This week’s marine-fuel news had a fairly clear message: the market is getting more diverse and less forgiving at the same time.
Rotterdam’s conventional bunker volumes fell sharply in the second quarter, but biofuel blends more than doubled from Q1. ARA marine gasoil prices have risen far faster than fuel oil, prompt stems still need planning, and Dutch policy is changing the economics of where ships bunker.
Meanwhile, the buying process itself is moving. One new contract measures fuel in dollars per gigajoule rather than dollars per tonne. New EU sanctions rules mean suppliers may need to understand their trading history, not just screen the next vessel. Shore power, emissions data and compliance value are also entering what used to be a fairly simple fuel-and-price conversation.
Here are the ten developments worth carrying into next week.
1. Rotterdam’s bunker market split in two
The Port of Rotterdam’s second-quarter data showed conventional marine fuel and biofuel sales of 1.75 million tonnes, down 26.7% from a year earlier. VLSFO fell almost 48% year on year, while HSFO dropped 23%.
Yet the alternative side of the market moved the other way. Biofuel-blend sales reached 239,875 tonnes, up 45.2% year on year and 129.3% from Q1. LNG rose 31.5% year on year, bio-methanol nearly tripled from the previous quarter, and Rotterdam recorded its first bio-ethanol bunker sales.
The simple version is that Rotterdam lost volume. The more useful version is that it is becoming two markets: a shrinking conventional one and a growing, more varied alternative-fuel one.
The Bulugo lens: buyers increasingly need to compare products with different units, carbon values, certificates and delivery requirements. That is a marine-fuel procurement problem, not just a price-board problem.
2. Dutch maritime groups warned that policy is moving demand
Deltalinqs, the Royal Association of Netherlands Shipowners, VOTOB and NOVE warned that differences in national implementation of RED III are pushing bunker demand away from Rotterdam.
Their argument is that Dutch rules have raised local fuel costs through renewable-fuel obligations and restrictions on some feedstocks, while neighbouring countries have implemented the rules differently. That can make a conventional stem elsewhere look cheaper, even if it does nothing useful for Europe’s total emissions.
This is an industry position rather than a settled economic verdict, but the Q2 volume data gives the warning some weight. Rotterdam’s conventional and biofuel total fell while Antwerp-Bruges reported growth in conventional marine fuels and biofuels.
The Bulugo lens: regulation is now part of the port-price comparison. Buyers need to see nominal price, compliance value and delivery practicality together.
3. ARA marine gasoil pulled away from fuel oil
Argus reported that ARA MGO prices rose 73.5% between 28 February and 27 July. Over the same period, VLSFO rose 38% and HSFO 27%.
The reasons included tight prompt diesel supply, reduced refinery output, unusually low Russian diesel exports and firm demand from emission control areas. Longer routes around the Cape can add further demand, while MGO remains the straightforward compliance option for many ships without scrubbers.
That makes “which grade is cheapest?” the wrong first question. The answer depends on route, sulphur limits, equipment, availability and timing.
The Bulugo lens: a useful request should capture delivery date, acceptable grades and vessel constraints before comparing bunker prices.
4. Prompt ARA availability still needed five to seven days
ENGINE’s latest availability outlook advised buyers to allow five to seven days for ARA stems.
The detail matters. ARA fuel-oil stocks were slightly higher on average in July, but fuel-oil imports had fallen to 134,000 barrels per day from 215,000 in June. Gasoil inventories were down 6%, while gasoil imports fell from 188,000 barrels per day to 126,000.
In other words, a headline stock number does not guarantee the grade, supplier or delivery window a vessel actually needs.
The Bulugo lens: delivery date should be a first-class field in the enquiry, with fallback grades agreed early. Finding out that “prompt” is unavailable after comparing indicative offers is wasted time for everyone.
5. Sanctions risk became a history problem
A legal analysis published this week argued that the EU’s 21st sanctions package changes the risk for physical bunker suppliers. Five bunker vessels were reportedly designated after repeatedly refuelling tankers already on the sanctions list.
The practical shift is from screening one vessel before one stem to understanding patterns across previous dealings. A supplier can run a clean check today but still need to know whether repeated transactions are building a risky relationship over time.
That is a material operational change. Stem records, counterparties, vessel identities and the reasons behind commercial decisions need to be searchable together. This is general market commentary, not legal advice, but the workflow point is hard to ignore.
The Bulugo lens: procurement records should be usable data, not documents scattered across inboxes. Good history protects both the buyer and the supplier.
6. A bunker contract moved from dollars per tonne to dollars per gigajoule
Shipergy signed a multi-year procurement contract with a European operator that measures performance in dollars per gigajoule rather than dollars per tonne. It says this is a first for the bunker industry.
The achieved energy cost will use invoice values and laboratory-measured net calorific value for every delivery, then compare that result with an energy-adjusted benchmark. The first MGO stem was completed at a Northwest European hub earlier in July.
The idea is refreshingly practical: ships consume energy, not tonnes. Two fuels with the same headline price can produce different real value if their energy content differs.
The Bulugo lens: the winning quote is not always the lowest number in the price column. Quality data and a consistent comparison method can change the award decision.
7. The EU backed Dutch methanol and hydrogen vessels with €103 million
The European Commission approved a €103 million Dutch scheme for new vessels and conversions using renewable methanol or renewable hydrogen.
The programme mainly targets short-sea passenger, cargo and work vessels. Grants are expected to run through competitive selection between 2027 and 2031, supporting the goals of FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS.
It is a useful demand signal, but vessel funding alone does not create a working fuel market. Operators still need dependable supply, certification, storage, delivery infrastructure and a commercial route to buy the product.
The Bulugo lens: future-fuel capability needs to be discoverable before it can be procured. “Methanol available” is not enough without location, volume, pathway and evidence.
8. Rotterdam Shortsea Terminals moved towards shore power
Rotterdam Shore Power and Rotterdam Shortsea Terminals agreed to develop an onshore-power facility, with supply targeted from 2030.
The project sits at the meeting point of two rules. AFIR requires major TEN-T ports to provide onshore power for qualifying container and passenger ships, while FuelEU Maritime will require qualifying vessels to connect at berth from 2030.
Shore power is not bunker fuel, but it belongs in the same commercial picture. A ship’s energy choice now changes between voyage, approach and berth.
The Bulugo lens: marine-energy procurement is expanding beyond the stem. Port infrastructure and vessel compatibility increasingly influence the overall buying plan.
9. PortXchange made the case for funding operational efficiency
Rotterdam-based PortXchange argued that EU ETS shipping revenues should support digital port and voyage-efficiency projects as well as new fuels.
Its case is that better arrival planning, berth coordination and emissions reporting can reduce waiting, lower speed before arrival and cut fuel consumption in the current fleet. That is less glamorous than announcing a new fuel, but it can deliver benefits sooner.
This is a policy proposal, not an adopted funding decision. Even so, it points to a broader truth: decarbonisation is partly a data and coordination problem.
The Bulugo lens: cleaner operations depend on structured, timely information. Better fuel buying and better port calls are different workflows, but they suffer from the same fragmented data.
10. Singapore selected eight new LNG bunker licensees
Singapore’s Maritime and Port Authority selected eight companies for five-year LNG bunker-supply licences starting in September. The list includes Equatorial Marine Fuel, Shell, Vitol, ExxonMobil, Aramco Trading, PetroChina, Sinopec and a TotalEnergies-Sembcorp joint venture.
MPA assessed supply capability, commercial plans, operating experience and safety, but also methane-slip mitigation and support for lower-lifecycle-emission options such as bio-methane and e-methane. Singapore also plans to strengthen its LNG bunkering standard in August, covering areas including custody transfer and crew competence.
Singapore is global context rather than Rotterdam’s immediate market, but the lesson travels well. A mature multi-fuel hub is built from verified suppliers, operating standards and end-to-end delivery, not a list of fuel names.
The Bulugo lens: buyers need to discover who can supply, where, under what licence, with which delivery assets and with what evidence. Supplier capability has to be structured before it can be compared.
The week in one view
Rotterdam’s alternative-fuel story is real. So is the loss of conventional bunker volume. Those two facts can coexist.
The market is not moving neatly from one fuel to another. It is adding new grades, regulations, infrastructure and evidence requirements while old constraints such as price, prompt availability, sanctions and delivery reliability remain firmly in place.
For buyers, the job is to ask better questions earlier. For suppliers, it is to make real capability easier to find and verify. The next generation of marine-fuel procurement will not win by producing more static information. It will win by turning fragmented market, supplier and operational data into a usable decision.
Sources
- Ship & Bunker, 29 July 2026: Rotterdam Q2 bunker sales down 26.7% year on year; biofuel sales highest since 2024
- Ship & Bunker, 30 July 2026: Dutch maritime groups urge action to protect Rotterdam bunker hub
- Argus, 28 July 2026: MGO prices outpace fuel oil in Europe on tight supply
- Manifold Times / ENGINE, 30 July 2026: Europe and Africa fuel availability outlook
- Ship & Bunker, 29 July 2026: When bunkering puts you on the sanctions list
- Ship & Bunker, 30 July 2026: Shipergy signs energy-adjusted bunker contract with European shipowner
- Ship & Bunker, 28 July 2026: EC approves €103 million for Dutch methanol and hydrogen vessels
- ENGINE, 28 July 2026: Rotterdam Shore Power and RST to develop shore-power facility
- Ship & Bunker, 28 July 2026: PortXchange says EU ETS revenues should support ports as well
- Manifold Times, 31 July 2026: Eight companies selected for new Singapore LNG bunkering licences