

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.
Panama logs highest-ever May bunker sales
Panama logs highest-ever May bunker sales
New York, 16 June (Argus) — Panama bunker fuel sales rose to 453,397t in May, up 14pc from a year earlier and the highest total for any May since the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) began reporting in 2009. Sales of very low-sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) climbed 13pc on the year to 276,907t. High-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) rose 6pc to 125,872t, while marine gasoil (MGO) surged 45pc to 50,618t, according to the ACP. The jump could be attributed to an increase in transits by ocean-going vessels, which rose to 974 in May, up from 805 in May 2024 when drought conditions were still curbing traffic. But May bunker volumes were lower than the peak of 498,814t recorded so far this year in March. Starting 5 October, the Canal will launch a weekly net-zero transit slot for Neopanamax vessels. To qualify, ships must be capable of operating on fuels with lifecycle GHG intensity below 75g CO₂e/MJ. Eligible fuels include B2-B100 bio-bunker blends, green and grey ammonia, green methanol, grey LNG and grey LPG. Conventional fuels like VLSFO, HSFO and MGO fall outside the threshold at 87-89g CO₂e/MJ. By Stefka Wechsler Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Ships need more GHG reduction to meet IMO target: SCC
Ships need more GHG reduction to meet IMO target: SCC
Sao Paulo, 16 June (Argus) — The majority of signatories to the Sea Cargo Charter (SCC) managed to reduce their carbon emissions in 2024, but not enough to meet the reduction targets set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). An SCC report showed that of 34 charterers and shipowners, including Anglo American, Bunge, Cargill Ocean Transportation, Maersk Tankers and Trafigura. 19 improved their emissions intensity in 2024, and nine reported higher climate alignment scores. The report indicates the activities in 2024 by these companies were 12pc above the emissions intensity required to be aligned with the minimum IMO greenhouse gases (GHG) strategies, compared with 8.8pc above in the previous year's results. The 2024 emissions were 18pc above the IMO's higher-end targets last year, compared with 13.5pc in 2023 ( see table ). Several companies indicated that commercial and operational barriers have been affecting their scores, as have regional port limitations and challenging weather conditions. The IMO targets a 20pc emissions reduction in international shipping by 2030, growing to a 70pc reduction by 2040, compared with 2008 levels, before achieving net-zero emissions by or around 2050. By Natália Coelho Results 2025 (for 2024 data) pc Company 2023 IMO GHG Strategy minimum trajectory 2023 IMO GHG Strategy striving trajectory ADM 20.1% 27.2% Alvean Sugar SL 8.0% 14.5% Amaggi AS 33.0% 40.9% Anglo American 14.0% 20.9% Bunge 7.8% 13.9% Cargill Ocean Transportation 12.0% 18.6% Chevron Shipping Company 1.8% 7.0% COFCO International 10.1% 16.7% Copenhagen Commercial Platform 1.7% 8.9% Dow 37.6% 42.2% DS Norden 16.0% 22.7% Emirates Global Aluminium 29.0% 36.8% Equinor 6.8% 12.1% Global Chartering Limited 5.2% 10.4% Golden-Agri Maritime Pte Ltd -4.5% -1.4% Gunvor Group/Clearlake Shipping 7.5% 12.0% Heidelberg Materials Trading 0.5% 6.5% Holcim Trading & Shipping -7.4% -1.8% K&S Minerals and Agriculture 7.9% 14.6% Klaveness Combination Carriers 6.5% 9.1% Louis Dreyfus Company 19.4% 26.3% MC Shipping Ltd. Singapore Branch 25.8% 33.4% Maersk Tankers -0.1% 5.1% Navig8 Group -7.7% -2.6% Nova Marine Carriers 22.9% 30.4% Rubis Rnergie 39.7% 47.8% Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Limited 13.9% 18.9% South32 23.3% 30.5% Stolt Tankers B.V. 5.2% 8.7% Tata Steel 13.2% 20.1% TotalEnergies 6.7% 11.5% Trafigura -3.7% 1.4% Viterra Chartering 17.8% 25.0% Wilmar International Limited 22.7% 28.4% SSC Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Israeli strikes unsettle Fujairah bunker market
Israeli strikes unsettle Fujairah bunker market
Dubai, 13 June (Argus) — Israeli airstrikes on Iran have unsettled bunker markets in Fujairah, the world's third-largest marine fuels hub, as traders assess the potential for supply and demand disruption in the region. The overnight strikes did not target Iran's oil infrastructure, but traders are concerned about possible interruptions to high-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) flows if the conflict escalates. Iran remains a key supplier of HSFO to Fujairah, despite US-led sanctions. Fujairah has received at least 1.56mn t (61,000 b/d) of HSFO from Iran's Bandar Abbas and Bandar Khomeini refineries this year, according to oil analytics firm Vortexa. Fears of further escalation and rising war risk insurance premiums could prompt shipowners to avoid Fujairah over safety concerns. "We already had one US customer cancel an order with us," a bunker trader said. "They decided not to call at Fujairah due to safety concerns." Other traders also reported more cautious behaviour, including buyers cancelling prompt bookings or deferring bunker deliveries until July. "Prompt inquiries definitely slowed down, with buyers now asking for July deliveries to hedge risks," a bunker supplier said. Bunker prices and premiums rose in Fujairah following the attacks. Delivered HSFO, which had been trading at a $10–15/t discount to the Mideast Gulf 380cst cargo value due to oversupply, moved to parity on 13 June. The Argus -assessed delivered price rose to $451/t, up from $415/t the previous day, amid concerns over supply disruption. By Elshan Aliyev Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Partners to build NH3 bunkering in Australia’s Pilbara
Partners to build NH3 bunkering in Australia’s Pilbara
Sydney, 10 June (Argus) — Australia-based blue ammonia firm NH3 Clean Energy and marine fuels company Oceania Marine Energy have signed an initial agreement with Australian port authority Pilbara Ports to develop low-emissions ammonia bunkering at the port of Dampier in Western Australia (WA). The partners aim to establish ammonia bunkering to service iron ore carriers at Dampier by 2030, NH3 Clean Energy said today. PPA is the world's largest bulk handling authority, shipping 750mn t/yr of commodities. NH3 Clean Energy is developing the WAH-2 blue ammonia plant near the WA city of Karratha, for which it hopes to take a final investment decision for a 650,000 t/yr phase 1 in late 2026 . Privately owned Oceania is establishing a bunkering business that will use LNG and ammonia at Pilbara Ports sites, with operations set to begin in 2027 and 2028, respectively. Oceania plans to use ship-to-ship transfer to supply low-emissions fuels, and is working with Singapore maritime firm Seatech Solutions on a vessel with capacity for 10,000m³ NH3 parcels. About 300 bulk carriers service Pilbara Ports's iron ore trade. If just 16 of these operated on ammonia and bunkered in Australia, 600,000 t/yr of ammonia would be required — more than 90pc of WAH-2 's phase 1 output, NH3 Clean Energy said. WA could become a world leader in lower-emissions shipping, the firm said, referencing recently adopted International Maritime Organisation (IMO) emissions limits and carbon pricing . The IMO's plan has disappointed some hydrogen industry associations and environmental groups , which claim hydrogen-based bunkering fuels will remain at a disadvantage to biofuels and LNG under the agreement. By Tom Major Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Spotlight content
Browse the latest thought leadership produced by our global team of experts.
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.