The Singapore Shipping Association (SSA) recently released its latest edition of frequently asked questions (FAQ) on the bunkering of biofuels for ocean-going vessels in the Port of Singapore. 

This update covers the latest technical, commercial, test and regulatory guidance of biofuel bunkering and onboard use of marine biofuels. 

The focus of the document is on FAME-based liquid biofuels and blends as this type of biofuel is expected to become most widely adopted by the shipping industry. Other non-FAME-based biofuels have also been addressed where relevant.

It also covers commercial considerations, including biofuel supply and availability, market outlook, pricing, sustainability documentation, government incentives, and the commercial supply chain for biofuels in Singapore.

“This publication is relevant to technical, marine, operations, sustainability and compliance personnel of ship owners and operators,” SSA said in a social media post.

“The FAQ is intended to be only for informational purposes and is not exhaustive.”

Note: SSA’s ‘FAQ on Bunkering of Biofuels for Ocean-Going Vessels in the Port of Singapore’ can be read here. 

Photo credit: Singapore Shipping Association
Published: 1 September, 2026

Once a week, bunker intelligence platform ENGINE will publish a snapshot of alternative and conventional bunker fuel prices in the world’s two biggest bunkering hubs. The following is the latest snapshot:

31 August 2026

• Rotterdam B100 over $66/mt costlier than VLSFO
• LBM loses ground against HSFO
• Singapore VLSFO faces supply squeeze

B100’s premium over VLSFO in Rotterdam has widened to $67/mt, after the spread narrowed to just $10/mt last week. The same pattern has played out in Singapore, where B100’s premium over VLSFO has widened by $28/mt to $326/mt.

The OceanScore FuelEU Pooling Index, meanwhile, has barely moved for a second straight week, inching up by just €0.60/mtCO2e to €119.50/mtCO2e.

“Market activity has been subdued during the summer holiday period, with limited activity across the FuelEU pooling market,” OceanScore said. “Against this quieter backdrop, available offers continue to reflect differing seller strategies and underlying surplus generation costs,” it added.

Rotterdam’s liquefied biomethane (LBM) has also lost its regulation-driven edge against HSFO on EU-EU voyages.

For vessels with diesel slow-speed (SS) engines, LBM has flipped from a $6/mt discount to HSFO last week to a $117/mt premium. For vessels with Otto medium-speed (MS) engines, its premium has widened by $121/mt to $284/mt.

LBM has also become less competitive against VLSFO. Its premium over VLSFO for Otto MS vessels has widened by $87/mt to $153/mt, while its discount for diesel SS vessels has shrunk by $89/mt to just $14/mt.

Liquid fuels

Rotterdam’s conventional bunker fuel prices have dropped by $13-58/mt over the past week, while B100 has moved sharply in the opposite direction, gaining $43/mt. The port’s B30-VLSFO and B30-LSMGO prices have risen by $67/mt and $41/mt, respectively.

The ARA has seen low bunker demand of late. Fuel availability in the bunkering hub is tight for prompt supplies, with recommended lead times of around 5-7 days to get good coverage, a trader told ENGINE.

The Dutch ZRE A price has gained €22.50/mtCO2e over the past week to €152.50/mtCO2e.

Singapore’s conventional bunker fuel prices have dropped by $37-56/mt over the past week and its B100 has declined by a much smaller $9/mt.

VLSFO availability in Singapore remains tight, with lead times varying significantly between suppliers from 7 to 19 days. A source attributed the tightness to reduced supply and shortages of blending components.

Liquid gases

Rotterdam’s LNG prices have gained $46-48/mt over the past week, depending on engine type. LNG holds $243-402/mt premiums over VLSFO, and $85-244/mt discounts to LSMGO in Rotterdam.

LBM prices have risen even more sharply, surging by $74-76/mt on the week. LBM’s discounts to LNG in Rotterdam have narrowed slightly to $249-257/mt.

Singapore’s LNG prices have edged lower by $3-4/mt.

By Konica Bhatt

Photo credit and source: ENGINE
Published: 1 September, 2026

China’s growing role in the marine fuels market is reshaping the competitive dynamics between Chinese bunkering hubs and established centres such as Singapore.

 In this interview with Manifold Times, Dr Kang Wu, Energy Economist specialising in China and Southeast Asia at Global Energy Research and Educational Training Pte. Ltd., discusses the impact of China’s bonded bunker fuel tax rebate, domestic refining and import trends, the adoption of LNG and methanol, and pricing differentials with Singapore, while also examining China’s surplus of UCOME:

MT: How has China’s 2020 VAT rebate policy for bonded bunker fuel, especially for low-sulphur fuel oil, affected the competitiveness of Chinese ports like Zhoushan in comparison to traditional hubs like Singapore?

The impact has been significant, mainly because the rebate extends beyond the VAT. Effective February 2020, the Chinese government introduced a rebate policy for the 13% VAT on China’s fuel oil exports (including bunker fuels) to bonded areas. More importantly, the rebate also covers the fuel oil consumption tax, which amounts to 1,218 yuan per metric tonne (mt), or roughly $27/bbl. This policy has fundamentally transformed the economics of China’s fuel oil exports to bonded areas. However, as discussed below, China still needs to import large volumes of bunker fuel because domestic supply remains insufficient to meet demand. 

MT: With China’s independent refiners (teapots) now producing more compliant low-sulphur fuel oil, what share of China’s bonded bunker demand is now met domestically vs. imported from places like  Malaysia or Russia?

Although independent (“teapot”) refiners cannot export bunker fuels directly as they do not have export quotas, their increased production helps quota-holding national oil companies (NOCs) as well as Zhejiang Petroleum & Chemical Co., Ltd. expand their exports. However, it is worth noting that China’s overall fuel oil production has been declining in recent years because refiners increasingly use deep conversion processes to maximise the production of lighter products and petrochemical feedstocks. In 2025, China exported a record 376,000 b/d of fuel oil, the vast majority of which was shipped to bonded areas. At the same time, China imported 396,000 b/d of fuel oil, primarily from Russia, Malaysia and Singapore, down from the record 514,000 b/d imported in 2024. These imports and exports together form the foundation of China’s bonded-area fuel oil market.

MT: Given China’s push for LNG bunkering and its IMO 2030/2050 decarbonisation targets, how quickly are Chinese ports and shipowners adopting LNG or methanol bunker infrastructure compared to conventional VLSFO?

Indeed, China has made a major push to promote LNG and green methanol as marine bunker fuels, and progress has been steady. However, given the relatively low starting base, their rising impact on VLSFO consumption is expected to be gradual.

MT: How do fluctuations in China’s industrial production and coal imports (via dry bulk carriers) directly correlate with bonded bunker fuel demand at major Chinese ports?

Bonded bunker fuel demand at major Chinese ports is indeed influenced by China’s overall import and export activities. Although China’s coal imports have declined since reaching a record high of 543 million mt in 2024, the country’s total merchandise trade volume has continued to grow year by year. At the same time, China’s GDP growth has slowed compared with a decade ago. In addition, structural changes in trade patterns and shipping routes (such as a decline of exports to the US and a surge of exports to other countries) have also affected bunker fuel demand. A more detailed analysis is needed to determine the precise relationship between trade activity and bonded bunker fuel demand.

MT: What is the typical price spread between Chinese bonded bunker fuel and Singapore’s delivered bunker prices, and how do factors like China’s export quotas or refinery maintenance create arbitrage opportunities?

Following the introduction of the tax rebate policy discussed above, Chinese ports have gained a pricing advantage in the bunker fuel market, as more competitively priced bunker fuel produced domestically has become available. As a result, China’s delivered bunker fuel prices have typically traded at a discount of $15–30/mt to those in Singapore. However, prices fluctuate, and China’s bonded bunker fuel prices are not always lower than Singapore’s for three main reasons. First, China still needs to import large volumes of fuel oil, including VLSFO, into its bonded areas. Consequently, prices in these markets remain closely linked to Singapore’s delivered bunker prices. Second, the volume and timing of export quota allocations to the NOCs play an important role in determining the availability of domestically produced bunker fuel in bonded areas. At times, limited quota availability can tighten supply, resulting in shortages at China’s bonded ports. Third, during periods of geopolitical or market disruption, such as the Iran conflict since February 2026, market fundamentals can change rapidly, leading to heightened price volatility.  The bottom line is that, regardless of the absolute price spread between China and Singapore, fluctuations in the spread and China’s need to import bunker fuels continue to create arbitrage opportunities for traders.

MT: Anti-dumping duties and policies introduced by the European Commission and western regulators have resulted in overcapacity of UCOME in China; given the material cannot obtain ISCC EU certification to be blended as bio-bunker fuel (i.e. EU ETS, carbon credits), what will be your advice to Chinese holders of excess UCOME?

Like many other renewable energy products (such as solar panels) and electric vehicles, China’s UCOME industry has expanded rapidly and now faces growing trade barriers in Western markets because of its strong export growth. While there are no easy solutions for producers with excess capacity, several strategies could help.  First, producers should continue improving efficiency and reducing costs to remain competitive despite the import duties and other trade measures imposed by the EU and some other developed economies. Second, they should diversify export markets beyond the EU by targeting emerging opportunities in advanced economies such as Singapore. In particular, Singapore could leverage China’s surplus UCOME supply to accelerate the development of its sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and bio-bunkering industries. Finally, China’s UCOME industry could encourage the Chinese government to expand domestic blending mandates, including greater use of SAF and bio-bunkering fuels, to stimulate domestic demand and help absorb excess production.

Dr Wu will be leading a two-day executive briefing, China Oil Market Dynamics, held on 26 to 27 October in Singapore. The intensive briefing will provide a comprehensive outlook on China’s oil market through 2035, covering the key market, policy, economic and structural forces shaping its future. More information on the event and registration can be found here.

Photo credit: Kang Wu
Published: 28 August, 2026