Rotterdam Bunker Sales Fall 24.9% as Fuel Compliance Costs Weigh

Summary

Rotterdam’s conventional and bio-blended bunker sales fell 24.9% during January–September 2026, despite a modest quarterly recovery. Higher compliance costs linked to Dutch implementation of RED III are contributing to competitive pressure, while the fuel mix continues to change. Biofuel blends recorded year-to-date growth, even as third-quarter demand weakened.

Article

Nine-month volumes remain below last year

Rotterdam bunker sales of conventional fuels and biofuel blends reached approximately 5.28 million tonnes in the first nine months of 2026, compared with 7.02 million tonnes a year earlier.

Third-quarter volumes totalled approximately 1.84 million tonnes, increasing 4.7% from the preceding quarter but remaining 21.1% below the corresponding period of 2025.

The improvement therefore represents a partial recovery within a substantially weaker year. These totals cover conventional liquid fuels and biofuel blends; LNG and other alternative-fuel categories are reported separately.

Biofuel blend sales reached 483,947 tonnes over January–September, up 3.5% year on year. However, third-quarter sales declined to 139,442 tonnes, down 29.8% from a year earlier and 41.9% from the second quarter.

Fuel-oil grades show mixed recovery

The port’s underlying statistics show third-quarter high-sulphur fuel oil sales of 754,853 tonnes, followed by very-low-sulphur fuel oil at 427,347 tonnes.

Ultra-low-sulphur fuel oil contributed 165,318 tonnes. Marine gasoil and marine diesel oil sales were 291,852 tonnes and 57,155 tonnes respectively.

Fossil LNG deliveries were recorded at 215,420 cubic metres in the quarter, while bio-blended LNG reached 23,613 cubic metres. The unit distinction matters: the port publishes these LNG categories by volume, unlike its liquid fuel-oil and distillate categories, which are expressed in tonnes.

Biomethanol sales reached 4,166 tonnes, compared with 2,845 tonnes in the second quarter. No bioethanol delivery was recorded for the third quarter.

RED III adds pressure to supplier economics

Dutch implementation of the revised Renewable Energy Directive has introduced emissions-reduction obligations for marine fuel suppliers.

For 2026, the maritime fuel-supply sector must achieve a 2.9% reduction in lifecycle emissions against the applicable fossil-fuel reference. The published schedule increases that requirement to 8.2% by 2030.

The obligation operates through emissions-reduction units. Suppliers can generate eligible units through qualifying renewable-energy deliveries or purchase units from other participants.

It is therefore not a requirement to physically blend a fixed percentage of biofuel into every bunker delivery. Compliance costs can nevertheless influence the price of conventional fuels supplied in the Netherlands.

The Dutch Emissions Authority also distinguishes the obligation’s scope: LNG and methanol deliveries are excluded from the fuel volumes subject to this maritime supplier requirement.

Competitive concerns predated the sales decline

The potential impact of differing national implementation schedules was recognised before the rules took effect.

In December 2025, the Dutch government announced temporary mitigation measures for 2026, citing delays in Belgium’s legislative process and concerns about an uneven competitive position.

The maritime emissions-reduction requirement was lowered from a previously planned 3.6% to 2.9%. The government sought to balance supplier competitiveness with the need to maintain demand for renewable fuels.

That earlier intervention shows the policy tension surrounding implementation: governments want to stimulate cleaner energy demand while avoiding excessive displacement of existing fuel business to neighbouring markets.

Earlier port figures showed the same direction

The latest performance follows a first-half decline of approximately 25.1%, reported by the port in July.

At that stage, fossil fuel-oil volumes had fallen 28.3%, while alternative-fuel sales increased 28%. The port identified Dutch sustainability obligations as a major contributor to higher conventional-fuel costs relative to competing locations.

It also pointed to other influences, including energy-market uncertainty, price fluctuations and changes in global trade routes. Some bunker demand had shifted beyond the Amsterdam–Rotterdam–Antwerp region.

The commercial implication is that lower local sales do not automatically indicate an equivalent reduction in ships’ fuel consumption. Purchases may move between ports.

Rotterdam’s challenge is consequently twofold: retain conventional bunker competitiveness while developing alternative-fuel demand. The third-quarter recovery provides some improvement, but the nine-month decline shows that the wider pressure remains substantial.

FAQs

How much did Rotterdam bunker sales decline?

Conventional liquid fuels and biofuel blends fell 24.9% year on year during January–September 2026.

Did sales recover during the third quarter?

Yes. Volumes increased 4.7% from the second quarter but remained below year-earlier levels.

Were biofuel blend sales also lower?

Third-quarter sales declined, although January–September volumes increased 3.5%.

Does RED III require biofuel in every delivery?

The Dutch supplier obligation uses emissions-reduction units rather than prescribing a fixed blend for every delivery.

How are LNG sales reported?

The port reports LNG deliveries in cubic metres, requiring care when comparing them with fuels reported in tonnes.