A The report dated 31 August 2026 says the cost advantage of certain biofuel options has narrowed as their prices have risen, weakening the economic case for fuel switching in some voyages.
The item, titled "Fuel Switch Snapshot: B100, LBM lose edge as prices climb," notes that recent calculations show B100 and low‑blend marine (LBM) fuels have lost ground compared with very low sulphur fuel oil when all adjustments and compliance charges are included.
Price normalisation and analysis
The report explains that all bunker prices referenced have been adjusted for calorific content so they can be compared on a VLSFO‑equivalent basis. That normalisation was applied before further voyage compliance costs and penalties were added.
It also sets out that estimates of compliance costs were included in the presented figures. These adjustments form the basis of the conclusion that increasing biofuel prices are eroding the relative savings that ship operators might expect from fuel switching.
Compliance costs factored for key hubs
reports included estimated EU‑EU voyage compliance costs for Rotterdam and non‑EU to EU compliance costs for Singapore. The compliance estimates account for the European Union Emissions Trading System and FuelEU Maritime penalties, together with an average price assumption for compliance surpluses.
Those inclusions mean the comparison does not consider bunker price alone; it reflects the additional regulatory costs that would fall on voyages to and from the ports specified. The source therefore frames the assessment as a combined fuel and regulatory‑cost comparison rather than a pure commodity price ranking.
The report’s approach underlines how regulatory instruments and the way surpluses are valued can alter the practical cost of switching to biofuels even where the headline fuel price appears competitive. Ship operators assessing switching options must, according to the report, weigh those layered charges alongside calorific adjustments.
Taken together, the findings signal that rising prices for B100 and LBM have diminished their immediate appeal for certain voyage profiles once the full set of adjustments is applied. The reports item stops short of recommending any single choice, instead presenting a methodology and results that operators can apply to their own voyage economics.
The broader implication for the marine fuel market is that headline movement in alternative fuel prices will not translate directly into a widespread switching impulse while regulatory compliance elements remain material to voyage costs. The report suggests that the balance between fuel cost and compliance burden will continue to determine whether operators find switching financially attractive.
The published snapshot provides a transparent description of how the source arrived at its comparative prices, allowing owners and charterers to replicate or adapt the calculations to their own trading patterns. For now, according to the 31 August 2026 report, B100 and LBM no longer enjoy the straightforward cost edge they once held when VLSFO equivalence and compliance charges are taken into account.