Bunkering at $1,000/MT: What I’m Telling Clients Right Now in International Shipping News 14/04/2026 I spend a lot of time inside clients’ IMOS environments — implementations, optimizations, training sessions. In the past three weeks, almost every conversation has started the same way: what do we do about bunkers? It is not a surprising question. Singapore VLSFO surged from 574.5 USD/MT on the 2nd March to 1119.5 USD/MT on the 16th March, a near doubling of price in just two weeks — rendering a significant portion of open voyage P&L assumptions functionally obsolete overnight. Figure 1 highlights this spike is particularly strong in the context of the fuel’s historic stability, prior to the Strait of Hormuz closure, Singapore VLSFO had traded within a relatively narrow 500-600 USD/MT range for the better part of two years, highlighting the impact of disruption the global crisis has had on energy markets. The Singapore-Rotterdam spread widened sharply, and key alternative hubs like Houston also saw increased volatility as demand shifted. Clients who had stemmed fuel before the spike looked smart. Those who had not were staring at P&L positions that bore no resemblance to what they had modelled at fixture. The Hormuz closure made a difficult situation structurally harder. With the strait effectively closed to commercial traffic, the normal logic of bunkering — where you stem, how much, against what price expectation — broke down entirely. Vessels that would ordinarily bunker in the Gulf cannot get there. Alternative ports are seeing demand they were not built to absorb. And the price signal, when it exists at all, is changing faster than procurement teams can act on it. We’re also seeing that bunker fuel pricing is being influenced by shifts in crude and heating oil, while location, timing, and quality continue to shape the differentials operators are working with. First: assess your current positions and exposure The most common mistake I see in a volatile fuel market is delay. Teams want to wait for prices to stabilize. I understand the instinct, but it produces a dangerous gap between what the system says and what is actually happening to your P&L. The first step is to assess the immediate impact. Which voyages and time charters are already sufficiently bunkered and paid? Which remain exposed to current market pricing? Not every position requires instant repricing, but every position should be evaluated proactively. In IMOS, bunker prices in Bunker Planning are proposed based on purchase history, but they can — and in this environment, must — be updated manually to reflect current market conditions for any voyages with open exposure. How you reflect that exposure will depend on your internal commercial strategy. What matters is that the assumptions in the system align with how your business is managing fuel cost in reality. The estimated P&L that comes out of that exercise will likely be uncomfortable. But it will be real, and that is what your head of finance and your CFO need right now. Second: bring your bunker exposure into the Trading P&L One of the most underused capabilities I see in client environments is the Bunker Exposure line in the Trading P&L Summary — the unrealized P&L that reflects your open exposure to the bunker market. This exists within IMOS Trading & Risk, an advanced module that many clients add to their system to better manage freight and fuel exposure. In normal conditions, teams check it periodically. In a mar