MGO

After successfully reducing emissions of pollutants like sulfur and nitrogen, the global shipping industry now is focused on ratcheting down — and eventually eliminating — its emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). It’s no easy task. Crude-oil-based bunker like low-sulfur fuel oil (LSFO) and marine gas oil (MGO) are readily available, relatively inexpensive, and pack a lot of energy into each gallon. But GHG-reduction goals are in place, both globally and in the European Union (EU), and shipping companies are taking steps to meet them, initially with more LNG-fueled vessels and later with ships powered by clean methanol, clean ammonia and biofuels. In today’s RBN blog, we discuss the shift in bunker fuel consumption since IMO 2020 was implemented five years ago and the efforts to transition to even cleaner shipping fuels through the late 2020s and beyond. 

The countdown clock to January 1, 2020 — Implementation Day for the IMO 2020 rule on low-sulfur marine fuel — is ticking, and while that date may still seem far away, it is decidedly not. The impending switch from 3.5%-sulfur fuel oil to marine fuel with sulfur content no higher than 0.5% will affect a broad swath of the energy sector worldwide, not to mention consumers of diesel and other low-sulfur distillates that will be in much higher demand by this time next year as the run-up to IMO 2020 kicks into high gear. Already, complex and simple refineries alike are evaluating changes to their crude slates and planning to add equipment that will enable them to produce more high-value distillate and less “bottom-of-the-barrel” residual fuel oil, the source of high-sulfur marine fuel. U.S. midstream companies are gearing up to export more light, sweet crude from the Permian and other shale and tight-oil plays to simple refineries that will no longer be able to get by refining heavy, sour crudes. Marine-fuel suppliers are testing various blends to see which might produce IMO 2020-compliant fuel at the lowest cost. As for ship owners, they’re preparing for topsy-turvy fuel prices in late 2019 and 2020 as this wrenching change plays out. Today, we consider key market participants’ latest thinking on the likely effects of the new rule for low-sulfur marine fuel.

The planned implementation of the International Maritime Organization’s rule slashing allowable sulfur-dioxide emissions from ocean-going ships on January 1, 2020, would create significant demand for 0.5%-sulfur marine fuel — a refined product that few refiners produce today. That could present a big challenge to the global refining sector, which will be called upon to produce marine fuel that complies with “IMO 2020,” as the rule is commonly known. But refiners have stepped up before, and if the IMO 2020 mandate proves to be unachievable and would put global commerce at risk, there could be ways to deal with it — including exemptions or implementation delays. In any case, the move toward much cleaner bunker fuel will be a boon to complex refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast and elsewhere that can break down bottom-of-the-barrel “residual” fuel oil into feedstocks for gasoline, diesel and other high-value products. Today, we continue our analysis of IMO 2020 and its effects.

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.