Bunker fuel sales at Singapore port inched forward by 1.1% on year in May 2025, the highest volume seen in 2025, according to Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) data.

In total, 4.88 million metric tonnes (mt) (exact 4,878,100 mt) of various marine fuel grades were delivered at the world’s largest bunkering port in April, up from 4.83 million mt (4,826,800 mt) recorded during the similar month in 2024.

Deliveries of marine fuel oil, low sulphur fuel oil, ultra low sulphur fuel oil, marine gas oil and marine diesel oil in May (against on year) recorded respectively 1.89 million mt (+8.6% from 1.74 million mt), 2.45 million mt (-7.2% from 2.64 million mt), 1,200 mt (from zero), 1,700 mt (-88% from 14,300 mt) and zero (from zero).

Bio-blended variants of marine fuel oil, low sulphur fuel oil, ultra low sulphur fuel oil, marine gas oil and marine diesel oil in May (against on year) recorded respectively 40,900 mt (+671.7% from 5,300 mt), 95,800 mt (+97.9% from 48,400 mt), 700 mt (from zero), zero (from zero) and zero (from 300 mt). B100 biofuel bunkers, introduced in February this year, recorded 1,900 mt of deliveries in May.

LNG and methanol sales were respectively 45,000 mt (-7.8% from 48,800) and zero (from 1,600 mt). There were no recorded sales of ammonia for the month and so far in 2025.

Related: Singapore: Bunker fuel sales increase by 4% on year in April 2025
Related: Singapore: Bunker fuel sales increase by 0.5% on year in March 2025
Related: Singapore: Bunker fuel sales down by 8.1% on year in February 2025
Related: Singapore: Bunker fuel sales down by 9.1% on year in January 2025

A complete series of articles on Singapore bunker volumes reported by Manifold Times tracked since 2018 can be found via the link here.

Photo credit: Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
Published: 16 June 2025

The Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (GCMD) on Friday (13 June) launched its Path to Zero-Carbon Shipping – Insights from ammonia transfer trial in the Pilbara report.

The document captures key learnings from a pilot involving the ship-to-ship transfer of liquid ammonia between two gas carriers — the Green Pioneer and the Navigator Global — at anchorage off Port Dampier in the Pilbara, Western Australia.

The trial demonstrated that ship-to-ship ammonia transfer at anchorage can be both safe and practicable, provided that recommended safeguards and operational controls are implemented.

To share these crucial learnings with the industry, the report offers quantitative insights from executing the trial, forming a reference for future pilots and eventual commercial-scale operations.

The report offers:

Project background and objectives: An overview of the trial’s goals and operational context

Detailed safety studies covering four key areas:

• Feasibility: Response motions and mooring analysis
• Risks: HAZID and HAZOP findings and mitigations
• Consequences: Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) plume dispersion modelling
• Response: Emergency Response measures and protocols

Operation execution overview: A detailed account of the actual transfer operation, including the Joint Plan of Operations (JPO), assets deployed and a timeline of key events.

Optimising ammonia bunkering: Operational recommendations for both bunker tankers and receiving vessels, covering aspects such as transfer system setup, manifold arrangement, sample collection and more. A checklist of ERP resources required onboard is also included.

“In the past, bunkering guidelines took years to develop and were typically derived from experience with actual operations,” said Professor Lynn Loo, CEO of GCMD.

“In this case, guideline development is preceding actual commercial-scale operations, making it all the more important that these trials are as informative and comprehensive as possible so they can serve as a relevant reference for industry bodies in refining safe handling procedures, emergency response plans, and operational guidelines.”

Note: The full report of Path to Zero-Carbon Shipping – Insights from ammonia transfer trial in the Pilbara can be downloaded here.

Photo credit: Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation
Published: 16 June 2025

A group of researchers from the University of Amsterdam initiated a study on the benefits of using ammonia as marine fuel vs fuel oil for freight shipments, said Global Energy Association (GEA) on Thursday (12 June).

They wanted to understand if ammonia could really replace traditional bunker fuels, explained the Moscow-based non-governmental organisation dedicated to energy research and projects.

According to GEA, the Dutch researchers explored two options of the on-board power plant fired by ammonia: the internal combustion engine, and its combination with a solid oxide fuel cell (SOC).

They compared the full cost of ownership for such vessels vs the vessel using fuel oil with account of building costs, fuel costs and maintenance costs for 25 years of operation.

Results showed even in the most optimistic scenario, i.e., given high performance of the engine (up to 55 %) and low ammonia prices, the cost of ownership for such vessels will be 19–25 % more expensive vs the traditional one.

The main reason is high bunker fuel cost. The options with using fuel cells turned out to be even more expensive. They can be cost-effective only in case of extremely high fuel prices or poor performance of the internal combustion engine.

At the same time, the share of CAPEX for the vessel or fuel tanks turned out rather small: practically all the rise in cost is connected with the ammonia price.

The researchers concluded ammonia may be a robust alternative to fuel oil only under two conditions: significant decrease in ammonia prices and introduction of high carbon tax. Without subsidies, the ammonia prices need to be below 28 cents per kilo, or the fuel oil prices need to double (up to USD 1.4 per kilo), but this is possible only in case the carbon tax is USD 200 per one ton of CO₂.

Hence, according to the Dutch researchers, ammonia applications remain an interesting decarbonisation option, but practical use of this fuel will require not only a technological breakthrough, but also strict government regulation.

Photo credit: Venti Views on Unsplash
Published: 16 June 2025