Bunker Fuel Market by Fuel Type (Residual Fuel Oils, Distillate Fuel Oils), Vessel Type (Commercial Cargo Vessels, Passenger & Service Vessels), Operational Mode, Marine Engine Type, End User, Distribution Channel - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Bunker Fuel Market was valued at USD 126.46 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 132.87 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 5.49%, reaching USD 193.96 billion by 2032.
An authoritative orientation outlining why evolving regulatory, commercial, and supply chain forces are redefining bunker procurement and operational priorities across maritime stakeholders
The global bunkering landscape is at an inflection point as regulatory pressure, fuel diversification and supply chain complexity converge to reshape operational priorities across maritime stakeholders. This executive summary introduces the core themes and analytical lenses that underpin a rigorous appraisal of bunker fuel market dynamics, drawing attention to the operational, commercial and policy drivers that matter most to shipowners, fuel suppliers, terminals and regulators.
In presenting this overview, the intention is to orient readers to the forces redefining fuel demand, distribution and procurement practices while clarifying the scope of the analysis. The narrative synthesizes evidence from primary stakeholder interviews and supply chain mapping to highlight practical implications for cost management, emissions compliance, and resilience planning. As a primer, this introduction frames the subsequent sections on structural shifts, tariff impacts, segmentation nuance, regional dynamics, company strategies and recommended actions, enabling leaders to navigate complexity with clarity and purpose.
How regulatory pressure, technological readiness, and commercial flexibility are converging to create lasting structural change in bunker fuel supply chains and operational decision making
Over the past several years, transformative shifts have accelerated the pace of change in the bunker fuel ecosystem, and these shifts are now coalescing into durable structural realignments. Fuel quality requirements and emissions regulations have prompted a pivot away from conventional heavy fuel blends toward a more diverse set of options, while technological investments in engine compatibility, exhaust cleaning systems and real-time fuel monitoring are altering total cost calculations for vessel operators. At the same time, commercial strategies are evolving: long-term supplier relationships are being reassessed in favor of flexible contracting and blended sourcing to manage volatility and compliance risk.
Moreover, the maturation of alternative fuels - particularly gaseous and lower-sulfur liquid fuels - is reshaping upstream refining incentives and port infrastructure priorities. As a result, terminal operators and fuel distributors are reconfiguring storage and mixing capabilities to accommodate broader product slates. In addition, digitalization of procurement, logistics and compliance documentation is enabling greater transparency and faster decision cycles. Taken together, these dynamics are producing a market characterized by increased heterogeneity in fuel choices, intensified competition for cleaner supply streams, and an elevated premium on operational agility.
Analysis of how the 2025 United States tariff measures triggered supply chain rerouting, contractual recalibration, and accelerated fuel substitution across global bunker markets
The introduction of targeted tariffs by the United States in 2025 created a complex set of second-order effects across bunker fuel flows, pricing mechanics and contracting behavior. Trade measures altered cost incentives along established supply corridors, prompting both suppliers and buyers to reassess routing decisions and contractual terms to mitigate exposure to tariff-related cost pass-through. In response, some traders and refineries adjusted sourcing strategies, prioritizing markets and cargoes that presented fewer tariff frictions, while shipping operators revisited bunkering stop patterns to optimize for net voyage economics.
Furthermore, the tariff environment intensified interest in fuel substitution where feasible, accelerating consideration of lower-tariff alternatives such as marine diesel blends or gaseous fuels in regions with supportive infrastructure. For operators with long-term fuel contracts, the tariffs prompted renegotiations that balanced shared risk with commercial continuity, while spot-market liquidity adapted as counterparties recalibrated price benchmarks to reflect new trade costs. Regulatory compliance and documentation burdens also increased, heightening the operational importance of clear supply chain traceability and freight contract clauses that address tariff contingencies. Overall, the tariffs acted as a catalyst for strategic realignment rather than an isolated market shock.
Deep segmentation-driven insights revealing how fuel types, vessel applications, end-user mandates, and distribution channels jointly determine procurement, risk, and infrastructure priorities
A nuanced understanding of market segmentation reveals where demand resilience and vulnerability coexist across fuel types, operational profiles and distribution pathways. Based on Fuel Type, industry actors now evaluate Heavy Fuel Oil, Liquefied Natural Gas, Marine Diesel Oil, and Marine Gas Oil not simply by price but by compatibility, emissions profile and availability at critical ports, which informs procurement strategies and retrofit decisions. Based on Application, fleet managers segment requirements across Bulk Carriers, Container Ships, Cruise Ships, Offshore Vessels, and Tankers, with the latter further differentiated into Crude Oil Tanker and Oil Products Tanker operations that have distinct fueling patterns, compliance exposures and bunker stop frequencies. Based on End User, demand-side behavior diverges between Commercial Shipping Companies, Government & Defense Agencies, and Offshore Drilling Companies, each of which applies different procurement governance, resilience standards and willingness to invest in cleaner fuels. Based on Distribution Channel, decision makers recognize the operational implications of Direct Sales versus Distributor Sales models for credit risk, supply security and price transparency.
Taken together, these segmentation axes reveal practical levers for optimization: fuel selection must be contextualized by vessel type and end-user mandates, contractual design should reflect the chosen distribution channel, and infrastructure investment priorities should be aligned to the most strategically relevant combinations of fuel type and application. By linking segment-level attributes to operational outcomes, stakeholders can target interventions that deliver the greatest value under current and prospective regulatory regimes.
Comparative regional analysis demonstrating how differing regulatory clarity, infrastructure readiness, and commercial scale are shaping bunker strategy across global geographies
Regional dynamics continue to shape where investment in bunkering infrastructure, supply chain resilience and cleaner fuel adoption will be most consequential. In the Americas, growing emphasis on emissions enforcement and the evolution of coastal fuel supply networks are driving port-level upgrades and shifts in bunker availability, which influence voyage planning and supplier strategies. In Europe, Middle East & Africa, heterogenous regulatory frameworks and varied access to refining and storage assets create a patchwork of opportunities and constraints that encourage regional hubs to specialize, prompting cross-border sourcing and coordinated infrastructure investments. In the Asia-Pacific, dense volumes of international shipping, expanding LNG bunkering capacity and rapid industrial fuel demand growth reinforce the region's centrality to global bunker supply chains and innovation adoption.
Across these geographies, transition timelines and infrastructure readiness differ, so firms should align multi-year procurement and retrofit roadmaps with region-specific capabilities. Consequently, investment in storage, blending facilities and alternative fuel bunkering infrastructure will tend to concentrate where regulatory clarity, commercial scale and logistical connectivity coincide, while risk mitigation measures such as diversified supplier panels and adaptive contracting will be more valuable in regions with higher policy or capacity uncertainty.
What leading industry players are doing differently to secure supply, reduce compliance exposure, and monetize opportunities created by shifting bunker fuel demand and infrastructure needs
Corporate responses to the changing bunker environment are revealing and instructive for peers and partners. Leading fuel suppliers are increasingly bundling technical support, quality assurance and logistical coordination to reduce switching friction for ship operators considering alternative fuels. Refiners and commodity traders are investing selectively in blending and storage assets to service ports where demand for low-sulfur and alternative fuels is concentrated. Shipping companies are integrating fuel strategy into broader decarbonization programs, aligning fuel procurement with retrofit schedules for scrubbers or dual-fuel engines and prioritizing bunkering partners that can guarantee quality and traceability.
Additionally, port terminals and service providers are differentiating through investments in digital documentation platforms and shore-based fueling capabilities that speed turnover and reduce compliance risk. Partnerships between upstream producers, bunker brokers, and infrastructure operators are emerging to underwrite the capital intensity of transition investments, while contractual innovation is enabling more dynamic allocation of price and compliance risk. These company-level behaviors indicate a market that rewards integrated supply propositions, operational reliability and transparent compliance mechanisms.
Practical and prioritized recommendations for shipping companies, suppliers, terminals, and regulators to strengthen resilience and accelerate practical fuel transition outcomes
Industry leaders should adopt a pragmatic, phased approach to align short-term operational needs with medium-term transition goals. First, establish rigorous procurement governance that codifies supplier qualification criteria, fuel quality verification and escalation protocols to manage compliance and reputational risk. Next, prioritize investments that enhance optionality, such as flexible storage capacity, retrofittable engine solutions and dual-fuel readiness, so that fleet decisions remain reversible as technology and regulation evolve. Simultaneously, renegotiate commercial terms to include tariff and regulatory pass-through clauses, improving contract resilience against policy shocks.
Equally important is to deepen collaboration across the value chain; strategic partnerships with terminals, refiners and logistics providers can accelerate infrastructure deployment and secure preferential access to cleaner fuel streams. From a capability standpoint, organizations should build internal expertise in fuel risk modeling and scenario planning to inform capex and procurement choices. Finally, engage proactively with regulators and industry consortia to shape pragmatic implementation timelines and ensure that compliance mechanisms are workable for operational realities.
A robust mixed-methods research approach combining primary stakeholder engagement, supply chain mapping, regulatory analysis, and scenario-based validation to underpin practical insights
The research underpinning this analysis employed a hybrid methodology that blends primary engagement with industry stakeholders and rigorous secondary source triangulation. Primary research included structured interviews with fleet operators, bunker suppliers, terminal managers and trade intermediaries to capture real-world operational constraints, contractual practices and investment priorities. These qualitative inputs were complemented by supply chain mapping exercises to trace fuel flows, port connectivity and storage capacities, enabling identification of chokepoints and strategic nodes.
Secondary research focused on regulatory texts, technical standards and sector reports to contextualize operational responses and legal obligations. Data synthesis applied triangulation techniques to reconcile differing perspectives, and analytic frameworks such as scenario analysis and sensitivity testing were used to explore alternative futures under varying regulatory, cost and technological assumptions. Quality assurance procedures included cross-validation with subject-matter experts and iterative review cycles to ensure the robustness and practical relevance of conclusions.
A concise synthesis highlighting the need for diversified procurement, targeted infrastructure investment, and collaborative commercial models to navigate transitional dynamics
In closing, the current juncture in the bunker fuel sector demands strategic clarity, operational flexibility and coordinated investment. The interplay of regulatory change, tariff dynamics, infrastructure constraints and technological options means that no single approach will fit all actors or regions. Instead, resilient strategies are built on diversified supply relationships, contractual protections, targeted capital allocation, and proactive capability development that together reduce exposure while preserving strategic optionality.
Leaders who integrate segmentation-aware procurement, regionally informed infrastructure planning, and collaborative commercial models will be better positioned to manage near-term disruptions and capture the benefits of an ongoing transition to cleaner fuels. This conclusion underscores the importance of actionable intelligence and iterative planning to guide investments and policy engagements in a period of sustained structural change.
Please Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
An authoritative orientation outlining why evolving regulatory, commercial, and supply chain forces are redefining bunker procurement and operational priorities across maritime stakeholders
The global bunkering landscape is at an inflection point as regulatory pressure, fuel diversification and supply chain complexity converge to reshape operational priorities across maritime stakeholders. This executive summary introduces the core themes and analytical lenses that underpin a rigorous appraisal of bunker fuel market dynamics, drawing attention to the operational, commercial and policy drivers that matter most to shipowners, fuel suppliers, terminals and regulators.
In presenting this overview, the intention is to orient readers to the forces redefining fuel demand, distribution and procurement practices while clarifying the scope of the analysis. The narrative synthesizes evidence from primary stakeholder interviews and supply chain mapping to highlight practical implications for cost management, emissions compliance, and resilience planning. As a primer, this introduction frames the subsequent sections on structural shifts, tariff impacts, segmentation nuance, regional dynamics, company strategies and recommended actions, enabling leaders to navigate complexity with clarity and purpose.
How regulatory pressure, technological readiness, and commercial flexibility are converging to create lasting structural change in bunker fuel supply chains and operational decision making
Over the past several years, transformative shifts have accelerated the pace of change in the bunker fuel ecosystem, and these shifts are now coalescing into durable structural realignments. Fuel quality requirements and emissions regulations have prompted a pivot away from conventional heavy fuel blends toward a more diverse set of options, while technological investments in engine compatibility, exhaust cleaning systems and real-time fuel monitoring are altering total cost calculations for vessel operators. At the same time, commercial strategies are evolving: long-term supplier relationships are being reassessed in favor of flexible contracting and blended sourcing to manage volatility and compliance risk.
Moreover, the maturation of alternative fuels - particularly gaseous and lower-sulfur liquid fuels - is reshaping upstream refining incentives and port infrastructure priorities. As a result, terminal operators and fuel distributors are reconfiguring storage and mixing capabilities to accommodate broader product slates. In addition, digitalization of procurement, logistics and compliance documentation is enabling greater transparency and faster decision cycles. Taken together, these dynamics are producing a market characterized by increased heterogeneity in fuel choices, intensified competition for cleaner supply streams, and an elevated premium on operational agility.
Analysis of how the 2025 United States tariff measures triggered supply chain rerouting, contractual recalibration, and accelerated fuel substitution across global bunker markets
The introduction of targeted tariffs by the United States in 2025 created a complex set of second-order effects across bunker fuel flows, pricing mechanics and contracting behavior. Trade measures altered cost incentives along established supply corridors, prompting both suppliers and buyers to reassess routing decisions and contractual terms to mitigate exposure to tariff-related cost pass-through. In response, some traders and refineries adjusted sourcing strategies, prioritizing markets and cargoes that presented fewer tariff frictions, while shipping operators revisited bunkering stop patterns to optimize for net voyage economics.
Furthermore, the tariff environment intensified interest in fuel substitution where feasible, accelerating consideration of lower-tariff alternatives such as marine diesel blends or gaseous fuels in regions with supportive infrastructure. For operators with long-term fuel contracts, the tariffs prompted renegotiations that balanced shared risk with commercial continuity, while spot-market liquidity adapted as counterparties recalibrated price benchmarks to reflect new trade costs. Regulatory compliance and documentation burdens also increased, heightening the operational importance of clear supply chain traceability and freight contract clauses that address tariff contingencies. Overall, the tariffs acted as a catalyst for strategic realignment rather than an isolated market shock.
Deep segmentation-driven insights revealing how fuel types, vessel applications, end-user mandates, and distribution channels jointly determine procurement, risk, and infrastructure priorities
A nuanced understanding of market segmentation reveals where demand resilience and vulnerability coexist across fuel types, operational profiles and distribution pathways. Based on Fuel Type, industry actors now evaluate Heavy Fuel Oil, Liquefied Natural Gas, Marine Diesel Oil, and Marine Gas Oil not simply by price but by compatibility, emissions profile and availability at critical ports, which informs procurement strategies and retrofit decisions. Based on Application, fleet managers segment requirements across Bulk Carriers, Container Ships, Cruise Ships, Offshore Vessels, and Tankers, with the latter further differentiated into Crude Oil Tanker and Oil Products Tanker operations that have distinct fueling patterns, compliance exposures and bunker stop frequencies. Based on End User, demand-side behavior diverges between Commercial Shipping Companies, Government & Defense Agencies, and Offshore Drilling Companies, each of which applies different procurement governance, resilience standards and willingness to invest in cleaner fuels. Based on Distribution Channel, decision makers recognize the operational implications of Direct Sales versus Distributor Sales models for credit risk, supply security and price transparency.
Taken together, these segmentation axes reveal practical levers for optimization: fuel selection must be contextualized by vessel type and end-user mandates, contractual design should reflect the chosen distribution channel, and infrastructure investment priorities should be aligned to the most strategically relevant combinations of fuel type and application. By linking segment-level attributes to operational outcomes, stakeholders can target interventions that deliver the greatest value under current and prospective regulatory regimes.
Comparative regional analysis demonstrating how differing regulatory clarity, infrastructure readiness, and commercial scale are shaping bunker strategy across global geographies
Regional dynamics continue to shape where investment in bunkering infrastructure, supply chain resilience and cleaner fuel adoption will be most consequential. In the Americas, growing emphasis on emissions enforcement and the evolution of coastal fuel supply networks are driving port-level upgrades and shifts in bunker availability, which influence voyage planning and supplier strategies. In Europe, Middle East & Africa, heterogenous regulatory frameworks and varied access to refining and storage assets create a patchwork of opportunities and constraints that encourage regional hubs to specialize, prompting cross-border sourcing and coordinated infrastructure investments. In the Asia-Pacific, dense volumes of international shipping, expanding LNG bunkering capacity and rapid industrial fuel demand growth reinforce the region's centrality to global bunker supply chains and innovation adoption.
Across these geographies, transition timelines and infrastructure readiness differ, so firms should align multi-year procurement and retrofit roadmaps with region-specific capabilities. Consequently, investment in storage, blending facilities and alternative fuel bunkering infrastructure will tend to concentrate where regulatory clarity, commercial scale and logistical connectivity coincide, while risk mitigation measures such as diversified supplier panels and adaptive contracting will be more valuable in regions with higher policy or capacity uncertainty.
What leading industry players are doing differently to secure supply, reduce compliance exposure, and monetize opportunities created by shifting bunker fuel demand and infrastructure needs
Corporate responses to the changing bunker environment are revealing and instructive for peers and partners. Leading fuel suppliers are increasingly bundling technical support, quality assurance and logistical coordination to reduce switching friction for ship operators considering alternative fuels. Refiners and commodity traders are investing selectively in blending and storage assets to service ports where demand for low-sulfur and alternative fuels is concentrated. Shipping companies are integrating fuel strategy into broader decarbonization programs, aligning fuel procurement with retrofit schedules for scrubbers or dual-fuel engines and prioritizing bunkering partners that can guarantee quality and traceability.
Additionally, port terminals and service providers are differentiating through investments in digital documentation platforms and shore-based fueling capabilities that speed turnover and reduce compliance risk. Partnerships between upstream producers, bunker brokers, and infrastructure operators are emerging to underwrite the capital intensity of transition investments, while contractual innovation is enabling more dynamic allocation of price and compliance risk. These company-level behaviors indicate a market that rewards integrated supply propositions, operational reliability and transparent compliance mechanisms.
Practical and prioritized recommendations for shipping companies, suppliers, terminals, and regulators to strengthen resilience and accelerate practical fuel transition outcomes
Industry leaders should adopt a pragmatic, phased approach to align short-term operational needs with medium-term transition goals. First, establish rigorous procurement governance that codifies supplier qualification criteria, fuel quality verification and escalation protocols to manage compliance and reputational risk. Next, prioritize investments that enhance optionality, such as flexible storage capacity, retrofittable engine solutions and dual-fuel readiness, so that fleet decisions remain reversible as technology and regulation evolve. Simultaneously, renegotiate commercial terms to include tariff and regulatory pass-through clauses, improving contract resilience against policy shocks.
Equally important is to deepen collaboration across the value chain; strategic partnerships with terminals, refiners and logistics providers can accelerate infrastructure deployment and secure preferential access to cleaner fuel streams. From a capability standpoint, organizations should build internal expertise in fuel risk modeling and scenario planning to inform capex and procurement choices. Finally, engage proactively with regulators and industry consortia to shape pragmatic implementation timelines and ensure that compliance mechanisms are workable for operational realities.
A robust mixed-methods research approach combining primary stakeholder engagement, supply chain mapping, regulatory analysis, and scenario-based validation to underpin practical insights
The research underpinning this analysis employed a hybrid methodology that blends primary engagement with industry stakeholders and rigorous secondary source triangulation. Primary research included structured interviews with fleet operators, bunker suppliers, terminal managers and trade intermediaries to capture real-world operational constraints, contractual practices and investment priorities. These qualitative inputs were complemented by supply chain mapping exercises to trace fuel flows, port connectivity and storage capacities, enabling identification of chokepoints and strategic nodes.
Secondary research focused on regulatory texts, technical standards and sector reports to contextualize operational responses and legal obligations. Data synthesis applied triangulation techniques to reconcile differing perspectives, and analytic frameworks such as scenario analysis and sensitivity testing were used to explore alternative futures under varying regulatory, cost and technological assumptions. Quality assurance procedures included cross-validation with subject-matter experts and iterative review cycles to ensure the robustness and practical relevance of conclusions.
A concise synthesis highlighting the need for diversified procurement, targeted infrastructure investment, and collaborative commercial models to navigate transitional dynamics
In closing, the current juncture in the bunker fuel sector demands strategic clarity, operational flexibility and coordinated investment. The interplay of regulatory change, tariff dynamics, infrastructure constraints and technological options means that no single approach will fit all actors or regions. Instead, resilient strategies are built on diversified supply relationships, contractual protections, targeted capital allocation, and proactive capability development that together reduce exposure while preserving strategic optionality.
Leaders who integrate segmentation-aware procurement, regionally informed infrastructure planning, and collaborative commercial models will be better positioned to manage near-term disruptions and capture the benefits of an ongoing transition to cleaner fuels. This conclusion underscores the importance of actionable intelligence and iterative planning to guide investments and policy engagements in a period of sustained structural change.
Please Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
197 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Growing investment in exhaust gas cleaning systems to comply with IMO 2020 sulfur cap
- 5.2. Surging adoption of liquefied natural gas as a bunker fuel alternative in major shipping routes
- 5.3. Navigating volatility in global bunker fuel prices driven by crude oil supply disruptions
- 5.4. Emerging supply chain digitization platforms streamlining bunker fuel procurement and delivery
- 5.5. Accelerating trials of biofuel blends to reduce marine carbon emissions under IMO greenhouse targets
- 5.6. Expanding port infrastructure to accommodate hydrogen and ammonia bunkering facilities for future fuels
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Bunker Fuel Market, by Fuel Type
- 8.1. Residual Fuel Oils
- 8.2. Distillate Fuel Oils
- 8.2.1. Marine Gas Oil
- 8.2.2. Marine Diesel Oil
- 9. Bunker Fuel Market, by Vessel Type
- 9.1. Commercial Cargo Vessels
- 9.1.1. Container Ships
- 9.1.2. Bulk Carriers
- 9.1.3. Tankers
- 9.2. Passenger & Service Vessels
- 9.2.1. Cruise Ships & Ferries
- 9.2.2. Offshore Support Vessels
- 9.2.3. Tugs & Barges
- 10. Bunker Fuel Market, by Operational Mode
- 10.1. Main Engine Fuel
- 10.2. Auxiliary Engine Fuel
- 11. Bunker Fuel Market, by Marine Engine Type
- 11.1. Two-Stroke Engine
- 11.2. Four-Stroke Engine
- 12. Bunker Fuel Market, by End User
- 12.1. Commercial Shipping Companies
- 12.2. Government & Defense Agencies
- 12.3. Offshore Oil & Gas Operations
- 12.4. Fishing Industry
- 13. Bunker Fuel Market, by Distribution Channel
- 13.1. Online
- 13.2. Offline
- 14. Bunker Fuel Market, by Region
- 14.1. Americas
- 14.1.1. North America
- 14.1.2. Latin America
- 14.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 14.2.1. Europe
- 14.2.2. Middle East
- 14.2.3. Africa
- 14.3. Asia-Pacific
- 15. Bunker Fuel Market, by Group
- 15.1. ASEAN
- 15.2. GCC
- 15.3. European Union
- 15.4. BRICS
- 15.5. G7
- 15.6. NATO
- 16. Bunker Fuel Market, by Country
- 16.1. United States
- 16.2. Canada
- 16.3. Mexico
- 16.4. Brazil
- 16.5. United Kingdom
- 16.6. Germany
- 16.7. France
- 16.8. Russia
- 16.9. Italy
- 16.10. Spain
- 16.11. China
- 16.12. India
- 16.13. Japan
- 16.14. Australia
- 16.15. South Korea
- 17. Competitive Landscape
- 17.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 17.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 17.3. Competitive Analysis
- 17.3.1. ADANI GROUP
- 17.3.2. BP International Limited
- 17.3.3. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
- 17.3.4. Aegean Marine Petroleum Network, Inc.
- 17.3.5. Bunker Holding A/S
- 17.3.6. Bunker One A/S
- 17.3.7. Chevron Corporation
- 17.3.8. COSCO SHIPPING Energy Transportation Co., Ltd.
- 17.3.9. Exxon Mobil Corporation
- 17.3.10. Gazprom Neft Corporation
- 17.3.11. Gulf Agency Company Limited
- 17.3.12. Gunvor Group Ltd.
- 17.3.13. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
- 17.3.14. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
- 17.3.15. Marathon Petroleum Corporation
- 17.3.16. Mercuria Energy Group Ltd.
- 17.3.17. Neste Oyj
- 17.3.18. Petroliam Nasional Berhad
- 17.3.19. Shell plc
- 17.3.20. SINOPEC Fuel Oil Sales Corporation Limited
- 17.3.21. The PJSC Lukoil Oil Company
- 17.3.22. TotalEnergies SE
- 17.3.23. Trafigura Group Pte. Ltd.
- 17.3.24. Valero Energy Corporation
- 17.3.25. Vitol S.A.
- 17.3.26. World Kinect Corporation.
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
