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
758.50
0.00
687.00
-3.00
Feb 10
Click to see more LNG Bunker Indexes

Port	LNG$/mton	MGO LS$/mton	Date
ARA	758.50	0.00	687.00	-3.00	Feb 10

MABUX Global Bunker Index

380HSFO$/mton		VLS FO$/mton		MGO LS$/mton		Date
432.36	+1.98	518.86	+2.22	781.02	-0.37	Feb 10

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	407	442	-35	452	491	-39	687	708	-21	Feb 10
Singapore	433	438	-5	485	533	-48	668	701	-33	Feb 10
Fujairah	406	404	+2	468	524	-56	740	764	-24	Feb 10
Houston	358	416	-58	461	475	-14	656	691	-35	Feb 10

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
- 2026-02-10
  Oil prices steady as Iran-US tensions and US data eyed
  Oil prices were little changed on Tuesday as the market waited for direction from news on Iran and Russia and data on the U.S. economy and U.S. oil inventories. Brent futures rose 27 cents, or 0.4%, to $69.31 a barrel at 9:58 a.m. EST (1458 GMT), while... Read more Oil prices were little changed on Tuesday as the market waited for direction from news on Iran and Russia and data on the U.S. economy and U.S. oil inventories.
  Brent futures rose 27 cents, or 0.4%, to $69.31 a barrel at 9:58 a.m. EST (1458 GMT), while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude rose 12 cents, or 0.2%, to $64.48.
  "The market is still focused on the tensions between Iran and the U.S.," said Tamas Varga, oil analyst at brokerage PVM. "But unless there are concrete signs of supply disruptions, prices will likely start going lower."
  Nuclear talks with the U.S. allowed Tehran to gauge Washington’s seriousness and showed enough consensus to continue on the diplomatic track, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson said on Tuesday.
  U.S. and Iranian diplomats held talks through Omani mediators in Oman last week in an effort to revive diplomacy, after U.S. President Donald Trump positioned a naval flotilla in the region, raising fears of new military action.
  On Monday, oil prices rose more than 1% when the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration advised U.S.-flagged commercial vessels to stay as far from Iran’s territorial waters as possible and to decline verbally if Iranian forces seek permission to board.
  About a fifth of the oil consumed globally passes through the Strait of Hormuz between Oman and Iran, making any escalation in the area a major risk to global oil supplies.
  
  Iran and fellow Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq export most of their crude via the strait, mainly to Asia.
  "While talks in Oman produced a cautiously positive tone, a modest risk premium has been kept intact by lingering uncertainty over potential escalation, sanctions tightening or supply disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz," said IG analyst Tony Sycamore.
  Iran was the third-biggest crude producer in OPEC behind Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 2025, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data.
  RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
  European Union (EU) foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said on Tuesday she would propose a list of concessions that Europe should demand from Russia as part of a settlement to end the war in Ukraine.
  The EU has proposed to extend its sanctions against Russia to include ports in Georgia and Indonesia that handle Russian oil, the first time the bloc would target ports in third countries, according to a proposal document seen by Reuters.
  The move is part of efforts to squeeze Russian revenue over the war in Ukraine.
  Indian Oil Corp, meanwhile, bought six million barrels of crude from West Africa and the Middle East, traders said, as India steered clear of Russian oil in New Delhi’s push for a trade deal with Washington.
  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, said that there was no reason to be enthusiastic about U.S. President Trump’s pressure on Europe and Ukraine as there was still a long way to go in talks on peace in Ukraine, RIA reported on Tuesday.
  
  Russia was the world’s third-biggest crude producer behind the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in 2025, according to EIA data.
  U.S. ECONOMY AND OIL INVENTORIES
  U.S. retail sales were unexpectedly unchanged in December, putting consumer spending and the overall economy on a slower growth path in the new year.
  Analysts said investors will scrutinize a slate of U.S. economic data releases scheduled for this week, including January’s nonfarm payrolls report on Wednesday and inflation data on Friday, for clues to the Federal Reserve’s interest rate path.
  Central banks, like the Fed, raise and lower interest rates to keep inflation in check. U.S. President Trump has pressured the Fed to lower interest rates, which is politically popular because it reduces consumers’ costs and can boost economic growth and energy demand, but could also result in an unwanted rise in inflation.
  In the energy market, traders are waiting for weekly U.S. oil inventory data from the American Petroleum Institute (API) trade group on Tuesday and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) on Wednesday. [EIA/S] [API/S]
  Analysts forecast U.S. crude stockpiles declined by around 3.5 million barrels last week.
  If correct, that would be the first time energy firms pulled oil from storage for three weeks in a row since June 2025. That compares with an increase of 4.1 million barrels during the same week last year and an average increase of 1.4 million barrels over the past five years (2021-2025). Source: Reuters/Investing.com
- 2026-02-10
  Chinese shipyard to build three LNG bunkering vessels
  Chinese shipbuilding company Nantong CIMC Sinopacific Offshore & Engineering (CIMC SOE) has secured new orders for three LNG bunkering vessels—two with a capacity of 20,000 cbm and one with a capacity of around 19,000 cbm. With these additions, CIMC... Read more Chinese shipbuilding company Nantong CIMC Sinopacific Offshore & Engineering (CIMC SOE) has secured new orders for three LNG bunkering vessels—two with a capacity of 20,000 cbm and one with a capacity of around 19,000 cbm.
  
  With these additions, CIMC SOE’s cumulative orderbook for its 20,000 cbm LNG bunkering vessel design has increased to 10 vessels, while total orders for the 19,000 cbm model have reached three vessels.
  
  The company has not disclosed further details, including the identity of the buyer or the intended deployment locations of the new bunker vessels. Source: ENGIИE
- 2026-02-10
  Lanka Marine Services looking to expand bunkering fleet this year
  Sources at Lanka Marine Services (LMS) have informed ship.energy that the Colombo-based company is currently looking at plans to add an additional tanker to its bunkering fleet ‘by the middle of this year’. LMS – which is a subsidiary of John Keells... Read more
- 2026-02-10
  IBIA announces newly elected board members
  At its Annual General Meeting yesterday (9 February) the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) announced that the candidates who have been elected/re-elected to serve a three-year term on the IBIA Board are Claudia Beumer, C4 fuel; Gianmichele... Read more
- 2026-02-10
  GTT’s LNG fuel tank for boxships awarded AiP from LR
  French LNG containment specialist GTT has announced it has been awarded Approval in Principle (AiP) from Lloyd’s Register for its GTT CUBIQ, an LNG fuel tank designed for containerships. The AiP was awarded during the 21st International Conference... Read more
- 2026-02-10
  Trio launch bio-methanol bunkering service at UK’s Port of Immingham
  Exolum, Methanex Corporation and Ørsted have today (10 February) announced the launch of what they say is the ‘UK’s first commercially ready bio-methanol storage and supply service for shipping’ at the Port of Immingham. Exolum will provide the storage... Read more
- 2026-02-10
  Lehmann Marine supplying battery systems for Hamburg electric ferries
  Lehmann Marine has been contracted to supply 3.8 MWh battery systems for three fully electric ferries that will be deployed at the Port of Hamburg on behalf of HADAG Seetouristik und Fährdienst AG. The ferries, which will be HADAG’s first fully electric... Read more
- 2026-02-10
  Oil drifts lower as traders weigh supply risks amid US–Iran tensions
  Oil prices eased slightly on Tuesday as traders gauged the potential for supply disruptions after U.S. guidance for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz kept attention squarely on tensions between Washington and Tehran. Brent crude oil futures were... Read more Oil prices eased slightly on Tuesday as traders gauged the potential for supply disruptions after U.S. guidance for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz kept attention squarely on tensions between Washington and Tehran.
  Brent crude oil futures were down 18 cents, or 0.26%, at $68.85 a barrel by 0353 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude fell 21 cents, or 0.33%, to $64.15.
  That’s after prices rose more than 1% on Monday, when the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration advised U.S.-flagged commercial vessels to stay as far from Iran’s territorial waters as possible and to verbally decline Iranian forces permission to board if asked.
  About a fifth of the oil consumed globally passes through the Strait of Hormuz between Oman and Iran, making any escalation in the area a major risk to global oil supplies.
  Iran along with fellow OPEC members Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iraq export most of their crude via the strait, mainly to Asia.
  The guidance was issued despite Iran’s top diplomat saying last week that Oman-mediated nuclear talks with the U.S. were off to a "good start" and set to continue.
  "While talks in Oman produced a cautiously positive tone, lingering uncertainty over potential escalation, sanctions tightening, or supply disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz has kept a modest risk premium intact," Tony Sycamore, an analyst at IG, wrote in a client note.
  Meanwhile, the European Union has proposed extending its sanctions against Russia to include ports in Georgia and Indonesia that handle Russian oil, the first time the bloc would target ports in third countries, according to a proposal document reviewed by Reuters.
  
  The move is part of efforts to tighten sanctions on Russian oil, a key source of revenue for Moscow, over the war in Ukraine.
  Indian Oil Corp bought six million barrels of crude from West Africa and the Middle East, traders said, as the Asian country steered clear of Russian oil in New Delhi’s push for a trade deal with Washington. Source: Reuters/Investing.com
- 2026-02-10
  AI Loses Its Shine as Money Rotates Back Into Big Oil
  Big Tech plans to spend hundreds of billions on AI this year, the industry leaders said this earnings season. In response, a stock sell-off followed as traders grew wary of the whole AI story. Looking for something safer, they went into energy stocks.... Read more Big Tech plans to spend hundreds of billions on AI this year, the industry leaders said this earnings season. In response, a stock sell-off followed as traders grew wary of the whole AI story. Looking for something safer, they went into energy stocks. Big Oil stocks, to be precise.
  
  Last week saw a sharp drop in Big Tech stocks as traders sold off their holdings on fears that artificial intelligence was about to replace software. NVIDIA’s CEO Jensen Huang dismissed those fears, saying, “There's this notion that the tool industry is in decline and will be replaced by AI. You could tell because there's a whole bunch of software companies whose stock prices are under a lot of pressure because somehow AI is going to replace them. It is the most illogical thing in the world and time will prove itself.”
  
  There are, however, other concerns related to the Big Tech sector that are making traders and investors turn increasingly to safer industries, namely oil and gas. Those concerns essentially come down to the spending plans of the tech giants, running at over $660 billion for this year alone. Amazon alone announced capex of $200 billion for 2026 on Friday, which was 50 billion higher than what traders expected. Meta said it would spend $135 billion this year, which was a nearly twofold increase on its 2025 capex, with most of the money to be spent on AI.
  
  While Big Tech is burning cash on data centers, chips, and power supply, Big Oil is quietly doing what it does best: extracting oil and gas, the latter incidentally essential for Big Tech’s AI buildout. The fact that peak oil demand warnings have grown less frequent after the International Energy Agency admitted oil is going to be around for a lot longer than 2030 also helped traders rediscover energy stocks.
  
  As a result of these developments, U.S. oil and gas stocks are up a collective 17% since the start of the year, the Financial Times reported this month, citing data from Bloomberg. The stock gains helped push the market cap of Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips 25% higher over the past 12 months, the report went on, noting that European Big Oil also enjoyed a rise in stock prices, although a bit more moderate.
  
  The FT noted in its report that the stock gains materialized despite a decline in international oil prices, which it saw as unusual and counterintuitive. The fact is, however, that even with lower oil prices, Big Oil is making money, and traders are being reminded that this is a good thing, while Big Tech’s artificial intelligence plans have yet to bear financial fruit.
  
  It is a fact that the oil price slide from last year was substantial and that it affected the earnings of the supermajors and smaller players. However, it is also a fact that Big Oil remained profitable despite the price slide—and the IEA’s admission that oil demand could continue growing until 2050 at least helped traders and investors see markets in a new, more real-life light.
  
  There is also another reason why Big Oil is getting more attractive. The supermajors have pretty reasonable debt levels, while Big Tech is borrowing big and about to start borrowing even bigger because those $660 billion have to come from somewhere, and debt markets are the obvious choice. Besides, Big Oil likes to pamper its shareholders with cash returns via buybacks and dividends, even if it needs to borrow to do that, as some analysts expect.
  
  Currently, cash returns as a percentage of cash flow from operations for several supermajors sit at a comfortable 50%, CNBC reported recently, quoting a Quilter Cheviot analyst. To maintain that level amid weak international oil prices, Big Oil may need to borrow more, Maurizio Carulli predicted last October. Yet oil prices are actually higher now, driven by geopolitical events that suggest a supply disruption may be looming over oil markets.
  
  Meanwhile, Big Tech will see shrinking cash flows this year because of its massive AI spending plans. Amazon may swing into negative territory there, with Morgan Stanley seeing its cash flow at minus $17 billion and Bank of America predicting it at minus $28 billion. Alphabet hiked its long-term debt fourfold last year, while analysts expect its free cash flow to slump by 90% this year. The same extent of free cash flow loss is expected at Meta, according to Barclays.
  
  It is not that analysts are particularly worried about the state of the industry and, more specifically, the so-called hyperscalers segment. The banks still have “buy” ratings on Big Tech’s stocks. Yet it seems traders are more guarded and more careful about where they put their money. The jam tomorrow story does not appeal to everyone—especially when there is an industry that offers the jam today, as does Big Oil. Source: Oilprice.com
- 2026-02-10
  U.S. LNG Remains Profitable Despite Oversupply Concerns
  The average margin on a US Gulf coast (USGC) cargo destined to Europe, including regasification costs, was $4.56 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) between 2023 and 2025, or $17.5 million per one LNG vessel, compared to negative margins prior and... Read more The average margin on a US Gulf coast (USGC) cargo destined to Europe, including regasification costs, was $4.56 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) between 2023 and 2025, or $17.5 million per one LNG vessel, compared to negative margins prior and during the pandemic in 2019 and 2020. These attractive profits have spurred national oil companies and majors, sovereign wealth funds, private equity, Asian utilities and other energy buyers to flock to the USGC with their checkbooks to get in on the action. As a result, a flurry of LNG final investment decisions (FID) has been undertaken during this period, both from greenfield and brownfield projects. The notion of the incoming LNG oversupply has deterred very few investors, despite rising risks of low prices. Yet, this bullish perception began to get questioned on 5 December when the TTF-Henry Hub differential collapsed to $4 per MMBtu, the lowest spread seen since April 2021. The industry reported squeezed margins, with TTF approaching the full costs of US LNG delivered to Europe (Figure 1), and fears of production shut-ins if the differential continued to drop.
  
  LNG
  
  Historical context
  
  The only episode in the short history of the USGC LNG industry which saw broad LNG cargo cancellations was back in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. Using this as a case study, Figure 2 shows that during 2019 and 2020, even with TTF always being below the full cost of US LNG delivered to Europe, facility utilization didn’t incur any declines. This is a result of fixed costs (pink bars) being considered sunk, while LNG offtakers are only concerned with covering their variable costs of transporting LNG (blue bars), also known as the short-run marginal costs (SRMC). This played out from April to August 2020, when TTF (white tick markers) dropped below the SRMC (blue stacked bars) of US LNG delivered to Europe for an extended period of time, during which we saw 150+ cargos cancelled and US LNG utilization plumet for a 5-month period. An important feature of this market mechanism is that LNG contracts mandate a 45 to 60-day notice period if the offtaker wishes to not lift a cargo, meaning that US LNG utilization lags prices by 1-2 months. That means that short stints of price compression between TTF and Henry Hub – for example, from simultaneous opposite extreme weather patterns in both continents – won’t be enough to shut-in LNG production in the USGC, beyond operational reasons and dominium’s optimization.
  
  LNG
  
  SRMC is broken down into the following segments: 1) the cost of feedgas (Henry Hub); 2) 115% of the cost of feedgas to cover liquefaction losses and profit to the LNG developer; and 3) variable costs of shipping and regasification. While fixed costs include: 1) the tolling fee of LNG offtake contracts, which hovers around $2.5 per MMBtu; and 2) fixed shipping and regasification costs. Note that there is some nuance with shipping and regasification costs depending on business models – if offtakers own a fleet or vessels or regasification capacity. The economics are as follows: the TTF-Henry Hub spread must be sustained below the variable costs of US LNG delivered to Europe (feedgas losses, variable shipping and regasification) for a 1–2-month period for US LNG cargo cancellations to materialize. Variable costs, in a balanced market, are around $1 per MMBtu to Europe and $1.5 per MMBtu to East Asia.
  
  Utilization scenarios
  
  Looking ahead, the forward curves point to a differential of above $4 per MMBtu, even during 2028 and 2029, when oversupply becomes more severe. Even so, as forward curves have lower liquidity farther along the curve, there is less certainty during that time frame. Rystad Energy’s price forecasts point to the narrowest differential in 2031, being $2.84 per MMBtu with TTF and $3.35 per MMBtu with East Asia spot LNG price, clearing the variable costs of US LNG to both continents. Therefore, US LNG remains fully utilized in our base case scenario (figure 4).
  
  The second scenario outline is seen when US LNG utilization shifts downwards and fluctuates between 100% and the share of contracted volumes, which hovers around 80% of full capacity. In this scenario, TTF-Henry Hub spreads fall to $1-$1.5 per MMBtu ($1.5-$2 per MMBtu for Asia) but remain above the variable costs of US LNG to Europe. Yet, they would be low enough to cause LNG developers to deploy optimizations for non-contracted LNG production and/or use the time to carry out maintenance, although optimization would be the only commercial reason to lower production.
  
  The third scenario shows US LNG utilization dips below 80% (share of contracted volumes) as cargos lose profitably and cancellations arise. This scenario begs the question: what are the market conditions in which differentials compress below variable costs for an extended period of time, beyond temporary extreme weather patterns?
  
  Global power generation weakness
  
  As opposed to the 2020 shut-ins induced by Covid-19, which was demand driven, the incoming downside pressure on prices will be supply driven as LNG production outpaces demand growth. Industry analysts are betting that as prices fall, price sensitive LNG demand will emerge. Historically, this has been the case, and most of the displacement comes at the expense of seaborne coal consumption. Traditionally, LNG has also displaced seaborne coal when prices are within $1-$2 per MMBtu of the seaborne coal prices, particularly in Japan, South Korea and Europe. This is due to efficiency gains of gas turbines, with combined-cycle turbines typically sitting in the range of 50-60% thermal efficiency while conventional coal-fired power plants are near 33-38%. The Newcastle coal price index fluctuated around $4-$5 per MMBtu in 2025, meaning that price sensitive LNG demand is likely to appear when prices hit the $6-$7 per MMBtu range. Europe could see incremental demand at slightly higher LNG prices, closer to $7-$8 per MMBtu as their carbon price decreases the competitiveness of coal. For reference, between Japan, South Korea and Europe, seaborne coal consumption was north of 300 Mt per annum (Mtpa) in 2025.
  
  The other big bet of LNG demand is from China and emerging markets in Asia, which are solely economics driven and therefore have no appetite for emissions reductions. The displacement in these countries comes from other fuels, notably liquids. At a landed price of $7 per MMBtu in these countries, LNG becomes competitive with bunkering, residential and commercial LNG, petrochemicals, refining naphtha, ammonia production, firm renewables, and truck fuel oil. Given this backdrop, the scenario of US LNG shut-ins is only possible in a global economic recession, where weakened energy demand, power generation and low oil prices cause oil switching capabilities to be fully exhausted, leaving no price sensitive energy demand to absorb US LNG.
  
  Henry Hub upside risks
  
  The other side of the equation is North American gas prices – the cost of feedgas of these LNG facilities in the USGC. In the next five years, US baseload gas demand will see extreme growth, with LNG capacity nearly doubling from the current 109 Mt to 190 Mt before the end of the decade, and datacenters add 1.3-1.5 Bcfd of power generation demand every year out to 2030, although not all of this will be served by natural gas. In addition, coal-fired power plants will continue to be retired, making gas-for-power demand less elastic to prices. As demand becomes less elastic, supply side economics become increasingly challenging as shale plays mature further and tier 1 inventory continues to dwindle. This is most prevalent in the Haynesville, where well productivity is seeing more notable degradation. The Permian and Appalachia, where economics are stronger, suffer from constrained pipeline infrastructure to get molecules to market. Broadly speaking, this implies a Henry hub consistently in the $4-$5 per MMBtu range in the medium term.
  
  As seen so far this winter, a cold spell throughout the country and wellhead freeze-offs can lead to Henry Hub skyrocketing to mid- to high-$5 per MMBtu. The same is true for a warm stretch that can send the marker tumbling back down. In a scenario where TTF is trading near $1-$2 above seaborne coal, at around $6.5 per MMBtu, a spike in Henry Hub to the upper $5 per MMBtu could leave US LNG cargos unprofitable. Yet, as highlighted above, broad-based US LNG cargo cancellations require the TTF-Henry Hub spread to converge to below $1 over the course of one to two months. As the US becomes the marginal global LNG producer – potentially accounting for 35% of global LNG production by 2030 – the increase in Henry Hub index contracts mean that the price of TTF and JKM become more closely tied to, not only regional supply-demand fundamentals, but to the price of US LNG contracts. Therefore, the cost of marginal LNG supply is bound to fluctuate with the price of Henry Hub, implying that a rise in Henry Hub will also lead to a rise in global LNG prices, as we’ve seen so far in 2026.
  
  Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views or beliefs of Rystad Energy. Source: Oilprice.com

Buy subscriptions via