By Steve Christy, Expert Contributor, Integr8 Fuels

29 July 2026

We have just seen one false dawn, is there another to come? 

Last month, we wrote about how close we were to the expected lows in Brent and Rotterdam bunker prices, but not yet Singapore. Given what has happened since, a month is not only a long time in politics, but also a very long time in the bunker market. 

There was a resumption of attacks in the Arabian Gulf region on 13 July, followed by targeted Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea oil infrastructure and shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb region, the gateway between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. As a result, Brent futures fell to lows of around $70/bbl in late June and early July before surging to a high of $100/bbl on 23 July. Over the same period, Singapore VLSFO fell to $635/mt before climbing to $865/mt, a swing of $230/mt in just 16 days. 

Prices at the start of this week fell sharply after a halt in Arabian Gulf attacks over the weekend, with front month Brent was down to intra-day lows of $84/bbl, and Singapore VLSFO $750/mt.  However, at the time of writing there has been a ‘surprise’ attack by Iran, and retaliatory action by the US, with prices rising again.  It looks like we could be at another false dawn. 

The obvious questions are: will there be a return to peace negotiations, and are we close to the end of the war and free-flowing traffic through the strait of Hormuz (and also the Bab el-Mandeb)? The obvious answer is, we don’t know; there are only a few people that are likely to know the answer to this. All we can do is plan for every eventuality. 

Low stocks, higher bunker prices, and a strong Singapore VLSFO premium: it’s a challenge 

For those of us in the bunker market, the point we made last month about Singapore VLSFO trading at a strong premium to crude still holds, albeit slightly less pronounced. The loss of supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, together with the added uncertainty surrounding Saudi product exports from the Jizan and Rabigh refineries on the Red Sea, has sustained this premium. 

These developments are likely to keep the Singapore VLSFO premium to crude at elevated levels until there is greater confidence that Middle East crude and product supplies are returning to more normal trading patterns. Amid all the price volatility, this Singapore VLSFO premium remains a key indicator to watch. 

Backwardation in Brent futures illustrates market psychology 

One month ago, backwardation in Brent futures (front month minus second month) had fallen from $7/bbl to virtually nothing, reflecting the market’s belief that an end to the war was little more than a negotiating step away. It wasn’t. The resumption of attacks, coupled with Houthi involvement in the Red Sea, sent prices sharply higher again, with backwardation in the Brent futures market returning to almost $6/bbl. 

The halt in attacks over the past weekend has taken steam out of the market, with prices and backwardation falling sharply. Where we go from here depends if there is again a belief peace is on the horizon, or if this is another false dawn. The past month highlights how impossible it is to predict an ending to the war, and how fragile any expectations of peace can be. 

We cannot ignore the price, but still must look to the future

It is impossible to write a report and not highlight the turmoil of the current market and what is happening. However, we still must look beyond this, to see where we could end up. 

In an earlier report, we suggested the run-up to the US mid-term elections in November may be a backstop to the war. However, even this is not guaranteed. There are many dynamic elements to the economy and voter intentions, but one feature that will always crop up in the US is the gasoline price. This has risen from $3/gallon before the war to over $4/gallon for the past four months. 

If it comes to it, will Republican voters want to see a resolution to the war and a return to $3 gasoline prices ahead of the elections? 

We have a change of heart on how low bunker prices can go

We don’t know exact timings, but in any planning, we must look at what happens when the war does finally end and prices fall, whenever that may be. In past reports we have highlighted the view that Brent crude prices are unlikely to fall back to pre-war levels in the $60s, and Singapore VLSFO unlikely to go back in to the $400s. This may be the point at which these views change.

Previous thinking was based on a relatively short war, where there would be a large loss of oil supply and a massive stock-draw. In this case, tighter stock levels would be sufficient to keep prices higher than their pre-war levels once we returned to ‘normality’. This would mean Brent futures in the $70s (and not in the $60s), and Singapore VLSFO in the $500s, and not the $400s.

A number of mainstream analysts also held this view, although there were some that were lower and some higher.

Given the war has already gone on for much longer than almost everyone expected, this thinking must change. Yes, global stocks have been drawn down at a rapid rate, but this is slowing. Higher pricing and inflationary blows have had a major impact on global oil demand, with current indications that total oil demand in the second quarter of this year was some 4 million b/d lower than year earlier levels.

The graph below shows this sharp drop in demand and even if the war comes to an end relatively soon, and demand gets back towards some normality, a structural loss of more than 1 million b/d in global oil demand is still expected to have taken place because of the extended period of conflict.

If the war goes on for even longer, structural losses in global oil demand are likely to be even greater.

Source: US EIA

It’s a hard road, but we can get there

This means that once the war does end, market psychology will be looking at a rapid increase in oil supplies going into a global market which is much lower in demand.  This opens the way for prices to easily return to their pre-war levels of Brent in the $60s and Singapore VLSFO in the $400s. 

Now we just need those at the centre of negotiations to get us there.

Photo credit and source: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 30 July, 2026

Classification society Lloyd’s Register (LR) on Tuesday (14 July) warned that ship operators are facing a growing risk from fuels that appear compliant under routine ISO 8217 testing but still present operational risks once onboard.

According to LR’s latest Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) Fuel Quality Report, covering the first half of 2026, off-specification fuels remain a persistent challenge. 

However, some of the most disruptive cases now involve fuels that pass routine compliance testing but show poor stability or compatibility, or contain non-conventional blend components that are only identified through more detailed investigative analysis.

Several incidents investigated highlighted this trend. In March and April, a number of vessels reported operational difficulties after bunkering fuel in a major bunkering hub. Further forensic analysis found that many of the fuels contained elevated concentrations of Estonian shale oil, in some cases estimated to be around 10-15%.

While shale oil is recognised within ISO 8217 as an acceptable blend component, FOBAS investigations found that higher concentrations can be associated with fuel instability and operational issues affecting filters, separators and fuel pumps.

The report also shows that fuel quality variability remains stubbornly high. Off-specification cases remained elevated throughout the first six months of 2026, suggesting that quality issues are no longer isolated events but a more persistent feature of today’s marine fuel supply chain.

The most common recurring issues included sulphur exceedances, excessive water content, sediment and stability problems, elevated catalytic fines, sodium contamination and low flash point distillate fuels.

At the same time, biofuels (especially FAME blends) are continuing to grow without being a primary source of quality issues. Where issues occurred in blended fuels, they were generally associated with the conventional VLSFO component rather than the FAME fraction.

The report concluded that operators will need to adopt a more proactive approach to fuel management as marine fuels become more diverse and fuel quality risks become harder to identify through routine compliance testing alone.

Greater emphasis on fuel stability, compatibility and understanding fuel composition will be critical to reducing operational disruption and maintaining vessel performance.

Murray Kirkwood, Fuel Specialist Consultant, Lloyd’s Register, said: “The findings from our latest report show that fuel quality risk is evolving. The challenge is no longer simply identifying fuels that fail specification. Increasingly, operators are encountering fuels that meet the required limits but still create operational difficulties once they are stored, handled and used onboard.

“As fuel blending becomes more complex, the distinction that matters is increasingly not between on-spec and off-spec fuel, but between fuels that are operationally resilient and fuels that are operationally fragile. Understanding that difference is becoming essential for shipowners and operators.”

The latest findings reinforced FOBAS’ long-standing view that effective fuel management increasingly depends on understanding fuel behaviour rather than relying solely on pass-or-fail specification testing.

By combining routine fuel quality monitoring with forensic investigation of operational incidents, FOBAS provides shipowners with a clearer understanding of emerging fuel quality risks as the industry continues its transition to a more diverse and complex fuel landscape.

Note: The FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel Quality Report H1 2026 is available at FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel quality reports | LR

Photo credit: Lloyd’s Register
Published: 15 July, 2026

Mithat Çiftçioğlu, Marine Fuels Director at Alkagesta, shared his opinion on risk management for bunkering operations under current geopolitical tensions through the April edition of shipping magazine Deniz Ticaret.

The maritime publication, part of the Turkish Chamber of Shipping (İMEAK Deniz Ticaret Odası), has given Manifold Times permission to republish the article:

Fueling Ships in Turbulent Times

From Oil Shock to Fuel Access Crisis: A New Risk Map for Maritime 2026

The final weeks of the first quarter of 2026 mark one of the most complex periods in recent years for global energy and maritime markets. The sharp rise in oil and refined product prices since February 28 may look like a classic energy shock at first glance, but developments in the maritime sector point to a far deeper structural rupture.

What is being debated in the market today is no longer just oil prices. For traders and shipowners operating in the maritime sector and bunker market, the real issue is not the price of fuel — it is access to fuel. The fundamental question in the market has shifted: not what will the price of fuel be, but will fuel even be available?

In light of the Force Majeure cancellations at Asian ports over the past two weeks, another question must also be considered: Will pre-agreed bunker supply contracts actually be delivered?

From Oil Prices to Logistical Reality

Tensions in the Middle East have created a strong geopolitical risk premium in the oil market. Brent crude briefly surpassed the $100 per barrel mark, triggering a search for a new equilibrium across markets. This will inevitably bring inflation and recession back onto the global agenda in the months ahead.

But the rise in oil prices does not only reflect the risk of supply disruption — it also signals the return of one of the most fragile chokepoints in global energy trade:

The Strait of Hormuz

Approximately one-third of the world’s oil trade passes through this narrow waterway. Around 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products transit Hormuz daily. Any disruption here would therefore affect not only oil prices, but also global refined product flows and the bunker market directly.

Why Strategic Oil Reserves Are Not the Solution

A commonly proposed solution in energy crises is the release of strategic petroleum reserves. However, releasing these reserves does not directly resolve a bunker crisis. Strategic reserves consist of crude oil. To produce bunker fuel, the following chain must be completed:

Crude oil → Refinery → Product logistics → Bunker port

This process takes time. Strategic reserves can temporarily stabilize oil prices, but they cannot solve the access problem in the bunker market in the short term.

Furthermore, the announced reserve release of 400 million barrels, to be drawn down at a rate of 2.5–3 million barrels per day, can only cover a small fraction of the estimated daily loss from the Middle East — optimistically 8–10 million barrels, pessimistically 18–20 million barrels per day.

A Historic Surge in Bunker Fuel Prices

The per-ton price of VLSFO (0.5% sulfur) bunker fuel has surpassed $1,000, reaching approximately double pre-war levels. This also represents some of the highest prices seen since July 2022.

While prices at bunker hubs such as Singapore and Fujairah are approaching $1,100 per ton, European markets have remained comparatively lower.

The Real Problem Is Not Price — It Is Fuel Access

Obtaining bunker quotes for April has become increasingly difficult, particularly at Asian ports. Even where shipowners and traders can secure quotes, the absence of supply guarantees makes pricing extremely challenging.

A senior executive at Oldendorff Carriers summarized the situation in these words:

“We cannot price cargo because we cannot calculate fuel costs; we cannot calculate fuel costs because there is no supply guarantee.”

The CEO of Maersk has compared the current situation to the pandemic era, stating that companies are attempting to source fuel through methods they have never tried before in order to keep global shipping networks supplied.

While supply is tight and prices are near their peak in Singapore and Fujairah, Rotterdam appears relatively more balanced. However, as the conflict drags on, risk perception in European markets is also rising.

The surge in bunker prices will not only increase costs — it will also affect global maritime transport capacity. Ships are expected to reduce their speeds to conserve fuel. This could lead to a reduction in effective carrying capacity, creating new logistical bottlenecks in global trade.

The importance of working with reliable, long-term partners has never been more apparent than during a crisis such as this.

The Widening Price Spread Between Fuel Types

A notable development in the bunker market in recent weeks is the rapid widening of price differentials between different fuel types. Two spreads in particular have expanded significantly:

• Marine Gas Oil (MGO) – VLSFO
• VLSFO – HSFO

Rising demand for distillate products, refinery production balances, and regional supply tightness are all contributing to this widening. As a result, bunker purchases have become not merely a matter of price level, but a strategic decision tied to product type and port selection.

An Unexpected Development: Biofuels Becoming Competitive

Another noteworthy development in the bunker market is that biofuels have remained at relatively competitive price levels. This creates two important opportunities for shipowners.

On one hand, biofuels remain competitively priced in certain markets. On the other, they offer a means of compliance with new regulations entering into force in Europe — particularly the FuelEU Maritime and EU ETS frameworks, which require reductions in carbon intensity. In this context, biofuels have become a strategic option for many shipowners.

Conclusion: Active Bunker Management Is The New Normal

The 2026 bunker market presents one of the most complex energy trading environments in recent years. The rise in oil prices, geopolitical risk at the Strait of Hormuz, tightness in physical fuel supply, and widening price spreads between fuel types have made bunker fuel management more critical than ever.

The prevailing view in energy markets is that as long as the risk at the Strait of Hormuz persists, turbulence in the bunker market will persist with it. As time passes, the depletion of commercial stocks may deepen the existing supply tightness further.

For this reason, the current situation is viewed not merely as an energy crisis, but as a new stress scenario testing the logistical infrastructure of global trade.

The view increasingly heard across energy markets is this:

“As long as Hormuz remains closed, it will not be oil prices but fuel access that constitutes the defining risk for global shipping.”

Finally, for shipowners and operators, bunker strategies are shifting away from a passive purchasing approach toward a model grounded in active risk management.

Photo and article credit: Deniz Ticaret
Published: 7 May 2026