The International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) will hold its annual convention on 10-12 November in New York, ahead of the International Maritime Organization (IMO)'s MEPC 85 meeting later in the month. Participants will be looking for greater clarity on the proposed net-zero framework and its implications for investment, fuel pathways and the pace of the shipping sector's energy transition.
Ahead of the IBIA annual convention, Argus spoke with IBIA's president Adrian Tolson about the industry's expectations for the event and the forthcoming MEPC 85, the outlook for ethanol and biodiesel in the Americas, and the challenges for LNG in North America.
Regulatory certainty is the maritime sector's most urgent need, said Tolson. But he expressed skepticism that the current IMO Net Zero Framework proposal would pass without significant compromises. He also warned that prolonged uncertainty has delayed investment in alternative-fuel infrastructure, while stressing that no single fuel is likely to dominate the sector's energy transition. Instead, biofuels may play a larger role in South America than in North America, where policy incentives make them less competitive, while LNG remains constrained by infrastructure bottlenecks despite abundant US production.
The bunker industry will gather at the IBIA conference just weeks before a potentially decisive MEPC 85 . What is IBIA's expectation for the meeting and how important is it to have a net-zero framework approved by the end of this year?
A global regulation is very important. It's important to have a consistent regulation on a global basis.
What the industry wants to avoid with the IMO meeting is some sort of regulations that coexist in the world and that are inconsistent with one another.
And what is decided in fact doesn't matter that much, what is important is to have some sort of decision and some sort of clarity.
But when you look at the net-zero framework as it was proposed initially, my view is that the regulation is in trouble and is unlikely to pass. What will come out of it is a bit hard to say, but I think there will be a compromise at some level, and I think it will not include any version of the net-zero fund that was proposed initially.
Our expectations are not brilliant right now. This could change in the next couple of weeks. There might be new compromises, but I'm not optimistic.
Until the IMO provides a clear net-zero framework and emissions rules for each fuel pathway, the industry has paused some investments in production, storage, and bunkering infrastructure needed to support the energy transition. Once there is an adopted and approved framework, is the sector in a comfortable position to tackle the new regulatory regime?
I think the answer to that is no.
Many of the projects that were proposed were related to the net-zero framework passing, and many of those projects have already failed to get to FID [final investment decision]. So the uncertainty has slowed down the process. And there are external events that also brought investments to an impasse. In the US, some of the Inflation Recovery Act measures had an impact on production of hydrogen-based fuels.
There haven't been big infrastructure investments in alternative fuels in the Americas already. Most of the investment in alternative fuels that contribute to maritime decarbonization have been made for other reasons, like all the investments in LNG. And if you look at the other alternative fuels in the maritime area, there is limited investment at the moment.
There is going to be a challenge if suddenly we are all surprised in early December if the IMO approves the existing net-zero framework. The industry would need to rush. But it is possible to build projects once there is regulatory certainty. I think the regulatory part will kickstart everything else. Until then, you won't see much.
Talking about geopolitical tensions and their impact on bunker fuels, since the start of the US-Iran war, MGO prices have doubled at some ports and it is now traded close to $1500/metric tonne (t) . Has this price surge driven a push for greater energy security and more alternative fuel options in the bunker sector? Has there been a tangible impact on investments?
It hasn't happened yet. I mean, a short-term event like this, I don't think it will, by itself, drive a big shift in alternative fuel policy or anything like that.
But it becomes a relevant point for governments, policy makers and investors when they look at the alternative fuels potential.
It seems increasingly clear to the market that there will be no single "fuel of the future", but rather a mix of fuels that takes into account the potential of each region, as well as the economic viability within each country and port. Now looking at only the Americas, could we say that the fuel of the future will likely be biofuels — ethanol and biodiesel?
I think we can't assume that. The region has capacity for production of both fuels.
Biodiesel and renewable diesel are drop-in fuels, which makes it more interesting when compared to other possibilities. But the challenge in the United States is the Renewable Fuels Act and the RIN system, which make biofuels of every nature in the US very expensive to the bunker sector because selling products as road fuel has more governmental incentives. And the Act seems unlikely to be changed any time in the short term.
But in Latin America it is different. There has been some development on biodiesel supply. In this region, bio could be more competitive. The US also has similar ethanol production capability, but it faces the internal regulatory factor. I just got back from SIBCON in Singapore, where the Brazilian biofuels and bioethanol groups were there and showed strong supply capacity. For ethanol the challenge is bigger than for biodiesel, of course, because you need alcohol engines and a strong global regulation. And there are also storage requirements, barging requirements, that are slightly more rigorous in terms of safety. But in Brazil, there's plenty of bioethanol storage because Brazil's been using ethanol for more than 60 years. I think the appeal of the alcohol fuels is that they would use existing infrastructure, and there is supply available. So they are a better fit [within] the energy transition.
The only issue is that the market still needs to be convinced to buy an alcohol engine. By now, the market size is still limited and potential demand is limited at the moment.
We will probably see a small amount of biodiesel, renewable diesel supply in North America. And we will see more bio in South America.
In North America, is LNG more attractive than biofuels?
We can say that. It is more primed for growth than bio. But LNG has its challenges too.
The US is a massive producer of LNG, and there are a lot of LNG bunkering activities going on, but not in the major ports.
And also there is a considerable number of vessels being built that can run on LNG.
The challenge is to put the infrastructure in place. There is no liquefaction facility on the US west coast except a very small one in Puget Sound, Washington.
There are plenty of liquefaction facilities on the US Gulf coast. But almost none of them can load a bunker barge because most of them are built to supply huge vessels, and not bunker barges, which are very small. The whole US Gulf coast with all its millions and millions of cubic feet of gas exports can't actually load a bunker barge. It's just because they weren't built to load small vessels. The east coast has few facilities too.
Despite significant storage capacity, it lacks suitable bunker infrastructure. And a facility and even a bunker barge, because of regulatory issues in the US, [require] huge investment.
