fuel oil

Two factors — public concern about soaring utility bills and President Trump’s strong opposition to offshore wind — are forcing New England to rethink its once-ambitious plans for a renewables-heavy electric grid and reassess how to meet its power-generation needs in the late 2020s and early 2030s. One possibility would be to expand the region’s access to piped-in natural gas, but midstreamers’ previous efforts to add pipeline capacity were beaten back time and again. In today’s RBN blog, we discuss New England’s ongoing debate about what to do next. 

New England is determined to shift toward a greener electric grid, but the region’s plan to slash its current reliance on natural gas (and backup fuel oil — and sometimes coal) by ramping up offshore wind and solar (and backup batteries) has hit a seemingly immovable object. President Trump, a staunch opponent of offshore wind, on Day 1 of his second administration ordered a halt to new leases and permits and directed his Interior Secretary to review existing permits. As we’ll discuss in today’s RBN blog, those moves have left New England power planners scratching their heads, and may even resurrect the possibility of expanding natural gas pipeline capacity into the region. 

On January 1, 2020 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) implemented new fuel standards for oil-powered vessels, except those equipped with exhaust scrubbers to remove pollutants. In the absence of a scrubber, the IMO 2020 rule stipulates that ships' bunkers contain less than 0.5% sulfur. Using a scrubber allows the vessel to burn cheaper high-sulfur fuel. Last March, a shipowner’s estimated $2.5 million scrubber investment for a 2-MMbbl Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) would take just over three years to recover, based on average fuel prices during the first quarter of 2019. This year, barely a month after the new regulation came into force, the payback period has shortened dramatically, to less than a year, though the coronavirus’s effect on shipping demand and fuel prices, among other factors, could again put payout timing at risk. Today, we look at changing price spreads between high-sulfur and low-sulfur bunker and the scrubber payback economics that suggest a rosier outlook for vessel owners who invested in scrubber installations, at least for now.

Some shipowners plan to comply with the IMO 2020 deadlines for limiting sulfur in ship emissions by installing scrubber devices to clean the exhaust generated by burning less expensive high-sulfur bunker fuel. For many, this may work out to be more economical, at least in the interim, than using more costly IMO 2020-compliant fuel with sulfur content of no more than 0.5% or converting the vessel to run on an altogether different fuel such as liquefied natural gas. However, narrowing “sulfur spreads” this year have put that compliance strategy at risk by tripling the time it would take for shipowners to recoup their scrubber investments. Today, we continue an analysis of the changing economics of scrubber installation in the run-up to IMO 2020.

Last year, the impending implementation of International Maritime Organization’s rule mandating the use of lower-sulfur marine fuels starting January 1, 2020, widened the price spread between rule-compliant 0.5%-sulfur bunker and the 3.5%-sulfur marine fuel that has been a shipping industry mainstay. Traders’ thinking was that demand for high-sulfur bunker would evaporate in the run-up to IMO 2020, as the new rule is known. But since early January, the spread between low- and high-sulfur fuel at the Gulf Coast has narrowed from nearly $11/bbl to less than $2/bbl. The culprit is a shortage of heavy-sour crude caused by a number of factors. Today, we begin a two-part series on low-sulfur vs. high-sulfur fuel and crude values as IMO 2020 approaches.

In January 2015 new international regulations came into force that reduced the permitted sulfur content in ships “bunker” fuel in Northern European and North American coastal regions. So far, international shipping companies and cruise lines have been responding to these rules primarily by switching to marine gasoil (MGO), burning lower-sulfur fuel oil, or sticking with higher-sulfur fuel oil and adding “scrubbers” to capture most of the sulfur being emitted by their ships’ engines. More recently, though, some of the shipping sector’s biggest players have unveiled plans to boost the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a bunker fuel, figuring that LNG bunkering will not only help them meet existing regulations but the tougher rules likely to be implemented over the next few years. Today, we begin a short series on the opportunities and challenges associated with shifting ships from fuel oil to LNG.

Fuel oil demand has been declining for years on dry land – under attack by regulators anxious to reduce sulfur emissions. New international regulations introduced in January of this year are designed to further reduce sulfur emissions from ship engines burning marine fuel oil (“bunkers”)  at sea. The new regulations have had an immediate impact on the market for 1% sulfur fuel oil. Most affected ship owners are now using more marine gasoil in coastal zones. Today we examine how the new regulations have impacted fuel oil markets.

In January 2015 new international regulations came into force that reduced the permitted sulfur content in ships “bunker” fuel in Northern European and North American coastal regions. The change has required vessels travelling in those zones to use more expensive fuels or install scrubbers to remove sulfur. The changeover was expected to cause a sharp increase in shipping costs but as we discuss in today’s blog, so far the impact has been far less painful than expected, at least so far.

While most of the country is enjoying the benefits that low cost North American supplies of natural gas bring to local and regional economies, many parts of the Northeast US and Atlantic Canada are still heavily reliant on expensive oil-based products for residential, commercial and industrial use. That is in spite of the proximity of burgeoning supplies of natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shale basins. The challenge in converting users away from oil lies in infrastructure build out and deciding who will pay. Today we begin a two part series on the slow conversion process and new solutions to supply natural gas to customers before pipeline infrastructure is built.

Forty percent of the world’s fuel oil - the residual oil left over after extracting lighter products from crude oil - is used as bunker oil to power Ocean going vessels. Much of that fuel has relatively high sulfur content. Given that refineries sell fuel oil for less than the cost of crude – the bunkers market has traditionally been a convenient dumping ground for unwanted high sulfur residual fuel oil. New international regulations that came into force in 2012 drastically reduce the permitted sulfur content in bunkers after 2015 in the world’s populated coastal regions. Today we describe the impact the new rules could have on refiners.