Julie Louise Nielsen, Global Head of Bunker Sales at StormGeo, highlighted to Singapore-based bunkering publication Manifold Times that the UAE’s departure from OPEC marks a more significant shift than the earlier exits of Qatar and Angola, reflecting the country’s strategic importance as a major producer with substantial spare capacity.

Nielsen said the move is expected to increase uncertainty in crude and marine fuel markets, prompting shipping companies to strengthen bunker procurement strategies through greater use of digital decision-support platforms: 

MT: How significant is the UAE’s departure from OPEC compared with previous exits by Qatar and Angola, and what does it mean for OPEC’s ability to influence global oil markets?

The UAE’s exit is materially more significant than Qatar’s or Angola’s because the UAE has been one of OPEC’s most strategically important producers, with meaningful spare capacity and a much larger role in market balancing. Qatar’s departure in 2019 and Angola’s in 2024 were important politically, but they were smaller in market impact. The UAE’s move is therefore more than symbolic – it raises a real question about how much cohesion OPEC can still maintain, and whether the group can continue to steer prices as effectively as it has in the past.

MT: How might this development affect expectations for crude oil and marine fuel prices over the next 12 to 24 months?

In the next 12 to 24 months, I would expect the market to price in a little less discipline and a little more uncertainty. If the UAE uses its new flexibility to lift output, that could cap upside in crude over time, but the bigger effect may be on volatility rather than direction. For marine fuel buyers, that means more frequent swings in bunker costs and less confidence that prices will stay in a narrow range for long. In StormGeo we already see a spike of interest for our s-Bunker solution which includes one of the market’s most advanced bunker planner solutions. Companies are facing the issue of keeping up with the market volatility, and see the benefits of having a solution recommending where to bunker and how much, as well as having a full audit trail of the decision to prove that this was the right decision at the time. We have also lately hosted a webinar about this, which also showed us the real interest from the market, with many participants as well as many good questions.

MT: Could the weakening of OPEC’s cohesion lead to more regional disparities in bunker fuel pricing across major ports?

Yes, most probably. A less cohesive OPEC means the market becomes increasingly influenced by regional supply dynamics and geopolitical events rather than coordinated production policy. For shipping, the Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most critical chokepoints, with around one-fifth of global oil passing through it. Any disruption – whether from political tensions, security incidents, or shipping restrictions – can quickly affect crude availability, freight costs, insurance premiums, and ultimately bunker prices in ports across the Middle East and Asia. As a result, we are likely to see greater regional price disparities, where local market conditions become just as important as movements in global crude benchmarks.

MT: How does increased fuel price volatility affect bunker procurement strategies and voyage planning?

Volatility pushes shipping companies to be much more disciplined in how they buy fuel and plan voyages. Instead of relying on fixed assumptions, they need to time purchases more carefully, compare more ports, and test whether a deviation or a different stem location actually improves net voyage economics. It also makes scenario planning more important, because a small change in bunker price can quickly alter voyage margin, cargo economics, and even routing decisions. I foresee that those companies who are not considering going digital on bunker management will fall short compared to their competitors who have already implemented a fully digital process for their voyage optimization.

MT: How can digital bunker management and voyage optimisation platforms help shipowners navigate a more volatile fuel market?

Digital platforms help by giving owners better visibility, faster decision-making, and a more consistent way to compare fuel options across ports, suppliers, and voyage scenarios. In a volatile market, the value is not just automation – it is control: being able to see expected cost, compare alternatives quickly, and lock in a better decision before the market moves. They also help reduce manual work, which matters when procurement teams are making more decisions under tighter time pressure. What I believe is important as well is to not silo the voyage optimizations. Combining your full voyage optimization with a software provider having a full end-to-end solution is key, to ensure that all decisions are made on the same data inputs. In StormGeo, we are proud of being a one-solution provider, and we do see that this is becoming a growing requirement from the market.

MT: Have you observed growing demand from shipping companies for real-time bunker pricing and procurement tools in recent years? Could you share some data to demonstrate this?

Yes, without question. Over the past few years, we’ve seen a clear shift in how shipping companies approach bunker procurement. Rising fuel costs, increased market volatility, and a greater focus on operational efficiency have all driven demand for real-time pricing, market intelligence, and digital procurement tools.

That said, we still meet companies that believe their current manual bunker procurement process is the right way of working. A common response is, “We’re already performing well.” I never challenge whether they are doing something wrong – that’s for them to conclude. Instead, I ask a simple question: How do you know you’re performing well if you’re not using data to measure it? And this questions are very often not being met with an answer, but more a questionable expression. In today’s shipping industry, where digital solutions are transforming almost every operational process, I still find it surprising that some organizations remain hesitant to embrace data-driven decision-making in bunker procurement.

Companies that have adopted digital solutions are no longer looking for a simple list of bunker prices. They want the ability to compare suppliers, evaluate alternative bunker ports, understand the commercial impact of different procurement strategies, and make informed decisions based on real-time market intelligence. This is particularly important when fuel remains one of the largest operating expenses for a vessel.

We continue to see growing adoption of digital bunker management solutions among both shipowners and operators, and our onboarding pipeline continues to grow. More companies are moving away from manual, spreadsheet-based processes towards integrated platforms that combine live pricing, procurement workflows, voyage planning, and advanced data analytics. Based on customer performance reviews conducted after implementing our platform, we frequently see bunker cost improvements of up to USD 30 per metric tons compared with previous manual procurement processes. Beyond the direct financial savings, the objective is to improve transparency, reduce administrative workload, and enable procurement teams to make faster, more informed decisions in an increasingly volatile fuel market.

Photo credit:StormGeo
Published: 1 July, 2026

In shipping law, in rem proceedings are unique as a claim may be brought against the ship itself as a separate legal entity rather than the owner personally. This is what allows a ship to be arrested and used as security for such a claim.

Earlier this year, the Singapore High Court in The “Yangtze Harmony” [2026] SGHC 3 clarified an unanswered question: whether the court can lift a “stay” on in rem proceedings – which had earlier been put on hold in favor of arbitration. The court has now confirmed that it can. This means that if a party wins an arbitration, it can return to court and enforce the award as a judgment against the ship or its judicial sale proceeds.

Multi-disciplinary law firm Helmsman LLC focuses on the significance of the “Yangtze Harmony” judgment in enforcing arbitral awards in rem proceedings:

MT: How are arbitration claims against ships usually enforced in Singapore?

In shipping disputes, it is common for a claimant to start court proceedings against a ship to arrest the ship as security, even though the dispute is to be decided by arbitration. These proceedings are then stayed, pending the arbitration’s conclusion, while the claim remains secured in the form of (a) the arrested ship, or (b) its sale proceeds, or (c) any alternate form of security (such as a bank guarantee or an insurer’s letter of undertaking).

Ordinarily, arbitration awards are enforceable only against the parties named in the award (i.e. in personam). If a shipowner fails to pay, the award holder must enforce the award against the shipowner. The significance of the Yangtze Harmony judgment is that it allows an award holder to enforce the award directly against the ship which it previously arrested. This is crucial for cases against one-ship companies where the ship (or its sale proceeds) may be the only meaningful asset for recovery.

MT: If a ship is sold, where do bunker claims rank in getting paid?

While the decision makes enforcement easier, it does not affect the priority in which sale proceeds are distributed. In Singapore, judicial sale proceeds generally satisfy claims in an order of priorities. Higher ranking claims such as dues, Sheriff costs and secured claims are paid first.

A claim for bunkers supplied for a ship’s operation or maintenance are typically considered a statutory lien claim, which ranks at the bottom of the priorities ladder. Bunker suppliers are only paid from whatever funds remain and they share this equally with other similar claimants. A bunker supplier may not know what other high ranking claims exist until after the vessel is arrested or sold. If those claims are substantial, there may be little or nothing left to satisfy bunker claims.

MT: Can bunker suppliers improve their chances of getting paid?

The court has the power to alter the order of priorities when it is equitable to do so, but it is rare and requires evidence of exceptional circumstances. Ordinarily, a claim for the price of unpaid bunkers would not meet this threshold.

While the Yangtze Harmony brings welcome clarity to allow enforcement of arbitral awards as in rem judgments, this does not guarantee recovery, given the risk of priorities. Bunker suppliers in particular should carefully assess the likelihood of being paid in the event of a judicial sale before taking steps such as arresting a ship.

Photo credit: Helmsman
Published: 17 June, 2026

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