• 28 August 2024
  • Market: Crude, Freight

From 1967 until the oil crisis of 1973 there were orders for about 80 very large crude carriers (VLCC) and 40 ultra large crude carriers (ULCC), according to engine manufacturer Wartsila. This boom was followed by the total collapse of the newbuild market for these tankers until the middle of the 1980s. Since then, over 400 VLCC have been ordered, but it took more than 20 years before the next ULCC contract was signed.

The new TI class of ULCCs were delivered in the early 2000s, but within a decade most had been converted to floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessels (FSOs) for use in the Mideast Gulf and southeast Asia. Prizing quantity over flexibility, these ships were wider than the new Panama Canal locks (begun in 2007 and completed in 2016), and could not travel through the Suez Canal unless on a ballast voyage.

Their massive capacity of more than 3mn barrels of crude oil reflected climbing global oil demand – almost double what it was in 1973 – and China’s arrival as the world's largest importer of crude oil. Some forecasters now predict oil demand will peak in 2030, reducing the need for supertankers, but other forces have seen shipowners and others return to newbuilding markets for VLCCs in recent months.

Pandemics, infrastructure projects, price wars and actual wars have moved and lengthened trade flows in the last four years, making larger vessels more attractive because of their economies of scale. These have impacted the make-up of the global tanker fleet in other ways as well, such as prompting a small recovery in interest in small Panamax tankers, which have long been sliding out of existence.

The role of vessel size in tanker freight markets is sometimes underappreciated. In the wake of the G7+ ban on imports of Russian crude and oil and products, and attacks on merchant shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden by Yemen’s Houthi militants, flows of crude oil have had to make massive diversions. Russian crude oil is flowing now to India and China rather than to Europe, while Europe’s imports of oil, diesel and jet fuel from the Mideast Gulf are taking two weeks longer, going around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid Houthi attacks. This has pushed up tonne-miles – a measure of shipping demand – to record levels. Global clean Long Range 2 (LR2) tanker tonne-miles rose to a record high in May this year, data from analytics firm Kpler show, while tonne-miles for dirty Aframax tankers rose to a record high in May last year. It has also supported freight rates.

 

 

High freight rates have brought smaller vessels into competition with larger tankers, at the same time as long routes have increased the appeal of larger ships. The Atlantic basin appears to be key site for increases in production (from the US, Brazil, Guyana and even Namibia), and an eastward shift in refining capacity globally will further entrench these long routes and demand for economies of scale.

Aframax and LR2 tankers are the same sized ships carrying around 80,000-120,000t of crude oil or products. LR2 tankers have coated tanks, which allows them to carry both dirty and clean cargoes, and shipowners may switch their

LR2/Aframax vessels between the clean and dirty markets, with expensive cleaning, depending on which offers them the best returns. But an unusually high number of VLCCs – at least six – have also switched from dirty to clean recently. Shipowner Okeanis, which now has three of its VLCCs transporting clean products, said it had cleaned up another one in the third quarter.

A VLCC switching from crude to products is very rare. Switching to clean products from crude is estimated to cost around $1mn for a VLCC. It takes several days to clean the vessel's tanks, during which time the tanker is not generating revenue. But a seasonal slide in VLCC rates in the northern hemisphere this summer has made cleaning an attractive option for shipowners, while their economies of scale make the larger tankers more attractive to clean charterers as product voyages lengthen.

Argus assessed the cost of shipping a 280,000t VLCC of crude from the Mideast Gulf to northwest Europe or the Mediterranean averaged $10.52/t in June, much lower than the average cost of $67.94/t for shipping a 90,000t LR2 clean oil cargo on the same route in the same period. It is likely these vessels will stay in the products market, as cleaning a ship is a costly undertaking for a single voyage.

Typically, a VLCC will only carry a clean cargo when it is new and on its inaugural voyage, but just one new VLCC has joined the fleet this year, further incentivising traders to clean up vessels as demand for larger ones increases. This year has seen a jump in demand for new VLCCs, with 29 ordered so far. There were 20 ordered in 2023, just six in 2023 and 32 in the whole of 2021, Kpler data show. But the vast majority of these new VLCCs will not hit the water until 2026, 2027 or later because of a shortage of shipyard capacity.

Last year and 2024 also saw the first substantial newbuilding orders for Panamax tankers, also called LR1s, since 2017. Product tanker owner Hafnia and trader Mercuria recently partnered to launch a Panamax pool. The rationale may be that Panamax vessels can pass through the older locks at the Panama Canal, and so are not subject to the same draft restrictions imposed because of drought that has throttled transits and led to shipowners paying exorbitant auction fees to transit.

 

Aframaxes and MRs will remain the workhorses of crude and product tanker markets respectively, but the stretching and discombobulation of trade routes (which appear likely to stay) has already driven changes in which vessels are used and which are ordered. When these ships hit the water, they will join a tanker market very different to the one owners and charterers were operating in just four years ago.

Related news

News
06/12/24

US H2 hopes at risk with 45V uncertainty: Industry

US H2 hopes at risk with 45V uncertainty: Industry

Houston, 6 December (Argus) — US hydrogen industry developers need more clarity on federal production tax credits (PTC) before moving forward with projects but are hopeful they can convince the incoming administration of the benefits they represent. A raft of hydrogen projects were announced in the US after President Joe Biden announced billions of dollars in federal funding and tax credits for hydrogen within the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But much of that euphoria fizzled after the US Treasury last December proposed rules mimicking European standards that some in the industry argue are too stringent and would make many projects, especially those using natural gas, uneconomical. "Everyone looked at the US as a very promising market but the reality is that as time goes by uncertainty is growing," said Ana Quelhas, managing director of hydrogen at EDP, on a panel this week at the Reuters EnergyLive conference in Houston, Texas. "There's a big question mark related to the implementation of 45V and that's very bad for investors." The US still has the opportunity to be a leader in hydrogen if it can implement rules around how the 45V credit is applied correctly, said Tomeka McLeod, vice president of hydrogen at BP. If so-called blue projects — which make hydrogen from natural gas — can get the full $3/kg credit, "... it would make our projects some of the most competitive globally," McLeod said. Rules related to the use of renewable and certified natural gas in hydrogen production still need to be "hammered out," she said. BP aims to have 5-10 projects online by the end of decade but McLeod says they will be evaluated by the same internal standards of any other project. "We need to make sure that the economics of those projects work, they need to be able to compete within our portfolio," she said. BP is part of the Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen (MachH2) that recently received $1bn in Department of Energy (DOE) funding and plans to produce hydrogen from natural gas with carbon capture to power its Whiting refinery in Indiana. Christmas gift or lump of coal Many of those gathered at the conference in Houston this week said they hoped further guidance would arrive "like a Christmas present" in the waning weeks of the year, and the Biden administration would sew up any lingering details before leaving office. Nonetheless, they still expect to be subjected to further scrutiny under the Trump administration, which has made clear its disdain for clean-energy mandates. Learning to speak to the concerns of the new administration will be crucial to success, industry leaders said, including explaining hydrogen's role in promoting national security and job creation. "We need to educate this incoming administration and collaborate and make sure that the momentum that is already here continues, and [show] that we can actually do the right thing from a national energy security perspective," said Sanjay Shrestha, president of Plug Power, a company that develops hydrogen fuel cells to replace conventional batteries. Keystate Energy chief executive Perry Babb, whose company is looking to produce clean hydrogen in Pennsylvania, said aligning with the administration's goals as well as a solid business case will be key to survival. "We will need to speak the language of the administration," Babb said. By Jasmina Kelemen Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Find out more
News

Republicans weigh two-step plan on energy, taxes


06/12/24
News
06/12/24

Republicans weigh two-step plan on energy, taxes

Washington, 6 December (Argus) — Republicans in the US Congress are considering trying to pass president-elect Donald Trump's legislative agenda by voting first on a filibuster-proof budget package that revises energy policy, then taking up a separate tax cut bill later in 2025. The two-part strategy, floated by incoming US Senate majority leader John Thune (R-South Dakota), could deliver Trump an early win by putting immigration, border security and energy policy changes into a single budget bill that could pass early next year without Democratic support. Republicans would then have more time to debate a separate — and likely more complex — budget package that would focus on extending a tax package expected to cost more than $4 trillion over 10 years. The legislative strategy is a "possibility" floated among Senate Republicans for achieving Trump's legislative goals on "energy dominance," the border, national security and extending tax cuts, Thune said in an interview with Fox News this week. Thune said he was still having conversations with House Republicans and Trump's team on what strategy to pursue. Republicans plan to use a process called budget reconciliation to advance most of Trump's legislative goals, which would avoid a Democratic filibuster but restrict the scope of policy changes to those that directly affect the budget. But some Republicans worry the potential two-part strategy could fracture the caucus and cause some key policies getting dropped, spurring a debate among Republicans over how to move forward. "We have a menu of options in front of us," US House speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) said this week in an interview with Fox News. "Leader Thune and I were talking as recently as within the last hour about the priority of how we do it and in what sequence." Republicans have yet to decide what changes they will make to the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes hundreds of billions of dollars of tax credits for wind, solar, electric vehicles, battery manufacturing, carbon capture and clean hydrogen. A group of 18 House Republicans in August said they opposed a "full repeal" of the 2022 law. Republicans next year will start with only a 220-215 majority in the House, which will then drop to 217-215 once two Republicans join the Trump administration and representative Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) resigns. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Denmark's wind tender flop linked to H2 network doubts


06/12/24
News
06/12/24

Denmark's wind tender flop linked to H2 network doubts

London, 6 December (Argus) — Denmark's failure to attract bids in an offshore wind tender was partly caused by the country's lack of firm commitment to a hydrogen pipeline network, according to Danish and European hydrogen associations. For Denmark's hydrogen industry the failed tender is raising concerns that Copenhagen might resort to state aid for offshore wind, which could jeopardise renewable hydrogen production that is compliant with EU rules. Denmark unsuccessfully offered three areas totalling 3GW in a first part of the auction that ended on 5 December, and will offer another 3GW in a second part ending in April 2025. The "very disappointing" result will now be investigated by the Danish Energy Agency to discover why market participants failed to bid, energy minister Lars Aagaard said. Wind project developers may have worried that low electricity prices in an increasingly saturated power market and inadequate export routes — either via power cables or as hydrogen via pipeline — would deny a return on investments, industry participants said. Ample offshore wind potential could allow Denmark to generate power far in excess of its own needs. But in order to capitalise on this the country would need to find a way of getting the energy to demand markets. Turning offshore wind into renewable hydrogen for export was "a very attractive solution" for developers, Hydrogen Europe chief policy officer Daniel Fraile said, but would rely on timely construction of a network "all the way from the coast to Germany's hydrogen-hungry industry." Denmark's hydrogen network was recently pushed back to 2031-32 from an initial 2028, partly because of an impasse over funding that provoked anger from industry. The government has said it will only help fund the hydrogen transport network if there are sufficient capacity bookings guaranteeing its use. But this approach increases risks for developers, according to Fraile. "You need to handle the risk of winning the offshore tender, finding a hydrogen offtaker in Germany and commit to inject a large amount of hydrogen over several years. Then deliver the project on time and on cost," he said. "This is a hell of an undertaking." Industry association Hydrogen Denmark's chief executive Tejs Laustsen Jensen agreed, calling the failed tender "a gigantic setback". "The uncertainty about the hydrogen infrastructure has simply made the investment too uncertain for offshore wind developers," he said. "Now the task for politicians is to untie this Gordian knot." "Of course, the tender must now be re-run, but if the state does not guarantee in that process the establishment of hydrogen infrastructure, we risk ending up in the same place again," he said. The booking requirement as a prerequisite for funding the network "must be completely removed," Jensen said. Green energy association Green Power Denmark said "there is still considerable uncertainty about the feasibility of selling electricity in the form of hydrogen," but pointed to other factors that may have led to the tender failing to attract bids. Wind turbines and raw materials have become more expensive because of inflation while interest rates have risen sharply, reducing the viability of such projects, the group's chief executive Kristian Jensen said. Unlike some other countries, Denmark does not intend to fund grid connections or provide other subsidies, he said. Unwanted help Hydrogen Denmark's Jensen warned against the government resorting to subsidies to help get offshore wind farms built. "State support for offshore wind would be the death knell" for the hydrogen sector and would "de facto kill all possibilities for a green hydrogen adventure in Denmark," he said. Granting state support for offshore wind farms would mean these assets would not comply with the additionality requirement of the EU's definition for renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBO), which are effectively renewable hydrogen and derivatives. EU rules state renewable assets are only considered 'additional' if they have "not received support in the form of operating aid or investment aid," although financial support for grid connections is exempt from this. "If state aid is provided for the offshore wind that is to be used to produce the hydrogen, we will lose the RFNBO stamp, and the Danish hydrogen cannot be used to meet the green EU ambitions for, among other things, industry and transport, and the business case is thus destroyed," Jensen said. By Aidan Lea and Stefan Krumpelmann Geographical divisions of Denmark's H2 network plan Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

US House panel approves river infrastructure bill


06/12/24
News
06/12/24

US House panel approves river infrastructure bill

Houston, 6 December (Argus) — A US House of Representatives committee has approved a bipartisan bill that authorizes improvements to navigation channels by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and maintenance and dredging of river and port infrastructure projects. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee advanced the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) after several months of political wrangling to integrate earlier versions of the legislation approved by the House and Senate . The bill will head to the full House next week, said committee chairman Sam Graves (R-Missouri). This would be the sixth consecutive bipartisan WRDA bill since 2014 if passed by congress. WRDA is a biennial bill that authorizes the Corps to continue working on projects to improve waterways, including port updates, flood protection and supply chain management. WRDA will also "reduce cumbersome red tape", which will allow for quicker project turnarounds, Graves said. The bill authorizes processes to streamline work, he said. The bill also adjusts the primary cost-sharing mechanism for funding for lock and dam construction and major rehabilitation projects. The US Treasury Department's general fund will pay 75pc of costs, up from 65pc, with the rest coming from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which is funded by a barge diesel fuel tax. By Meghan Yoyotte Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Tight supply fuels Indian interest in wire rod imports


06/12/24
News
06/12/24

Tight supply fuels Indian interest in wire rod imports

Mumbai, 6 December (Argus) — Interest in steel wire rod imports is increasing in India owing to limited domestic availability, delivery snags and high prices set by primary producers, according to industry sources. Unspecified quantities of Chinese low-carbon wire rod were booked for $515-520/t cfr Mumbai, excluding value-added tax, in the past few weeks, sources in both China and India told Argus . High-carbon wire rod was also heard to have been purchased from China recently, although this could not be confirmed. The booking follows reduced supply from state-controlled long products manufacturer Rashtriya Ispat Nigam (RINL), according to a Mumbai-based long products trading firm. RINL at present is grappling with financial difficulties and raw material shortages, which has taken a toll on its production. Many participants have questioned this purchase, as no Chinese mill has a Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certificate required for exporting wire rod to India. Non-BIS material can be cleared by customs only if the material is used to manufacture goods that will be exported. The booking has been made under the advance licence scheme, which allows for such non-BIS imports, a source said. But there are only a handful of wire manufacturers that export their product and can use imported wire rods, according to market participants. At a trade fair in Mumbai last month, wire manufacturers said they were increasingly seeking alternatives to domestic primary wire rod as high input costs were squeezing their margins. High-carbon wire rod was priced at 57,000-58,000 rupees/t ($672-684/t) by major domestic producers on a delivered basis in western India, sources said. Chinese offers stood at $570-580/t cfr India for high-carbon wire rod a few weeks ago, but have now fallen to $560/t cfr, a trading source said. Wire manufacturers focused on domestic sales were turning to secondary wire rod, which was nearly 20pc cheaper than primary material, according to a participant at the Mumbai trade fair. But trading companies and consumers pointed to availability as the bigger issue, with only a few major primary producers dominating the wire rod market. Securing a regular and timely supply of wire rod from primary mills has become a major challenge, causing supply chain disruptions for end-users, they said. "The price is one factor, but availability is also a key issue. Mills are unreliable when it comes to allocation and delivery of the material," a wire manufacturer said. "This has always been the case but not to the extent seen recently. Now supply concerns have become worse because of RINL's issues." RINL's finished steel output fell by 26pc on the year to 1.6mn t from April-October, according to provisional data from the steel ministry's joint plant committee. Another wire manufacturer said it had not imported wire rod for more than a year, but was now open to cheaper imports to protect its margins. For some finished products, such as automobile parts, it is essential to use wire rod from primary producers but imported or secondary material could be used to manufacture some other products, a manufacturing firm executive said. Long products amount to only a small portion of India's overall steel imports, which are dominated by hot-rolled coil and other flat products. From April-October this year, India imported about 49,300t of wire rod — including alloy, non-alloy and stainless steel products — an increase of more than 30pc on the year, according to data from the steel ministry's Joint Plant Committee. This made up less than 1pc of India's overall finished steel imports during the seven months. By Amruta Khandekar Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.