Gas supply concerns have pushed Liquefied Natural Gas and LBM prices higher in Rotterdam, according to a market snapshot published by reports on 16 September 2026.
The report states that bunker prices in the snapshot have been adjusted for calorific content to make them VLSFO-equivalent and that estimated voyage compliance costs have been included for the ports under review. Rotterdam figures include EU-to-EU voyage compliance costs while the Singapore comparator incorporates non-EU-to-EU compliance costs, the report adds.
Sources said the compliance adjustments account for emissions trading under the EU ETS and penalties envisaged under FuelEU Maritime, and that the publishers had selected an average price for compliance surpluses when estimating charges. The paper framed those inclusions as part of an attempt to make fuel-cost comparisons more directly comparable for ship operators and charterers.
Method of comparison and what was adjusted
The bulletin’s primary methodological note was that all bunker prices were converted to a VLSFO-equivalent on the basis of calorific content. That conversion is presented as a baseline to permit like-for-like comparisons across fuel types in the snapshot rather than as a market valuation, the report emphasises.
Alongside calorific conversion, the report incorporated estimated compliance costs for voyages between EU states at Rotterdam and for voyages originating outside the EU that call at EU ports in the Singapore comparison. These compliance cost lines, the report explains, reflect anticipated charges from the EU emissions trading system and potential FuelEU Maritime penalties, plus an assumed market price for any required compliance surpluses.
Regional compliance differences
The inclusion of different compliance-cost assumptions for Rotterdam and Singapore was highlighted as a deliberate choice to reflect divergent regulatory exposures. Rotterdam’s adjustments are framed around intra-EU voyage obligations, whereas the Singapore example is adjusted for scenarios in which ships enter EU jurisdiction from non-EU origins.
That differentiation is presented in the snapshot as a means to show how regional regulatory frameworks and the treatment of compliance instruments can alter the relative economics of alternative fuels. The report does not publish a single definitive market price but instead offers a comparative picture built on its stated assumptions.
reports links the upward pressure on Rotterdam’s LNG and LBM to perceived risks in gas supply, which the snapshot identifies as a factor lifting those fuels’ relative prices at that hub. The report treats the change as a market response rather than a regulatory imposition and frames it within the broader narrative of fuel switching decisions made by ship operators.
The publisher’s approach, as described in the snapshot, is notable for combining technical conversion of fuel energy content with an overlay of regulatory compliance costs. That combination produces a set of adjusted price measures intended to assist market participants in assessing the comparative cost of fuels when regulatory charges are taken into account.
Market participants reading the snapshot are shown the mechanics the report used to arrive at its adjusted comparisons: calorific-content normalisation to VLSFO-equivalent and explicit inclusion of EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime-related cost lines, together with an assumed price for compliance surpluses. The report presents those elements as key to understanding the fuel-switch economics it describes.
For readers seeking an immediate take-away, the report’s principal message is that gas-supply uncertainty has been sufficient to raise the relative standing of LNG and LBM in Rotterdam’s fuel mix on a VLSFO-equivalent basis once compliance costs are factored in. Sources published the item on 16 September 2026 and framed it as a snapshot rather than as a long-term forecast.