Customer Logins

Obtain the data you need to make the most informed decisions by accessing our extensive portfolio of information, analytics, and expertise. Sign in to the product or service center of your choice.

Customer Logins

My Logins

All Customer Logins
S&P Global Commodity Insights
  • S&P Global
  • S&P Dow Jones Indices
  • S&P Global Market Intelligence
  • S&P Global Mobility
  • S&P Global Commodity Insights
  • S&P Global Ratings
  • S&P Global Sustainable1
Close
Discover more about S&P Global’s offerings.
Investor Relations
  • Investor Relations Overview
  • Presentations
  • Investor Fact Book
  • News Releases
  • Quarterly Earnings
  • SEC Filings & Reports
  • Executive Committee
  • Merger Information
  • Governance
  • Stock & Dividends
  • Shareholder Services
  • Contact
English
  • Español
  • 中文网站
  • Português
  • 한국어
  • हिंदी
  • English (Australia)
  • 日本語
Support
  • Get Support
  • System Notifications
  • Delivery Platforms
  • Regulatory Engagement
Login
  • Commodity Insights Login
  • Access IHS Markit Products
login
Register
logo
  • Commodities
  • Products & Services
  • Methodology
  • Market Insights
  • Energy Transition
  • Events
  • S&P Global
  • S&P Dow Jones Indices
  • S&P Global Market Intelligence
  • S&P Global Mobility
  • S&P Global Commodity Insights
  • S&P Global Ratings
  • S&P Global Sustainable1
  • Oil Upstream LNG Natural Gas Electric Power Coal Shipping Petrochemicals Metals Agriculture
    Latest in Commodities
    Watch: Market Movers Americas, Sept. 25-29: Brazil adjusts to Russian refined products ban, Northeast gas market under pressure

    In this week’s Market Movers Americas, presented by Marieke Alsguth: • Cove Point maintenance...

    Transco expansion, weather to weigh on Mid-Atlantic gas prices this winter

    Seasonal forecasts published by the US National Weather Service are calling for milder temperatures...

    Honeywell makes $27.5 million investment in ESS Tech to advance iron flow batteries

    Honeywell and ESS Tech said Sept. 25 they are collaborating on developing iron flow battery energy...

  • Oil LNG Natural Gas Electric Power Coal Shipping Petrochemicals Metals Agriculture Energy Transition
    I Need
    Advisory Solutions/Consulting Market Insights and Analytics Commodity Prices and Essential Market Data Real-Time News, Prices and Analysis Maps and Geospatial Data Forward Curves and Risk Valuation Data
    Latest Release Notes
    Data and Distribution
  • Our Methodology Methodology & Specifications Price Assessments Subscriber Notes Price Symbols Symbol Search & Directories Corrections Complaints
    References
    Market On Close Index Sourced Data (Survey) Methodology Review & Change MOC Participation Guidelines Holiday SEE ALL REFERENCE TOOLS
  • Latest News Headlines All Topics Videos Podcasts Special Reports Infographics Insights Magazine Insight Blog    Research & Analysis Top 250 Rankings   
    Latest in Market Insights
  • PLATTS ANALYTICS PRODUCT PLATFORM
    ACCESS ANALYTICS HUB
  • All Events Webinars Conferences Methodology Education Training and eLearning Forums Global Energy Awards    Global Metals Awards   
    Featured Events
    Forums Market Briefing New York (Client Only)
    • 16 Oct 2023
    • Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel
    Forums Asia Hydrogen & LNG Markets Conference 2023
    • 16 Oct 2023
    • Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel
    Forums Nodal Trader Conference
    • 16 Oct 2023
    • Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel
BLOG Apr 24, 2019

Global ship bunker fuel specification changes

Contributor Image
Spencer Welch

In January 2020, the global ship bunker fuel specification changes from a maximum of 3.5 weight percentage (wt%) sulfur to maximum 0.5 wt%. The shift affects approximately four million barrels per day of oil consumption or 4% of global oil demand.

IHS Markit has tracked the bunker specification change for nearly a decade. In 2009, we released a multi-client study asserting that a bunker fuel specification could result in huge disruption to global oil markets. Yet this prediction was met with considerable skepticism.

In 2014, a follow-up IHS Markit study called What Bunker Fuel for the High Seas? reasserted the expectation of likely market disruption. This study was the first to suggest that compliance would be mostly achieved through consumption of 0.5% sulfur fuel, with scrubbers that reduce emissions quickly becoming important for larger ships.

In October 2016, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) announced plans to reduce its global bunker fuel specification from 3.5% to 0.5% sulfur for maritime bunker fuel, effective January 2020. Following this, IHS Markit predicted not only that would there be insufficient time for the shipping and refining industries to prepare for this change but that significant disruption to oil markets was likely.

Optionality and the prisoner's dilemma

The key reason that three years was insufficient is optionality. For most specification changes, it is clear which player needs to make the change: the supplier, which is usually the refinery. However, IMO 2020 is different. Either the supplier can make the change or the buyer can continue to buy the "off-specification" fuel, as long as the buyer installs a scrubber on each ship to maintain atmospheric emissions at the same levels as low-sulfur fuel.

This optionality results in the classic prisoner's dilemma. If everyone invests in scrubber technology, there is no bunker fuel market disruption and no payback. Alternatively if very few invest, the market experiences a huge shortage of very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO), a large excess of high-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO), and significant market disruption - along with a very attractive payback for the few that invested.

Ironically, this dilemma has effectively stalled investments. Only since mid-2018 have scrubber investments started to increase. We now expect only around 2,000 of the world's 120,000 ships to be fitted with scrubbers by the start of 2020.

Considerable uncertainty still surrounds the IMO 2020 transition. IHS Markit recently completed another major study into the IMO 2020 transition, Navigating Choppy Waters. This study reviews some of the key uncertainties and models how they will impact oil market supply, demand, and price.

Our base case assumes 85% compliance with the new specification and 2,000 ships fitted with scrubbers at the start of 2020. We created a set of scenarios to provide a broad range of alternatives in which the IMO 2020 transition might unfold. These include high and low compliance, high and low scrubber installation, delayed commissioning in some key refinery projects, and the potential of phased implementation and enforcement in 2020.

IMO transition market impacts - a diverse potential

Figure 1 shows the modelling output on US Gulf Coast (USGC) product light-heavy differential, using both annual average and quarterly average pricing. Quarterly average pricing is important, as the market impact could be distinctly different from the first quarter of 2020 to the fourth quarter. The USGC product light-heavy differential in 2010-2018 averaged around $22 per barrel (bbl).

In our base case, we expect this gap to widen to almost $50/ bbl on an annual average basis in 2020. On a quarterly basis, this differential might hit $60/bbl. In our base case, the peak of the IMO transition market impact occurs in the second quarter of 2020. Although the new specification goes live on January 1, 2020, the carriage ban (legislation preventing ships from carrying HSFO in their fuel tanks unless they have a scrubber) does not take effect until the end of the first quarter 2020. We believe this ban will be instrumental in raising compliance rates.

The market impact differs by scenario. The "very low-compliance" scenario creates almost no market impact. The compliance scenarios appear to exert much more influence on the outcome than changes in the rate of scrubber installation on ships.

Scenarios are similar when looking at crude prices, crude price differentials, individual refined products, and refining margins. All but the simplest refineries are likely to receive a margin boost from the IMO 2020 transition, because of the tightening of the distillate market. However, there are significant differences between scenarios in terms of the total margin boost and its duration.

Rolling the dice

Scenario analysis provides a strong indication of the range of potential market outcomes. To understand the probability ranges, our final step was to apply a Monte Carlo probability technique to the IMO impacts of key variables, such as U.S. Gulf Coast (USGC) compliance and scrubber installation rates.

The IMO 2020 bunker fuel transition adds another layer of uncertainty to an already ambiguous oil market, as confirmed by our scenario and Monte Carlo analysis. These analyses provide valuable granularity on the most influential variables for the IMO transition through 2019. Our analyses also provide information on the range of impacts, which helps those most affected be better prepared, minimize downside risk, and look for upside opportunities.

Note: The IHS Markit study Navigating Choppy Waters provides full price sets for USGC, U.S. East Coast, Europe, and Singapore crude prices, refined products, and refining margins for the base case and each of the scenarios. It also provides detailed supply, demand, and trade analysis of the new VSLFO and HSFO, using refinery-by-refinery modelling. More information on the study can be found on the website or from the author of this article. www.ihsmarkit.com/imo2020

Posted 24 April 2019 by Spencer Welch, Vice President - Oil Markets & Downstream Consulting, S&P Global Commodity Insights

Previous Next
Recommended for you

Consulting and Advisory Services
Oil Markets, Midstream and Downstream Services

Navigating Choppy Waters

An S&P Global Multi-Client Study on Marine Bunker Fuel in a Low Sulfur, Low Carbon World
Download the Prospectuc
Related Posts
VIEW ALL
Blog May 10, 2023

Specialty Chemicals: Essential in Energy Transition

Video Oct 11, 2022

Chemical Markets: From the Pandemic to Energy Transition

Blog Nov 12, 2021

Display Technologies to determine consumption of display materials in the medium term

VIEW ALL
{"items" : [ {"name":"share","enabled":true,"desc":"<strong>Share</strong>","mobdesc":"Share","options":[ {"name":"facebook","url":"https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3a%2f%2fwww.spglobal.com%2fcommodityinsights%2fen%2fci%2fresearch-analysis%2fglobal-ship-bunker-fuel-specification-changes.html","enabled":true},{"name":"twitter","url":"https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.spglobal.com%2fcommodityinsights%2fen%2fci%2fresearch-analysis%2fglobal-ship-bunker-fuel-specification-changes.html&text=Global+ship+bunker+fuel+specification+changes+%7c+S%26P+Global+","enabled":true},{"name":"linkedin","url":"https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.spglobal.com%2fcommodityinsights%2fen%2fci%2fresearch-analysis%2fglobal-ship-bunker-fuel-specification-changes.html","enabled":true},{"name":"email","url":"?subject=Global ship bunker fuel specification changes | S&P Global &body=http%3a%2f%2fwww.spglobal.com%2fcommodityinsights%2fen%2fci%2fresearch-analysis%2fglobal-ship-bunker-fuel-specification-changes.html","enabled":true},{"name":"whatsapp","url":"https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Global+ship+bunker+fuel+specification+changes+%7c+S%26P+Global+ http%3a%2f%2fwww.spglobal.com%2fcommodityinsights%2fen%2fci%2fresearch-analysis%2fglobal-ship-bunker-fuel-specification-changes.html","enabled":true}]}, {"name":"rtt","enabled":true,"mobdesc":"Top"} ]}
Filter Sort
  • About S&P Global Commodity Insights
  • Media Center
  • Advertisers
  • Locations
  • Get Support
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Corporate Responsibility
  • History
  • Investor Relations
  • Leadership
  • Glossary
  • © 2023 by S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Terms of Use
  • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Privacy Policy & Cookie Notice
  • Site Map