Marine fuels
Overview
The introduction of new regulations has caused fundamental change across the marine fuel markets. Reliable insight and data reflecting the market direction are more pressing than ever.
Gain daily transparency into the difference between conventional and alternative marine fuel prices and plan ahead more effectively with our market outlook and forecasts.
Our global coverage of marine fuels delivers market-driven price assessments, supply and demand data, price forecasts, and forward curve prices. Along with the latest news, market commentary, and in-depth analysis led by our market experts, our comprehensive insight helps your business decide on the best suited alternative marine fuel for your needs.
Latest marine fuels news
Browse the latest market moving news on the marine fuels industry.
Weaker demand pressures Singapore April bunker prices
Weaker demand pressures Singapore April bunker prices
Singapore, 5 May (Argus) — Conventional bunker prices in Singapore trended down in April as sellers kept prices competitive to secure deals amid weaker downstream demand and prolonged backwardation. Average prices for very-low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) in April stood at $746.98/t delivered on board (dob), up by 52pc on the year, but down by almost 16pc from March when prices surged because of concerns of supply disruptions stemming from the US-Iran war. Steep backwardation in the VLSFO cargo market slowed trade in the downstream market, triggering a more aggressive sell-off by some physical suppliers in late March, when Singapore bunker trades surfaced at a discount to cargo prices. Backwardation for May-June narrowed to $15/t on 21 April — compared to record highs in the week of 13 March when the March-April spread widened to $100-130/t — but many sellers were still keen to offload inventories given weak demand in the retail bunker market. April VLSFO bunker prices in Singapore remained competitive as many buyers delayed trading because of elevated prices within the energy complex, and delivered VLSFO prices flipped to a discount of around $3/t against cargo again on 23 April. But blendstock components for VLSFO continues to be tight, which may provide some support for VLSFO prices if the shortage persists through May. Meanwhile, average prices for high-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) rose by 55pc year on year to $665.11/t dob after Iran's blockade of the strait of Hormuz restricted flows to Asia Pacific, but prices have corrected downwards by 10pc month on month. Middle East HSFO volumes make up around 40pc of Singapore's monthly imports, but bunker participants noted that delivered supplies remain ample from earlier inventories and floating storages around the region. More HSFO arbitrage flows have also been diverted from Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela to Singapore , and many buyers preferred waiting on the sidelines for clearer price signals if bunkering schedules were not urgent. Likewise, the war in the Middle East amplified concerns of a supply crunch for low-sulphur marine gasoil (LSMGO) in Singapore, and average April prices more than doubled on the year to $1,481.65/t dob. But LSMGO prices fell by 10pc from average March prices, given that panic surrounding LSMGO supply tightness within Asia eased, and sellers lowered offer levels to entice buying interest. Singapore LSMGO prices flipped to a discount of around $29/t against Zhoushan LSMGO prices on 8 April, and the discount against the Zhoushan equivalent price widened further to around $56/t on 30 April. But a supplier noted that spot demand for LSMGO in April had been weak, given that some vessel owners preferred bunkering at Chinese ports given competitive fuel oil prices. By Cassia Teo Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
IMO net-zero framework consensus remains elusive
IMO net-zero framework consensus remains elusive
London, 1 May (Argus) — Consensus at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 84) this week remained elusive, with the US leading countries opposed to the proposed Net-Zero Framework (NZF) for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. By late Friday evening, the majority of member states reached an agreement on the J7 document, which sets out future work for the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships to be held between now and November. The current proposed draft of the NZF , would require ships to reduce their fuel intensity by at least 4pc in 2028, rising to 30pc in 2035, creating a global carbon levy for shipping emissions. The creation of the NZF was approved at MEPC 83 in April 2025, but the planned approval of the regulation in October 2025 was postponed to this October because of a lack of consensus. Countries this week reviewed and debated plans for the proposed NZF, in hopes of finding consensus ahead of the October vote. Several countries this week sought to reshape the NZF proposal, with changes to the GHG pricing mechanism and global fuel intensity (GFI) guidelines. But the atmosphere at MEPC 84 was markedly more constructive than in the October meeting, some delegates told Argus . Formal adoptions at MEPC 84 focused on ballast water management, marine plastic litter and bio fouling, while discussions on the decarbonisation of the shipping industry were treated as preparatory ahead of the planned October vote. IMO officials repeatedly framed the talks as an effort to avoid a repeat of last year's breakdown and to prepare the ground for agreement later this year. Proposals by Liberia and Japan As part of the dialogue this week, member states proposed 57 amendments to the NZF. Several delegations reiterated their support for the revised NZF proposal submitted by Liberia, co-sponsored by Argentina and Panama, and a delegate told Argus this appears to be the main suggestion considered by IMO member states. The Liberian proposal calls for adjusting the Global Fuel Intensity (GFI) trajectory to reflect the demonstrated availability and uptake of low-carbon fuels, rather than fixed aspirational targets, and proposes to remove the creation of an IMO-managed fund financed by penalty payments. Under the proposal, fuels would qualify as compliant only if they meet defined viability criteria, including affordability, availability and scalability, with costs capped at no more than 15pc above conventional bunker fuels. But member states' views diverged mainly on the IMO-managed fund and the penalty payments determined in the draft on which members failed to reach consensus in October 2025. Japan's proposal also emerged strengthened from the meeting, a delegate said. The submission seeks the removal of mandatory payments to the IMO Net-Zero Fund. Instead, Japan proposes that compliance deficits should be balanced solely through market mechanisms, allowing ships to meet obligations by transferring surplus units generated by over compliant vessels. The proposal also calls for easing the Global Fuel Intensity (GFI) reduction trajectory from 2030 onwards. Continued lack of consensus The US, Russia, UAE, Saudi Arabia and others were opposed to the framework, while the EU, UK, China, Brazil and India were in favour. US delegate and Federal Maritime Commission chair Laura DiBella said the NZF is an unnecessary tax on US shippers and vessels operating in international waters. "The NZF would cost the maritime industry billions of dollars annually," DiBella said. "As the largest consumer of imported goods, these costs will be directly passed onto US consumers." Last year, the US threatened to retaliate against countries that backed the proposal. The deferral of the vote last October caused price declines in several alternative bunker fuel markets last year. Without at least a two-thirds majority consensus in favour of the framework, the IMO could potentially vote to adjourn or reject the NZF in October. Despite the conflict of views, IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez emphasised progress made in inter-sessional talks on the technical backbone of the framework, particularly GHG fuel intensity calculation guidelines, fuel certification and life cycle assessment methodologies. MEPC 84 discussions also covered how to treat technologies such as onboard carbon capture and storage (CCS), for which the IMO is drafting a future framework. The IMO on Wednesday agreed to designate the North-East Atlantic ocean as an emissions control area (ECA). This should boost demand for lower emission bunker fuels, such as very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO), particularly for European LNG bunker markets, where methane slippage has increased in importance. By Madeleine Jenkins and Gabriel Tassi Lara Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Divisions deepen over carbon pricing ahead of IMO talks
Divisions deepen over carbon pricing ahead of IMO talks
Dubai, 27 April (Argus) — Shipping industry groups and governments enter a critical round of talks at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) this week facing deepening divisions over how to cut emissions, with no clear consensus on the design or cost of decarbonisation. The 84th meeting of the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), being held in London, follows a previous meeting in October that ended without agreement on a global emissions framework. IMO secretary=general Arsenio Dominguez later described the outcome as a "small setback", while stressing that the sector's decarbonisation efforts remain on track. At the centre of the dispute is the proposed net-zero framework (NZF), which includes a carbon pricing mechanism intended to accelerate the shift to low-emission fuels. Supporters see the framework as a necessary investment signal, while critics warn it would impose costs the sector is not yet equipped to absorb. A coalition spanning shipowners, shipping companies and ship registries — including Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands, which together account for a large share of the global fleet — has called for alternative approaches to be considered. The group has warned that support for the NZF "in its current form" has eroded. It is pushing for a more flexible, technology-neutral framework that would allow continued use of transitional fuels such as LNG and biofuels, while avoiding penalty-based mechanisms that could raise costs for operators and consumers. In contrast, a separate coalition of ports, logistics firms and clean fuel developers has urged governments to adopt the NZF, arguing that further delays would undermine investment in alternative fuels and slow the energy transition. The divergence highlights a deeper split within the shipping ecosystem. Shipowners and flag states are prioritising cost, fuel availability and operational feasibility at a time of heightened disruption in energy markets caused by the Iran war, while fuel suppliers and infrastructure developers are seeking regulatory certainty to underpin long-term investments. EU countries are expected to continue backing a carbon levy. The US has opposed such measures, which contributed to the postponement of a decision at last year's IMO meeting. Dominguez has also pointed to the current geopolitical environment — including disruptions to energy markets and shipping routes — as reinforcing the need to balance energy security, affordability and sustainability, a dynamic increasingly shaping the sector's approach to decarbonisation. Industry sources aligned with developing countries within the IMO told Argus that proposals based on carbon pricing or penalty mechanisms risk distorting trade flows and placing a disproportionate burden on emerging economies. They instead favour a more "pragmatic" and technology-neutral approach that reflects differing levels of fuel availability, infrastructure and economic capacity. The sources added that support from major flag states is procedurally significant, noting that backing from countries representing a large share of the global fleet will be critical to reaching any agreement. The result is a negotiation that is as much about cost allocation and regulatory design as it is about climate ambition. With no final decision expected at this week's meeting, discussions are likely to extend through the year, leaving shipowners, fuel producers and investors facing continued uncertainty over the future regulatory framework. Shipping accounts for around 3pc of global emissions and carries roughly 80pc of world trade, underscoring the importance of the IMO process for global energy markets and supply chains. By Bachar Halabi Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Shipping needs pragmatic decarbonisation approach: IMO
Shipping needs pragmatic decarbonisation approach: IMO
Singapore, 24 April (Argus) — The maritime sector's push towards net-zero emissions suffered a "small setback" at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting last October, but the industry needs a "pragmatic" approach given the current geopolitical climate, IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said at the Singapore Maritime Week (SMW) conference this week. The focus on decarbonisation "is not diminished", said Dominguez, adding that research and investment into decarbonising the sector is still ongoing. Freedom of navigation and the safety of crew remains top of mind for the maritime industry, and the IMO has proposed an evacuation framework for affected vessels in the Mideast Gulf. The sector is keeping close watch on the 84th Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) that will be held in London next week, and key shipping groups have expressed support for the IMO's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction ambitions ahead of the session. The US-Iran war foregrounds the energy trilemma between energy security, affordability, and sustainability, said SMW panellists, noting the maritime sector needs to balance all three components for a resilient transition to greener fuels, particularly as the shipping sector is "pulled in many directions" given short-term supply shocks and regional regulations. Recent supply shocks have shown countries need to diversify their economy and source for alternative fuel options, said Dominguez. But panellists emphasised that cost barriers have slowed the shift to greener fuels, since affordability requires scale and investment. One of the things that would drive the scale-up and investment in greener fuels is the certainty of regulations, said Stefan Nysjo, head of power supply at Finnish engine manufacturer Wartsila Marine Power. Supportive policies are "important when you're entering a market where there is no market", said ExxonMobil Asia Pacific chairman and managing director Geraldine Chin. A carbon accounting system underpinned by transparency is the way forward, said Chin, stressing that carbon intensity systems must be implemented on a total life cycle basis, and gradually such that it doesn't shock the market. Decarbonisation solutions "must be economic" and the market must depend on new technologies that would support the uptake of alternative fuels like ammonia, hydrogen, and methanol, she said. But several panellists noted that businesses are not waiting for regulations to be fixed before deciding what to do in terms of decarbonisation. We have to look at "what are the options today… and not in 20 years", said Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) head of maritime policy and government affairs Marie-Caroline Laurent. MSC had chosen the LNG pathway with the hope of progressing to bio-methane and e-methane in the future, although they are not closed to other fuel options. "The choice was a very practical one," said Laurent. Maersk has committed to low-carbon fuel options, with methanol being one of them, said its management and technology Leonardo Sonzio. The Danish container liner has net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2040, with intermediate targets by 2030. Smaller shipping firms may not have the luxury of choosing several fuel pathways, said shipping firm CMB.Tech's chief executive Alexander Saverys. Decarbonisation can only pick up when the cost of alternative fuels becomes "cheap compared to diesel", said Saverys, adding that CMB.Tech had chosen the ammonia pathway given its usage in other industrial sectors. Economist Martin Stopford said a lot of the "low hanging fruits" have been picked in the past 50 years, driven by demand for energy from crude, and the "move to a new era" of cleaner fuels would require higher costs, deeper knowledge and further efforts in development. By Cassia Teo Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Spotlight content
Browse the latest thought leadership produced by our global team of experts.
Middle East Conflict: Driving Biofuels Demand in Asia
Strait Talk - Pause or Peace?
Explore our marine fuels products
Argus marine fuel solutions provide global daily and forecasted prices for conventional and alternative marine fuel prices, as well as daily forward curves prices.
Key price assessments
Argus prices are recognised by the market as trusted and reliable indicators of the real market value. Explore some of our most widely used and relevant price assessments.
