel treatment additive manufacturer Newport Fuel Solutions, and has been shared with Singapore bunker publication Manifold Times:

Summary

Introduction
CO2: the beginning of the discussion
IMO contribution
Fuel treatments to help reducing CO2?
Major issues with IMO-2020 fuel grade (VLSFO)
False claims and risky fuel treatments
Back to basics: notions of mechanical engineering
The right solution is the best solution

Introduction

In some circles, carbon dioxide (CO2) is really a good thing. Ask any greenhouse owner operating CO2 generators to accelerate plant growth, or sparkling water manufacturers looking for the perfect fizz. In fact, were it not for CO2, planet Earth would be but another barren ice rock? We should be grateful!

Yet CO2 has suffered some bad marks on its otherwise sterling reputation in recent years – a new, ominous dark side. Although the flora of our delicate green and blue ball thrives from its presence – the increased atmospheric presence of CO2 since the dawn of the Industrial Age has been blamed for a 0.8-degree Celsius hike in global temperature.

CO2: the beginning of the discussion

Modern concerns began in 1990 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – created by the United Nations in 1988 – issued its first report regarding the effect of CO2 atmospheric warming.

Warning that unless measures were soon taken to reduce manmade CO2 emissions – the IPCC report unreservedly stated that over the next several decades, we could expect rising sea levels, weather pattern changes and an irreversible disruption of agricultural production.

Some of the alarm initially focused on early climate change computer modeling which, in some cases, projected horrific scenarios only a few decades hence. Even today a handful of doomsayers have warned we have but ten years – maybe less – to set things right.

Pre-Industrial Age levels of CO2 were about 280 ppm, and today content has risen more than 40 percent to 415 ppm. Not good. As even some of the more conservative modeling has suggested, a continued upward trend would indeed have severe long-term consequences.

There is some good news. Nature may be bestowing a temporary reprieve – buying the world some time for the development of technological solutions.

“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

The reason? A long period of reduced solar activity.

Recent studies by the University of California at San Diego and Northumbria in the UK are predicting a “Grand Solar Minimum” over the next several decades – similar in length and effect as the Maunder Minimum which contributed in part to the Little Ice Age in Europe from 1645 to 1715 – an extended time of much lower temperatures.

IMO contribution

Regardless, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MPEC) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) found it prudent to heed the conclusions of the 1990 IPPC report and subsequent warnings, moving forward with measures to reduce marine emissions of CO2, thought to account for about two percent of global CO2 emissions.

In 2018 MPEC issued an extremely ambitious goal – a 50 percent reduction of CO2 emissions from ships by the year 2050.

The IMO proposed amendments as a path to that goal in November 2020 – articles that will be put forward for formal adoption at the MEPC session sometime this year.

Given the ambitious target, this path appears to be a practical and conservative one – buying time until advanced technology is developed to truly revolutionize marine propulsion systems. Rather than calling for any wholesale conversion to the days of sail – or perhaps a reconsideration of nuclear-powered vessels, these measures simply find better ways to improve efficiencies on existing vessels by implementing a new Energy Efficiency Ship Index (EEXI) program.

This, in turn, generates a new reporting system, dubbed the carbon intensity indicator (CII), which will be determined and reported annually for each vessel and incorporated into the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plant (SEEMP).

Under this plan, a vessel will be rated annually – graded on a scale from A to E. Should a vessel suffer three consecutive years of a D or E rating, a corrective action plan must be submitted. Once implemented, this scheme would require the IMO to review the effectiveness of the program no later than January 2020.

Fuel treatments to help reducing CO2?

Not surprisingly, vendors are already excited about cashing in on this proposed program – from software development companies to, yes, even manufacturers of marine fuel treatments, who are touting fuel additives as one way to reduce CO2.

But wait. How can that be? Claiming combustion improvement with a chemical fuel treatment to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions (CO2) ignores once simple rule of combustion physics that provides a direct contradiction of the stated goal – a simple case of combustion physics 101.

For optimum combustion to occur in a modern marine diesel engine, the fuel injection system must be in perfect working condition to properly meter the fuel into the engine for the required output. Then, of course, is timing. The fuel must be injected as an atomized spray at the precise moment during the compression stroke. This spray must go far enough into the cylinder to ensure even distribution.

Simple. But in time systems can be compromised. If the fuel lacks sufficient lubricity, injector wear can accelerate, affecting injector efficiency. Fuels with a high carbon content as measured by mcr (micro carbon residue) testing – or fuels that have suffered some degree of degradation from blending and storage may also cause an accumulation of unburned petroleum coke on injector apertures, impinging spray patterns and inhibiting full combustion.

While an excellent preventative maintenance program can minimize and even eliminate most factors that contribute to compromised combustion – the one wild card remaining is fuel. The IMO has made a valiant effort to implement some measure of remedy over the years by mandating fuel formula changes – the most recent being the global marine fuel sulfur cap of 0.5 percent which took effect in January 2020.

Major issues with IMO-2020 fuel grade (VLSFO)

Yet here the law of unintended consequences has taken effect. Since this mandate, vessel operators and testing laboratories have seen a substantial increase in problematic fuels – mostly issues with excessive sludge production, fouled fuel delivery systems and compromised ignition quality. Some cite two major contributing factors.

First of these is chemical incompatibility. No refiner produces a straight run 0.5 percent sulfur fuel. So, to achieve the sulfur target – fuels must be blended – typically a mix of onshore automotive distillate product with a sulfur cap of 15 ppm (0.015 % sulfur) with somewhat heavier hydrotreated distillates – a light measure of heavier fuel oil thrown in for good measure.

The problem arises because each of the separate fuels has its own set of chemical precursors that are often different than those in the fuel into which it is mixed. When these different precursors are blended – reactions are set up between them which result in the formation of unwanted decomposition products consisting of gum, resin, high carbon weight polymeric structures and asphaltenic residue.

Even a straight run fuel will suffer some measure of similar degradation over time, the rate of deterioration dependent on exposure to heat and oxygen during long storage periods.

Extended storage time is the second major contributing factor, and in recent months this has been extremely aggravated thanks to the global Covid 19 pandemic, resulting in record storage levels of fuels at all major global ports.

To summarize – modern marine fuels are subject to issues of chemical and physical stability. It is the degradation of these properties that result in compromised ignition quality and excessive unburned hydrocarbon and particulate emissions.

False claims and risky fuel treatments

In recent weeks, a handful of marine fuel treatment manufacturers have rushed forth claiming their products can help vessel operators improve efficiencies under the new MEPC guidelines. One company produces an excellent sludge dispersant chemistry – an organic tall oil fatty acid (TOFA) which is capable of penetrating sludge on a molecular level – separating heavier asphaltenic components and distributing the material evenly throughout the fuel mixture.

In turn, this effect helps maintain proper fuel droplet size following injection – keeping the rate of combustion consistent and even. That is a good thing. Yet does this effect reduce CO2 emissions? Not really. Rather, it simply maintains the desired design parameters of the fuel delivery system – maintaining some measure of proper combustion appropriate for that engine design.

A second manufacturer is touting a “new” product which embraces a not so new technology – one that long-ago lost favor in the onshore automotive industry and among refiners. This product is formulated with ferrocene (dicyclopentadienyl iron) – a reason why it is critically important for technical personnel to carefully review the safety data sheets of products they are considering using.

In the steam turbine days almost all marine fuel treatment manufacturers formulated with ferrocene, most abandoning the approach with the dawn of the motor ship era. Indeed, ferrocene is an effective catalyst in accelerating the combustion process. In steam turbine operations, ferrocene application to the fuel did result in reduced visible smoke. But a notable byproduct of ferrocene combustion is iron (ferric) oxide.

Accumulation of iron oxide in a traditional marine boiler – essentially devoid of moving parts – was hardly problematic. For internal combustion engines, it is an entirely different story.

In sanctions against the late 1930s German regime, the U.S. government cut off supplies of tetraethyl lead (TEL) to German refineries – the octane boost additive used in fuels at that time. Germans then turned to ferrocene as a replacement. In short order engine wear rates accelerated owing to the abrasive nature of iron oxide on components.

With its fine abrasive qualities, iron oxide is an excellent polishing agent – the primary component of “jeweler’s rouge” – the residue wiped clean after each job. Not so easy to do on the exhaust valve surfaces of a modern marine diesel engine.

Today the Worldwide Fuel Charter – an international body of onshore engine makers – has banned the use of ferrocene in onshore fuels. So has every major global refiner. The engine maker Wartsila refuses to issue any “No Objection” letter for any marine additive containing the material.

And there is one specific downside when the cetane number of fuels is elevated with the use of a metal catalyst. Contrary to any implication that such products reduce global greenhouse gases – the opposite is true.

Back to basics: notions of mechanical engineering

Simply, the laws of combustion physics are inviolable. When the ignition quality of any hydrocarbon fuel is improved, a tiny bit more of the fuel is consumed of the amount injected. Provided the air/fuel ratio and fuel injection timing factor is optimum, carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are slightly reduced, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are increased.

How can that be good? This increase is somewhat offset by the fact that it takes slightly less fuel – an exceedingly small amount – to produce the same unit of energy – measured in brake specific horsepower.

How small? A rule of thumb is for every bar increase in peak firing pressure (pmax), approximately 0.25 percent less fuel is required for the same output. So, if a two bar pmax increase is attained, 0.5 percent less fuel is required to produce the same amount of energy.

But increasing cetane more than just a couple of points can have an adverse effect on particulate emissions, as some research studies have shown. The reason is simple. With a higher cetane number – the fuel in the combustion chamber reaches higher temperatures which in turn increases the formation of less burnable, higher carbon weight structures in the phase of combustion known as the “afterburning” stage.

This material is formed from the cracking of what are known as “unsaturated” structures – typically olefinic components of the fuel. These structures have double electron bonds. When they initially split or crack in the early stage of combustion, they tend to share bonds with one another, causing them to recombine into much longer chain polymeric structures with much higher carbon weight than before.

This is where the notion of “thermal stability” come into play. Petroleum chemists have long sought ways to improve thermal stability by limiting or preventing the formation of these polymeric structures – the primary cause of particulate emission and carbon deposits on engine components. Over the years this has been a critical objective in the production of aviation fuels. After all, the turbine blades of a jet aircraft flying at 30,000 feet must not be subject to abrasive, unburned hydrocarbon deposits.

The same holds true for modern automotive fuels – now subject to rigorous clean air standards. Engines and fuel systems must remain clean. So, in addition to improvements in fuel formulations and refining, a major contributing factor to the cleaner burning of these fuels has been the application of amine-based additives designed to greatly improve fuel thermal stability.

Some of these additives for petrol have been given trade names by refiners – Shell’s V.Power, Chevron’s Techron, BP’s Ultimate.

Today the same concept developed by refiners for aviation and automotive fuels has been developed and refined by Newport Fuel Solutions for all grades of commercial marine fuel – heaviest to lightest. Here again, the key is greatly improved thermal stability – the result being greatly reduced carbon deposits on engine components and reduced unburned hydrocarbon and particulate emissions.

The right solution is the best solution

To achieve an exceptional level of chemical and thermal stability, Newport formulates with a very specialized amine complex at a high concentration – the same proven chemistry applied by refiners globally in the production of industrial fuels. This is combined with a tall oil fatty dispersant which provides exceptional physical stability – necessary to break down heavy asphaltene components and contaminates in fuels which are then evenly dispersed throughout the mixture into a colloidal state.

This flagship product, NP-HFO, is appropriate for all marine fuel grades, protecting against incompatibility issues while providing extremely effective deposit control for fuel delivery systems and engine components at an economic dose rate of one liter per 20 mt. A 100 percent active, refinery-grade product, NP-HFO contains no cheap petroleum solvent “fillers” or dangerous metallic catalysts. NP-HFO is also classified “non-hazardous” for safe onboard storage and handling by personnel.

Newport also manufacturers a stand-alone fuel oil treatment dispersant chemistry, NP-FOT. With a treatment rate of one liter per 30 mt. NP-FOT is 100 percent active concentration, organic, non-toxic, and non-dangerous.

To complement these products and provide added value and additional protection, Newport manufacturers refinery grade, highly concentrated lubricity additives at exceptionally low cost. After all, the thinking goes, vessel owners should enjoy the same low cost as that benefitting global refiners.

Newport clients are given a certificate of proof of application to be included in a vessel’s SEEMP plan – yet another weapon in the green arsenal for responsible corporate compliance in meeting IMO objectives. For more information, please contact your local Newport representative and visit Newport at www.newportfuelsolutions.com.

The Author

Ralph Lewis is the CEO at Newport Fuel Solutions, Inc.

Mr. Lewis served as Technology Transfer and Public Information Specialist with Shell Oil and eventually, as Vice President Technical with Power Research Inc for over 32 years.

Contact details:
Phone: +1 832 627 7499
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.newportfuelsolutions.com

Photo credit: Chris Pagan on Unsplash
Published: 24 June, 2021

Bunker Fuel

Integr8 Fuels: Why bunker markets could be lower than we thought

Marine fuel prices could prove lower than previously anticipated as easing refinery margins and improving bunker market fundamentals outweigh a still-uncertain crude oil outlook, says Integr8 Fuels.

Published

3 weeks ago

July 30, 2026

Admin

By Steve Christy, Expert Contributor, Integr8 Fuels

29 July 2026

We have just seen one false dawn, is there another to come?

Last month, we wrote about how close we were to the expected lows in Brent and Rotterdam bunker prices, but not yet Singapore. Given what has happened since, a month is not only a long time in politics, but also a very long time in the bunker market.

There was a resumption of attacks in the Arabian Gulf region on 13 July, followed by targeted Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea oil infrastructure and shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb region, the gateway between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. As a result, Brent futures fell to lows of around $70/bbl in late June and early July before surging to a high of $100/bbl on 23 July. Over the same period, Singapore VLSFO fell to $635/mt before climbing to $865/mt, a swing of $230/mt in just 16 days.

Jul 2026 Graph 01 1024x613 1

Prices at the start of this week fell sharply after a halt in Arabian Gulf attacks over the weekend, with front month Brent was down to intra-day lows of $84/bbl, and Singapore VLSFO $750/mt. However, at the time of writing there has been a ‘surprise’ attack by Iran, and retaliatory action by the US, with prices rising again. It looks like we could be at another false dawn.

The obvious questions are: will there be a return to peace negotiations, and are we close to the end of the war and free-flowing traffic through the strait of Hormuz (and also the Bab el-Mandeb)? The obvious answer is, we don’t know; there are only a few people that are likely to know the answer to this. All we can do is plan for every eventuality.

Low stocks, higher bunker prices, and a strong Singapore VLSFO premium: it’s a challenge

For those of us in the bunker market, the point we made last month about Singapore VLSFO trading at a strong premium to crude still holds, albeit slightly less pronounced. The loss of supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, together with the added uncertainty surrounding Saudi product exports from the Jizan and Rabigh refineries on the Red Sea, has sustained this premium.

These developments are likely to keep the Singapore VLSFO premium to crude at elevated levels until there is greater confidence that Middle East crude and product supplies are returning to more normal trading patterns. Amid all the price volatility, this Singapore VLSFO premium remains a key indicator to watch.

Backwardation in Brent futures illustrates market psychology

One month ago, backwardation in Brent futures (front month minus second month) had fallen from $7/bbl to virtually nothing, reflecting the market’s belief that an end to the war was little more than a negotiating step away. It wasn’t. The resumption of attacks, coupled with Houthi involvement in the Red Sea, sent prices sharply higher again, with backwardation in the Brent futures market returning to almost $6/bbl.

Jul 2026 Graph 02 1024x572 1

The halt in attacks over the past weekend has taken steam out of the market, with prices and backwardation falling sharply. Where we go from here depends if there is again a belief peace is on the horizon, or if this is another false dawn. The past month highlights how impossible it is to predict an ending to the war, and how fragile any expectations of peace can be.

We cannot ignore the price, but still must look to the future

It is impossible to write a report and not highlight the turmoil of the current market and what is happening. However, we still must look beyond this, to see where we could end up.

In an earlier report, we suggested the run-up to the US mid-term elections in November may be a backstop to the war. However, even this is not guaranteed. There are many dynamic elements to the economy and voter intentions, but one feature that will always crop up in the US is the gasoline price. This has risen from $3/gallon before the war to over $4/gallon for the past four months.

Jul 2026 Graph 03 1024x570 1

If it comes to it, will Republican voters want to see a resolution to the war and a return to $3 gasoline prices ahead of the elections?

We have a change of heart on how low bunker prices can go

We don’t know exact timings, but in any planning, we must look at what happens when the war does finally end and prices fall, whenever that may be. In past reports we have highlighted the view that Brent crude prices are unlikely to fall back to pre-war levels in the $60s, and Singapore VLSFO unlikely to go back in to the $400s. This may be the point at which these views change.

Previous thinking was based on a relatively short war, where there would be a large loss of oil supply and a massive stock-draw. In this case, tighter stock levels would be sufficient to keep prices higher than their pre-war levels once we returned to ‘normality’. This would mean Brent futures in the $70s (and not in the $60s), and Singapore VLSFO in the $500s, and not the $400s.

A number of mainstream analysts also held this view, although there were some that were lower and some higher.

Given the war has already gone on for much longer than almost everyone expected, this thinking must change. Yes, global stocks have been drawn down at a rapid rate, but this is slowing. Higher pricing and inflationary blows have had a major impact on global oil demand, with current indications that total oil demand in the second quarter of this year was some 4 million b/d lower than year earlier levels.

The graph below shows this sharp drop in demand and even if the war comes to an end relatively soon, and demand gets back towards some normality, a structural loss of more than 1 million b/d in global oil demand is still expected to have taken place because of the extended period of conflict.

If the war goes on for even longer, structural losses in global oil demand are likely to be even greater.

Jul 2026 Graph 04 1024x579 1

Source: US EIA

It’s a hard road, but we can get there

This means that once the war does end, market psychology will be looking at a rapid increase in oil supplies going into a global market which is much lower in demand. This opens the way for prices to easily return to their pre-war levels of Brent in the $60s and Singapore VLSFO in the $400s.

Now we just need those at the centre of negotiations to get us there.

Photo credit and source: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 30 July, 2026

Bunker Fuel Quality

FOBAS report warns of growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

LR’s latest FOBAS Fuel Quality Report reveals that the biggest fuel quality risks are no longer confined to off-specification fuels, with some compliant fuels creating operational challenges.

Published

1 month ago

July 15, 2026

Admin

New FOBAS report warns growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

Classification society Lloyd’s Register (LR) on Tuesday (14 July) warned that ship operators are facing a growing risk from fuels that appear compliant under routine ISO 8217 testing but still present operational risks once onboard.

According to LR’s latest Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) Fuel Quality Report, covering the first half of 2026, off-specification fuels remain a persistent challenge.

However, some of the most disruptive cases now involve fuels that pass routine compliance testing but show poor stability or compatibility, or contain non-conventional blend components that are only identified through more detailed investigative analysis.

Several incidents investigated highlighted this trend. In March and April, a number of vessels reported operational difficulties after bunkering fuel in a major bunkering hub. Further forensic analysis found that many of the fuels contained elevated concentrations of Estonian shale oil, in some cases estimated to be around 10-15%.

While shale oil is recognised within ISO 8217 as an acceptable blend component, FOBAS investigations found that higher concentrations can be associated with fuel instability and operational issues affecting filters, separators and fuel pumps.

The report also shows that fuel quality variability remains stubbornly high. Off-specification cases remained elevated throughout the first six months of 2026, suggesting that quality issues are no longer isolated events but a more persistent feature of today’s marine fuel supply chain.

The most common recurring issues included sulphur exceedances, excessive water content, sediment and stability problems, elevated catalytic fines, sodium contamination and low flash point distillate fuels.

At the same time, biofuels (especially FAME blends) are continuing to grow without being a primary source of quality issues. Where issues occurred in blended fuels, they were generally associated with the conventional VLSFO component rather than the FAME fraction.

The report concluded that operators will need to adopt a more proactive approach to fuel management as marine fuels become more diverse and fuel quality risks become harder to identify through routine compliance testing alone.

Greater emphasis on fuel stability, compatibility and understanding fuel composition will be critical to reducing operational disruption and maintaining vessel performance.

Murray Kirkwood, Fuel Specialist Consultant, Lloyd’s Register, said: “The findings from our latest report show that fuel quality risk is evolving. The challenge is no longer simply identifying fuels that fail specification. Increasingly, operators are encountering fuels that meet the required limits but still create operational difficulties once they are stored, handled and used onboard.

“As fuel blending becomes more complex, the distinction that matters is increasingly not between on-spec and off-spec fuel, but between fuels that are operationally resilient and fuels that are operationally fragile. Understanding that difference is becoming essential for shipowners and operators.”

The latest findings reinforced FOBAS’ long-standing view that effective fuel management increasingly depends on understanding fuel behaviour rather than relying solely on pass-or-fail specification testing.

By combining routine fuel quality monitoring with forensic investigation of operational incidents, FOBAS provides shipowners with a clearer understanding of emerging fuel quality risks as the industry continues its transition to a more diverse and complex fuel landscape.

Note: The FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel Quality Report H1 2026 is available at FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel quality reports | LR

Photo credit: Lloyd’s Register
Published: 15 July, 2026

Interview

Interview: Alkagesta navigates risk from bunkering ops during turbulent times

As the industry navigates this period of uncertainty, the key question is no longer ‘what will fuel cost?’ but rather ‘will fuel be available?’, highlights Mithat Çiftçioğlu.

Published

3 months ago

May 7, 2026

Admin

Mithat Çiftçioğlu, Marine Fuels Director at Alkagesta, shared his opinion on risk management for bunkering operations under current geopolitical tensions through the April edition of shipping magazine Deniz Ticaret.

The maritime publication, part of the Turkish Chamber of Shipping (İMEAK Deniz Ticaret Odası), has given Manifold Times permission to republish the article:

Fueling Ships in Turbulent Times

From Oil Shock to Fuel Access Crisis: A New Risk Map for Maritime 2026

The final weeks of the first quarter of 2026 mark one of the most complex periods in recent years for global energy and maritime markets. The sharp rise in oil and refined product prices since February 28 may look like a classic energy shock at first glance, but developments in the maritime sector point to a far deeper structural rupture.

What is being debated in the market today is no longer just oil prices. For traders and shipowners operating in the maritime sector and bunker market, the real issue is not the price of fuel — it is access to fuel. The fundamental question in the market has shifted: not what will the price of fuel be, but will fuel even be available?

In light of the Force Majeure cancellations at Asian ports over the past two weeks, another question must also be considered: Will pre-agreed bunker supply contracts actually be delivered?

From Oil Prices to Logistical Reality

Tensions in the Middle East have created a strong geopolitical risk premium in the oil market. Brent crude briefly surpassed the $100 per barrel mark, triggering a search for a new equilibrium across markets. This will inevitably bring inflation and recession back onto the global agenda in the months ahead.

But the rise in oil prices does not only reflect the risk of supply disruption — it also signals the return of one of the most fragile chokepoints in global energy trade:

The Strait of Hormuz

Approximately one-third of the world’s oil trade passes through this narrow waterway. Around 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products transit Hormuz daily. Any disruption here would therefore affect not only oil prices, but also global refined product flows and the bunker market directly.

Why Strategic Oil Reserves Are Not the Solution

A commonly proposed solution in energy crises is the release of strategic petroleum reserves. However, releasing these reserves does not directly resolve a bunker crisis. Strategic reserves consist of crude oil. To produce bunker fuel, the following chain must be completed:

Crude oil → Refinery → Product logistics → Bunker port

This process takes time. Strategic reserves can temporarily stabilize oil prices, but they cannot solve the access problem in the bunker market in the short term.

Furthermore, the announced reserve release of 400 million barrels, to be drawn down at a rate of 2.5–3 million barrels per day, can only cover a small fraction of the estimated daily loss from the Middle East — optimistically 8–10 million barrels, pessimistically 18–20 million barrels per day.

A Historic Surge in Bunker Fuel Prices

The per-ton price of VLSFO (0.5% sulfur) bunker fuel has surpassed $1,000, reaching approximately double pre-war levels. This also represents some of the highest prices seen since July 2022.

While prices at bunker hubs such as Singapore and Fujairah are approaching $1,100 per ton, European markets have remained comparatively lower.

The Real Problem Is Not Price — It Is Fuel Access

Obtaining bunker quotes for April has become increasingly difficult, particularly at Asian ports. Even where shipowners and traders can secure quotes, the absence of supply guarantees makes pricing extremely challenging.

A senior executive at Oldendorff Carriers summarized the situation in these words:

“We cannot price cargo because we cannot calculate fuel costs; we cannot calculate fuel costs because there is no supply guarantee.”

The CEO of Maersk has compared the current situation to the pandemic era, stating that companies are attempting to source fuel through methods they have never tried before in order to keep global shipping networks supplied.

While supply is tight and prices are near their peak in Singapore and Fujairah, Rotterdam appears relatively more balanced. However, as the conflict drags on, risk perception in European markets is also rising.

The surge in bunker prices will not only increase costs — it will also affect global maritime transport capacity. Ships are expected to reduce their speeds to conserve fuel. This could lead to a reduction in effective carrying capacity, creating new logistical bottlenecks in global trade.

The importance of working with reliable, long-term partners has never been more apparent than during a crisis such as this.

The Widening Price Spread Between Fuel Types

A notable development in the bunker market in recent weeks is the rapid widening of price differentials between different fuel types. Two spreads in particular have expanded significantly:

Marine Gas Oil (MGO) – VLSFO
VLSFO – HSFO

Rising demand for distillate products, refinery production balances, and regional supply tightness are all contributing to this widening. As a result, bunker purchases have become not merely a matter of price level, but a strategic decision tied to product type and port selection.

An Unexpected Development: Biofuels Becoming Competitive

Another noteworthy development in the bunker market is that biofuels have remained at relatively competitive price levels. This creates two important opportunities for shipowners.

On one hand, biofuels remain competitively priced in certain markets. On the other, they offer a means of compliance with new regulations entering into force in Europe — particularly the FuelEU Maritime and EU ETS frameworks, which require reductions in carbon intensity. In this context, biofuels have become a strategic option for many shipowners.

Conclusion: Active Bunker Management Is The New Normal

The 2026 bunker market presents one of the most complex energy trading environments in recent years. The rise in oil prices, geopolitical risk at the Strait of Hormuz, tightness in physical fuel supply, and widening price spreads between fuel types have made bunker fuel management more critical than ever.

The prevailing view in energy markets is that as long as the risk at the Strait of Hormuz persists, turbulence in the bunker market will persist with it. As time passes, the depletion of commercial stocks may deepen the existing supply tightness further.

For this reason, the current situation is viewed not merely as an energy crisis, but as a new stress scenario testing the logistical infrastructure of global trade.

The view increasingly heard across energy markets is this:

“As long as Hormuz remains closed, it will not be oil prices but fuel access that constitutes the defining risk for global shipping.”

Finally, for shipowners and operators, bunker strategies are shifting away from a passive purchasing approach toward a model grounded in active risk management.

Photo and article credit: Deniz Ticaret
Published: 7 May 2026