Viewpoint: Demand falls for Iranian base oils

  • Spanish Market: Oil products
  • 28/12/18

Mideast Gulf base oils extended their rise in the first few months of 2018, before steadying in mid-year and then losing all of their earlier gains during the second half of the year.

The regional price weakness throughout most of the year partly reflected the impact of its price strength at the start of the year. These firm prices opened the arbitrage for a wave of supplies to move to the region from Europe, the US and Asia-Pacific. This then covered buyers' requirements well into the second quarter of the year and during Iran's new year holiday when prices typically rise.

The US' announcement in May that it would reimpose sanctions on Iran had little initial price impact, partly because a steady and plentiful flow of supplies from other markets were already curbing buyers' requirements for this country's supplies.

Iranian producers raise prices in early 2018

The rise in regional prices at the start of the year extended their firm rebound during the last few months of 2017 in response to tight supplies and rising crude prices. But Iranian base oil producers raised their prices faster than other markets.

A producer raised its fob Iran SN 500 price to $825/t early in the year. This was its highest price since 2014 and up from $705/t at the start of the fourth quarter of 2017. European SN 500 prices by contrast trended lower during the fourth quarter of 2017, while Asia-Pacific and US Group II prices rose at a much more muted pace.

The effect was to narrow the price spread between Iranian supplies and cargoes from these other markets like Asia-Pacific, Europe and the US.

Buyers target Europe, Asia-Pacific supplies

Iranian cfr UAE SN 500 cargo prices flipped to a premium of as much as $40/t to fob Europe cargo prices at the start of 2018. They had been at a discount of more than $40/t at the start of the fourth quarter of 2017 and of more than $100/t in the third quarter of 2017.

Iranian SN 500 prices similarly moved to a premium of more than $25/t to fob Asia Group II prices in early 2018 from a discount of more than $80/t in the third quarter of 2017.

A steady flow of these Group I and Group II arbitrage shipments then reached the region during the first quarter of the year.

These shipments cut demand for Iranian supplies, whose market shrank mostly to buyers in the ex-tank market.

Sanctions have limited impact

Buying interest in Iranian supplies improved in the second quarter, when rising European and Russian base oil prices closed the arbitrage from these markets. Rising crude prices added to regional producers' incentive to raise their prices. But a steady flow of Group I supplies from Asia-Pacific curbed their room to target higher prices.

Slowing demand ahead of then during the Islamic fasting month of Ramadan from mid-May added to the price squeeze. A gradual trend among consumers to switch to using higher quality branded lubricants instead of localised brands added to the slowdown in demand for Iranian supplies and muffled the impact of the US's announcement that it would reimpose sanctions on Iran later in the year.

The persistent availability of Group I supplies from southeast and northeast Asia provided a steady flow of supplies for the region and kept pressure on Iranian base oil prices. More supplies also moved to the region from the US and Europe at the end of the second quarter.

Distributor's closure squeezes demand

Weak demand was then exacerbated by the closure of a regional base oils distributor in July. A consequence of the closure of the firm was the increased difficulty for small blenders to access to financial facilities to pay for supplies.

Iranian base oil prices then dipped even further late in the third quarter as producers sought to encourage distributors and blenders to secure more volumes instead of alternative supplies from other regions. The lower prices squeezed margins even further at a time when crude prices were rising to their highest levels in four years.

But the lower prices also spurred demand at a time when some distributors were seeking to build up their stocks of Iranian supplies ahead the imposition of US sanctions on Iranian base oils from the start of November.

Sanctions halt Iranian shipments to UAE

The imposition of these sanctions prompted a halt to the shipment of Iranian base oils to UAE ports, at least initially. More supplies were instead offered to India.

But there was little impact from the loss of these supplies. Some distributors continued to sell ex-tank volumes that they had bought earlier. Many blenders had also already switched to using Group I supplies from Europe or Asia-Pacific. Some distributors were also eyeing moves to ship more Russian base oils to the region late in the year or in early 2019.

Availability of light-grade base oils was tighter than heavy grades. Asia-Pacific producers preferred to focus more on moving supplies to India. Spot volumes from a new Group II unit in the region were also limited. While Group I heavy-grade prices began to weaken from the start of the second quarter, ex-tank Group II light-grade prices held firm through to the start of the third quarter.

Group III substitutes for Group II

But some Group I volumes moved to the region from Europe, while some Group II supplies from the US. There was also growing use of Group III base oils as a substitute for Group II light and even heavy grades because of their ready availability and competitive price. This combination of factors pressured ex-tank Group II light-grade prices throughout the third and fourth quarters. But they faced less pressure than heavy grades, resulting in an increasingly narrow price spread between the two grades.


Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

30/04/24

New US rule may let some shippers swap railroads

New US rule may let some shippers swap railroads

Washington, 30 April (Argus) — US rail regulators today issued a final rule designed to help customers switch railroads in cases of poor rail service, but it is already drawing mixed reviews. Reciprocal switching, which allows freight shippers or receivers captive to a single railroad to access to an alternate carrier, has been allowed under US Surface Transportation Board (STB) rules. But shippers had not used existing STB rules to petition for reciprocal switching in 35 years, prompting regulators to revise rules to encourage shippers to pursue switching while helping resolve service problems. "The rule adopted today has broken new ground in the effort to provide competitive options in an extraordinarily consolidated rail industry," said outgoing STB chairman Martin Oberman. The five-person board unanimously approved a rule that would allow the board to order a reciprocal switching agreement if a facility's rail service falls below specified levels. Orders would be for 3-5 years. "Given the repeated episodes of severe service deterioration in recent years, and the continuing impediments to robust and consistent rail service despite the recent improvements accomplished by Class I carriers, the board has chosen to focus on making reciprocal switching available to shippers who have suffered service problems over an extended period of time," Oberman said today. STB commissioner Robert Primus voted to approve the rule, but also said it did not go far enough. The rule adopted today is "unlikely to accomplish what the board set out to do" since it does not cover freight moving under contract, he said. "I am voting for the final rule because something is better than nothing," Primus said. But he said the rule also does nothing to address competition in the rail industry. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) is reviewing the 154-page final rule, but carriers have been historically opposed to reciprocal switching proposals. "Railroads have been clear about the risks of expanded switching and the resulting slippery slope toward unjustified market intervention," AAR said. But the trade group was pleased that STB rejected "previous proposals that amounted to open access," which is a broad term for proposals that call for railroads to allow other carriers to operate over their tracks. The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association declined to comment but has indicated it does not expect the rule to have an appreciable impact on shortline traffic, service or operations. Today's rule has drawn mixed reactions from some shipper groups. The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), which filed its own reciprocal switching proposal in 2011, said it was encouraged by the collection of service metrics required under the rule. But "it is disheartened by its narrow scope as it does not appear to apply to the vast majority of freight rail traffic that moves under contracts or is subject to commodity exemptions," said NITL executive director Nancy O'Liddy, noting it was a departure from the group's original petition which sought switching as a way to facilitate railroad economic competitiveness. The Chlorine Institute said, in its initial analysis, that it does not "see significant benefit for our shipper members since it excludes contract traffic which covers the vast majority of chlorine and other relevant chemical shipments." By Abby Caplan Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

HSFO demand supports Rotterdam 1Q bunker sales


30/04/24
30/04/24

HSFO demand supports Rotterdam 1Q bunker sales

London, 30 April (Argus) — Total sales of fossil bunker fuels and marine biodiesel blends at the port of Rotterdam were 2.45mn t in the first quarter this year, up by 13pc compared with the final three months of 2023 but 9pc lower year on year, according to official port data. Sales firmed across the board quarter on quarter, even though market participants had described spot bunker fuel demand in the region as "mostly limited" and shipping demand as lacklustre. High-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) sales rose the most. Disruption in the Red Sea resulted in many vessels re-routing around the southern tip of Africa, increasing the incentive of bunkering with HSFO as opposed to very low-sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) and marine gasoil (MGO), according to market participants. The longer journeys meant that vessels on the route increased their fuel consumption to reduce delivery delays, supporting conventional bunker fuel sales at Rotterdam. Higher prices for HSFO in Singapore also helped support HSFO demand in Rotterdam. Marine biodiesel sales at Rotterdam increased by 13pc on the quarter and by 76pc on the year in January-March, despite the Dutch government's decision to half the Dutch renewable tickets (HBE-G) multiplier for shipping at the turn of the year. The move has led to a substantial increase in prices for advanced fatty acid methyl ester (Fame) 0 blends in the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) hub. The inclusion of shipping in the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS) from January may have lent support to demand for biofuel blends. Marine biodiesel made up 11pc of total bunker fuel sales at Rotterdam in the first quarter, the same share as the previous quarter, which was a record high. LNG bunker sales at Rotterdam in January-March soared by 45pc on the quarter and by 150pc on the year. By Hussein Al-Khalisy Rotterdam bunker sales t Fuel 1Q24 4Q23 1Q23 q-o-q% y-o-y% VLSFO & ULSFO 857,579 847,862 1,205,288 1 -29 HSFO 818,028 643,218 809,871 27 1 MGO/MDO 383,409 361,585 468,373 6 -18 Biofuel blends 262,634 233,108 149,206 13 76 Total 2,453,610 2,177,078 2,685,515 13 -9 LNG (m³) 131,960 91,305 52,777 45 150 Port of Rotterdam Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

G7 countries put timeframe on 'unabated' coal phase-out


30/04/24
30/04/24

G7 countries put timeframe on 'unabated' coal phase-out

London, 30 April (Argus) — G7 countries today committed to phasing out "unabated coal power generation" by 2035 — putting a timeframe on a coal phase-out for the first time. The communique, from a meeting of G7 climate, energy and environment ministers in Turin, northern Italy, represents "an historic agreement" on coal, Canadian environment minister Steven Guilbeault said. Although most G7 nations have set a deadline for phasing out coal-fired power, the agreement marks a step forward for Japan in particular, which had previously not made the commitment, and is a "milestone moment", senior policy advisor at think-tank E3G Katrine Petersen said. The G7 countries are Italy — this year's host — Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the UK and the US. The EU is a non-enumerated member. But the pledge contains a caveat in its reference to "unabated" coal-fired power — suggesting that abatement technologies such as carbon capture and storage could justify its use, while some of the wording around a deadline is less clear. The communique sets a timeframe of "the first half of [the] 2030s or in a timeline consistent with keeping a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach, in line with countries' net-zero pathways". OECD countries should end coal use by 2030 and the rest of the world by 2040, in order to align with the global warming limit of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels set out in the Paris Agreement, according to research institute Climate Analytics. The countries welcomed the outcomes of the UN Cop 28 climate summit , pledging to "accelerate the phase out of unabated fossil fuels so as to achieve net zero in energy systems by 2050". It backed the Cop 28 goal to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 and added support for a global target for energy storage in the power sector of 1.5TW by 2030. The group committed to submit climate plans — known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) — with "the highest possible ambition" from late this year or in early 2025. And it also called on the IEA to "provide recommendations" next year on how to implement a transition away from fossil fuels. The G7 also reiterated its commitment to a "fully or predominantly decarbonised power sector by 2035" — first made in May 2022 and highlighted roles for carbon management, carbon markets, hydrogen and biofuels. Simon Stiell, head of UN climate body the UNFCCC, urged the G7 and G20 countries to lead on climate action, in a recent speech . The group noted in today's outcome that "further actions from all countries, especially major economies, are required". The communique broadly reaffirmed existing positions on climate finance, although any concrete steps are not likely to be taken ahead of Cop 29 in November. The group underlined its pledge to end "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies" by 2025 or earlier, but added a new promise to "promote a common definition" of the term, which is likely to increase countries' accountability. The group will report on its progress towards ending those subsidies next year, it added. Fostering energy security The communique placed a strong focus on the need for "diverse, resilient, and responsible energy technology supply chains, including manufacturing and critical minerals". It noted the important of "guarding against possible weaponisation of economic dependencies on critical minerals and critical raw materials" — many of which are mined and processed outside the G7 group. Energy security held sway on the group's take on natural gas. It reiterated its stance that gas investments "can be appropriate… if implemented in a manner consistent with our climate objectives" and noted that increased LNG deliveries could play a key role. By Georgia Gratton Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Pemex fuel output surges, imports down in March


29/04/24
29/04/24

Pemex fuel output surges, imports down in March

Mexico City, 29 April (Argus) — Mexico's state-owned Pemex increased its gasoline and diesel output by 32pc in March from a year earlier, cutting its road fuels imports by 25pc year over year. Pemex's gasoline and diesel output at its six domestic refineries amounted to 562,300 b/d in March, up from 427,100 b/d in the same month of 2023, according to the company's monthly data published on 26 April. Gasoline production rose by 27pc to 350,400 b/d in March year over year. Gasoline output increased by 13pc from February. Pemex's gasoline imports fell by 16pc in March from a year prior, driven by increased domestic production. On a monthly basis, gasoline imports fell by 18pc from February. The company's diesel output surged by 40pc to 211,900 b/d in March year over year, driving imports down by 43pc to 112,500 b/d (see table) . Diesel production was 26pc higher in March compared with February. Road fuels output increased as Pemex's refining system processed 23pc more crude — 1.06mn b/d — in March from the prior year, as result of billion-dollar investments since 2019 to rehabilitate Pemex's refineries and a decline in crude exports . Pemex's regular 87-octane gasoline domestic sales remain almost steady at 527,400 b/d in March from a year earlier. In contrast, 92-octane premium gasoline sales rose by 11pc to 132,800 b/d year over year, as demand for premium gasoline in Mexico has increased this year. The company's diesel sales ticked up by 1pc in March from a year earlier and were 3pc above February sales. Pemex's domestic sales of refined products accounted for 75.6pc of the company's total revenue in the first quarter, Pemex said during its earnings call on 26 April. This compares to a 70.8pc share in full-year 2023, the company said. By Antonio Gozain Pemex fuel production, imports and sales '000 b/d Product Mar 24 Feb 24 Mar 23 YOY ±% Monthly ±% Production Gasoline 350 310 275.5 27.2 12.9 Diesel 212 168 152 39.8 26.0 LPG 110.0 104.0 100.3 9.7 5.8 Jet fuel 38 38 46 -17.1 1.6 Imports Gasoline 307 376 366.0 -16.1 -18.4 Diesel 112 119 196 -42.5 -5.1 LPG 69 100 101 -31.8 -31.1 Internal sales Regular gasoline 527 520 527 0.1 1.5 Premium gasoline 133 134 120 10.9 -0.7 Diesel 261.0 254.0 258 1.2 2.8 ULSD 30.0 28 32 -4.8 8.3 Jet fuel 95 97 94 1.0 -2.3 LPG 167 194 164 2.0 -13.8 Jet fuel and premium gasoline imports and ULSD imports and production are not broken out Pemex Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Norway's marine bio mandate ineffective: Marine market


29/04/24
29/04/24

Norway's marine bio mandate ineffective: Marine market

London, 29 April (Argus) — Norway's 6pc advanced biodiesel mandate for marine, which came into effect in October, has done little to incentivise the uptake of physical marine biodiesel blends at Norwegian ports, market participants told Argus . As of October 2023, bunker fuel suppliers in Norway must ensure that a minimum of 6pc, on a volume per volume basis, of the total amount of liquid fuels sold per year consists of advanced biofuel in the form of fatty acid methyl ester (Fame) or hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO). The mandate is only applicable to bunker fuels sold in the domestic market, impacting vessels operating between Norwegian ports as well as local tugboats, offshore supply barges, and fishing vessels. Market participants confirmed that the mandate operates on a mass-balance system at the moment, such that the mandate could also be met by supplying the equivalent amount of biofuels into the inland road sector. Consequently, participants said that very few buyers end up purchasing the physical marine biofuel blends, and instead marine fuel suppliers have had to utilise the mass-balance system to meet their mandated targets. This has resulted in a premium added onto conventional bunker fuels in Norwegian ports of about $56-60/t on average. A market participant described the current system as "like a CO2 tax", with most marine fuel buyers paying the premium rather than purchasing a marine biodiesel blend directly. Participants told Argus that HVO is popular and frequently used in road transport because of its superior specifications compared with biodiesel and its generally low freezing point. Norway's HVO imports typically originate from the US — Kpler data shows that about 68.4pc of HVO flows into Norway have originated from there this year. This is mainly because Norway does not apply the same anti-dumping measures as EU nations, which typically put a substantial premium on US-origin biodiesel imports. Norwegian shipowners going internationally are exempt from being liable to the additional premium imposed by the mandate. But participants told Argus that they usually have to pay the premium and then claim it back from the Norwegian Environment Agency (NEA). The system may change very soon. Market participants told Argus that the NEA is considering some changes to the mandate requirement. A gradual move away from the mass balance system is being discussed, in favour of a physical product mandate that would require biofuel blends to be sold to bunker fuel buyers. Further, a switch from an annual reporting system to a monthly one could also be on the cards. NEA is also reportedly looking at mandating the availability of marine biodiesel at all Norwegian ports and biodiesel fuel reconciliation at the tank rather than terminal. By Hussein Al-Khalisy Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more