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
882.10
-32.11
795.00
-5.00
Nov 28
Click to see more LNG Bunker Indexes

Port	LNG$/mton	MGO LS$/mton	Date
ARA	882.10	-32.11	795.00	-5.00	Nov 28

MABUX Global Bunker Index

380HSFO$/mton		VLS FO$/mton		MGO LS$/mton		Date
523.83	-0.98	660.82	-3.36	912.61	-6.35	Nov 28

Click to see Regional Bunker Indexes

MBP INDEX vs DBP INDEX (ICE/NYMEX)

All Indexes in $/mton	380HSFO			VLS FO			MGO LS			Date
All Indexes in $/mton	MBP Index	DBP Index	Diff	MBP Index	DBP Index	Diff	MBP Index	DBP Index	Diff	Date
Rotterdam	473	508	-35	567	604	-37	795	889	-94	Nov 28
Singapore	458	521	-63	656	599	+57	789	898	-109	Nov 28
Fujairah	433	536	-103	631	596	+35	907	946	-39	Nov 28
Houston	468	477	-9	557	595	-38	798	884	-86	Nov 28

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
- 2023-11-28
  Oil prices rise on weak dollar, expectations for OPEC+ output cuts
  Oil prices rose slightly on Tuesday due to a weak dollar, and expectations that the OPEC+ producer group would deepen and extend output cuts due to fears demand would remain subdued. Brent crude futures were up 11 cents, or 0.1%, at $80.09 a barrel at... Read more Oil prices rose slightly on Tuesday due to a weak dollar, and expectations that the OPEC+ producer group would deepen and extend output cuts due to fears demand would remain subdued.
  Brent crude futures were up 11 cents, or 0.1%, at $80.09 a barrel at 0510 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures were trading 4 cents higher, also 0.1%, at $74.90 a barrel.
  Both benchmarks pared some gains after rising sharply in early Asian trade.
  OPEC+, which combines the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and allies including Russia, will hold an online ministerial meeting on Nov. 30 to discuss production targets for 2024.
  The meeting comes amid a sharp decline in oil prices, due to concerns that the market was oversupplied despite output cuts by the OPEC+. Brent has fallen by more than 18% and WTI by over 21% since end-September highs. Strong production by non-OPEC countries such as the United States have added to pressure on prices.
  OPEC+ set oil prices tumbling last week by postponing its meeting in order to iron out disagreements over production targets for African producers. But it has moved towards a compromise, four OPEC+ sources told Reuters on Friday, potentially helping the group's de facto leader Saudi Arabia find consensus on the need to deepen output cuts.
  The decline in prices could spare Riyadh any pressure from the U.S. to limit output cuts, according to analysts.
  "Saudi Arabia may be comforted that US gasoline prices have fallen for 60 straight days. This may soften the US opposition to any move to tighten oil markets and support prices," ANZ Research said in a note on Tuesday.
  The U.S. dollar's retreat to its lowest level in three months should bolster demand fronm countries who pay for their oil in other currencies. Source: Reuters/Investing.com
- 2023-11-28
  Does the Natural Gas Industry Have a Future?
  The natural gas industry’s domestic sales pattern over the past two decades makes one wonder whether the industry has much of a future. Okay, sales volume has gone up, at a slow pace, but most of that growth is due to increasing sales to wholesale electric... Read more The natural gas industry’s domestic sales pattern over the past two decades makes one wonder whether the industry has much of a future. Okay, sales volume has gone up, at a slow pace, but most of that growth is due to increasing sales to wholesale electric power generators. The rest of the market has shown barely any growth. Table 1 shows annual rates of growth for major customer classifications as well as an estimate of the growth in propane usage. The table calculates growth using both compound annual and average annual growth rates. Either way, the numbers are dreadful. But not out of line with other energy growth rates, generally above the rate of population growth and below the rate of real economic growth.
  
  What does the future look like? Warmer winter weather means lower sales. So do more efficient appliances. And so do more efficient competitive products that use electricity like heat pumps. The Energy Information Administration projects that growth in overall demand will hover just below zero, although slightly higher for industrial use and lower for electric generation. Could be worse.
  
  What does the stock market think of that grim outlook? Presumably, investors have priced gas utility stocks as potential losers, selling at low ratios of price to earnings and paying ultra-high dividends, because they want immediate returns before the growth fizzles and the companies disappear. But not so. These stocks sell in line with what one might expect for reasonably safe, slow-growth utilities, not companies in terminal decline. What did the company's senior management tell investors to convince them to take an optimistic view? The companies have a simple strategy. They invest in rate base, having convinced regulators that—like a perpetual motion machine—they must continuously spend money on plant expansion and on refurbishing of the network and strengthening connections to pipelines. A larger rate base requires higher earnings to cover costs, including cost of capital. The old regulated utility game is fairly straightforward. Expand rate base (i.e. assets) in order to grow earnings. As an aside, this is the same policy adopted by electric companies a few years ago, when they could anticipate little growth but they spent money on capital expansion anyway and got away with it. The difference, however, is that electric companies can now look forward to acceleration in demand, but gas companies cannot.
  
  Our question, then, is how long can gas utility managers continue with this strategy of making consumers pay more for a commodity when they keep using less of it? Especially when the sale of the product produces carbon dioxide which governments are attempting to limit. That does not sound like a sustainable business model to rational people, so why invest more money in such an industry?
  
  Okay, but consider this. Gas industry executives claim in response that their customers typically save $1000 per year over the alternatives. That’s not much of a sales pitch at a time when both residential and major business customers will pay more to get low carbon or no carbon alternatives, whether to be virtuous or to satisfy corporate “green” initiatives. What sensible marketer promises a low price for an inferior product? Now, technical developments offer the possibility of a cleaner (non carbon emitting) product. Renewable natural gas (from agricultural and municipal waste) could provide about 15% of end user needs. Hydrogen injected into the network might displace. another 15%. And gas derived from municipal wastewater treatment could displace another 15% of natural gas consumption. But here is the message for the gas distributors. The municipal wastewater plants will likely sell directly to generators of electricity, not inject the gas into the networks. The 30% reduction in total natural gas usage (through use of renewable gas and hydrogen) translates to a 40-50% replacement of natural gas within the networks of the distributors, the companies we are talking about, some of which, by the way, are making significant investments in renewable gas producers, opening up another avenue of growth for their stockholders. It means that gas companies could sell carbon-free gas to a large part of their customer base. That gives the companies time to figure out how to replace the rest of its gas supply, if possible. The smart companies are already telling shareholders that their networks can carry anything.
  
  So, to answer our opening question, the domestic gas industry does have a future, we think, at least over the medium term, despite stagnant sales, as long as it takes advantage of an opportunity to transform itself from a purveyor of carbon dioxide emitting products into a smart marketer of something else that’s cleaner and greener. Source: Oilprice.com
- 2023-11-28
  The World's Top 50 Importing Nations
  In 2022, global imports climbed to $25.6 trillion in value, or about the size of the U.S. GDP. As an engine of growth, global trade broadens consumer choices and can lower the cost of goods. For businesses, it can improve the quality of inputs and... Read more In 2022, global imports climbed to $25.6 trillion in value, or about the size of the U.S. GDP.
  
  As an engine of growth, global trade broadens consumer choices and can lower the cost of goods. For businesses, it can improve the quality of inputs and strengthen competitiveness.
  
  In the graphic below, Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld and Christina Kostandi show the 50 largest importers, with data from the World Trade Organization.
  
  Which Countries Import the Most Goods?
  
  With $3.4 trillion in imports in 2022, the U.S. is the largest importer globally.
  
  Even though higher inflation and market uncertainty loomed over the economy, U.S. imports increased 15% annually, with China as its top goods importing partner.
  
  As the world’s second-largest economy, China’s imports hit $2.7 trillion in value, although growth slowed in 2022.
  
  Taiwan, China’s top trading partner for imports, is a major provider of electronics products, including semiconductor chips. However, the China-Taiwan trade relationship remains complicated given geopolitical tensions sparking unexpected import bans.
  
  A handful of European countries also fell in the top 10 importers, led by Germany and the Netherlands. Overall, the European Union is the largest importer of agricultural products, fuels and mining products, and automotive products globally.
  
  Global Trade Fragmentation
  
  In 2023, the World Trade Organization projects that import volumes will contract as much as 1.2% across North and South America, Asia, and Europe.
  
  In part, this is being driven by slower demand in manufacturing economies.
  
  Whether or not this weaker volume is also being impacted by trade fragmentation remains unclear. One indicator may be seen in the trade of intermediate goods, which are products like wood and steel that are used in the production of a final good.
  
  In the first half of 2023, the share of intermediate goods in world trade dropped to 48.5%, down from its three-year average of 51%. On the one hand, this may suggest that supply chains are contracting. Yet it may also be due to the influence of higher commodity prices, which have a bigger impact on the cost of intermediate goods than on final goods.
  
  Still, other factors have an impact on the flow of trade. These include subsidies, export bans, and legislative policy, such as the $52.7 billion U.S. CHIPS Act, that incentivizes local production of semiconductors.
  
  Considering these factors, broader trends of global de-globalization remain to be seen.
  
  Source: Oilprice.com
- 2023-11-28
  MABUX: Slight downward trend to dominate in Global bunker market on Nov.28.
  MABUX World Bunker Index (as index calculated on current prices for 380 HSFO, VLSFO and MGO) continued trending downward on Nov. 27: 380 HSFO - USD/MT - 524.81 (-8.15) VLSFO - USD/MT – 664.18 (-9.82) MGO - USD/MT – 918.96 (-1.58) As of Nov. 27,... Read more MABUX World Bunker Index (as index calculated on current prices for 380 HSFO, VLSFO and MGO) continued trending downward on Nov. 27:
  
  380 HSFO - USD/MT - 524.81 (-8.15)
  VLSFO - USD/MT – 664.18 (-9.82)
  MGO - USD/MT – 918.96 (-1.58)
  
  As of Nov. 27, the MABUX MBP/DBP Index (MDI), which monitors the correlation between market bunker prices (MBP) and the MABUX digital bunker price benchmark (DBP), has identified the following trends in four selected ports: Rotterdam, Singapore, Fujairah, and Houston.
  
  - HSFO segment: All four selected ports stayed in the undercharge zone. The underprice margins have expanded by $3 in Rotterdam and $6 in Singapore, while contracting by $2 in Fujairah and $3 in Houston. The undervalue level in Fujairah has consistently stayed above the $100 mark.
  
  - VLSFO segment: Rotterdam and Houston remained undercharged, with a $4 increase in underprice premiums in Rotterdam and a $2 decrease in Houston. Singapore and Fujairah, however, were overcharged, with overprice margins decreasing by $42 in Singapore and $12 in Fujairah.
  
  - MGO LS segment: All four ports continued to be undercharged, with the underprice ratio widening by $12 in Rotterdam, $15 in Singapore and $7 in Fujairah, but narrowing by $6 in Houston. Both Rotterdam and Singapore MDI indices have surpassed the $100 mark.
  
  We expect Global bunker indices to continue downward trend on Nov.28: 380 HSFO – minus 1-3 USD/MT, VLSFO –minus 1-4 USD/MT, MGO LS –minis 1-10 USD/MT.
  Source: MABUX
- 2023-11-28
  Why Gasoline Prices Fall Almost Every Year Between August and November
  Gasoline prices are on the way down, and I am seeing a lot of chatter from people who are convinced this is political. After all, we are headed into an election year, and lower gasoline prices certainly help politicians get reelected. But that’s not... Read more Gasoline prices are on the way down, and I am seeing a lot of chatter from people who are convinced this is political. After all, we are headed into an election year, and lower gasoline prices certainly help politicians get reelected.
  
  But that’s not why prices are falling. Right now, oil prices are falling, and that certainly helps. The underlying price of oil is the single largest factor that drives gasoline prices, but there is a seasonal factor behind the changes in gasoline prices.
  
  In fact, gasoline prices fall almost every year between August and November. As someone whose job it once was to blend gasoline for ConocoPhillips, allow me to explain the reasons.
  
  While many attribute these changes to potential manipulation by vested interests seeking electoral advantages, the actual explanation is two-fold.
  
  Because gasoline evaporates, and given the contribution of gasoline vapors to smog, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strategically regulates gasoline blends seasonally to minimize such emissions.
  
  The EPA achieves this regulation through seasonal limits on something called the Reid vapor pressure (RVP). The RVP specification is temperature-dependent, because evaporation rates increase at higher temperatures. To lower those evaporation rates, the EPA requires lower RVP levels during the summer. While specific RVP limits vary by state, 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) is a common limit in much of the U.S. during summer.
  
  As September arrives, RVP specifications transition to cold weather blends with RVP limits as high as 15 psi in some locations. This transition significantly impacts gasoline production costs, specifically concerning the inclusion of butane.
  
  Butane, with a high RVP of 52 psi, can be blended into gasoline at higher rates in the fall and winter blends, since the overall vapor pressure can be higher. Butane is cost-effective as it often trades at a $1/gallon discount to crude oil or gasoline. It also increases gasoline supplies by adding a generally abundant component to the gasoline pool.
  
  In the summer, stringent RVP limits make blending significant amounts of butane impractical. However, as limits increase in the fall, the blend can contain more butane, reducing production costs and increasing supply.
  
  The second major factor is that this seasonal shift occurs after the high-demand summer driving season, aligning increased supplies and reduced production costs with falling demand. This confluence almost always leads to a decline in gasoline prices during the fall, benefiting consumers.
  
  There are occasional external factors like hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico or geopolitical events that can disrupt these seasonal trends. We saw an economic rebound from the pandemic in 2019 that disrupted the normal pattern, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was one of the factors that helped disrupt the pattern that year.
  
  But this year’s decline is typical of the normal pattern of falling gasoline prices in the fall — regardless of whether it is an election year.
  
  However, this perfect storm comes to an end in spring when RVP specifications are stepped back down in May, increasing costs and reducing supplies in time for the summer driving season.
  
  Source: Oilprice.com
- 2023-11-28
  Houthi Tanker Seizures Could Reignite the War Premium in Oil Markets
  The risk premium for oil prices resulting from the ongoing Israel-Hamas War has not risen as dramatically as it did after Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022. This has largely been due to the exceptional job done by the U.S. in preventing a widening... Read more The risk premium for oil prices resulting from the ongoing Israel-Hamas War has not risen as dramatically as it did after Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022. This has largely been due to the exceptional job done by the U.S. in preventing a widening out of the conflict across the region, which would almost certainly produce a massive spike in oil and gas prices. Part of the U.S.’s success has been down to extremely deft diplomatic efforts across the Middle East, spearheaded by Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, involving the use of serious carrots and equally serious sticks. The other part has been due to the same approach being used on China, which, through its multiple projects centered around its ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI), wields enormous influence over several key power players in the region. This was again highlighted in the 10 March relationship resumption agreement between the Middle East’s major Sunni power, Saudi Arabia, and its major Shia power, Iran – a deal exclusively brokered by China, as analyzed in depth in my new book on the new global oil market order. However, the rise in oil and shipping insurance premiums following the 19 November seizure by the Iran-backed Yemeni Houthis of Israeli-owned cargo ship Galaxy Leader highlighted that the war-risk premium connected to the Israel-Hamas conflict for the global oil sector could spike at any time if the current delicate diplomatic balance is lost.
  
  The key to this is whether the U.S. can continue to exercise influence over China, which has become the major superpower player on the ground across the Middle East since Washington effectively abandoned that role in a series of withdrawals from the region. These effectively began with its unilateral exit from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (‘nuclear deal’) with Iran in 2018, and then its pull-out from Syria in 2019 – including protracted internal White House discussions about the catastrophe of pulling out from the strategically crucial Al-Tanf exclusion zone that was the tri-border junction of Syria, Jordan, and Iraq – then Afghanistan in 2021, and finally its end of combat mission in Iraq in December 2021. China stepped into the power vacuum created by the U.S. withdrawal through the expansion of finance offered to its targeted Middle Eastern countries via the BRI project and by leveraging the influence that Russia had built up in the region over decades, especially across the Shia Crescent of Power, centered on Iran and Syria. China laid the groundwork to effectively make Iran a client state through the all-encompassing ‘Iran-China 25-Year Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement’, as first revealed anywhere in the world in my 3 September 2019 article on the subject and also fully examined in my new book on the new global oil market order. By dint of this, Beijing has also been able – with very active assistance from Russia – to exert a similar control over neighboring Iraq, which has long been heavily influenced by Iran through several political, economic, and military proxies.
  
  Aside from unlimited access at deeply-discounted prices to the vast oil and gas reserves of the Middle East, China’s other principal objective in its dramatic expansion across the region has been to control all the key transport routes for the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies that come out of the Middle East. China already had much control over the Strait of Hormuz through its 25-year deal with Iran. The same deal also gave China a hold over the Bab al-Mandab Strait, through which crude oil is shipped upwards through the Red Sea towards the Suez Canal before moving into the Mediterranean and then westwards. This was achieved as it lies between Yemen - heavily controlled by the Iran-backed Houthis, and now subject to the new China-brokered relationship deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia - and Djibouti, over which China has also established a stranglehold. It should not be forgotten that prior to the seizure of the Galaxy Leader cargo ship on 19 November – supposedly for being ‘Israeli-owned’ – Iranian forces seized two oil tankers in a week at the beginning of May in and around the Strait of Hormuz. Neither the Niovi nor the Advantage Sweet were anything to do with Israel. Instead, a senior oil industry figure who works closely with the European Union’s (E.U.) energy security complex exclusively told OilPrice.com at the time, that Iran seized them to demonstrate that it still had control over that transit route and, perhaps even more importantly, it was done with the full blessing of Beijing.
  
  As a result of those two seizures in May, oil and shipping insurance prices did rise, albeit temporarily, as also happened after the taking of the Galaxy Leader. It is interesting to note, though, that the price follow-through has been limited, despite threats from the Houthis’ spokesman, Alameed Yahya Saree, that the group intends “to sink” Israeli ships in the Red Sea. “Currently, the oil market can see that the U.S. is successfully preventing the Israel-Hamas War from widening out, but that can change very quickly, especially if China decides for whatever reason to take its foot off the brake with Iran,” said the E.U. source. Even with Chinese pressure for moderation, Iran has already betrayed its true intention of widening out the Israel-Hamas War on two notable occasions. The first was early in the conflict when it warned Israel not to expand its attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon. The second occurred earlier this month when Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, called on the Islamic members of OPEC to halt oil exports to Israel immediately. The veiled threat was of a full oil embargo from all Islamic OPEC member states on countries that support Israel in the War.
  
  Saudi Arabia did exactly the same thing in 1973 for exactly the same reason – a war between Israel and Islam, as it also sought to portray it. The upshot was the 1973 Oil Crisis that saw oil prices spike around 267%, from about US$3 per barrel (pb) to nearly US$11 pb. This, in turn, stoked the fire of a global economic slowdown, especially felt in the net oil-importing countries of the West. A broader oil embargo of the sort that Iran still wants would have similarly dramatic effects, if not worse. According to the latest assessment by the World Bank, a loss in global crude oil supply of 6-8 million bpd – which it refers to as a “large disruption” scenario comparable to the 1973 Oil Crisis - would result in a 56-75% increase in prices to between $140 and $157 a barrel. However, a broadening out of the embargo on Israel by the Islamic members of OPEC, as called for by Iran, would likely lead to a much bigger loss of global oil supplies than the World Bank has calculated. The Islamic members of OPEC are Algeria, with an average crude oil production rate of around 1 million barrels (bpd), Iran (3.4 million bpd), Iraq (4.1 million bpd), Kuwait (2.5 million bpd), Libya (1.2 million bpd), Saudi Arabia (9 million bp), and the UAE (2.9 million bpd). This totals just over 24 million bpd - or about 30% - of the current average total global production of about 80 million bpd.
  
  It is apposite to note in this context that last week also saw Iranian Foreign Minister, Hossein Amirabdollahian, state that “flames of war will spread across the Middle East” if the Israeli truce with Hamas is not extended. And 27 November saw the Iran-backed Houthis significantly escalate tensions even more in the region – especially with the U.S. – by firing missiles at the U.S. Navy destroyer, the USS Mason, off the coast of Yemen. The U.S. ship had been responding to a distress call from the Israeli-linked chemical tanker, Central Park, in the Gulf of Aden at the time.
  
  Source: Oilprice.com
- 2023-11-28
  Chevron’s Kazakh Oil Output Hit in Raging Black Sea Storm
  Crude oil loadings at key Black Sea ports in Russia and Ukraine continue to be halted amid a raging storm that has left an estimated two million people without power, according to Agence France Presse. Hurricane level winds, massive snowfall and heavy... Read more Crude oil loadings at key Black Sea ports in Russia and Ukraine continue to be halted amid a raging storm that has left an estimated two million people without power, according to Agence France Presse.
  
  Hurricane level winds, massive snowfall and heavy rain shut down electricity lines and led to major flooding. Train transport along the Russian Black Sea coast has also been halted after tracks fell into the sea.
  
  The regional storm has affected the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) oil terminal on Russia’s portion of the Black Sea, and it has also halted loadings at the Novorossiysk facilities. According to the CPC, waves of up to eight meters high were ravaging the region on Monday morning.
  
  Russian Transpect PJSC pipeline operator has stated that the storm could last through the week, as reported by Bloomberg.
  
  The CPC oil terminal has also forced a reduction in Kazakhstan’s production, which feeds this terminal as the terminal is already at near-full capacity.
  
  As a result, as of early Monday morning, Kazakhstan’s oil output dropped by 15% over the course of the previous 24 hours, according to Bloomberg.
  
  According to Upstream, citing the Kazakh Energy Ministry, 95% of the output reduction is being shouldered by the Chevron-led Tengizchevroil venture.
  
  Chevron is the largest private producer in Kazakhstan, with stakes in the country’s two largest oil-producing fields, Tengiz and Karachaganak.
  
  Kazakhstan transports the bulk of its crude oil–some 80%--for export via the CPC. Overall, Kazakhstan has been seeking alternatives to transporting the bulk of its oil through the Russian Black Sea in an effort to reduce export dependence and exposure to Western sanctions, despite the fact that the CPC is not restricted in this manner. Source: Oilprice.com
- 2023-11-28
  OPEC Source Tells Reuters Bigger Cuts A Likely Option
  An OPEC+ source told Reuters on Monday that the expanded cartel is considering bigger oil output cuts during its November 30 meeting, which was originally delayed for four days over a production quota dispute between OPEC leaders and African nations.... Read more An OPEC+ source told Reuters on Monday that the expanded cartel is considering bigger oil output cuts during its November 30 meeting, which was originally delayed for four days over a production quota dispute between OPEC leaders and African nations.
  
  The unnamed OPEC+ source told Reuters he expected an option for a “collective further reduction” in oil production during the next meeting. The source’s comments echo similar comments made earlier in November suggesting that additional cuts would be considered. Last week, analysts increasingly chimed in to predict either an extension of the existing 1 million-barrel-per-day voluntary cuts or additional cuts to support prices which have fallen from highs of close to $100 per barrel in September to barely holding down $80 currently.
  
  Late last week, reports emerged that OPEC+ was making progress in talks with its African producers over their oil output quotas next year after Angola and Nigeria requested a higher production ceiling next year. Both countries took a cut in their quotas at the June 2023 meeting of OPEC+ as they had consistently failed to pump to their quotas.
  
  At the same time, for next year, the UAE is set to increase exports of its flagship Murban crude grade after negotiating a higher production quota in the OPEC+ deal. For years, the UAE has argued it should be allowed to pump more than its current OPEC+ quota as it is raising its production capacity. At the June meeting, the UAE won an upward revision of its quota that will take its production up by 200,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 3.219 million bpd for 2024.Earlier on Monday, the OPEC General Secretariat slammed the International Energy Agency (IEA) for its “moment of truth” report on the oil and gas industry released last week. The IEA suggested that the world now has a stark choice between oil and gas and worsening climate change. OPEC criticized the agency for vilifying the industry and ignoring cost and energy security issues. Source: Oilprice.com
- 2023-11-28
  OPEC Slams IEA over ‘Moment of Truth’ for Oil
  Days after the International Energy Agency (IEA) said that the oil and gas industry faces “a moment of truth” in choosing between fueling climate change and becoming a part of the solution, OPEC criticized the agency for vilifying the industry and for... Read more Days after the International Energy Agency (IEA) said that the oil and gas industry faces “a moment of truth” in choosing between fueling climate change and becoming a part of the solution, OPEC criticized the agency for vilifying the industry and for playing down energy security and affordability.
  
  Last week, the IEA published a report saying that a “moment of truth” is coming for the oil and gas industry as most companies are watching the energy transition from the sidelines, with oil and gas producers accounting for only 1% of total clean energy investment globally.
  
  “Producers must choose between contributing to a deepening climate crisis or becoming part of the solution by embracing the shift to clean energy,” the IEA said.
  
  Commenting on the report, OPEC Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais said in a statement on Monday,
  
  “It is ironic that the IEA, an agency that has repeatedly shifted its narratives and forecasts on a regular basis in recent years, now addresses the oil and gas industry and says that this is a ‘moment of truth’.”
  
  “The manner in which the IEA has unfortunately used its social media platforms in recent days to criticize and instruct the oil and gas industry is undiplomatic to say the least. OPEC itself is not an organization that would prescribe to others what they should do,” Al Ghais said.
  
  OPEC also criticized the agency for describing carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) an “illusion”.
  
  Al Ghais concluded: “We do see a ‘moment of truth’ ahead. We need to understand that all countries have their own orderly energy transition pathways, we need an assurance that all voices are heard, not just a select few, and we need to ensure that energy transitions enable economic growth, enhance social mobility, boost energy access, and reduce emissions at the same time.”
  
  Source: Oilprice.com
- 2023-11-28
  Mozambique Endorses $80-Billion Energy Transition Strategy
  Mozambique has approved an energy transition strategy worth $80 billion, seeking to raise funding from wealthy nations to boost the share of renewables and reduce fossil fuels use in its energy mix. The detailed plan will be unveiled by President Filipe... Read more Mozambique has approved an energy transition strategy worth $80 billion, seeking to raise funding from wealthy nations to boost the share of renewables and reduce fossil fuels use in its energy mix.
  
  The detailed plan will be unveiled by President Filipe Nyusi at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai later this week, Mozambique said in a statement to Bloomberg.
  
  The first measures of the strategy through 2050 include adding 2 gigawatts (GW) of hydropower generation capacity by 2030 and bolstering and expanding the grid to accommodate more renewable energy sources.
  
  The African country has one of the largest untapped coal reserves in the world, and a lot of natural gas offshore, as well as copper and graphite, which are key materials for the energy transition.
  
  “We are still fine tuning the document and hope to publicly release it later this week,” Pedro Simao, who is a special advisor to the minister of energy, told Reuters on Monday.
  
  Mozambique is the latest developing country looking to win funding from wealthy countries to help it through the energy transition.
  
  Last week, Indonesia launched its $20-billion renewable energy plan to cut emissions and boost the share of renewables in its energy mix.
  
  At the end of last year, Indonesia, the world’s top coal exporter and heavily reliant on coal for power generation, signed an agreement to launch a Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) co-led by the U.S. and Japan and including Canada, Denmark, the European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
  
  Under the partnership, Indonesia will target to have renewable energy generation accounting for at least 34% of all power generation by 2030, which would roughly double the total renewables deployment over the course of this decade compared to current plans.
  
  Indonesia needs billions of U.S. dollars in investment to shift away from coal the country doesn’t have. The wealthy international partners in the JETP have pledged half of the $20 billion investment while the other half is expected to come from large banks under the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. Source: Oilprice.com