Fuelsure Transparency Index 2026: The True Cost of Bunkering

Executive Summary

Marine fuel is typically bought and sold on a price per ton basis. But price alone does not reflect what bunkering really costs. Consider two suppliers:

• Supplier A: $600 per ton plus delays, quantity shortfalls, and recurring claims.
  
  
  

• Supplier B: $601 per ton, delivered on time, within tolerance and with no disputes.
  
  
  

On paper, Supplier A appears cheaper. In practice, once delay, disruption, claim handling, and energy delivered are accounted for, Supplier A is materially more expensive. Fuelsure’s analysis of thousands of bunker deliveries and claims shows that the true cost of bunkering is driven not only by invoice price, but by how much usable energy is delivered, how reliably fuel meets specification, how much operational disruption occurs, and how quickly disputes are resolved when issues arise. Small per-ton inefficiencies compound rapidly at fleet level and, when scaled across global bunker volumes, translate into multi‑billion‑dollar costs for the industry.

This report introduces the first edition of the Fuelsure Transparency Index, a framework for understanding why these hidden costs arise. Rather than treating quantity, quality, and delay problems as isolated incidents, Fuelsure’s platform shows that bunker risk follows predictable behavioural patterns linked to fuel type, port conditions, supplier practices and documentation quality. Understanding these patterns is the key to lowering the true cost of fuel.

Introduction: The True Cost of Bunkering

As Kenneth Juhls, CEO of Tideform and AuctionConnect, notes:

“For decades, bunker procurement has focused primarily on price per ton, yet the true economics of bunkering are far more complex. When energy delivered, operational disruption, and dispute outcomes are considered alongside price, it becomes clear that stronger transparency and better market intelligence are essential for helping procurement teams understand the real cost of fuel and make more informed decisions.”

 When fuels were relatively uniform and operational margins were forgiving, this made sense. That world no longer exists. Modern bunker fuels vary materially in calorific value, stability, and compatibility. A ton of one very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) blend can deliver meaningfully more energy than a ton of another. The industry is moving toward energy‑based thinking, measured in megajoules per ton, because energy delivered defines propulsion performance and voyage efficiency.

At the same time, the operational cost of bunkering has increased. Congestion in key hubs, barge availability constraints, and quality‑related disputes can turn a routine delivery into a source of lost time, idle vessels, and working capital drag. Combining delivery timestamps with Statements of Facts, vessel instructions, and Automatic Identification System (AIS) movement data provides a more complete operational picture. Used together, these sources help distinguish between supplier driven disruption, vessel-side constraints, and port congestion, improving accountability without oversimplification.

Crucially, not every quality deviation results in a formal claim. A significant share of off-spec or marginal deliveries are absorbed operationally through engine derating, fuel segregation, blending, or internal settlement, masking their true economic impact. When energy content, delay, disruption, and dispute friction are considered together, the true cost of bunkering diverges sharply from the invoice price. Fuelsure links these dimensions together. It captures what was delivered, how it performed operationally, whether it met specification, whether it caused delay, whether it generated claims, and how long those claims took to resolve. This perspective enables the industry to move beyond volumetric pricing and towards a holistic understanding of fuel economics.

Data and Methodology

The analysis presented in this report draws on operational bunker delivery data captured through the Fuelsure platform, covering more than seven million metric tons of marine fuel across the past three years.

The underlying dataset covers bunker deliveries across a broad range of ports and trading environments over that period, including both major bunkering hubs and smaller regional locations in many parts of the world.

It includes a wide range of marine fuel grades and blends supplied during normal vessel operations. For each stem, Fuelsure consolidates operational records such as bunker delivery notes (BDN), laboratory test results, barge quantity compared with onboard survey figures, Statements of Facts, and any commercial claims recorded during the transaction lifecycle.

Rather than ranking individual suppliers or publishing league tables, the Transparency Index evaluates observable delivery outcomes across four consistent dimensions: quantity accuracy, quality reliability, operational performance and claims and documentation maturity. These dimensions reflect measurable aspects of delivery behaviour derived from operational records.

Energy-related cost impacts referenced in this report are estimated using laboratory-measured fuel characteristics and benchmarked against expected calorific values for the relevant fuel grade. Future editions of the Fuelsure Transparency Index will expand on the methodology, statistical distributions and scoring logic as the dataset continues to grow.

Global Delivery and Claims Patterns: A Guide for Procurement

As Allan Gundorph, Head of Strategy at Seascale Energy, explains:

“Fuelsure tackles the challenge of determining the optimal supplier by bringing all performance data into one place. This enables our trading teams to make evidence-based decisions that lower risk and support suppliers with proper governance in operations and quality, allowing us to balance price point with data-evidenced performance.”

Quantity

Most deliveries fall within narrow tolerance bands relative to ordered volume, but a small minority drives the majority of quantity disputes. These deviations cluster around specific operational contexts such as rushed stems, barge substitutions, and last-minute schedule changes. Persistent over or under-delivery against ordered volume is a strong indicator of embedded supplier risk and should trigger closer oversight.

Quality

Quality-related issues account for a substantial share of disputes, particularly around viscosity, density, water content, sulphur, and sediment. VLSFO blends show persistent stability and compatibility challenges, while high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) variability has increased following changes in crude feedstock. Importantly, not all off-spec events result in formal claims; many are absorbed operationally, masking their true frequency and cost.

Delays

Delay-related disruption varies widely by port. In congested hubs and transshipment zones, both small and large ports can experience extended waiting times. Over many deliveries, even seemingly modest delays can accumulate into significant demurrage, rescheduling, and charter-cost impacts.

Documentation and Dispute Resolution

Documentation quality is the strongest predictor of dispute duration and cost. Deliveries with complete sampling records, consistent timestamps, and clear chain of custody procedures shorten resolution times and reduce friction regardless of outcome. Incomplete or inconsistent documentation prolongs disputes whether or not the underlying delivery was compliant.

Cost Implications of Global Patterns

Fuelsure’s analysis indicates that bunker cost variation, once delays, claims, and quantity effects are included, commonly ranges from low single-digit dollars per ton to materially higher levels in adverse cases. Even modest differences are sufficient to justify supplier switching, particularly for high-volume, high-frequency buyers. The hidden cost of delays alone can add tens of minutes per delivery, compounding into significant demurrage and scheduling costs when scaled across a fleet. Quality issues, even when resolved internally, lead to derating and segregation costs that erode the apparent savings of cheaper fuel. Quantity shortfalls introduce additional cost in replacement fuel and operational inefficiency. By understanding these cost drivers, procurement managers can move beyond price per ton and evaluate suppliers on total economic impact.

Regional Behaviour Patterns and Implications

Northern Europe

Deliveries across most ports in Northern Europe are consistent and well-documented. The Amsterdam–Rotterdam–Antwerp hub is the exception, where heavier traffic and complex barge operations cause longer waits and more frequent quality or quantity issues.  Winter conditions introduce seasonal quality risk, particularly around viscosity and sediment. 

Implication: treat ARA separately, with closer oversight; in other Northern ports, focus on managing seasonal specification risk rather than changing suppliers.

Mediterranean & Black Sea

Congestion and barge scheduling elevate delay risk, often by tens of minutes per delivery. Disputes frequently hinge on delay attribution rather than fuel quality. 

Implication: tighter delivery windows and clearer Statements of Facts procedures materially reduce cost.

Middle East & Indian Ocean

Quantity disputes are more common, reflecting shifting crude sources and variable documentation standards. 

Implication: Closer monitoring of delivered volume and tolerance enforcement is critical.

Americas

Quantity variance dominates, with elevated disruption around the Panama Canal and the US Gulf. Implication: delay buffers and supplier consistency matter more than marginal price differences.

Asia Pacific & Singapore

High throughput and VLSFO variability drive quality-related claims. Documentation is strong, but small disruptions cascade quickly. 

Implication: operational excellence and proactive quality management matter more than nominal price.

Supplier Behaviour Profiles

Supplier performance varies widely, but behaviours cluster into four archetypes:

1. Consistent operators – These suppliers exhibit low claim frequency, typically well below fleet averages, stable delivery performance within tolerance, and high documentation completeness. They invest in measurement, sampling, and clear procedures. Outcome: predictability and lower total cost, even if the nominal price is higher.
   
   
   

2. Variable operators – Behaviour fluctuates with market conditions. Delivery accuracy and quality reliability swing depending on supply chain pressure. Claims from these suppliers often spike during peak demand periods or when alternative feedstocks are introduced. Outcome: higher oversight requirements and unpredictable cost.
   
   
   

3. Documentation mature operators – These suppliers may have occasional variance issues, but they record and communicate delivery data thoroughly. As a result, disputes are resolved quickly. Documentation maturity lowers overall risk even when technical challenges arise. Outcome: reduced dispute duration and lower friction.
   
   
   

4. Seasonal or volatility-driven operators – Performance shifts markedly during specific seasons or market tightness. For example, some operators maintain high accuracy in stable markets but see quality issues when switching to different crude streams. Outcome: requires planning for additional oversight during riskier periods.
   
   
   

The Fuelsure Transparency Index

Fuelsure translates these behavioural insights into a four-pillar framework that provides a practical way to benchmark delivery risk. The Fuelsure Transparency Index does not rank or publicly score specific suppliers or ports; instead, it evaluates deliveries along four qualitative dimensions:

• Quantity accuracy – How consistently does the delivered quantity match the ordered quantity? Does variance remain within acceptable tolerance bands? Are there identifiable patterns to over or under-delivery?
  
  

• Quality reliability – How often does supplied fuel meet specification? When deviations occur, are they isolated or recurring? Do suppliers maintain proactive blending and testing protocols? This also includes consistency in calorific value, as variability in energy delivered per ton can materially affect propulsion efficiency and voyage economics.

• Operational performance – How reliably do suppliers deliver on time and without disruption? Are delays confined to congested ports or linked to specific operational practices? Are barge and port operations managed to minimise lost time?
  
  

• Claims and documentation maturity – Are sampling, measurement, and delivery records complete, clear, and timely? Are chain of custody procedures followed? Strong documentation shortens dispute resolution and increases confidence.
  
  

By assessing deliveries against these pillars, the Transparency Index helps operators identify high-risk conditions in advance and compare behavioural maturity across suppliers and regions. It also provides a foundation for industry dialogue about improving practices without exposing sensitive commercial information.

Market Implications and Incentive Alignment

As Peter Grünwaldt, CEO of Seascale Energy, notes:

“By aligning buyers and suppliers around common standards and data, and independent oversight, we allow the market to function fairly and efficiently for everyone involved.”

Fuel is the single largest operating expense for most shipping companies. When energy delivered, operational disruption and dispute friction are considered alongside price, it becomes clear that cheap fuel is not always low cost. Fuelsure’s analysis finds that cost variation in bunkering, once delays, claims, and quantity effects are accounted for, ranges from approximately one dollar per ton in favourable conditions to upwards of twenty dollars per ton in adverse cases, with an average of around two dollars per ton. Even modest differences are sufficient to justify using a different supplier.

Today, bunker procurement teams are often incentivised against price benchmarks such as PLATTS. This one-dimensional metric fails to capture the operational and true cost of bunkering. By incorporating energy delivered and behavioural risk into procurement decisions, incentive structures can be better aligned with fleet-level performance and business objectives. Operators that demonstrate clear, reliable delivery and claims records are better positioned to attract customers and capital in an environment where environmental, social, and governance considerations and efficiency metrics matter. Viewing fuel economics through the lens of energy delivered and behaviour risk helps align bunker procurement with broader decarbonisation and operational efficiency goals.

Closing View

The bunkering industry is on the brink of a paradigm shift. Price per ton is no longer a sufficient metric; true cost encompasses energy content, quality, reliability, operational performance, and behavioural predictability. The Fuelsure Transparency Index provides a framework for capturing these dimensions and for driving the conversation toward measurable improvements in practice. By adopting energy-based evaluation, behavioural benchmarking, and better-aligned incentive structures, the industry can turn opacity into insight, disputes into collaboration, and cost into competitive advantage.

Download the full report (PDF)