Mabux: Global Bunker Prices

LNG BUNKER PAGE
- LNG bunker indexes
- OIL/GAS futures settlements
- LNG bunker news
- LNG fuel energy content
SEE LNG BUNKER INDEXES
MARKET BUNKER PRICES (MBP)
- 400+ ports worldwide
- Bunker Price History available from 2002
- Supplier's contact details
- Price forecast short (1 day) and long (rolling forward 2 years)
- Differentials section: VLSFO/380 HSFO, VLSFO/MGO LS, MGO LS/VLSFO
See Market Bunker Prices
DIGITAL BUNKER PRICES (DBP:ICE/NYMEX)
- Price adjustments to the Bunker Market's volatility instantly
- Completely independent
- Free from price manipulations
- Unique tool to identify overcharge/undercharge prices
See Digital Bunker Prices for free

MABUX ARA LNG Bunker Index
Port LNG$/mton MGO LS$/mton Date
ARA
778.50
0.00
680.00
+10.00
Jun 16
Click to see more LNG Bunker Indexes

Port	LNG$/mton	MGO LS$/mton	Date
ARA	778.50	0.00	680.00	+10.00	Jun 16

MABUX Global Bunker Index

380HSFO$/mton		VLS FO$/mton		MGO LS$/mton		Date
504.31	+10.20	577.50	+6.63	769.87	+8.39	Jun 16

Click to see Regional Bunker Indexes

MABUX Market Differential Index (MDI)

Correlation between market bunker prices (MBP) and MABUX Digital Bunker Price Benchmark (DBP)

All Indexes in $/mton	380HSFO			VLS FO			MGO LS			Date
All Indexes in $/mton	MBP Index	DBP Index	MDI	MBP Index	DBP Index	MDI	MBP Index	DBP Index	MDI	Date
Rotterdam	470	481	-11	523	538	-15	680	676	+4	Jun 16
Singapore	480	491	-11	562	586	-24	668	709	-41	Jun 16
Fujairah	468	526	-58	548	590	-42	728	862	-134	Jun 16
Houston	453	508	-55	524	633	-109	682	737	-55	Jun 16

Click to see more details

Digital Bunker Prices
Reasons, Mechanism, Benefits
Click to view presentation

Try free for 3 days

Analytical Section
- Daily and Weekly Bunker analyses and Future Curves
- World and regional Bunker indices
- Bunker Price Forecast for 40+ ports
- Digital Bunker Prices
MABUX for Industry
- API for integration with your application, custom solutions available upon demand
- Bunker market analyses upon request for required region or port
- Bunker Price seminars that allow to learn how to use MABUX tools for bunker business
- MABUX Open Bunker Directory features contact details of bunker suppliers, traders and brokers worldwide.
Latest News
- 2025-06-16
  ASIA PACIFIC: BUNKER SALES HIT 2025 HIGH IN SINGAPORE
  The 4,878,100 metric tonnes of marine fuel (including alternative fuels) sold in Singapore last month marked the highest monthly total since January 2024. Last month’s total was up 1.1% on the 4,826,800 mt that was sold in May 2024, preliminary statistics... Read more
- 2025-06-16
  MIDDLE EAST: TFG-OOMCO BUNKERING JV UP AND RUNNING IN OMAN Written by Lesley Bankes-Hughes Published: 16 June 2025 TFG-OOMCO,
  TFG-OOMCO, the bunkering joint venture between TFG Marine and Oman Oil Marketing Company (OOMOC) officially launched today (16 June) and is now fully operational at the ports of Sohar, Sultan Qaboos and Duqm. The venture, which was first announced... Read more
- 2025-06-16
  ASIA PACIFIC: CMA CGM MULLING OPTIONS FOR BUILDING LNG-FUELLED SHIPS IN INDIA
  India’s Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways (MoPSW) has reported that the French shipping giant CMA CGM is looking at the possibility of building new LNG-fuelled box ships in Indian shipyards. In a statement issued on Saturday (14 June), the... Read more
- 2025-06-16
  INTERVIEW: AMMONIA BUNKERING COULD TAKE OFF AT SCALE BY 2030, NAVIGATOR GAS SAYS
  Navigator Gas is looking to retrofit some of its handysize gas carriers to become ammonia bunkering vessels, in anticipation of supply chains for the new marine fuel that could take hold at the end of the decade, the company’s CEO Mads Peter Zacho told... Read more
- 2025-06-16
  AMERICAS: BUNKER SALES RISE 13.9% Y-O-Y IN PANAMA
  The 453,397 metric tonnes (mt) of marine fuel that were sold in Panama last month marked a 13.9% year-on-year (y-o-y) increase on the 398,064 mt sold in May 2024. Last month’s total was, however, marginally down on the 459,126 mt that was sold in April,... Read more
- 2025-06-16
  Oil prices push higher as Israel-Iran conflict sparks supply fears
  Oil prices rose in Asian trade on Monday, extending a recent rally after an intensifying conflict between Israel and Iran ramped up concerns over supply disruptions in the Middle East. But prices traded below a 4-½ month high hit on Friday in the immediate... Read more Oil prices rose in Asian trade on Monday, extending a recent rally after an intensifying conflict between Israel and Iran ramped up concerns over supply disruptions in the Middle East.
  But prices traded below a 4-½ month high hit on Friday in the immediate aftermath of Israeli attacks against Iran. Tehran retaliated with a series of missile strikes over the weekend.
  Brent oil futures for August rose 0.5% to $74.59 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate crude futures rose 0.6% to $71.66 a barrel by 21:01 ET (01:01 GMT).
  Israel-Iran conflict worsens, US intervention eyed
  Israel and Iran launched a volley of strikes against each other over the weekend, with leaders from both sides signaling little intent to deescalate.
  Israel had first struck Tehran on Friday, and was also seen attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Tehran retaliated with missile strikes against major Israeli cities, with several missiles seen hitting Tel Aviv.
  The latest conflict pushed up bets on more restrictions on Iranian oil, and also sparked concerns over disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which is a major shipping channel for Asia and Europe.
  Focus was now squarely on whether the U.S. will intervene in the conflict. President Donald Trump said that efforts were being made to reach a ceasefire, but that Israel and Iran may have to “fight it out” before a deal could be reached.
  
  Trump also warned Iran against attacking U.S. facilities in the region.
  Israel’s Friday attack saw Iran cancel nuclear talks with the U.S., which were scheduled to take place over the weekend.
  Central bank barrage on tap
  While the Israel-Iran conflict is likely to drive oil’s performance in the near-term, focus this week is also on a barrage of major central bank meetings.
  The Bank of Japan is set to meet on Tuesday and is likely to leave interest rates unchanged, although traders will be watching for any more economic cues.
  The U.S. Federal Reserve is set to keep rates unchanged on Wednesday, with focus squarely on whether the central bank will signal any more rate cuts amid softening inflation and a cooling economy.
  China’s central bank is set to decide on its benchmark loan prime rate later this week, while the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of England are also set to decide on rates this week.
  Source: Investing.com
- 2025-06-16
  OPEC Stuck between Market Share Push, Demand Uncertainty
  In the past, oil price wars were short, sharp and, to those who profited from them, sweet. Now, an oil price war is a more cautious affair—assuming what OPEC is doing with its supply return is a price war, of course. And because most assume just that,... Read more In the past, oil price wars were short, sharp and, to those who profited from them, sweet. Now, an oil price war is a more cautious affair—assuming what OPEC is doing with its supply return is a price war, of course. And because most assume just that, all eyes are on the group’s chances of success. These are uncertain, to say the least, with most demand forecasts predicting a disaster for prices.
  
  OPEC and its friends from OPEC+ decided to start returning 411,000 barrels daily to the global oil market in May. Since then, they have agreed to two more production boosts of the same size. Interpretations of their motives for that have hogged headlines since the first announcement shocked oil traders who had expected a supply boost of less than 150,000 bpd for May. But in case anyone’s been following actual prices, these rose.
  
  Leaving aside the latest surge in prices prompted by Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear facilities this week, oil price movements since the original OPEC announcement about the supply return have been ambivalent, to put it mildly. Yes, the production boost pressured benchmarks, in turn pressuring higher-cost U.S. shale producers. Yes, it brought additional supply to a market that is claimed to be already oversupplied—but these claims need physical demand data confirmation and they might not get it. More importantly, supply security over the long term is thinning due to falling investments.
  
  It was OPEC yet again that warned about the dangers of lower investments in new oil and gas exploration. Secretary-General Haitham Al Ghais said this week that global investment needs for new oil and gas stand at $17.4 trillion for the next 25 years. For comparison’s sake, the investment needed for achieving a net-zero global economy has been calculated at $110 trillion for the period between 2021 and 2050 but in the past three years the price tag has repeatedly been revised upwards.
  
  Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal writes that OPEC’s strategy of returning supply to the market could tip that market into a surplus of some 1 million barrels daily, set to grow to 1.5 million barrels daily in 2026, according to Goldman Sachs—bar a new war in the Middle East, of course.
  
  This is, of course, bad news for shale drillers who face higher costs than Saudi Aramco, which, per that WSJ report, can break even at $35 per barrel. Yet Aramco’s majority owner cannot break even budget-wise at $35 per barrel. Because it has expensive plans for economic diversification. In fact, according to the International Monetary Fund, Riyadh needs $92 per barrel to break even. Per most authors of analysis regarding OPEC and OPEC+ policy, this is not going to happen anytime soon—unless, war.
  
  Indeed, most media can’t go a week without publishing a grim outlook on oil demand, painting a picture of excess barrels and tanking prices because the world has moved on to EVs and energy efficiency. The latest comes from Bloomberg’s opinion column, where David Fickling argues that “As electric vehicles take more market share and climate damage grows,” global oil production is about to start declining, never returning to 2018 levels. It’s peak oil all over again but this time the reference point is 2018 instead of 2019—which production was never going to return to as well, according to none other than BP’s former CEO who embraced the energy transition.
  
  We all know how that embrace ended.
  
  Now, it is quite possible that world oil production will indeed not return to 2018 levels. It is also possible that oil demand surprises on the upside, as it has done before. And then there is the question of supply maintenance—because even if oil demand is done growing ever more, supply needs to be maintained to satisfy the already existing demand. This is what OPEC is banking on over the longer term. It’s that and Asian economic growth, which invariably leads to higher oil—and gas—demand.
  
  The Wall Street Journal is right in noting that this price war is a cautious one. It would be nice to have less competition from the U.S. shale patch but it would be even nicer to grab a bigger market share with a view to long-term demand coverage—which is why OPEC is not actively trying to really tank prices. That, and it doesn’t really want to face the budget consequences, which will be rather severe.
  
  The outlook for oil demand started getting uncertain when the energy transition got underway. Some staunchly believe it is unstoppable and irreversible. Parts of it certainly are—China is not going back to the smog years. But there are limits to how much you can change in energy, as evidenced by the fact that China is once again building new coal power plants at a faster rate than last year—despite its record wind and solar capacity. Meanwhile, new oil and gas discoveries are getting sparser and sparser. Perhaps OPEC has learned to wait and play the long game.
  
  Source: Oilprice.com
- 2025-06-16
  Can Africa Power Europe’s Green Hydrogen Ambitions?
  The EU has committed $27.4 million to the Italian H2 Backbone project, part of a 3,300 km pipeline to deliver hydrogen from North Africa to Europe by 2030. Algeria and Tunisia support the project despite lacking solid export strategies, and currently... Read more The EU has committed $27.4 million to the Italian H2 Backbone project, part of a 3,300 km pipeline to deliver hydrogen from North Africa to Europe by 2030.
  
  Algeria and Tunisia support the project despite lacking solid export strategies, and currently plan to supply only 8% of the pipeline's capacity by 2030.
  
  A recent study warns that without significant policy support, African green hydrogen may be economically unviable for Europe due to high production costs.
  
  Hydrogen
  As several countries expand their green hydrogen production capacities, regions will have to develop new pipelines and energy transportation corridors to support a green transition across borders. Some countries are more well-suited to producing green hydrogen than others, meaning that energy sharing could help non-production countries gain access to clean fuel to help decarbonise. Advancements have been made in connecting North Africa with Europe in recent years and green hydrogen is likely to start flowing through pipelines by as early as 2030.
  
  In June, the European Climate, Environment and Infrastructure Executive Agency awarded $27.4 million to advance the Italian H2 Backbone project, the North Africa-Europe hydrogen link. The project is part of the larger SoutH2 Corridor, a 3,300 km hydrogen pipeline network under the Mediterranean Sea that is expected to transport up to 4 million tonnes of hydrogen from North Africa to southern Germany each year. Transmission system operators from Germany, Austria, and Italy are developing the project. The 1,900 km H2 Backbone stretch will consist of 60 percent converted gas pipelines and is expected to be completed by 2030.
  
  Algeria and Tunisia agreed to support the European powers with the project in January, despite neither having a clear hydrogen export strategy for the end of the decade. There has long been talk about North Africa becoming a green hydrogen superpower, by converting solar power into the clean electricity needed to power electrolysis for the green hydrogen production process. However, several challenges stand in the way of achieving the output of green hydrogen required to achieve regional green transition aims.
  
  The project aims to connect hydrogen plants in Algeria and Tunisia to the Italian island of Sicily and consumer hubs in Austria and Germany. However, neither production site has yet been developed in the two North African countries, and both expect large-scale green hydrogen production to take around a decade to develop. Meanwhile, the corridor is expected to deliver over 40 percent of the EU’s target to import 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030 when fully operational, according to the project consortium. At present, Algeria and Tunisia expect to have combined capacity to export around 330,000 tonnes of hydrogen – or 8 percent of the pipeline’s capacity – by 2030.
  
  It is not just North Africa that Europe is looking to for green hydrogen, with the EU having financed projects in Kenya, Mauritania, and Namibia. Financing has mainly supported green ammonia projects in these regions. The European Union also recently invested $5.4 million, as part of its Global Gateway strategy, to advance South Africa’s clean energy sector, particularly green hydrogen, this year.
  
  European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasised South Africa’s potential to become a global leader in green hydrogen thanks to its abundant renewable energy resources. South Africa also has around 91 percent of the global platinum group metal reserves, which is needed to produce electrolysers. The EU aims to finance facilities to attract higher levels of public and private funding into the renewable energy sector, as well as boost trade relations. The EU will also provide technical assistance for hydrogen project development. The collaboration supports South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership, which aims to help the country move away from fossil fuels to renewable alternatives.
  
  In March, von der Leyen stated, “Together with private companies, we can unlock investments in clean energy, raw materials, and green hydrogen. We can strengthen local industry by securing agreements for future production, providing certainty. And we can facilitate the trade of made-in-South Africa products to Europe.”
  
  Several African countries are finally seeing the investment needed to support a green transition from high-income European countries. However, developing a large-scale green hydrogen industry from scratch is extremely complex and it could take decades to reach the output needed to support regional decarbonisation aims.
  
  One study, published in the Nature Journal in June, has cast doubt on the economic viability of Africa’s aim to export green hydrogen to Europe. The study suggests that unless significant policy support is introduced, North African green hydrogen may be too expensive for European markets. The study found that “without European policy interventions, green H2 from Africa remains prohibitively expensive with least costs from €4.2 kgH2−1 to €4.9 kgH2−1 depending on the interest rate environment.” By contrast, the cost of producing grey hydrogen using natural gas stands at between €1 to €2 per kg.
  
  There is great optimism around establishing a green hydrogen corridor to connect Europe with North Africa. Investment in the energy link could help several African countries to develop their renewable energy and green hydrogen industries, as well as provide European countries with the green fuel needed to help decarbonise. However, achieving this will require policy support across several countries, as well as greater investment in rapidly scaling up green hydrogen operations and driving down production costs. Source: Oilprice.com
- 2025-06-16
  MABUX: Global bunker indices set to continue upward trend on June 16 amid market volatility.
  The MABUX World Bunker Index—a composite indicator tracking daily prices for 380 HSFO, VLSFO, and MGO— continued its upward momentum on June 13, marking the second consecutive day of significant gains: 380 HSFO - USD/MT - 494.11 (+21.21) VLSFO - USD/MT... Read more The MABUX World Bunker Index—a composite indicator tracking daily prices for 380 HSFO, VLSFO, and MGO— continued its upward momentum on June 13, marking the second consecutive day of significant gains:
  
  380 HSFO - USD/MT - 494.11 (+21.21)
  VLSFO - USD/MT – 570.87 (+21.52)
  MGO - USD/MT – 761.48 (+26.00)
  
  As of Jun.13, the MABUX Market Differential Index (MDI), tracking the correlation between market bunker prices (MBP) and the MABUX Digital Bunker Price Benchmark (DBP)— indicated divergent pricing trends across all major ports (Rotterdam, Singapore, Fujairah, and Houston) in all bunker fuel segments amid high volatility in the market:
  
  • HSFO segment: Rotterdam and Singapore shifted into the overcharge zone, with premiums widening by $22 and $28, respectively. Fujairah and Houston remained in the undercharge zone, though discounts narrowed by $40 and $36, respectively.
  
  • VLSFO segment: Rotterdam and Singapore shifted into the overcharge zone, with premiums increasing by $26 and $36, respectively. Fujairah and Houston continued to be undercharged, although underpricing margins narrowed by $40 and $26, respectively. Houston's MDI approached a 100% correlation between MBP and DBP.
  
  • MGO LS segment: Rotterdam and Singapore shifted into the overcharge zone, with premiums increasing by $26 and $36, respectively. Fujairah and Houston continued to be undercharged, although underpricing margins narrowed by $40 and $26, respectively. Houston's MDI approached a 100% correlation between MBP and DBP.
  
  The global bunker market is expected to maintain its upward momentum on Jun.16 amid persistent volatility: 380 HSFO – plus 10-15 USD/MT, VLSFO – plus 10-18 USD/MT, MGO LS – plus 15-25 USD/MT.
  Source: MABUX
- 2025-06-16
  How the U.S. is Handing Over Venezuela’s Oil Sector to China
  After coming into office, the administration of President Donald Trump has eliminated licenses for oil companies to operate in Venezuela, despite initial hints that it would continue them, with presidential envoy Richard Grenell’s visits to Caracas. This... Read more After coming into office, the administration of President Donald Trump has eliminated licenses for oil companies to operate in Venezuela, despite initial hints that it would continue them, with presidential envoy Richard Grenell’s visits to Caracas. This means that sanctions on state-owned PDVSA are fully back on. Chevron, the main U.S. corporation on the ground, is back to having only a secret license for minimum maintenance and security, as it still a shareholder in four joint ventures.
  
  In the last few months, this has sparked a question. Is the U.S. government leaving the South American country at the mercy of Beijing? Could Chinese companies replace Chevron in Venezuela?
  
  There are two short answers. In terms of oil exports, yes. And this has already happened. Before the first round of economic and financial sanctions hit in 2017, the U.S. took almost 800,000 barrels per day from Venezuela. This figure went all the way down to zero in 2019, with the highest level of restrictions known as “maximum pressure.” This happened again in May of this year, as Chevron, Repsol and others were blocked by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
  
  So, where does all the oil go? In past years, Caracas was able to strike agreements with Rosneft or with Indian buyers. But as the U.S. introduced secondary sanctions, and now secondary tariffs, there was only one buyer left, the only one that does not fear Washington’s threats: China.
  
  Reuters has already reported that crude that was produced in joint ventures with Chevron has been on its way to East Asia. And the Chinese market does have the capacity to absorb Venezuelan oil. The only problem is how much PDVSA gets paid, when there is only one buyer on the block—a monopsony.
  
  When it comes down to Chinese companies taking over Chevron’s operations, this is unlikely to happen in the near to medium term. More than anything else, because it does not need to happen for Beijing to expand its influence and control. The same goes for Moscow or Iran.
  
  First, investors have plenty of options before them, from greenfield opportunities to mature fields that only need repairs. Venezuela has thousands of square kilometres with billions of barrels of oil underneath. And most joint ventures are effectively dormant: just 20 out of 64 areas of operation are producing more than 10,000 barrels per day of crude, while most are stuck at 0 or below the 1,000 mark.
  
  Second, regime officials will prefer to keep the fields where Chevron invested for themselves. 240,000 barrels per day is a great business opportunity. This means millions of dollars in contracts for goods and services, that used to be managed by a foreign corporation—not anymore, courtesy of President Trump.
  
  Can Chinese companies take over Chevron’s oil fields?
  
  Now, Chinese companies entering Chevron’s former operations can definitely happen. Let us start with Productive Participation Contracts (known as CPP for their initials in Spanish), which are a form of production-sharing agreement coupled with exclusive rights to contract goods and services.
  
  Hong Kong-based China Concord Petroleum (CCP) has started working in oil fields which are part of a joint venture with Belorusneft, using a CPP. Given that “Petrolera Bielovenezolana” was not productive—with an average output of just 200 barrels per day—the Venezuelan government effectively put it up for rent.
  
  The Venezuelan government is not just signing production sharing agreements in areas where there are joint ventures; it is even figuring a way to normalise this framework. This could include that not just PDVSA, but the other shareholders in the joint venture get paid dividends as well by the CPP company.
  
  Thanks to the minimum maintenance license, Chevron is still a partner to PDVSA. But with no way to pay, the Venezuelan government feels entitled to remove it from operational control. In the coming years, it should be no surprise if a new company—Chinese or from any other country—effectively takes over.
  
  Here is another point that cannot be overlooked: CPPs are negotiated and signed in secret, since they were created under a special law to bypass sanctions. So far, we only know that CCP, Anhui Guangda Mining Investment and Kerui Petroleum Group have been eyeing up opportunities in Venezuela, but there could be more companies out there that we just do not know of yet.
  
  While Anhui Guangda has signed a deal for a greenfield project in the Orinoco Oil Belt—the Ayacucho 2 block—there are reports that these firms have also shown interest in the joint ventures where Petrobras was involved.
  
  China’s mineral monopsony
  
  Oil is only one part of the story. In the mining sector, China and Iran are the only major foreign states. Initially, many U.S. and other Western companies left due to expropriations, especially during Hugo Chávez’s expropriation spree between 2007 and 2012. But now, while there is more openness to foreign capital, the OFAC is sanctioning the gold sector, which makes the entire mining industry riskier. India’s Jindal Steel & Power was nonetheless able to start up at the Cerro Bolívar iron mines last year.
  
  For some minerals, China is the only game in town. An example is cassiterite, a type of rock which contains tin (about 65%) and smaller quantities of tantalum, platinum and other rare minerals. Buyers are keeping production at arm’s length, which is mostly done by artisanal mining. But they nonetheless have an outsized influence on the sector—this is a monopsony—and the same is happening with oil. Source: Oilprice.com

Buy subscriptions via