Ammonia
Market moving insight on clean and conventional ammonia – delivering robust price assessments, actionable commentary, powerful data, vital analysis and outlooks
Overview
The ammonia market is undergoing a period of rapid and dramatic change. Conventional or ‘grey’ ammonia is traditionally produced almost exclusively for its nitrogen content. However, the urgent need to decarbonise the global economy and meet ambitious zero-carbon goals has opened up exciting new opportunities.
Ammonia has the potential to be the most cost-effective and practical ‘zero-carbon’ energy carrier in the form of hydrogen to the energy and fuels sectors. This has led to rapid growth of interest in clean ammonia and a flurry of new ‘green’ and ‘blue’ ammonia projects.
Argus has many decades of experience covering the ammonia market. We incorporate our multi-commodity market expertise in energy, marine fuels, the transition to net zero and hydrogen to provide existing market participants and new entrants with the full market narrative.
Our industry-leading price assessments, powerful data, vital analysis and robust outlooks will support you through:
- Ammonia price assessments (daily and weekly), some of which are basis for Argus ammonia futures contracts, Ammonia forward curve data and clean ammonia cost assessments and modelled weekly prices
- Short and medium to long-term forecasting, modelling and analysis of conventional and clean ammonia prices, supply, demand, trade and projects
- Bespoke consulting project support
Latest ammonia news
Browse the latest market moving news on the global ammonia industry.
Q&A: Marine decarbonisation to continue despite delay
Q&A: Marine decarbonisation to continue despite delay
Sao Paulo, 24 November (Argus) — The maritime sector is staying on course towards decarbonisation, with marine biofuels and LNG gaining traction in the short term, despite the IMO postponing its net-zero framework vote until October 2026, DNV global decarbonisation director Jason Stefanatos said. No single fuel is likely to be adopted at scale in the medium to long term, and alternative marine fuels will coexist as part of the path to net zero, he said. Edited highlights follow. IMO delegates have postponed a vote on the net-zero framework until next year. What's your view on the delay, and how might it impact the adoption of alternative bunker fuels? The postponement of the IMO net-zero framework highlights the need for greater clarity on its practical implementation. But while the delay creates some uncertainty, the industry's decarbonisation targets remain unchanged. DNV's October 2025 AFI data confirms that the industry's commitment to alternative fuels remains strong Which fuels are the leading trend in maritime decarbonisation in the short and long term? In the short term, both LNG and biofuels are leading trends in maritime decarbonisation because of LNG bunkering infrastructure and because biofuels are drop-in. Over the longer term, the transition will diversify, adding more fuels in the mix, with methanol, ammonia, hydrogen and e-fuels expected to play roles as technology, supply and regulatory frameworks mature. There is no trend in the long term. The most suitable fuel and technology will be determined by each operator's specific fleet characteristics, operational requirements, overall commercial objectives, as well as global and regional geopolitical decisions and developments. With the energy transition underway in the maritime sector, is ethanol an option for mid- and long-term decarbonisation? Ethanol is technically feasible as a marine fuel, and has gained more popularity in the past months due to technical developments by engine makers and developments on the supply side. Although the vast majority today does not come from sustainable biomass, it is a promising new fuel that could play a role in the future. Its similarities with methanol enable methanol-fuelled vessels to easily switch to ethanol if needed, providing further fuel flexibility, which is important during high uncertainty times. E-fuels have been identified as a potential net-zero fuel. How do you see their development as a marine fuel, considering they are not currently available at commercial scale? E-fuels are presented as a long-term solution for maritime decarbonisation, but their commercial availability and cost competitiveness remain challenges for widespread adoption. Demand is expected to grow as regulatory requirements tighten, but supply will depend on large-scale investments in renewable energy and production capacity. Ammonia is a possible alternative fuel for the future, but barriers to its adoption remain, DNV said in a recent publication. Why does it make sense to invest in ammonia as a bunker fuel when other fuels are more established and safer? Ammonia has benefits and barriers on its adoption. On the benefits side, ammonia is a fuel without carbon content, can act as a hydrogen carrier, and has some basic infrastructure and technology in place, as there are already vessels operating with ammonia. On the other hand, safety and technical issues will require a lot of industry effort to be overcome. The FuelEU Maritime regulation introduced a 2pc reduction target for GHG emissions from vessels in 2025. Individual EU countries are implementing their own RED III regulations this year. Are these emission policies driving demand for alternative fuels, or should the EU consider tightening its restrictions? And what do these regulations mean for the wider global market? These regulations are drivers for alternative fuel demand in shipping and have contributed to accelerating investment in low-GHG fuels and technologies. However, the global impact will depend on how IMO regulations will be agreed and defined by the delegates. Some uncertainty remains as further regional regulations could lead to uneven competition and increased complexity for international operators. By Natália Coelho and Gabriel Tassi Lara Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Q&A: Hiringa aims to grow Australia’s green NH3 market
Q&A: Hiringa aims to grow Australia’s green NH3 market
Sydney, 21 November (Argus) — New Zealand-based hydrogen developer Hiringa Energy has begun construction of its 15MW Good Earth Green Hydrogen and Ammonia (GEGHA) project near Moree in northwest New South Wales (NSW). Argus spoke with the firm's commercial and business development lead Jack Rickers on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Hydrogen Summit in Sydney about the company's future plans. Can you talk us through the GEGHA project and what stage it is at? We're aiming to be operational in the first quarter of 2027, [joint venture partner] Sundown Pastoral saw a similar project that we were doing over in New Zealand, where we working with a fertilizer manufacturer to decarbonise urea feedstocks. We built a 41MWh BESS system at GEGHA providing affordable, reliable supply of power into the electrolysers to make hydrogen for anhydrous ammonia supply. What is the opportunity for expanding this project into agricultural markets in Australia? Anhydrous ammonia isn't a big market on the east coast of Australia, a lot of growers used to use anhydrous but shifted due to supply chain security. What we're doing is transferring that supply chain to provide price competitiveness against fossil fuel products. More importantly for a lot of growers though is the security and the availability of that fertiliser input. What are the other uses for the hydrogen GEGHA produces? Some of the hydrogen is going to displace diesel in irrigation pumping as well as in other mobile and static on-farm equipment. Fuel and fertilizer produce the greatest emissions but also form the highest costs for these farming operations, so via GEGHA we're looking at low-carbon alternatives. What is the growth potential for green ammonia in Australia? If you look at the direct-use ammonia opportunity it's not large, I think it's averaged about 40,000-50,000 t/yr over the last 10 years. GEGHA is 4,500 t/yr but we've got a couple of other expansion projects underway. We got quite a significant [A$35.8mn ($23mn)] government grant for GEHGA, but what we're working on now is improving the economy of scale, by doing it at about five times the volume we don't think that we need the government to achieve competitive pricing of those products into the market. We've got two other projects planned in NSW, both at the 20,000 t/yr scale, meeting the market's anhydrous demand. The broader nitrogen market, though, is really our target market — which is primarily the 2mn t/yr urea market in Australia's eastern states. Farmers prefer that granular or liquid form but we're having a look at other fertilizer derivatives using anhydrous ammonia as feedstock. What model does Hiringa see as ideal for growing its anhydrous ammonia footprint? We're looking at when does it become expensive for traditional fertilizers and how does that help us compete? That's around what that delivered price is so we're producing hub and spoke projects — rather than going giga-scale then trucking [fertilizer] 500km inland, we're doing it within those regions where people are going to use it, so we don't have that transport cost. We're looking at another 20,000 t/yr plant in the [NSW] Gwydir region, a 20,000 t/yr plant in the Riverina and probably a third plant in the Darling Downs of Queensland. Why have you targeted cotton-growing regions so far? Is it a crop that supports the margins involved? Cotton uses about 75pc of Australia's direct-use anhydrous supply, it's the largest direct market for us to address. But as we start to move from that 5,000 t/yr to 20,000 t/yr scale we're looking at what other cropping products make sense, how do we produce a product suitable for winter [grains] cropping to smooth that seasonality curve of [summer-grown] cotton. By Tom Major Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Global fertilizer affordability recovers some ground
Global fertilizer affordability recovers some ground
London, 19 November (Argus) — Global fertilizer affordability remains weak at levels similar to those of September 2022, but has recovered slightly from a more than three-year low in August because of a fall in fertilizer prices. Nutrient affordability stood at 0.72 points in October, up from 0.69 in September and 0.61 in August, when it dropped to its lowest since April 2022, Argus data show. Global fertilizer affordability had been on a downward trend since January. An affordability index — comprising a fertilizer and crop index — above one indicates that fertilizers are more affordable compared with the base year set in 2004. An index below one indicates lower nutrient affordability. The fertilizer index in October crept up to just below June's levels at 0.74 points, driven by falling urea, phosphates and potash prices. But the crop index — which includes global prices for corn, wheat, rice and soybeans adjusted by output volumes — resumed its downward trend in October, having gained some ground in September, and crop prices are now as low as those of November 2019. Urea price falls were the heaviest in recent months, with fob Middle East prices in October down by over $100/t from recent highs in August, when they averaged just over $500/t fob. Prices fell as buyers hesitated in the face of renewed Chinese exports, which outweighed strong import demand from India. Most market participants remained cautious into October, largely because of the lack of clarity on potential fresh exports from China. But prices received support from the end of October onwards, driven by a flurry of buying in Europe ahead of the implementation of the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on 1 January. Phosphate prices began to decline earlier. Moroccan DAP export prices have now shed $93/t at the midpoint from a peak in early August averaging just under $800/t fob, their highest since October 2022. The seasonal decline in global demand going into the fourth quarter coupled with higher DAP inventories in key destination markets — notably India — and wide-ranging affordability concerns pressured prices. Brazilian buyers turned to more affordable NPs and superphosphates ahead of soybean applications, fostering a surplus of MAP that similarly weighed on prices. Potash prices have experienced a milder decline, dropping by only $6/t since hitting a 28-month high in August at $314/t. MOP demand has slowed in most major importing markets since July, with ample inventories likely to be able to cover the majority of demand for the rest of 2025. By Elena Mataro Global fertilizer affordability index Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
EU CBAM draft sets dual methods for free allowances
EU CBAM draft sets dual methods for free allowances
London, 18 November (Argus) — Free allocations under the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) will be calculated using two distinct methodologies, a draft of the implementing regulation seen by Argus shows. The draft, which may change before its adoption by the end of the year , also details provisional benchmark values, leaving the key ammonia value unchanged. The documents give insights into how a major component needed to calculate costs under the mechanism, which will come into effect on 1 January, will likely look. They follow similar drafts emerging last week on the CBAM pricing methodology . The commission has also scheduled 10 December for presenting additional legislation, aimed at strengthening CBAM, tackling circumvention, resource-shuffling, expanding CBAM scope and protecting exports of CBAM goods. CBAM costs for imported fertilizers to the EU will be calculated by subtracting free allowances from actual emissions, or default values if no actual data is available. Free allowances will decrease between 2026 and 2034, in line with the free-allowance phase-out for European producers under the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS). The draft defines two main ways of calculating free allowances: one where actual emissions are known, and one where default values are used as the basis of calculating CBAM costs. The free allowance calculation for ‘simple goods', such as ammonia, is nearly unchanged on previous expectations. It is based on the CBAM factor — at 97.5pc for 2026 — a cross-sectoral correction factor as known from the ETS, and the benchmark value. The EU has left unchanged the provisional benchmark for ammonia at 1.57 t CO2e/t, and the same value applies for calculations using actual and default emissions. The provisional benchmark for nitric acid has also stayed at 0.23t CO2e/t when calculating free allowances for actual emissions data. Calculating free allowances for complex goods — which are made from other goods, so-called precursors — requires more variables. The calculation for free allowances should reflect the production process, according to the drafts. On top of the variables for simple goods, the calculation also considers emissions from precursors, for which the draft suggests full-year consumption data and activity levels need to be calculated. The methodologies for these components are not yet known. The draft normally foresees a presumption complex good precursors were produced during the reporting period, and no periods from before 2026 can be considered. If this calculation is adopted in a similar format by the commission, this may add additional complications for importers trying to estimate CBAM costs from 2026. For calculating actual emissions of a complex good, a series of products can be considered as precursors, namely anhydrous ammonia, nitric acid, NOP, urea, amsul, AN, DAP and MAP. If producers do not report actual emissions, then free allocations will be calculated using default benchmark values. The draft calculations foresee the inclusion of the CBAM factor, as well as the cross-sectoral correction factor, alongside these benchmarks. The provisional benchmark values for the default calculation can be found in the table below. By Claudia Wlk Provisional CBAM benchmarks for selected products t CO2/t CN code Product Process-related CBAM benchmark* Default benchmark** Nitrogen 2808 Nitric acid 0.230 0.674 28141 Anhydrous ammonia 1.570 1.570 28142 Ammonia in aqueous solution 0.471 0.471 283421 NOP 0.028 0.706 31021019 Urea 0.025 0.301 310221 Amsul 0.033 0.438 310229 ASN 0.028 0.624 31023090 AN 0.028 0.856 310240 CAN 0.028 0.775 310280 UAN 0.000 0.344 Phosphates and NPKs 31052010 NPK (>10pc N) 0.137 0.520 31052090 NPK (<10pc N) 0.137 0.393 310530 DAP 0.009 0.353 310540 MAP 0.009 0.182 310551 NP (nitrate) 0.137 0.648 310559 NP (excl. nitrate) 0.009 0.414 * Process-related benchmarks are used to calculate free allowances when actual data are available; these can be either for simple (e.g. for ammonia) or complex goods (e.g. for goods using ammonia as a feedstock). For complex goods, precursor emissions are also used. ** Default benchmarks are used to calculate free allowances when no actual emissions data are available. - EU Commission draft Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.